The Lien Centre of the Singapore Management University was set up in 2006 with support from the Lien Foundation to serve as a catalyst for social innovation and change in Singapore. The Centre will launch an inaugural volume, Social Space, in August 2008. Lien Centre Board Chairman, Willie Cheng, talked to Knowledge@SMU about the book, the overall aims of the centre, and his own thinking on social enterprise, innovation and entrepreneurship. Cheng was formerly country managing director for Accenture and is actively involved in the nonprofit sector in Singapore.

Knowledge@SMU: How would you describe social innovation?

Cheng: Social innovation is about new ideas that make a positive difference to the social sector. However, in the short term, it could be disruptive although not all social innovations need to be disruptive. Of course, there are plenty of good ideas out there that could impact the social sector. But for us at Lien Centre, we would want to focus on those that can deliver scaled and/or dramatic change.

What constitutes an innovation could also change over time. Take for example, social enterprises. Some people see that as a social innovation – the idea of nonprofits going for profits. Yes, it was a social innovation five to ten years ago. On the other hand, I would say that social enterprises are now somewhat passé – there are plenty of them around these days and everyone wants to do one. What would be an innovation would be finding the formula for making social enterprises truly successful because the majority have not been. Or coming up with Social Enterprise 2.0 - the next generation of social enterprises – whatever that is.

Knowledge@SMU: Do you see social enterprise as bringing a business approach to charitable and philanthropic efforts? 

Cheng: I see those three as quite different terms. Charities are, of course, nonprofit organizations with beneficiaries. Charities are said to depend upon people to be “charitable,” meaning to be generous.

Philanthropy is about the giving of one’s resources – often associated with the giving of big money. The traditional philanthropist is probably driven very much by charitableness - generosity and the kindness of his heart. He does not ask for much more than the pleasure of giving. But the modern philanthropist is more demanding. He looks at results and where and how the money is used. And some of them like new social models such as social enterprises because they see it as a way for the charities to be self sustaining in the longer term – instead of coming back to the donor for a handout continually.

So, yes, social enterprise is about bringing a business approach to charities. However, the business approach is being brought by philanthropists who often have a business background and want to be businesslike in their giving.

Knowledge@SMU: Would you say thatin Singapore we are still at the stage of charitable giving? For example, we see school children often collecting donations on the street for charities.

Cheng: Yes, we are. That traditionally has been what charity is all about – charitable giving from the goodness of your heart.

However, I see our charity sector as at the beginning of a big wave of change, from one where charity is simply about “just doing good” to one that is about “doing good well”. There are now greater demands for accountability of charities by the regulators and by the public. Donors are asked to be and many are becoming more discerning and discriminating – what is called “informed giving.” The trigger for this obviously has been the NKF and other charity scandals. Yet, I think informed giving will only go so far with the mass population. The average giver is still going to give primarily from his heart. He does not have the interest or the means – even if he cares – to be any more sophisticated in looking at charities in any greater depth.

The long term answer probably lies in getting the bigger donors and institutions to practise informed giving – they have the means, resources and motivation to get it done right. Then you get the smaller donors to give through these bigger donors who become grantmakers if you like. It’s a bit like fund management. Instead of investing in stocks yourself, you do it through the professionals who consolidate the money from a myriad of investors or donors, do the due diligence and then invest.

Knowledge@SMU: In Singapore, does this ‘grantmaker’ segment exist?

Cheng: Yes, we have grantmakers, but it’s a small group and not a well developed sector. The biggest grantmaker by far is the Singapore Tote Board. Then, you have the large family foundations, and a few have only recently hired professionals to do the grant making. Probably the most progressive is the Lien Foundation – and I am not saying it because this is the Lien Centre for Social Innovation. But they really are outcome driven, looking at unmet needs and seeking to make a significant impact beyond the simple traditional grant. They call it “radical philanthropy.”

Knowledge@SMU: According to the World Wealth Report, the number of millionaires in Singapore is up by 15% over last year. Are we going to see an increase in philanthropy as well?

Cheng: Yes, I think so. But its not just money though that spurs philanthropy. It’s also the culture. That’s why the Americans are so much ahead in their philanthropic giving – it’s not just that they are rich, it’s that giving to society is embedded in their culture. Singaporeans can be generous – witness the response to the SARS crisis and to the natural disasters in our neighbouring countries. Interestingly, many Singaporeans don’t see as much need for charity here in Singapore and they respond better to overseas causes where the discrepancies in living conditions are much starker.

So if we want to see an increase in philanthropy, we need to provide the infrastructure support to encourage that. Currently, there are too many obstacles to giving money and even volunteering overseas.

Knowledge@SMU: Is the existence of government-led charities, such as in Singapore, very unusual?

Cheng: That is very “Singapore”. In the developed countries the non-profit sector is very much community led. For example, the equivalent of Singapore’s NCSS (National Council of Social Services) and NVPC (National Volunteer & Philanthropy Centre) in the US and UK are essentially coalitions formed by the private charities themselves. Here, the umbrella bodies and many charities are formed and funded by government. The Lien Centre for Social Innovation as a non-governmental body that seeks to foster social innovation in the nonprofit sector, in that sense, is an exception rather than the norm.

Knowledge@SMU: Social Space is the Lien Foundation Centre’s first publication. How would you describe this volume and who is it targeted at?

Cheng: “Social Space” is targeted at three broad groups of people: business executives who are interested in the social space, nonprofit leaders and executives, and academics and students who are studying or interested in the social space. We decided we wanted something that people would read, would provoke their thinking, and also learn about what others are doing. We invited business and nonprofit leaders out there who were doing good work and had good ideas, as well as academics who had done good research. In both cases, we reached out to both international and local authors. In addition, the publication also reflects some of the Lien Centre’s work over the last two years – the section on Social Enterprises and the Evolution of the Social Sector in Singapore.

Knowledge@SMU: In your article entitled, “The Charity Ecosystem,” you make the point that being an advocate is not easy. Is this role not recognised in Singapore?

Cheng: Advocacy, in general, is difficult in any country. To recap, there are two ways of solving a social problem. One is to deal with the symptoms; the other is to get to the root cause of it. For example, you can help abused maids, but that problem will not go away until you change how employers treat their maids. Changing employers’ mindset requires advocacy: you need education of the employers, you need government to change the policies and rules so that employers are encouraged to be fair and if not, they are penalised.

Advocacy is thus about changing mindsets, changing rules, changing policies. Service is about helping those who are victimised - but helping those who are victimised doesn’t help prevent future victims. In fact, it could be worse – you might actually encourage more abuse, after all, somebody is going to take care of it. Society today is very much focused on looking at the victims but not always at the cause.

Advocacy is difficult for a number of reasons. One is you don’t get recognised and rewarded for it in the short term. Change can take forever and there are all sorts of obstacles to cross. In Singapore, the government does not take criticism easily. All considered, people can easily lose heart in advocating for change. For instance, if you have a shelter that is looking after 10 or 100 abused maids, it is very tangible and everyone can relate to it. I am not saying it is easy – but you will get some support, donations and appreciation. However, if you are advocating for fairer treatment of maids – take the “one day off campaign” for instance: you are an irritant – to the employers who don’t think they should be giving a day off, and to the government which doesn’t want to change the rules and prefers to “let the market decide.”

Knowledge@SMU: How is an advocate different from the‘promoter’ category you describe in your paper?

Cheng: I use “advocacy” from the standpoint of charities and people seeking to deal with the root causes of social issues, whereas I use `promoter’ from the standpoint of promoting and growing the non-profit sector. To me the NVPC  is a promoter: it promotes volunteerism and philanthropy which helps the nonprofit sector as a whole grow. The beneficiaries of the promoter are the charities.  Whereas TWC2 is an advocate: they promote the cause of maids. The beneficiaries of the advocate are the people in society who need help, in this case, the maids.

Knowledge@SMU: You mention ‘neo-philanthropists’ in your article. Who are they?

Cheng: “Neo-philanthropists” are the modern-day philanthropists - big-time money givers who are engaged in new ways of giving, not just simple grantmaking. They are trying out new methods such as venture philanthropy. They want to make a difference - a big difference - almost solving all the world’s problems.

Jeff Scholl, Pierre Omydia, Google.org, Richard Branson, even Bill Gates – they are neo-philanthropists. These people [neo-philanthropists] are personally involved, they are pushing the envelope, and they are applying all their knowledge and understanding about business practices and trying to transfer these to the non-profit world.

Asia has much to catch up in this respect. We need to have a few philanthropists on that scale of giving first.