Plenary Session 1

Dr Pamela Hartigan kicked off the session following her keynote address. She had said during her speech that there was a vested interest in keeping people poor. She elaborated on the comment during the plenary session and said that the phrase was as much a question as it was a statement. She explained that she came from Latin America, a region where the dominant elite for years found it threatening when poor people became more educated and started making better income.

“I attended a cocktail party where someone said to me: ‘You’re good but I hope you’re not lucky because who is going to cultivate our crops if their lives get better.’ I don’t get it.” Dr Hartigan added that while the income gap is getting wider, she also observed that people’s lives are getting better. She said she was very optimistic and believed that change was happening.

Dr Hartigan also addressed questions from the floor. One of which was ways to accelerate the paradigm shift from business to social entrepreneurship. She said: “I think it’s already happening with respect to companies. If you look at firms, as products become more alike, they’re all trying to differentiate themselves in what they’re doing in the world.

“Consumers are more savvy now and they’ve come to realise that their dollar has power; they have a choice in what they buy. When you have consumers becoming more aware of what they value through where they put their money, you begin to have companies competing more and more to make a difference.” Dr Hartigan pointed to the example of Body Shop, which she said had successfully connected consumers’ emotions with their products. “By buying Body Shop products, the consumers feel that they’re contributing to the greater good.”

Dr Hartigan also shared her views on the role of governments in helping social enterprises flourish. She said governments are important because they set the stage and policy framework. However she stressed that they should be supportive and not interventionist. She recommended that governments set up a hybrid system, like the one in Britain, in which social entrepreneurs are allowed to access capital markets and also state funding. “No organisation can actually grow if it solely depends on philanthropy. In an environment that fosters donation, you are curtailing the scale by which social entrepreneurship can grow.”

Dr Hartigan was asked how companies could balance being accountable to their shareholders and diverting resources to social causes which may lower their profit margins. She said the model of maximising shareholders profit was no longer valid in the US and Europe where corporations are increasingly switching to the model of maximising value for stakeholders, which include more than just shareholders.

[Back to top]

Planery Session 2

During the session, one of the key questions that came from the floor concerned funding. One participant wanted advice on where she could obtain funding for her business ideas. She also wanted to know what constituted a good business plan. In response, Elim Chew said a good place to start would be the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports, which administers the Comcare Enterprise Fund. The fund provides seed money to start sustainable business enterprises which are focused on helping needy Singaporeans.

On drafting a good business plan, Chew recommended that aspiring social entrepreneurs enlist the help of business people as a sounding board for their nascent ideas. “A good business plan is something business people look at and know if it’s workable. It’s our gut feel; we will know. But execution is very important, everyone has tonnes of ideas, but it’s the execution that’s key.”

Still on the issue of funding, some participants were of the view that worrying about money was not a good starting point for an aspiring social entrepreneur. One person said the best way to start a venture was not to have any money. He said money made people lazy and added that some of the best ideas came from being poor. He believed a good social entrepreneur would start with a strong desire to do something rather than go off the blocks worrying about money and resources.

Chiming in, another participant shared the Hong Kong experience. He said: “The trouble is most people when they go into social entrepreneur work, they seek security in financial backing of sorts. In Hong Kong, the government tries to give money to social entrepreneur projects, but majority of these projects failed and the money was used up; so social entrepreneurs are getting a bad name.”

The panelists were asked if using social enterprise as a label for marketing was a good idea. Speaking from his experience in Cambodia, Pierre Tami said using social enterprise as a label to market products was exploitative and bad for the dignity of the people working in the enterprise.

“It’s not sustainable to do that. You must have a product and service of good price and quality. You must compete on equal footing with others in the market. Our clients are local companies and foreign MNCs; they don’t buy our products and services out of sympathy,” added Tami.

Expanding on the point, Chew observed that in Singapore consumers tended not to view products and services produced by social enterprises favourably. As a result, they were not keen to pay market prices for these products and services. “We need to turn this mindset around so that people pay good money for products and services from a social enterprise,” said Chew.

[Back to top]

Planery Session 3

Participants were interested to find out what kept the panelists motivated for the social enterprise cause. Dr Pamela Hartigan said that the pain of bureaucracy was her driving force. She was encouraged by the creative solutions social entrepreneurs constantly came up with despite having to deal with bureaucracy.

Jocelyn Chng pinned down her motivation to passion. “I have three sons, and I run a few companies. This relates to passion. It was when I lost my husband that I started all these businesses. All of us have to go through this journey - our purpose and what we want to be remembered for after our loved ones are gone.

“I thought if I wanted to start doing something, I must do something I was good at. So together with Elim and Penny, we came up with Social Innovation Park (SIP). We wanted to help businesses for social causes be financially viable.”

Elaborating on the role of SIP in Singapore, Chng said: “We started SIP with three aims: to educate, to empower and enhance. This forum today is an example of what we do – get the foreign experts in to share their success stories.
We provide a platform for social entrepreneurs. We provide them with advice on funding, investment, and financials. We link them up with people such as Dr Pamela Hartigan, so that they can learn from their experiences.”

Adding on to Chng’s message, Dr Hartigan downplayed her role as a “foreign expert.” She said Singapore has to find its own solutions. “I remember when I first came here. I spoke with some senior people in the media and government about social entrepreneurship. Their response was that Singapore didn’t have innovative and creative people.

“I was infuriated. You should look for Singaporeans who are innovative and who can play a part in solving the problems here.” Dr Hartigan said one way to do this was to give recognition to role models. SIP’s Social Entrepreneur of the Year award was one example, she said.

During the session, Dr Andreas Heinecke disclosed that he was in talks to bring “Dialogue In The Dark” to Singapore. The project is a museum where participants experience darkness and blind people teach them how to “see.” “We have registered the company. The entire staff have to be disabled people; the guides must be those who are disabled. We are going to have a full year of bookings before we begin.”

Giving the project her thumbs up, Dr Hartigan said she benefited from her experience with “Dialogue In The Dark” at the World Economic Forum in Dalian, China. She said the experience made her aware of her prejudices.

[Back to top]

Planery Session 4

The issue of funding took centrestage again. One participant wanted to know strategies for raising money to finance ideas. In response, Philip Wu said money was never the issue. He observed that attitude and execution of ideas were more crucial. Citing a personal example, Wu said he raised $50,000 in five weeks for a bungee jumping project during his undergraduate days.

From that experience, Wu said he realised money was not the stumbling block. Attitude and passion, he stressed, were key. He also said networking was important. “Jack Sim, for example, was last year’s Social Entrepreneur of the Year. As a result, he was invited to many international forums where he had the opportunity to explain what he did. From that he managed to raise funds for his project.”

Still on the issue, another participant raised the point about application for funding, particularly from government-linked agencies. She said the process was bureaucratic and required voluminous paper work which she described as a big turn off. She also questioned why there was a lack of microfinancing facility for start ups in Singapore.

The panelists all agreed that paper work and writing business plans were unavoidable. Kevin Teo said: “My experience with funding is that it becomes easier over time as you build a track record. A lot of it comes down to basic human trust. It’s easier if a donor agency knows your track record, your friends, and your interaction with other agencies. What I suggest you do is find a good mentor to guide you through the grand application. Because it’s repetitive, it becomes easier over time.”

Wu added that paper work is necessary because from his experience at SIP, many wealthy individuals and bankers who had called to offer their assistance were concerned about the background of social enterprises. They wanted assurance that there was some process and methodology in place to ensure they were not giving money to scammers. Wu said SIP had developed a methodology to help donors assess social enterprises that approach it for funding.

Also offering his view on the matter, this year’s winner of the Social Entrepreneur of the Year award, Kenny Low, said: “I went through all the paper work. We are not professionals in writing business proposals, so we had to meet many times to discuss how to write it. To get the seed money for funding your project, you have to earn it. You have to force yourself to go through the process, and that forces you to think though everything carefully and helps you collate your thoughts in writing.”

On microfinancing, the moderator said Grameen Bank, which specialises in micro credit, could be setting up a branch in Singapore soon.

[Back to top]

Planery Session 5

At this session, one issue discussed was the role of institutes of higher learning in helping to create a more vibrant social enterprise scene in Singapore. One participant said changing the mindsets of students should have been included as one of the recommendations in the recent report published by the Social Enterprise Committee. The committee was set up by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports in 2006. He observed that graduates aspired to be employees rather than entrepreneurs.

Sharing his view on the matter, Gerard Ee, a member of the committee, said: “Whether there are people out there with the passion for social enterprise, I don’t know. If someone wants to start a social enterprise they can approach SIP, which creates space for people to try their ideas before they commit too much resources to it. This is what Elim is doing at SIP with her rental stores project at VivoCity. ”

Giving details on the project which helps disadvantaged people and budding artists, Elim Chew said the response was poor which led her to question if people lacked drive and passion. “This is an arts and crafts market in a prime space at VivoCity. We created this space, 50% go to talents and 50% to disadvantaged people. 10% of your earnings go to landlord, 10% to set up costs, you keep 80%.

“We had to call people to set up stores; we have problems filling up the space, 30 tables in a commercial space! Are people waiting to be fed or waiting for donation?
I feel that in the social enterprise sector, people tend to wait for others to give money. Many of you in your homes are making products for social causes. It’s a real test to see if people and the market want your products by selling them at this space at VivoCity.”

Another question from the floor was the issue of tax on profits generated by social enterprises. The panelists were asked if more could be done to persuade the government to grant tax exemption for earnings made by social enterprises.

Ee, a former tax professional at Ernst & Young, said: “I think under the current regime most social enterprises are owned by charity groups and if their profits go back to the charity groups, they get a tax exemption. But the matter you raised is an important one and needs to be followed through so that some day even if it’s not zero tax, we hope there’ll be reduced tax.”

Chew added that as social enterprise only came into mainstream discussion here in the last two to three years, Singapore is still at the infancy stage when it comes to developing a conducive environment for social enterprises. She believed things would improve over time as Singapore learns from more experienced countries.

[Back to top]

Planery Session 6

Participants and panelists discussed the difference between voluntary welfare organisations and social enterprises. While no clear distinction was arrived at, most agreed that the goals of both were the same and definitions were purely for the convenience of government agencies to dispense funding.

Dr Catherine Cunningham observed that in the US there has been a trend of NGOs developing business partnerships with companies and in so doing have found creative ways to make money and be self sustaining instead of relying on donations. That trend, Dr Cunningham said, has led to a blurring of lines between socially responsible businesses and NGOs.

On a related note, one participant asked if there was a difference between an enterprise and a social enterprise. Explaining why he asked the question, he said he had observed volunteers making remarks that profit was a dirty word. In response, Pierre Tami said: “Both types of enterprises have to make money, except that in an enterprise, you keep the profit for yourself. For a social enterprise, you still have to make money but the profit is channeled back into social services. You cannot merge them, their missions are different.”

Sharing her views on the issue, Dr Cunningham added: “There’s been a huge ethic in NGOs that you must be St Francis in tattered clothes. Why not think of non-profit as not for profit. Everyone deserves to earn a living.” Dr Cunningham said it would be interesting to see if a situation would develop in future where there is no distinction between an enterprise and a social enterprise.

“It would be interesting to think of the future of a hybrid model where the shareholders have a higher social purpose for their company and therefore are not only interested in bringing money into their homes but also creating a company where there is a large commitment to provide services to the society in which they operate.”

During the session, one participant said writing business plans, understanding finance and business models, and networking with business people were daunting tasks for volunteers and asked for suggestions on how to get help on deal making.

Dr Cunningham suggested: “You can sit these business people down over dinner and share with them why you’re doing what you’re doing. Most people who share their experiences start with their vision at the beginning. So you have to be very creative. You should search for mentors and create that ecosystem of relationships, because there is so much people can offer in terms of knowledge and ideas for projects. Commitment of time and non-monetary resources can be more important than funding.”

[Back to top]