I personally think that people who are inheriting the wealth must have an agreement on how that wealth will flow from generation to generation, how they would like to spend it, and have similar philosophies around philanthropy to ensure continuity and scaling up.

The largest expense in our philanthropy is capital expenditure because we are building these institutions. This institution-building idea stems from my father because he has the experience of building a company from scratch.

My job is to look after all our investments and ensure that we grow.

It was only when I started handling Treasury Operations that I realised all of a sudden just how much wealth we have. That is a huge responsibility, so I decided to get on with it and learn how to manage it, because I am a single child and have no siblings to share the responsibility with.

When you come from the working class and you do well enough whereby you can provide a little bit better for your family, get a decent roof over their head and send them to a good school, that's considered a good thing.

I could've signed with a team after Portland cut me and just sat on the bench and collected paychecks, but that's not my style. That just seems really unethical. Besides, money doesn't matter to me. I've got enough money.

There's such a thing, if you're a finance man, as hitting the figures you need to hit. But there's no equivalent in acting. It's a creative field. It's subjective. That's what I love about it.

I'm suggesting that the prohibition on people who survive on money coming from government, that includes pensioners and public servants, standing for Parliament - it's absurd.