Philanthropic leadership, a leadership, with a conscience and a compass. Before attending the class, I knew I will be awed by fellow students. I knew I could get easily swayed by different ideas and talks( I was). It was a programme, a philanthropic programme, one that took in students from all walks of life, and it was only through passing the interviews, that we could get in. But I steeled myself, I was determined to not just observe, but to grow. On the second day when I was plucked to a different group, I was intoxicated with ideas. It was almost a dizzying state as I got swept up thought after thought. My teammates were brilliant, filled with enthusiasm. I was in a setting of passionate voices, they were all brimming with conviction and ideas, to be said, to be heard. However, where dialogue could have blossomed, monologue took root, we eventually hit several snags where our ideas could not flow or connect, we could not connect too. If I were to say an idea of a piece of criticism I had, I would be spoken over, or have my words taken lightly. I eventually faded into the background, working for the team “behind-the-scenes”, Refining things that were digital and not physical, somewhere where my messages could not be recalled and have my thoughts truly shared.

I tried to be strategic and analytical, rather than getting swept up in the noise. While others spoke, I tried to observe and piece together all their perspectives, not just what they are saying, but why would they say that, how it will help others. To tell the truth, it was not easy, especially when their passion could easily fill the room like wildfire, it was amazing to see. But I always had the never-fading thought that if I wanted to contribute meaningfully, I had to be deliberate, I wanted to have solid intentions whenever I spoke. My ideas never were the flashiest, I never spoke the loudest, I might have seemed reserved at first, maybe even blur at first. So when Mr Richard shared to take note of the quiet ones, I was wondering, will they try and understand my ideas now and give me the opportunity to speak. When Kureha spoke and called it an authoritarian way of speaking, it cracked something open. I added my own thoughts to that, during lunch that day, not as a confrontation but as a conversation. And something shifted, subtly, you could tell that they were changing. Not in sweeping declarations, but in small and thoughtful gestures. A moment of hesitation before saying their ideas, and initiating for others to speak first instead. From my eyes, they were trying to read the room in a way they did not before.

As to what Mr Richard has shared, not sympathetic, but empathetic. The willingness and curiosity of one that spurs us to never make assumptions, to look beneath the surface and ask “why?”, even when the answer seems obvious, so out there. It is like a compass, orienting us not towards straight conclusions, but rather towards better questions. If curiosity makes us question the world, empathy makes us care about the answers, to be open, consider all the perspectives in the wind.

On the second day when Mr Viswa was the speaker, true to what Mr Richard has said, I was blown away, metaphorically, not exaggerating, apologies. He spoke about the Sumatra tsunami that struck the coast of Indonesia. Specifically, in Aceh, where much of the city was flattened, but midst the rubble the only building left standing was a mosque. It served as a holding space for injured individuals, a medical site. He mentioned that while the SIngaporean troops removed their boots out of respect for both the victims and the sacred space, the American personnel unaware of the cultural and religious sensitivities, kept theirs on. Therefore inadvertently tracking mud through the space. The victims could do all but speak up, as they needed the supplies and help from the American personnel. He further shared that during the passing-out of rations and supplies, from transferring the goods hand to hand, they started throwing them towards the crowd as a way to speed the process up. This action however, was captured by journalists who portrayed the American troops as disrespectful and insensitive. This all unfolded during a time where Indonesia was already navigating political unrest of their own. However, one of the first few things Mr Viswa stated, Singapore’s offer of aid was turned down by Indonesia multiple times. Imagine Indonesia, a vast and sprawling nation turning to a small, miniscule red dot for help. I imagine that was how Indonesia felt like. It burned their pride, their ego to accept it. Mr Viswa mentioned that Indonesia only started to slowly accept their help if it was given information on what Singapore troops were going to do, where they were going and how they were planning on helping.

Through his anecdote, he shared that philanthropy is an attitude not an action. It’s about the giving, not the giver. Never was, and will never become about the giver. The moment it starts surrounding the giver, it was never an act of philanthropy to begin with. The essence of giving is lost when it serves the ego more than it serves the need. When offering help, we should be empathetic, driving curiosity to moderation and having the ability to understand and respect all customs. To have dignity and respect. The way we portray ourselves. Likewise, after this programme, I felt that philanthropic leadership is about considering the welfare of others, to be empathetic and curious, all while looking at yourself through the eyes of others.