A very interesting discussion has been initiated about the use of RCDF in Solo. I view that it is only right to have guiding policies in place on how RCDF should be used (if it has not existed yet).
The general and common understanding is that RCDF should be used for rural development. But how do we define development in this context? Is it for initiating small rural projects, sponsoring sports trophies, erecting church or school buildings, paying funeral expenses or sponsoring christmas parties? There are lots of ways we see nowadays on how RCDF is used. But is this the accurate objective for RCDF?
The problem with this is monitoring. How has development been done so far in the constituencies since the introduction of RCDF? No one has monitored these constituents developments so far (correct me if am wrong) and because of that we dont know whether we have developed or not.
The Nation is consisted of small building blocks - constituencies, and only if these smaller building blocks are developed then can a national development be seen.
My view would be - it doesnt matter who should be responsible for the RCDF, but proper policies should be strengthened on how it is supposed to be used and a body should be established to monitor, administer and evaluate it so that proper documentations are produced. After all it is not the MP's money and transferring custodianship of the money to a body would reduce corruption and misuse of the funds.

Think of the Banks as an example, if you need funds you dont just go and ask for money and expect them to give it to you instantly. No there has to be proper assessment based on their policies. Likewise, a similar body can emulate such nature but based on RCDF policies.
As long as no change is done with how RCDF is disbursed then we should not expect development in the constituencies. It all comes down to leaderships. Long live Solo!