Read the original story on Alliance Magazine

---

Family foundations are a bedrock in Asian philanthropy, particularly in southeast Asia. What makes them unique to the region and what lessons can be learnt from them?

Alliance magazine caught up with Carol Liew, Managing Director of the ECCA Foundation, on the sidelines of the Philanthropy Asia Summit in Singapore. Her foundation supports ocean sustainability projects in Thailand and Singapore.

Liew delves into why family foundations are an example of trust based philanthropy that have, in fact, been around longer than the term itself, what philanthropies across the globe can learn and how family foundations are stepping up amidst foreign funding withdrawing. 

Alliance: Can you tell me the significance of family foundations in Singapore and how it might fit into ‘trust based philanthropy’ that seems to be a new word in the sector floating around? 

CL: What we really value about family foundations — even though we’re tiny compared to, say, the Gates Foundation — is that many of us are deeply engaged at a hyperlocal level. We understand the nuance and context of working in our respective countries, because the families originate from these places.

Whether they’re running a business or have lived there for decades, there’s a real investment in building local relationships and capabilities. That often gets overlooked — not deliberately — but it can get lost in more formal structures of philanthropy.

So I think about: what’s the value we bring when we sit at the table with the bigger players in philanthropy?

It’s argued that in the West, the distance between funder and grantee is bigger because of the formalized structure of philanthropy. Whereas the more informal nature of philanthropy in large parts of Asia reduces that distance… 

A lot of family foundation money comes from business. And in Asian business culture, there tends to be more trust in relationships. You’d give to a friend who knows a charity, or to someone you care about — maybe their child has autism, or they’ve been affected by something.

That’s often where it begins: someone knew someone who needed help. It’s much less structured, and it comes from a place of care, of giving without expectation. We’re not managing a $100 billion fund looking for returns.

We care — so we help. Whether the impact is massive or modest doesn’t matter. What matters is that we’re doing what we can.

That’s the crux of trust-based philanthropy: setting aside ego and returning to the original meaning of philanthropy — giving without expecting something in return. That’s where family philanthropy, especially in Asia, stands out.

It’s also why family foundations tend to build close peer relationships. We might be focused on different issues — autism, elderly care, education — but we operate in the same jurisdictions and often intersect.

That’s where we see collaboration thrive. We come together around the bigger system, while larger institutional philanthropies often operate independently. In structured philanthropy, catalysation is less common — not because it’s ineffective, but because it’s a different approach to addressing gaps.

Has that safeguarded the region from the impact of foreign funding being withdrawn, especially from the US?

CL: I wouldn’t say we’re safeguarded. But we do have stronger local relationships and structures that help us adapt. In Thailand and Myanmar, for instance, we’re seeing families step up and say: “We can’t fill the gap entirely, but we can buy time. Let’s re-strategise and rethink the system of aid. It was broken from the beginning.”

Some of the partnerships we support have received foreign aid. If that’s taken away, we’re often ready to adapt. Many family philanthropies I know are stepping up to support their own portfolio grantees.

Even if it’s not our project, we know the team, we trust them — so we’re ready to step in. We don’t need another year to build that relationship. There’s no time for that.

Given wider geopolitical backdrops, is this an opportunity for southeast Asian philanthropy to reshape the landscape?

CL: 100 per cent!

It’s long overdue that we rethink the entire structure of external funding. Even at ECCA, we don’t want our projects to rely solely on us — that’s why I talk so much about regenerative models. How can we help communities build their own capacity?

We’re not just here to give. We’re here to support people’s essence, their self-determination.

That’s what’s important. That’s what we should all be focusing on.

I’m not saying I welcome the withdrawal of foreign aid — but it’s about time we reform. Crises always bring opportunities.

In the panel session, you spoke about not doing harm to grantees, not putting them on stage all the time, but having a balance and ethics on storytelling. Could you expand on what you meant and the lessons for philanthropy?

CL: We need to re-examine why we put voices on stage. Are we doing it to bring in more funding by showing need? Or are we doing it to share what’s really happening on the ground?

There’s a difference between showcasing someone as a beneficiary versus recognising them as a leader in the conversation. That’s what we tend to forget.

We’re trying to change how we communicate with our grantees. Can it be more like participatory journalism — where they express what they want to say, instead of answering our set questions?

It could be as simple as hearing about their daily experiences, or their hopes and dreams.

The more space we create for free, unbiased expression, the clearer it becomes what we should support or amplify.

That’s the narrative we hope to highlight more often.

Shafi Musaddique is the news editor at Alliance magazine.