ThinkingNectar

The next talk I went too was organised on the spot at barcamp and will be the most interesting and controversial. Well, at least part 2 of it. Previous coverage of part 1 here and part 2 here.

The talk was title Non-profit 2.0 and Religion 2.0. Seems to me the title is to game some attention but I feel it is more like due to the lack of a better title.

Jointly presented by Kelvin Quee and Meng Weng Wong for non-profit and religion respectively.

Kelvin Quee in Action and Meng getting Ready

Non-profit 2.0

Kelvin Quee is known for running Interesthink in Singapore and in his own words:

A cheap TED copycat

His presentation centers around the inability of non-profit in Singapore to gain substainable traction in terms of having sufficient volunteers to run the different programs.

He highlighted some pointers on achieveing something substainable:

• Go Volunteer: Have to start somewhere
• Don’t do direct service: Do not do the ground work unless you are good at it. Do what you are professional capable of and see how of service can you contribute
• Set Direct Goal: Goals that is beyond direct services
• See it through: Execute the goal

He cited an example of creating a Craiglist for non-profits where service providers and volunteer can find non-profits to service. The Craiglist style site will start with listing to match services and needs, followed by a starting pad for events organisation and finally moving on to projects.

Religion 2.0

Meng presentation on Religion 2.0 is a mix mash of less conventional business ideas from a VC point of view. Please read on with an open mind and plenty of objectivity. And yes, despite the chatter around room one and Meng rather soft voice, the audience were very much captured by Meng’s presentation from what I observe.

To start, there was a concept presented that school taught people to be rule. There are some teachings that encourage students to engage in socratic dialogue. Which in other words, to be disagreeable.

I did not get the core idea of the first part and that is my bad.

But moving on, Meng topic turn interesting as he explains how different religion seems to be selling the “same product”. And citing Christianity, Islam and Buddishism as examples. With a number of religion having a “God” figure while a number without. The main take away here is to appreciate that religion to a certain and certainly extend, defines the ethnics of a believer. And this is fundamental to the business idea that he is going to proposed.

He compared submitting of tithes to churches as equivalent to paying of taxes to a state. And with this comparision, the churches seems to enjoy “tremendous vendor lock in“. Much to the laughter of some members of the crowd.

Next pictures of Anthony Robbins and David Allen of GTD fame were shown. The take away here is that such “Guru” advocate a type of lifestyle for consumers to engage in. Such lifestyle in turn governs certain ethnics of the consumers who bought into the idea.

Self Help + Guru + Lifestyle

Now, imagine that such characters enjoy guru-ish status and attract a following will be able to fly under the radar of some countries that are sensitive to religious movement. The followers will gladly pay year in year out for conferences conducted by such guru when they are on speaking engagement tour. It is a business model worth considering and it pays to be on the lookout for the next trendy and guru-ish personality to invest in.

Speaking of taxation and the state, Meng also mention that if the Internet is a state, it is a failed state. As a state collect tax to pay for public good, like infrastructure, security and education. The internet on the other hand, have spam and such  which is not in the control of any. Who pay for antispam then?

Still on the concept of a failed state. If a child is born into a failed state. Let say a corrupted African nation where the child is unlikely to lived to the age of 18, and if so, do so without access to proper education, water and basic medication vaccination. The question here is to explore the possibilities of such child to have a contract with an alternative supplier of public goods?

Imagine an organisation that can securitize a portion of this child future income. And the child in return gets access to modern medical vaccination, water, education shelter that ensure that he become a economical viable entity. The child enjoys a longer life with a better standard of living. While the organisation gets a viable source of income, much like a state collecting taxes.

After giving it some thoughts, it does sounds like slavery? Also no child can legally or morally made such a decision to securitize his life income to an organisation, not at a young age. And if the decision is not made earlier, the child might not lived to be old enough to make that decision, or too old to be educated to make the whole venture economically viable. It is a tough world.

I believe I not doing justise to Meng’s presentation but that is the best I can recall, from both my memory and my trusty blue notebook.