Monday January 25, 2010

Are Malaysia's charities transparent enough?

Monday Starters - By Soo Ewe Jin

A FRIEND sent me a list of the 10 most fiscally responsible charities as published in the latest edition of Worth, a global wealth management magazine.
Other than World Vision, which was listed at No. 10, the other charities are probably not familiar to Malaysian readers.
But the list makes interesting reading because it outlines why these charities have got it right and also provides useful lessons on how we should gauge the worth of a charity.
Founded in 1992 in the United States, Worth is read mainly by high net-worth individuals.
It focuses on topics related to both wealth creation and wealth management, including philanthropy and passion investments.
So, obviously, the charities named in this list can expect more donations from such individuals who do not simply give their money away, but only to those that practise fiscal responsibility.
In Malaysia, we are always happy to give to one cause or another, or even direct to individuals facing some kind of hardship if they are featured in the media.
Dr Rafick Khan Abdul Rahman did a wonderful job to raise RM8,467 in just four days for the Metro Tabernacle Church following the arson attack.
He raised the issue in his blog, gave an account number for people to bank in their donations, and then published the bank statement after the drive was over.
That’s accountability and transparency.
Gone are the days when charities hold flag days or fun fairs to raise money.
Many prefer to get supporters to issue a standing order to the bank or credit card company to ensure prompt and regular donations.
But have you ever wondered how your money is being used?
Are you sure that the bulk of the money has gone into the programmes and not into administrative costs?
In perusing the Worth list, it is clear that the charities cited are responsible with the money given to them.
Give Kids The World, at No. 1, uses 93 cents of every US dollar on its programmes.
At No. 2 is the Environmental Defence Fund which spends 9 cents to raise a dollar in contributions.
In the United States, the typical charity spends 13 cents to raise a dollar.
The Michael J. Fox Foundation set up to study Parkinson’s disease was cited for spending less than 3% of its budget on administrative costs, well below the average 15% that most charities spend.
I hope by now you have started thinking about where your donation is going to and how your money is being used.
From the three examples cited, a good charity is one that spends most of its money on the cause; uses the least amount of money to raise funds; and spends the least on administration.
So, if you see the head of a charity driving around in an expensive car, you should ask to see the books.
I know it is not easy for some charities to raise funds.
The formula seems to be to hold a lavish fund-raising dinner at a five-star hotel, preferably with a VVIP in attendance, with some entertainment thrown in.
People who show up may wonder how much of the money raised has gone to the hotel and how much actually goes to the charity.
I am thankful that we are a charitable people, otherwise many charities will not be able to function and help those truly in need.
But it is just as important that we hold the charities to account, whether they are big or small.
I am glad that World Vision spends only 8.5% of its budget, globally, on fund-raising and for subscribing to various accountability and code of conduct standards and protocols, including the International NGO Accountability Charter and the Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross.
World Vision Malaysia CEO Liew Tong Ngan put it this way: “Accountability and transparency have and will always be the cornerstones of World Vision, globally and within the different countries in which we serve.
“As a responsible steward of our donors’ and supporters’ hard-earned money, we are constantly looking at ways to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness so that the maximum amount of funds is channelled to those in need.”
l Deputy executive editor Soo Ewe Jin believes that philanthrophy will grow if charities are transparent and held accountable for the money they receive and spend.

Church attacks: Student charged over Facebook posting (Update)

By ZALINAH NOORDIN

zalinah@thestar.com.my
PETALING JAYA: Mohamad Tasyrif Tajudin, 25, was charged in the Sessions Court here over a post he made on social media network Facebook in relation to last week’s attacks on churches.
The offence comes under Section 233(1)(a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 586) which can be charged under Section 233(3) of the same Act for making a threat with the intention of causing public unrest.
Section 233 covers the “improper” use of network facilities or services.
The second year student at the National Arts, Culture and Heritage Academy (Aswara) faces one year’s jail or a RM50,000 fine or both if convicted.
He is alleged to have committed the offence on Jan 10 at B10-17-20, Block 10, Jalan PJS2B/1, in Desa Mentari here, posting a comment using the name Shahrul Maizam from his Facebook account.
The comment which was posted on his Facebook page read: “..ke nak aku baling bom petrol di sana pulak?...harga boleh runding..” (or do you want me to throw petrol bombs there now? charges are negotiable)
He is liable to RM10,000 bail but the case was postponed until Monday because the presiding Judge, Aslam Zainuddin was away on official duty at Shah Alam.
The charge was read before magistrate Koh Khuang Chin.
Mohamad Tasyrif was unrepresented while Deputy Public Prosecutor Dusuki Mokhtar led the prosecution.
He was first detained on Monday and after interrogation released on police bail.
Several churches and even one Sikh gurdwara have been the victims of arson or attempted arson attacks and vandalism over the last week, believed to be in response to a High Court ruling allowing the Catholic weekly Herald to use the word “Allah” as a translation for “God” in its Malay-language edition.
Related Stories:

Miracle on the Hudson: One Year Later

Miracle on the Hudson: One Year Later

by Mike Krumboltz

13 hours ago

On January 15, 2009, US Airways flight 1549 made an emergency landing on the Hudson River. Amazingly, nobody on the flight was seriously injured. The event became known as "the Miracle on the Hudson," and pilot Chesley Sullenberger became an instant celebrity. One year later, interest in the flight and its key players continues to rock the Search box.
Over the past year, Captain Sullenberger (aka "Sully") went from being just another pilot asking that you please not hog the overhead bins to everyone's personal hero. He was invited to attend the inauguration of President Obama and served as the Grand Marshal at the 2010 Tournament of Roses Parade. Time magazine named him as one the most influential people of 2009. He even wrote a book, "Highest Duty." He was also the recent subject of a documentary on TLC entitled "Brace for Impact." 
Mr. Sullenberger got the lion's share of attention following the amazing landing, but an unlikely love story between two passengers also scored big buzz. Ben Bostic and Laura Zych were strangers when they boarded the flight, not knowing that they were about to be part of a terrifying and triumphant event. After meeting at a reunion for the flight's survivors, the two struck up a conversation and one thing led to another. Now, they're a couple. Talk about having a great story whenever somebody asks how you met your significant other.
Of course, there were dozens of passengers on the flight, and while everyone walked away with their lives, many continue to struggle with post-traumatic stress. An article from the AP explains how some folks who were on flight 1549 are still too afraid to board planes. Others can't bring themselves to go swimming. For others, heights are now terrifying. Later this week, some of the survivors, including Sully, will gather near the spot in the Hudson where the plane went down. At the anniversary of the moment of impact "they will raise their glasses in a toast." Clearly, despite any hardships, they all have a lot to be grateful for.

Source: www.yahoo.com