Difference between revisions of "Philanthropy"
(I have added an entry regarding funding gaps in Singapore.) |
(I updated the section on funding gaps.) |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
By recognising individual merit alone, we attribute our capabilities to industry and effort. As Donald Low notes in his book, Hard Choices: Challenging The Singapore Consensus, meritocracy has long been widely regarded as "a core principle of governance in Singapore", and one that is close to "being a national ideology". The principle of meritocracy promotes "equalising opportunities not outcomes, and allocating rewards on the basis of an individual's merit, abilities and achievements". However, such narratives of self-reliance elide [https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/understanding-four-critiques-singapores-meritocracy entrenched, systemic and intersectional inequalities] - [https://haenfler.sites.grinnell.edu/subcultural-theory-and-theorists/intersectionality/ people may not have the same starting point, by virtue of their identity] - be it their race, class, gender, age, disability, nationality, sexual orientation and more. As a result, many may fail to recognise that their position in society is closely tied to, even founded upon their privilege. Lien Foundation chairman Laurence Lien also concurred, raising the common "[https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/are-the-wealthy-contributing-enough-panel-on-privilege-and-giving-discusses-the-topic assumption that because we are a meritocratic society, if people are poor, it must be their fault; they must be not working hard]. | By recognising individual merit alone, we attribute our capabilities to industry and effort. As Donald Low notes in his book, Hard Choices: Challenging The Singapore Consensus, meritocracy has long been widely regarded as "a core principle of governance in Singapore", and one that is close to "being a national ideology". The principle of meritocracy promotes "equalising opportunities not outcomes, and allocating rewards on the basis of an individual's merit, abilities and achievements". However, such narratives of self-reliance elide [https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/understanding-four-critiques-singapores-meritocracy entrenched, systemic and intersectional inequalities] - [https://haenfler.sites.grinnell.edu/subcultural-theory-and-theorists/intersectionality/ people may not have the same starting point, by virtue of their identity] - be it their race, class, gender, age, disability, nationality, sexual orientation and more. As a result, many may fail to recognise that their position in society is closely tied to, even founded upon their privilege. Lien Foundation chairman Laurence Lien also concurred, raising the common "[https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/are-the-wealthy-contributing-enough-panel-on-privilege-and-giving-discusses-the-topic assumption that because we are a meritocratic society, if people are poor, it must be their fault; they must be not working hard]. | ||
| − | ===== 3. The (Perceived) Role of the State ===== | + | ===== 3. A Culture of Self-Reliance ===== |
| − | Another factor behind the persistent gap in funding could be the perception that the Government is [https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/is-meritocracy-preventing-sporeans-from-giving-back wholly responsible for helping the needy] | + | In Singapore, the prevailing policy landscape instills a strong culture of self-reliance. The onus of maintaining one’s welfare largely falls on the individual. In an article on Singapore’s social policies, the Brookings Institution’s Ron Haskins regards such a culture “[https://www.brookings.edu/articles/social-policy- in-singapore- a-crucible- of- individual-responsibility/ as a necessary precursor to government responsibility]”. Health policy expert John Goodman writes: “[https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2015/03/31/singapore-a- fascinating-alternative- to-the- welfare-state/#3c1af67676c0. Think of all the reasons why people turn to government in other developed countries: retirement income, housing, education, medical care etc. In Singapore, people are required to save to take care of those needs themselves].” Through policies such as the Central Provident Fund, our “Many Helping Hands” approach to social support “[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230827771_Many_Helping_Hands_A_Review_and_Analysis_of _Long-term_Care_Policies_Programs_and_Practices_in_Singapore holds individuals personally responsible for their old age and expects them to be self-reliant]”. |
| + | |||
| + | ===== 4. The (Perceived) Role of the State ===== | ||
| + | Another factor behind the persistent gap in funding could be the perception that the Government is [https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/is-meritocracy-preventing-sporeans-from-giving-back wholly responsible for helping the needy]. After decades of extensive government oversight and intervention in many spheres of society, Singaporeans share a [https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/is-meritocracy-preventing-sporeans-from-giving-back common mentality] that erodes the community ownership and shared sense of responsibility essential for a vibrant philanthropy scene. The delegation of funding and even caring for social causes to the state apparatus foments a paucity of incentives and motivation for Singaporeans to give back, resulting in funding gaps. | ||
==Desired impact for target group== | ==Desired impact for target group== | ||
Revision as of 08:25, 4 January 2020
Contents
Definitions and Scope
Philanthropic Organisations
See ACSEP 2018 Study on Philanthropic Foundations in Asia
Segments
Size of Philanthropic Organisations
Funding Gaps in Singapore's Social Sector
As Singapore tackles complex socio-economic challenges stemming from structural changes in the economy and demographic shifts, it woudl be timely to promote philanthropy. Indeed, such genorisity and civic action can have a lasting impact in addressing emerging social challenges in Singapore. The first section will introduce various funding gaps and case studies in Singapore, while the second section will focus on possible factors behind funding gaps in Singapore's philanthropy scene.
What are some funding gaps within the social sector of Singapore? Where are more resources needed?
Why do funding gaps exist?
1. Restrictive Regulation (pending)
The first factor behind funding gaps could be the issue of restrictive state regulatory controls on civil society and funding.
2. Meritocracy
A second factor may be Singapore’s national ethos of meritocracy. At a panel discussion on privilege and giving back to society, Professor Paulin Straughan from Singapore Management University cited meritocracy as an obstacle to becoming a more generous society today.
By recognising individual merit alone, we attribute our capabilities to industry and effort. As Donald Low notes in his book, Hard Choices: Challenging The Singapore Consensus, meritocracy has long been widely regarded as "a core principle of governance in Singapore", and one that is close to "being a national ideology". The principle of meritocracy promotes "equalising opportunities not outcomes, and allocating rewards on the basis of an individual's merit, abilities and achievements". However, such narratives of self-reliance elide entrenched, systemic and intersectional inequalities - people may not have the same starting point, by virtue of their identity - be it their race, class, gender, age, disability, nationality, sexual orientation and more. As a result, many may fail to recognise that their position in society is closely tied to, even founded upon their privilege. Lien Foundation chairman Laurence Lien also concurred, raising the common "assumption that because we are a meritocratic society, if people are poor, it must be their fault; they must be not working hard.
3. A Culture of Self-Reliance
In Singapore, the prevailing policy landscape instills a strong culture of self-reliance. The onus of maintaining one’s welfare largely falls on the individual. In an article on Singapore’s social policies, the Brookings Institution’s Ron Haskins regards such a culture “as a necessary precursor to government responsibility”. Health policy expert John Goodman writes: “Think of all the reasons why people turn to government in other developed countries: retirement income, housing, education, medical care etc. In Singapore, people are required to save to take care of those needs themselves.” Through policies such as the Central Provident Fund, our “Many Helping Hands” approach to social support “holds individuals personally responsible for their old age and expects them to be self-reliant”.
4. The (Perceived) Role of the State
Another factor behind the persistent gap in funding could be the perception that the Government is wholly responsible for helping the needy. After decades of extensive government oversight and intervention in many spheres of society, Singaporeans share a common mentality that erodes the community ownership and shared sense of responsibility essential for a vibrant philanthropy scene. The delegation of funding and even caring for social causes to the state apparatus foments a paucity of incentives and motivation for Singaporeans to give back, resulting in funding gaps.
Desired impact for target group
Objectives of [insert client type]
[ insert description ]
Existing Resources
Gaps and Their Causes
Possible Solutions
[ insert description ]
Existing Resources
Gaps and Their Causes
Possible Solutions
[ insert description ]
Existing Resources
Gaps and Their Causes
Possible Solutions
[ insert description ]
Existing Resources
Gaps and Their Causes
Possible Solutions
[ insert description ]
Existing Resources
Gaps and Their Causes
Possible Solutions
Resource Directory
Tri-Sector Associates
Pay for success; social impact bonds
[insert organization name]
Insert web link