JULY 30 — For years, I hesitated to write about a persistent problem in the humanitarian sector, concerned that public criticism might weaken confidence in institutions whose work remains essential. A former colleague’s resignation, prompted by the contrast between a charity’s modest public appeals and the conspicuous wealth of its leadership, persuaded me that silence can be equally damaging. Drawing on more than two decades of experience, I offer these anonymised observations not as judicial findings or accusations, but as an examination of a recurring governance failure: authority concentrated within a family or small circle, weak financial transparency, and religious language used to discourage legitimate scrutiny.
Volunteerism is a generous civic act. Yet when institutions demand sacrifice from volunteers while shielding decision-makers from scrutiny, service can become exploitation. Protecting charitable work therefore requires credible accountability to donors, beneficiaries, staff, and volunteers alike.
Volunteerism as a moral and civic trust
Relieving distress and supporting those in need are foundational to Islamic ethics and moral traditions worldwide. Such service strengthens solidarity and public trust. The Qur’an commands: “Cooperate with one another in goodness and righteousness, and do not cooperate in sin and transgression” (Qur’an 5:2). The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) likewise emphasised the enduring reward of relieving hardship and caring for orphans.
The same ethical tradition firmly condemns the misuse of entrusted wealth. Charitable assets are an amanah, a trust, rather than the private property of founders or directors. The Qur’an warns: “Indeed, those who consume the property of orphans unjustly are only consuming fire into their bellies” (Qur’an 4:10).
Faith and accountability are not competing principles. Rigorous oversight is an expression of faithfulness. The danger begins when outward piety substitutes for transparent accounts, independent governance, fair labour practices, and legitimate inquiry.
What exploitation looks like in practice
One recurring pattern is unpaid expertise amid institutional abundance. In one Gulf country, I volunteered for two years with a large charitable foundation, developing and delivering specialist programmes without remuneration. I accepted this freely, seeking spiritual reward while facing financial pressures of my own. The contradiction became difficult to ignore when records showed that one campaign had raised more than US$8 million, while modest honoraria for lecturers were deemed unaffordable.
A second pattern is sacrifice without a corresponding duty of care. In East Asia, my field shifts sometimes lasted sixteen hours. The institution regularly appealed for substantial donations to fund expansion, yet when I became suddenly ill and requested limited help with medical costs, it refused. I also encountered property arrangements that appeared to preserve family control over assets acquired through community giving.
A third pattern involves underpaid staff and declining educational quality. At a major Islamic centre in Europe, I was invited to lead an academic quality assurance initiative. Student performance had deteriorated, and staff had little confidence that reform would succeed. Their frustration was understandable because salaries were extremely low and sometimes delayed despite tuition income and substantial grants.
Why good intentions are not enough
None of these experiences proves that charitable or family-founded organisations are inherently problematic. On the contrary, many perform extraordinary work under difficult circumstances and deserve the public’s confidence. The concern arises when good intentions become a substitute for good governance. Founders remain in permanent control, family members dominate decision-making, financial oversight becomes increasingly opaque, and questioning is interpreted as disloyalty rather than responsible stewardship.
Over time, personal authority can begin to eclipse institutional purpose, making reform increasingly difficult precisely because the organisation’s moral standing discourages scrutiny.
If charitable institutions wish to preserve public trust, they must recognise that accountability is not an administrative burden but an ethical obligation. Volunteers who contribute substantial time and professional expertise deserve more than verbal appreciation. Clear agreements on responsibilities, working arrangements, reimbursement of legitimate expenses, and avenues for raising concerns protect both volunteers and the organisations they serve. Such safeguards become even more important when institutions receive substantial public donations or collect fees, because unpaid service should complement professional work rather than quietly replace it.
The same principle applies to governance itself. Healthy organisations do not rely on the integrity of individuals alone. They build systems that make integrity visible. Independent board members, fixed terms of office, proper conflict-of-interest policies, transparent records of decision-making, and a clear separation between founders, trustees, executives, and beneficiaries help ensure that charitable resources remain dedicated to charitable purposes.
These measures are not expressions of distrust. They are practical demonstrations that an organisation welcomes accountability because it has nothing to hide.
Donors also have an important role to play. Generosity should never require abandoning discernment. Before making substantial contributions, it is entirely reasonable to examine an organisation’s legal standing, audited accounts, governance arrangements, and mechanisms for handling complaints. Reputation, compelling marketing, or religious endorsement should never replace evidence of responsible stewardship. Likewise, larger grants should be accompanied by appropriate safeguards, including milestone-based funding, independent audits where necessary, and clear restrictions on how designated funds may be used. Such measures protect both donors and the communities they hope to serve.
Regulators and charitable organisations share a similar responsibility. Public confidence grows when institutions voluntarily publish meaningful information about their governance, finances, and the use of restricted funds in a manner proportionate to their size and activities. Equally important is the creation of confidential channels through which staff and volunteers can report concerns without fear of retaliation. External auditors should answer to genuinely independent boards rather than executive management, while regulators must possess sufficient authority to investigate situations where charitable resources appear to have drifted from their intended purpose.
Effective oversight is not an obstacle to humanitarian work. It is one of the conditions that allows such work to retain its credibility over time.
* Youcef Bensala is a senior lecturer at the Department of Fiqh-Usul & Applied Sciences, Academy of Islamic Studies, Universiti Malaya, and may be reached at [email protected].
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
