Should charities plan for their own obsolescence? Why? And how?

In this episode of Change Loves Company, Dominique chats with Weh Yeoh about reimagining impact in the social sector. From Cambodia to Australia, Weh shares how technology and local empowerment can remove barriers, create lasting change, and even make organisations “redundant” — because true success is when you’re no longer needed. Expect insightful stories, ironic truths, and a bold challenge to rethink how we define success in social impact. 

Transcript

Welcome to the Change Loves Company podcast, where I sit down with creatives, fundraisers, social entrepreneurs, artists and activists — all with one thing in common: they’re changing the world for the better through their work.

I’d like to begin by acknowledging the Traditional Owners of the land I’m recording on today, the Gadigal people of the Eora Nation, and pay my respects to Elders past, present and emerging. Always was, always will be.

I’m Dominique, and I’m delighted to introduce you to Weh Yeoh.

Weh has an impressive background and career. He’s worked internationally and in Australia, his home country, in the social impact space for more than two decades. He’s the founder of a charity, OIC Cambodia, which aims to establish speech therapy as a profession in that country.

He has a BA in Physiotherapy from the University of Sydney and an MA in Development Studies from the University of New South Wales. He’s volunteered with people with disability in Vietnam, interned in India, studied Mandarin in Beijing, and milked yaks in Mongolia.

He started OIC in 2013 and handed over leadership to a local Cambodian team in 2017. He has since co-founded Bo, a social enterprise bridging the gap for rural Australians to access allied health services.

We spoke about his book, Redundant Charities, and why charities should be thinking about redundancy right from the very beginning of their setup.

I’m delighted to have Weh Yeoh in the studio with me today. Welcome, Weh.

Weh: Thank you so much, Dominique. It’s so great to be here in this wonderful studio.

Dominique: It’s really good to have you. So, Weh, you’ve written a book — Redundant Charities. It feels like a bit of a gauntlet has been thrown down to the charity sector. How has the book been received so far?

Weh: Firstly, I’m really glad you referred to it as a gauntlet — I’ve never heard that before — and I’m glad you said it was “put down” rather than “slapped into someone’s face.” I think it’s important to say that we need more critical discussion about how to do good, and how charities can achieve that good — or not.

Charities have been operating in essentially the same way for decades, if not centuries, without much critical reflection. At the same time, because of some power dynamics and cultural reasons in this country, we’re not always great at having robust debates.

So, how has it been received? Overall, quite well — but of course, that’s what I hear from those who reach out, write reviews, or attend events. There’s probably a group who haven’t loved it, but I haven’t heard from them directly. Then there’s the middle group, people who challenge me with smart rebuttals that make me think more critically about my own arguments — which is exactly the point of the book.

Dominique: Yes — as someone who’s worked in the sector for over 20 years, when I saw the title I thought, “How dare he!” But then I thought, “No — I need to read this.” Because you’re right, it’s time for the sector to take a good hard look at itself. I want to read a short passage from the foreword.

You write:

“In order to propose a new model of charities, it’s necessary for me to showcase some of the worst of charities and show why the design often prevents them from making themselves redundant. The key word is design. Charities are the way they are, not because people who start them are bad, but because the structure is inherently flawed.”

So before I ask you what a “redundant charity” is, what are some of the ways charities go wrong when it comes to design?

Weh: You read that so well — I wish you’d narrated my audiobook! Yes, that’s an important point. I wanted to take the pressure off people feeling defensive. The title is meant to provoke — to make people uncomfortable — but hopefully also curious enough to engage.

In terms of design, the front cover really sums it up — a hamster wheel. Charities often get stuck chasing funding, doing good work, then justifying why they need more funding, and round they go. Much of their energy goes into sustaining themselves. Once a charity exists, there’s a strong incentive to keep it alive — people’s jobs depend on it.

At the same time, the communities charities serve can also get stuck on their own hamster wheel. My background is in physiotherapy, and there’s a lesson there: treating symptoms isn’t the same as fixing the root cause. Most charities, I think, are addressing symptoms — so the communities they help never become fully empowered to solve their own problems.

What we really need are charities designed to make themselves redundant — to hand over power to local actors who can carry the work forward.

Dominique: And you’ve actually done that yourself. Tell me a bit about OIC Cambodia.

Weh: Yes, I’ve walked the walk. I started OIC Cambodia in 2013, and it’s designed with an end date — 2030. When I arrived, there were no speech therapists in the entire country. Some international people would fly in for short-term projects, but that just treated the symptoms.

So our aim was to create a system where Cambodians could train and work as speech therapists themselves. By 2030, we hope to have 100 therapists working within Cambodia’s public health system.

These days, I’m not involved day-to-day on purpose — but from a distance, things seem to be on track, despite challenges like COVID and funding cuts. The point is: because we built in an end date, everything we do focuses on building local systems rather than dependency.

Dominique: So you set out from the start to make the charity redundant — how did you come to that conclusion so early on?

Weh: I’d seen a decade of well-intentioned work that wasn’t creating lasting change. When I arrived in Cambodia, it had the second-highest number of charities in the world — and yet huge gaps remained. I told myself that if I ever ran a charity, I’d build redundancy into it from the start.

Dominique: The challenge, of course, is that many charities rely on showing need to raise funds — talking too much about solutions can make donors think the job’s done.

Weh: Exactly. Charities aren’t incentivised to solve the problem, because if they do, they eliminate the need for their own existence. It’s easier to keep the problem alive just enough to sustain funding. That’s why I believe the redundant mindset works best when it’s built in from day one.

Dominique: Are there charities that can’t or shouldn’t become redundant?

Weh: Of course. There are circumstances where there’s nothing to hand over to — remote communities, for example. But often, the solution is to narrow the scope. Don’t try to end global poverty; end poverty in a specific district. Be realistic about scale and resources.

Dominique: That’s a good point — sometimes small grassroots charities have a bigger impact than the big national ones with boards and bureaucracy.

Weh: I completely agree. Smaller charities can make themselves redundant more easily and often have deeper community ties. But the reality is, about 50% of all charity funding in Australia goes to just 15 to 20 of the largest organisations.

It’s not that big charities are bad — but if more of that money went directly to smaller, nimble organisations, the overall impact could be greater. Scale isn’t the only measure of success. Sometimes shrinking and disappearing — because you’ve solved the problem — is the ultimate success.

Dominique: That’s a powerful reframe. So, you’ve now moved from charity to social enterprise. Tell me about that.

Weh: Yes. After stepping away from OIC and coming back to Australia, I realised two things. First, when you run a charity designed to end, you don’t exactly end up with savings! And second, I wanted to work in a model that could scale and sustain itself.

So I co-founded Bo — a social enterprise helping people in regional Australia access speech and occupational therapy online. Many of our therapists are Australian-trained professionals living overseas, working remotely with clients here. Because it’s online, we can cut typical wait times — which can be up to 18 months — right down.

Dominique: That’s amazing. You’ve basically taken what you learned in Cambodia — building local systems and capacity — and applied it here in Australia using tech to scale access.

Weh: Exactly. The underlying principle is the same: empower the people who need the service to access it themselves. Technology is just the enabler. In Cambodia, it was local therapists; here, it’s online delivery to rural clients.

Dominique: And I guess there’s a big irony there — charities often claim technology can’t replace humans, but here it’s giving access where humans physically can’t reach.

Weh: Absolutely. It’s not about replacing therapists — they’re still doing the work. It’s about reaching people who would otherwise never have access. Sometimes “impact” is less about adding more and more programs, and more about removing barriers.

Dominique: That reminds me of your concept of “redundancy” — sometimes less really is more.

Weh: Yes! People often hear redundancy and think “oh no, job cuts!” But in the social sector, redundancy means solving the problem so your presence isn’t needed anymore.

Dominique: Which is a radical thought, because most organisations are built to survive, not to end their own relevance.

Weh: Right. There’s a huge cultural shift required. Funders, boards, and communities all have to embrace the idea that the ultimate success is disappearing — at least in a functional sense.

Dominique: So, let’s get practical. If someone listening wants to start a “redundant charity” tomorrow, what’s the first thing they should do?

Weh: They need to ask three questions:

1. Who will continue the work after you leave? Not you, not the international volunteers — who’s local?
2. What is your exit strategy? This needs to be built into the governance from day one.
3. How will you measure success? Traditional metrics like funds raised or people helped aren’t enough. Success is when your service is no longer required — that’s the ultimate KPI.

Dominique: And that scares most founders, right? Because we spend years building something and then the thought of giving it away makes people panic.

Weh: Totally. But it’s about shifting the focus from ego to impact. Are you there to be indispensable, or are you there to create lasting change?

Dominique: And if you’re in it for impact, being redundant isn’t failure — it’s the goal.

Weh: Exactly. Redundancy is the new success.

Dominique: I love that. And it’s something I think a lot of people in the sector need to hear.

Weh: Hopefully, yes. I want people to question the default assumptions of how charities work. It’s not about being confrontational — it’s about being reflective.

Dominique: And that’s why this podcast exists — to make people uncomfortable, curious, and inspired to do things differently.

Weh: Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Dominique: Well, Weh, thank you so much for being here today and for sharing your insights. I think everyone listening will leave this conversation questioning the traditional approach and thinking about how we can do good better.

Weh: Thank you, Dominique. It’s been a real pleasure.

Dominique: And thank you, everyone, for tuning in to the Change Loves Company podcast. Remember: being kind isn’t just good for people — it’s good for impact.