Why can't the civic sector in Singapore collaborate?

It’s blog posts like these, from Carla Thompson, VP of Programme Strategy, that really perks me up when some days are the darkest.  I get inspired by the possibility of philanthropy thinking innovatively, acting decisively, breaking out of various assumed constraints, to truly work towards social impact. 

When we read it again, surely it is so intuitive that solutions that address children and parents should be looked at together? Yet we know that history does not show this.  Foundations, and other grantmakers, have consistently espoused individual impact, showcased individual performance. 

No more so has this been more the case in Singapore, in my view.  There may have been the odd examples of charities and nonprofits collaborating on ad-hoc projects; and surely we have seen the multiple-party multiple-logos on the banner kind of “collaborative” fundraising events. 

Yet the long-term, shared-vision and shared-resources approach of solving a pressing social problem through collaborative effort, like the Strive Network, is still elusive.  Singapore has taken the approach of “cross-sectoral agencies”, like SG Enable, Agency for Integrated Care, etc. which show that our government is making an effort (weak still, in my view).

But what of the civic sector? Why are nonprofits and philanthropy so unwilling, or unable, to collaborate? At the worst, we see more money chasing after commonly funded issues (see recent Commissioner of Charities Annual Report and this insightful view on funding duplicate projects).

I have some views on this:

1)      Everything is a competition.

a.      Funds, attention, manpower, resources.  Singapore’s preoccupation with the winner taking all, seems to extend to our civic sector as well. Nowhere is this more at risk than – gulp – funding.  “How would a common pie be split among different partners?” would be one of the first questions to be asked.

2)      Working with partners is risky. 

a.      How do we keep tabs on the other guy? When it’s a commercial partnership, expectations are clearer as they are determined by a common bottom-line – profit.  How do we manage risk when what’s at stake is the social welfare of our communities?

3)      Funders are – at the end –self-serving. 

a.      No, not selfish – just self-serving.  Because they still see their acts of philanthropy as a way through which their mission should be met.  Philanthropic mission, which by the way, may not be aligned with the social issue to be addressed.  This gives rise to the tendency to call your own shots, be the sole funder, so you can identify the sole star non-profit that is solely attributable to delivering that star social impact. 

4)      Good news is good to share, bad news is my own. 

a.      Effective collaboration requires open transparency and a combined effort to share information for all members’ learning, so that the work can improve and progress.  This means sharing not only all the good stories, but also the failures, experiments, pilots, bad decisions.  Our culture keeps bad news under cover, even within our organisations. What is the likelihood we will share it with collaborators?

True, a real collaborative effort that seems to harness collective resources for collective impact, is a long-term commitment, requires heavy investment, open transparency, and strong risk appetite.  Question is – where are Singapore’s changemakers and trailblazers to make this happen?

Share with me your ideas for encouraging truly collaborative philanthropy and social changemaking!