Main Programme Sessions Review

The session discussed how societies can help people age with dignity, remain socially connected and protect mental wellbeing in later life. Moderator Patrick Nip opened the panel by sharing his experience when he initiated an international forum about challenges and opportunities of an ageing population when working in the HKSAR Government. He moved on to frame the discussion around the need to move beyond fragmented services towards more coordinated, community-based responses. He also highlighted two Trust-Initiated Projects, JC JoyAge and Jockey Club Carer Space Project, which aim to strengthen social support and resilience among older adults and carers.

Angelique Chan argued that preparation for ageing should begin much earlier, ideally from midlife. She stressed the importance of healthy lifestyles, forward planning and developing a sense of purpose beyond retirement. Drawing on a newly launched Singapore government initiative, she described an approach that requires collaboration across research, practice and policy. Projects must bring together researchers, older adults, practitioners, NGOs and policymakers rather than work in separate silos. She illustrated this with a fall-prevention project built around a basic question: why older people do not attend such programmes. Bringing different stakeholders together helped define the problem more clearly, identify research and funding gaps and build trust among groups that do not usually work closely with one another. She also emphasised the need to consider social and environmental factors beyond biomedical research.

Laura Gitlin focused on the gap between evidence and practice. She argued that governments should fund not only basic research but also the dissemination, implementation and scaling of proven programmes, since many effective models remain underused. She cited a programme developed for underserved African American communities affected by depression. Using a person-centred and goal-oriented approach, it helped reduce stigma and support people in moving from home-based isolation into community settings such as senior centres. Gitlin also reflected that the changing needs of an ageing population and caregivers would require a flexible ecosystem of community partnerships.

Lam Ching-choi pointed to research on dementia prevention showing that social factors such as social isolation and loneliness are major, but often overlooked, risk factors. He stressed that ageing well also depends on the management of chronic disease and physical health. At the system level, he called for an end to siloed service structures and more integration across sectors. On mental health, he noted that JC JoyAge promotes a stepped-care model, trains up older people as mental health ambassadors, and utilises community and social capital. He also noted that young people often turn first to AI for emotional support, and suggested that similar tools may have a role for older adults, and discussed the vision for ecosystem and community building. More broadly, he argued that progress will depend on leaders and champions who can connect government, philanthropy and frontline practice.

The discussion closed on a shared view that ageing services are still too fragmented. The panellists argued for cross-sector collaboration, earlier intervention and a broader understanding of wellbeing. Nip concluded that ageing policy now requires a wider shift in mindset, with government taking the lead in building more connected systems of support.

The panel examined how urban anti-poverty programmes can move families beyond short-term relief towards stable housing, sustainable livelihoods and greater self-reliance. Moderator Shobhini Mukerji, joined with panellists Gregory Chen, Warren Ang and Charlie Chan, considered how the Graduation Approach can be adapted to urban settings, where insecure employment, high living and housing costs, limited social protection, childcare constraints and social isolation can combine to keep families in poverty.

Chen traced BRAC’s Graduation Approach to its efforts to reach people excluded from broader economic development and trapped in cycles of poverty. The model combines livelihood or asset support, assistance with basic needs and regular coaching in a sequenced, time-bound intervention, generally lasting two years. Evidence indicates that its benefits can persist long after support ends. Urban adaptation, however, requires new livelihood pathways: traditional rural assets may need to give way to apprenticeships, vocational certification, job placement and other opportunities suited to local economies. Effective programmes must also address structural barriers such as discrimination, insecure land or housing, health shocks and climate-related displacement.

Ang explained that, building on the relative stability offered by transitional housing, JC PROJECT LIFT supports families in strengthening their capacities and pursuing employment, financial and longer-term development goals. The programme combines family capacity-building, community support, financial literacy and employment services, drawing on the capabilities of NGOs, banks and employment partners. Ang further stressed that agency cannot be built through a standardised formula: it depends on trusted relationships, meaningful choices and goals defined by each family. Scaling should therefore be accompanied by rigorous evaluation to establish what works, for whom and under what circumstances, while taking into account factors such as ageing, fiscal pressures and technological disruption.

Chan described the Jockey Club Community Kitchens as accessible “second homes” for families living in subdivided flats. The kitchens provide additional community space for everyday activities such as cooking, eating, studying and resting, easing the pressures of inadequate housing while helping residents rebuild social connections. Residents help establish rules, resolve conflicts, volunteer and redistribute surplus food, enabling them to shift from passive recipients to active contributors. This sense of ownership strengthens their confidence and sense of control while fostering mutual support. Chan cautioned that expansion must preserve meaningful participation and identify an optimal community size: too large, and relationships weaken; too small, and impact remains limited.

The speakers agreed that technology should strengthen, rather than replace, human interaction. Digital tools could improve case management, connect hidden populations, identify suitable employment opportunities and reduce frontline workloads, giving coaches more time to build relationships. They also positioned philanthropy as more than a source of funding: community and faith-based organisations provide trusted networks, while companies contribute expertise, employment links and other capabilities. Patient philanthropic capital can support pilots, research and evidence that can unlock much larger government investment. Sustainable pathways out of poverty, they concurred, require coordinated, locally adapted support that tackles structural barriers while strengthening livelihoods, agency and community.

The session explored how wetlands can strengthen climate resilience amid intensifying climate change and biodiversity loss, and how technology and collaboration can support more responsive conservation. Moderator Wong Kam-sing framed the discussion around three linked themes: emerging threats, new tools and stronger togetherness. As environmental pressures expose the limits of static conservation models, the panellists considered how wetlands can be managed as dynamic systems that respond to changing ecological conditions.

The speakers agreed that wetlands are important not only as habitats for biodiversity but also as systems that support wider ecological and social needs. Lei Guangchun stressed the close relationship between humans and nature. He described wetlands as sources of ecological knowledge that help people understand ecosystems more deeply and make better decisions about protection. David Gallacher outlined the multiple benefits wetlands can provide, including biodiversity conservation, flood management and quality open space for the public. He also pointed to the scope for integrating nature-based solutions into urban settings while ensuring that they remain resilient under changing climate conditions.

Technology and data emerged as key enablers of more adaptive, evidence-based management, particularly in the case of smart wetlands. Nicole Wong shared how tools such as smart sluice gates at Mai Po can help conservation teams manage water levels more effectively, while AI is generating new insights into wildlife. Gallacher added that measuring outcomes is vital in showing the broader value of investment in nature-based solutions.

Beyond individual sites, the discussion highlighted the need for regional connectivity and collaboration. Shufen Yang explained how satellite tracking has transformed the monitoring of migratory birds, allowing conservationists to identify important habitats and engage wetland managers elsewhere along migratory routes. Her example underscored the value of combining scientific knowledge with regional cooperation and capacity building.

The panellists also considered how philanthropy can support innovation in a field where outcomes may be uncertain and slow to emerge. Nicole Wong noted the importance of making room for uncertainty and learning from failure in climate resilience work. Reflecting on Mai Po as a “living laboratory”, she argued that both successes and setbacks can yield lessons for others. The discussion concluded that stronger wetland conservation will depend on combining local action, evidence-based management and cross-regional collaboration to build more resilient relationships between people and nature.

The workshop looked at how philanthropic organisations assess opportunities and decide whether an initiative is ready for support. Moderator Queenie Man invited Cecilia Ho and Lawrence Tsang to explain what makes a proposal compelling and how applicants can build partnerships that last beyond a single grant.

Ho described mission alignment as the first threshold for the Lee Hysan Foundation. Applicants need to understand both a funder’s broad mission and its current priorities. The Foundation supports work in education, social welfare, health, arts and culture, and the environment, with a strong focus on Hong Kong. Its approach is shaped by five principles: catalysing policy and systemic change, co-creation, connection, collaboration and co-funding. Ho stressed that even a strong project is unlikely to secure support if it lacks a path to sustainability, policy influence or wider systems change. For that reason, the Foundation sees itself as a strategic sponsor rather than simply a source of money, as the team, after understanding the proposal in totality, represents the applicant to present to the Board.

Tsang said the D. H. Chen Foundation also looks for alignment with its priorities and being able to add value to the projects, and places particular weight on shared values, compassion and social innovation. It is open to earlier-stage organisations and proof-of-concept work when there is clear potential for growth. Because values are hard to judge from paperwork alone, the Foundation spends time meeting applicants and working with them before proposals reach the Board. Tsang said he looks for an account of need that is clear and empathetic, one that shows the person behind the problem rather than only technical detail.

Both speakers used real-case examples to show how these principles work in practice. Ho discussed a 24-hour mental-health hotline that was designed with a route to government adoption. Through co-creation, research, collaboration and co-funding among three funders, it became a public service before the Foundation’s funding ended. Tsang cited a project addressing adolescent mental health through sleep problems treated with Chinese medicine. By offering a less stigmatised entry point, it could draw at-risk young people into broader mental health support.

Both advised against overinvesting time in polished language, activity counts or programme detail of the proposals, but underinvesting in explaining why an intervention makes sense, how it meets beneficiaries’ needs and what it is meant to achieve. Ho urged organisations to prepare a concise three-to-five-minute “trailer” covering the project’s essentials, be open-minded to changes, and manage risks. Tsang likewise stressed the need to define the end game and connect a programme’s theory of change to the organisation’s wider aims.

The discussion suggested that lasting support depends on development rather than repetition. Funders want to see adaptation to changing needs, stronger partnerships, other funding sources and a credible next phase. Applicants should also discuss setbacks frankly and show what they have learned. AI may help with drafting and research, but neither speaker saw it as a substitute for judgement, trust and human relationships.

The session explored how heritage conservation can support sustainable urban development, community identity and social connection, with moderator Wendy Ng alongside panellists David Lung, Laurence Loh and Ho Puay-peng. Drawing on case studies from Tai Kwun in Hong Kong, the Esplanade Seawall and Promenade in George Town, Penang, and Temasek Shophouse in Singapore, respectively, they examined how historic places can remain relevant through interpretation, adaptive reuse and partnerships. An audience poll during the session identified clear on-site interpretation as the most important factor in making heritage feel alive and relevant.

Lung noted that Tai Kwun’s on-site interpretive centre enables visitors to understand the history of the former police, judicial and prison compound before exploring its 16 historic buildings and two new architectural structures. He traced the project’s origins to decisions made decades earlier to protect the entire site, despite urban pressure to widen surrounding roads and the opportunity to develop valuable central city land. Its eventual transformation into a vibrant cultural hub required long-term commitment, a courageous government partner and substantial philanthropic support from The Hong Kong Jockey Club.

Loh emphasised the importance of governance and partnership in revitalising George Town. Following its inscription as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, a statutory special area plan established how individual sites could be managed. Think City and the Aga Khan Trust for Culture then worked with government and international experts to improve the neglected public realm. At the Esplanade, the deteriorating seawall was redesigned and extended into a promenade. The result has become one of the city’s most heavily used public spaces, attracting people to gather, relax and enjoy the waterfront. Loh argued that future conservation of cultural landscape must recognise the indivisibility of culture and nature, incorporating climate adaptation, traditional materials and environmental resilience.

Ho presented Temasek Shophouse as an example of incremental adaptive reuse. Beginning with one conserved building, Temasek Foundation gradually expanded into adjoining shophouses, combining offices and co-working areas with public event spaces. The project also transformed an overlooked canal-side area into green public space. For Ho, heritage should not be treated solely as a destination but integrated into everyday urban life. Interpretation should connect a building’s history with its present and future roles, while authenticity should allow interiors to change in response to contemporary needs.

The speakers challenged the assumption that conservation means freezing buildings in the past or converting them into museums. Lung argued that adaptive reuse gives heritage present-day social value while safeguarding it for future generations. Loh positioned heritage as a potential driver of urban economic, environmental and social development in the direction of sustainability. Ho highlighted its value as an “urban living room” that can attract philanthropic investment and strengthen social cohesion, participation and an evolving sense of identity.

Across the discussion, heritage emerged not as an obstacle to development but as a means of managing change. Its future relevance depends on early planning, community participation, effective interpretation and partnerships spanning government, philanthropy and civil society. By connecting historic places with contemporary uses, environmental resilience and local economies, cities can preserve their identity while preparing for the future.

The session examined what trust-based philanthropy means in practice and how it can improve working relationships and social outcomes. Moderator Manisha Mirchandani opened by asking how funders and grantees can balance trust with accountability, flexibility with responsibility, and long-term partnership with the need to show impact. An audience poll identified regular, honest communication as the most important ingredient, though the discussion made clear that trust also depends on shared goals, flexible funding and sustained commitment.

Josephine Lee said the organisation earns trust through its actions. That means placing beneficiaries at the centre, be transparent and accountable, and focusing on impact rather than simply listing activities. She described the organisation’s decade-long relationship with a family foundation that funded the renovation of an elderly care home, and supported leadership development, staff training and improvements to the care model. Because the relationship was well established, the two organisations could respond flexibly to unforeseen problems, share risk and plan together for the home’s future.

Laurence Lien described a model built on equal partnership and co-creation. At the Lien Foundation, relationships begin with conversations rather than application forms. Partners develop programmes, proposals and measures of success together, while mistakes and setbacks are expected to be shared quickly and honestly. Most grants are multi-year because new service models need time to be tested, adapted and sustained. Evaluation is treated mainly as a tool for learning rather than a rigid exercise in performance monitoring.

Lien also cited Asia Community Foundation research showing that restricted funding remains the dominant model despite strong demand for unrestricted and multi-year support. Flexible funding allows organisations to respond to shocks, invest in their own capacity and discuss strategic challenges more openly. Lien identified integrity, competence and benevolence – showing partners that the funder understands them and is on their side – as the three foundations of trust.

Sandrine Bouttier-Stref said the Sanofi Foundation develops programmes with local communities instead of importing standard solutions, especially in the areas of youth, climate change and humanitarian aid. Its support combines funding with technical expertise, capacity building and links to wider networks. During an Ebola emergency, established relationships allowed the foundation to provide immediate funding and expertise without repeating a lengthy due-diligence process. Its support for accommodation in Dakar for families of children undergoing cancer treatment also showed how funders can help partners secure continuity after an initial grant ends.

The discussion showed that trust requires time, honesty, humility and empathy. It also asks funders to share risk, cut needless bureaucracy and contribute more than money. Trusted relationships can make it easier to discuss setbacks, adjust plans and stay focused on the people philanthropy is meant to serve.

The session explored how children and young people can move from being beneficiaries and volunteers to genuine partners in designing and delivering social initiatives. Moderator Martin Tan invited Andy Nilsen, Jamyang Kinley Pema, Siu Ching-hei and Winfield Ngo to discuss what co-creation requires from young people, practitioners, institutions and funders. Audience polls highlighted time and trust as central to meaningful collaboration, alongside adults’ willingness to share power, decisions and resources.

Nilsen traced the origins of SHIFT, Save the Children’s campaign accelerator for young people, to his experiences in Myanmar. After leading a campaign without engaging local advocates, and later seeing young people independently revitalise their neighbourhood, he recognised that institutions should work with communities rather than speak for them. SHIFT enables young people to identify issues, develop campaigns and lead implementation with flexible support. The model has expanded to 25 countries.

Jamyang Kinley Pema described how SHIFT enabled her Social Justice Initiative in Bhutan to pursue broad legal advocacy without being confined by a funder’s priorities. Her team addressed the prevention of sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment, reaching communities across 15 of Bhutan’s 20 districts. She argued that young people often stand “outside the box” of established systems and can see problems adults within them may overlook. Their questions should not be interpreted as challenges to adult authority, particularly where respect for elders inhibits disagreement.

Siu and Ngo presented K-Town Yorozuya, a youth-led community service platform in Kennedy Town, Hong Kong. Young people respond to residents’ requests by applying their interests and skills to tasks ranging from digital assistance and elderly companionship to emotional support. The initiative aims to rebuild neighbourhood connections and foster reciprocity. Siu described the adult practitioner’s roles as facilitator, amplifier and “invisible safety net”. Social workers step back so young people can make decisions, make their contributions visible, and manage risks without suppressing experimentation.

Ngo contrasted this with conventional volunteering, in which young people are assigned routine tasks but excluded from strategy and design. Co-creation allowed him to become a co-founder and adviser rather than simply a “good helper”. Regular reflection, mutual appreciation and emotional support sustained motivation, while small tokens of gratitude from residents reinforced purpose and connection.

The speakers agreed that failure should be treated as part of development rather than prevented entirely. Adults remain essential, but their role is to create safe conditions, offer guidance and intervene only when necessary. Nilsen noted that SHIFT therefore trains “fun adults” to support young leaders without taking over. The discussion concluded that genuine youth empowerment requires more than consultation: it demands shared responsibility, room to explore, meaningful community relationships and trust in young people’s capacity to lead.

The workshop discussed what it takes for NGOs and social purpose organisations to mature, not through expansion alone but through sound judgement, adaptive capacity and the internal coherence needed to navigate uncertainty. Moderated by Vyshnavi Desiraju, the conversation focused on how organisations can strengthen their health and resilience so they are better able to sustain impact over time.

Cheryl Chui opened by stressing that organisational health is fundamental to mission delivery. Frontline services and beneficiaries may rightly command attention, she said, but neglecting internal capabilities can weaken an organisation’s ability to achieve its aims. A healthy organisation is better placed to build trust and credibility with funders, donors and other stakeholders because it can show that it has the systems and capacity to deliver on its mission. Chui also argued that growth should be systematic rather than ad hoc. Organisations need the ability to articulate their capabilities clearly and in evidence-based terms to both funders and the wider public. To support this, she introduced a benchmarking tool designed to help non-profit organisations assess and strengthen themselves across eight domains of organisational health, drawing on a review of existing assessment and evaluation frameworks.

Juliana Busasi turned to the risks that can accompany growth. Expansion, she cautioned, is not inherently positive: if poorly managed, it can create strain and reduce effectiveness. She warned against overstretching, noting that scaling too quickly without sufficient workforce or organisational capacity may ultimately harm beneficiaries. She also highlighted the vulnerability created by internal bottlenecks, especially where operations depend too heavily on one person or a small group of staff. Another common pitfall, she said, is the “hero culture”, where organisations or individuals assume they must solve every problem on their own.

Building on these points, the speakers outlined broader conditions for long-term resilience. They agreed that people are an organisation’s most valuable asset, and that sustaining impact depends on staff well-being and their long-term capacity to work, especially in high-stress settings where burnout is a real risk. The discussion also stressed the importance of open communication and of creating environments where staff feel safe raising problems and setbacks early, allowing timely intervention and organisational learning.

The workshop closed with a call for organisations to assess themselves systematically across all domains, not only programme outcomes, so they can identify weaknesses and set priorities for improvement. Chui highlighted that organisational health is an evolving process, which would empower organisations to achieve and amplify impact. Busasi added that organisations should give themselves the grace to learn from mistakes. Funders, they argued, should look beyond outputs alone and pay closer attention to governance, systems and long-term organisational sustainability.

The session opened with a keynote speech by Zhang Jiming, Vice Chairman of the China Soong Ching Ling Foundation. Zhang highlighted the development of Chinese philanthropy alongside reform and opening-up, and the forging of a socialist path of philanthropic development with Chinese characteristics. He also underscored the distinctive role of the China Soong Ching Ling Foundation, and the importance of the Institute of Philanthropy and the Commission on Asian Philanthropy in contributing to international exchanges and collaboration.

The panel focused on recent shifts in China’s philanthropy sector through the lenses of organisational governance, corporate giving, family philanthropy and cross-border collaboration. Moderated by Wang Xiangwei, the panel brought together Jin Jinping, Wang Ming and Wang Zhenyao, reflecting on current changes in the sector and what these may mean for future.

Jin said charitable organisations in the Chinese Mainland were strengthening their governance, placing greater emphasis on community building rather than relying mainly on online fundraising, and improving their implementation capacity. These shifts, she suggested, could help build public trust. Turning to corporate philanthropy, Jin argued that companies can contribute not only through donations but also by developing products, services or other practical solutions to social problems. At the same time, she noted the rise of social enterprises, and encouraged established corporations with significant public influence and impact to consider assuming greater public and social responsibility as an expression of their commitment to serving society.

Drawing on his research, Wang Ming said there were 863 family foundations in the Chinese Mainland, with combined assets of about RMB29.8 billion. He noted that the ten largest foundations held 44 per cent of these assets, pointing to a high degree of concentration. Meanwhile, charitable trusts have also seen significant growth in China in recent years. He observed that family philanthropy becomes more institutionalised over time as wealth passes across generations. Among families whose wealth had been passed down through more than three generations, especially those entering a fourth, 80 per cent had established foundations or charitable trusts.

Wang Zhenyao acknowledged Hong Kong’s leading status as a professional social services and philanthropy hub, and expressed optimism about the continued growth of the sector and deepening philanthropic collaboration between Hong Kong and the Chinese Mainland.

The discussion also covered cross-border giving in the Greater Bay Area and the possible effects of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Administration of Activities of Overseas Nongovernmental Organizations in the Mainland of China, under which Hong Kong NGOs fall within the definition of overseas NGOs. Wang Zhenyao said Hong Kong’s philanthropic sector had long been closely connected with its counterparts in the Chinese Mainland and remained irreplaceable. Wang Ming suggested that future exemptions for philanthropic projects could support Hong Kong’s closer integration into national planning. Jin added that while the current framework placed constraints on cross-border philanthropic funding, there remained scope for institutional improvements.

Overall, the discussion showed a philanthropy landscape in transition, shaped by stronger governance, more structured family giving, changing corporate roles and continuing efforts to enable cross-border collaboration.

Bringing together Hong Kong and international perspectives, the session, moderated by Edmond Lau examined what it takes to move beyond isolated employment initiatives towards sustained, systemic inclusion of people with disabilities. The discussion spotlighted how workplace practice, technology, policy, market mechanisms and public attitudes can help build a more inclusive labour market. At its core was a wider shift away from viewing disability employment through a charity or welfare lens and towards recognising their abilities instead of disabilities.

Winnie Kang described this shift in Hong Kong as a move towards a more competitive and market-driven model, supported by vocational training, employment services and incentives for employers. She stressed, however, that no single intervention is enough. Securing a job is only one part of building an inclusive employment system.

Several speakers pointed to entrenched stereotypes as a major barrier. Drawing on her organisation’s research, Joyce Chow said many employers remain concerned about, apart from uncertain economic situations, the capabilities of people with disabilities and about the availability of practical support in the workplace. Susan Scott-Parker argued that these assumptions continue to widen the gap between business employers and jobseekers with disabilities, and underscored the need to bridge it through direct interaction and better mutual understanding, allowing for flexibility to accustom to individual people with disabilities. Martin Essl added that visibility matters: seeing people with disabilities succeed in competitive businesses and leadership roles can help shift expectations.

The panel also stressed that successful placement is only a starting point. Chow suggested that sustainable employment depends on more than filling vacancies. It requires attention to whether a role and workplace fit an individual’s strengths and support needs. Kang likewise highlighted vocational training, workplace assessment, job coaching and post-placement support as ways to turn employer goodwill into durable outcomes, especially for smaller businesses with fewer internal resources.

Technology, the speakers noted, presents both opportunities and risks. Scott-Parker observed that rigid human resources systems and AI-enabled recruitment tools can inadvertently exclude people with disabilities. Essl supported impactful and scalable innovation approaches in all sectors of life but cautioned that accessibility must be built into technological change if inclusion is to keep pace.

The discussion moved beyond relying on regulation or hiring quotas alone. Chow noted that international comparisons do not suggest hard quotas are necessary to achieve higher employment rates, and pointed instead to accountability and transparency as important drivers of progress. Scott-Parker also commented that while legislation and regulations should be appropriate and enforced, they should be matched by practical support and effective pathways from skills to employment.

The session emphasised that lasting progress depends on a more holistic approach, combining policy, employer commitment and practical support with sustained efforts to change perceptions and build workplaces around capability and contribution.

The panel looked at how computational thinking can advance educational equity when it is taught as a method of problem-solving rather than simply as coding. Moderated by Kerry Lee, the discussion brought together Stephen Cheung, Huang Ronghuai and Kim Sethany to share lessons from Hong Kong, the Chinese Mainland and Cambodia, with a particular focus on CoolThink@JC.

The session followed the signing of an MoU on early childhood education and development between the Hong Kong Jockey Club and Cambodia’s Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. The agreement reaffirmed both parties’ commitment to giving children a stronger start in life. It built on their existing collaboration, including Cambodia’s adoption and adaptation of the CoolThink@JC curriculum for primary schools.

Lee explained that computational thinking involves breaking problems into manageable parts, recognising patterns, focusing on relevant information and devising logical solutions. These skills extend beyond computer science, helping children become more confident, independent and creative learners. From experience, Lee observed that providing devices should be complemented by appropriate curricula, trained teachers and continued support to improve learning.

Kim Sethany described how Cambodia had adapted the programme to suit local conditions. Forty volunteer public primary schools across eight provinces had reached more than 16,000 students, over half of whom were girls. Materials were translated into Cambodian language and uploaded to a national digital platform, while self-paced training allowed teachers in rural areas to develop their skills without having to travel. In schools with limited electricity, internet access or computers, children could learn through screen-free “unplugged” activities. Kim also emphasised the need to involve parents, community leaders and other local stakeholders in supporting the programme.

Huang discussed computational thinking as part of a wider approach to digital literacy, encompassing learning, innovation and social responsibility. Teaching should be appropriate to children’s age and development, with play and practical activities used to encourage curiosity and independent thought. Huang also highlighted the value of detailed teaching materials, professional development and exchanges between schools.

Cheung reflected on the development of CoolThink@JC in Hong Kong since 2016. The early stages revealed wide differences in equipment, teacher confidence and technical capacity among schools. Expanding the programme therefore involved much more than introducing a curriculum, but a sustainable ecosystem with school networks to ensure nobody is left behind. Teachers and principals needed training, parents and government had to be engaged, and schools needed ways to share knowledge and experience. Projects focused on real social issues also showed that children from less advantaged schools could develop thoughtful and creative solutions when given the opportunity.

The panel also touched on the pros and cons of early AI adoption, and its central message was that closing the digital divide is not simply about distributing hardware. Genuine progress depends on capable teachers, locally relevant materials, community support and long-term collaboration.

The session explored how NGOs and philanthropic organisations can use technology in practical, purposeful ways to expand reach, reduce manual work and improve access to services. The discussion considered when technology, especially AI, is useful in the social sector and how organisations can adopt it responsibly.

Xiao Liming outlined Tencent’s shift years ago to embed “sustainable social value innovation” in its core strategy through its Consumer-Business-Society framework, and that business value should be grounded in social value. He traced Tencent’s technology-for-good work through three stages: first, enabling public digital giving; second, providing digital tools to large numbers of NGOs in China to improve efficiency and transparency; and third, establishing SSV to test solutions, scale those that prove effective and help build wider ecosystems with government and other partners. He added that AI development must be accompanied by governance, including safeguards on privacy and measures to address risks such as deepfake fraud.

Steven Chan stressed that AI has lowered the barrier to prototyping, making it easier for NGOs to test ideas quickly and at low cost without large technical teams. Nonetheless, he considered it imperative to differentiate what kinds of work should be accelerated to “agent speed” and remained at “human speed”, especially those involving human alignment and connections. He argued that technology should never be adopted for its own sake. It must begin with real user needs, identified through direct engagement with those affected. He also emphasised the importance of transparency and psychological safety within organisations so that teams can experiment, learn from failure and improve their work. During testing, he emphasised the need to establish appropriate guardrails, including safeguards such as using synthetic data instead of sensitive personal data as well as best practices such as vendor due diligence.

The discussion also addressed sustainability and service design. Xiao argued that the key question is not simply whether a project succeeds or fails, but whether it is sustainable. He described Tencent’s move towards more beneficiary-centred design, citing disaster relief models that use digital coupons and mobile payments so recipients can choose the goods they need, rather than receiving unsuitable donations.

In response to questions about how investment in technology should be balanced with investment in people, especially for grassroots NGOs with limited exposure to digital tools, Xiao said Tencent gives equal weight to both, pointing to rural empowerment programmes and youth training initiatives that develop human capacity alongside technology. On disaster relief, he also cited examples including early warning systems, drones and evacuation infrastructure developed with public-sector partners.

The discussion showed that technology is most useful when it is shaped by clear needs, tested carefully and supported by strong ethical judgement. The speakers concluded that AI may help organisations improve processes, learn and work more quickly and effectively, but lasting social impact still depends on human judgement, institutional learning and investment in people, with meaningful changes often starting small.