MGA president Mohd Anwar Mohd Nor “addressed the rumours circulating within the industry and assured the delegates that the association’s finances are healthy”.

The Star reported: “This comes amid talk of raising concerns about the MGA’s finances, with some suggesting that the association might be in deep debt.”

Anwar was quoted as saying that the outgoing treasurer Bryan Perera would present the audited account in detail in Agenda 5.

“The MGA president’s assertion that Perera ‘would present the audited account in detail in Agenda 5’ also left some questioning as to how he would be able to do this now that he is no longer treasurer,” the newspaper commented.  

These issues which made the news are microcosms of what is happening in some charities, NGOs, sports clubs, and associations.

The need to be open and transparent in the spending of their funds - the bulk of which comes from individuals, the government, and the private sector - should take precedence over everything else.

The Youth and Sports Ministry gives out millions in grants to organisations to promote sports and related activities, and some even do their own fund-raising. Some big corporations give out large sums of money as part of their CSR programmes.

(But the Ministry had its own drawbacks having previously spent RM300,000 to bring down aerobic dancers from Australia for an opening ceremony.)

How do the government and the donors know if the money is indeed used for the purposes for which they were sought?

In the case of NGOs, the complaints are that there is no transparency and large sums of money are spent on salaries and expenses attending international conferences.

The allegations and claims made against the Malaysian Association for the Blind some years ago attest to this claim.

In another case, the president of a tech NGO was promised a monthly allowance of RM7,000 when it was already in debt. Having occupied the seat for six months, he was told that he would be paid “when we get the funds”.

This problem is not unique to Malaysia. In England, two homelessness charity bosses who authorised the spending of thousands in funds on watches, 50-inch TVs, and spyware to eavesdrop on clients were found guilty of misconduct by the Charity Commission.

The expenses included the purchase of Apple watches, a £1,000 (RM5,800) iPhone, and a £300 Dyson hairdryer.

When asked by the commission what these were for, they said they were gifts “for people we thought would be of help to us in the future”.

The law enables hoodwinking

How would you know if the money you donate ends up paying for the road tax and insurance of the fleet vehicles owned by officials?

The biggest stumbling block in examining accounts and asking the right questions about NGOs and other related organisations is the Societies Act.

Section 30 of the Act keeps prying eyes off the activities and spending. It states: “A member or subscriber or person having an interest in the funds of a registered society may inspect the books of the society at all reasonable hours at the registered office of the society or at any place where the books are kept.”

Any NGO can refuse your request for an inspection when you call their office by stating that “only members” have that right. 

NGOs are required to send their annual reports and financial statements to the Registrar of Societies. However, the registrar will only allow you to inspect documents if you are a member. If you are a donor, you will not get a chance.

So, what can donors do? They should demand transparency when they are asked to part with their hard-earned money for a “good cause” as it is always claimed. They should also insist on documents of payments and related issues.

In this way, notice is given that the donations are subject to such conditions and it will deter anyone from having other ideas.