I've read that a home of 46 persons (adults and children) can cost RM20K per month, and a home of 80 persons can cost RM10K per month. I wonder how they could spend that much. Are the staff paid or are they volunteers? Can they bring down their cost? Even I am tightening my pockets by taking less branded confectioneries and necessity food items from hypermarkets.

Besides, does each home get a monthly allowance from government agencies?

I have heard rumours before that eligible hardcore poor or handicapped persons can get a lot of welfare aid from government bodies. They can earn more than RM3K per month on aid alone. This is a lot, have the people at these homes tried to get this aid yet - it would help them greatly. I am not against eligible people getting welfare, but let the welfare aid be distributed evenly among all these needy people.

To the bumi people who earn welfare aid, teach them to save it in ASB to cover their life expenses. Please, to the homes, create awareness programmes of how they can save and earn their money.

Anyway back to the point of this thread, please share how much of welfare aid a body gets, and how much welfare aid an eligible individual gets. I have always wanted to know.

I realize that these orphanages/homes are not neglected by large corporations and charitable organizations. They are already quite well taken care of so that the children don't appreciate the small things that less 'charitable' individuals bring. Thus their daily necessities are taken care of. Alright, RM10K/80 persons is rather the ratio I would be hoping for.

To think about renting a premise, why didn't they build a home of their own rather than rent from someone? It is quite unsound financially to run a shelter on a rented premise. Why do this at all? Then you are really expecting the public to fund the rental. Why do we need to fund a rental when there are homes to be owned? When someone (anyone at all) is making a rental profit from a shelter/orphanage this is very not right.

Take an example of the lady who was forced out of her hut near the Kek Lok Si temple because her dogs were disturbing the monks. She moved to a plantation in Perak on the invitation of the owner, for free. That was charity on the part of the land owner.

There are so many ways to claim tax deduction that doesn't require making a shelter's management feel the pinch financially.

For those homes that are renting, I wonder about the motivation to set up the home. It is taxing on the public's shoulders to help foot a bill that wasn't quite necessary. In the long run, it is more sensible to raise funds to buy a home that is affordable (even if this means in a rather remote area) and be self-sustaining. Of course, it is not as easily done as it was said. But one day you will have to be accountable to the charity given, and normal people are feeling the pinch on their belts too.

I question them. See the Che Hoon Khor moral uplifting society - they tried to explain why people needed to donate when the prosthetics were supposed to be free. This is how a charity needs to be accountable to the public.