From celebrity-led foundations to religious institutions, a growing number of financial scandals are shaking public confidence in organisations entrusted with charitable donations. As questions arise over where the money goes, perhaps it is time to reconsider not only whom we trust, but how we choose to give.
When good intentions are put to the test
There is something particularly unsettling about discovering that people and organisations entrusted with public generosity may not always have lived up to that trust.
For many Thais, making merit through donations is part of everyday life. Whether contributing to temples, supporting charitable foundations or helping strangers in need, people give because they believe their money will make a difference. Some give a few hundred baht, while others dig considerably deeper into their pockets. They rarely expect anything in return, trusting that their contributions will reach those who need them, especially during an emergency.
However, a succession of scandals involving religious institutions and charitable organisations has begun to shake that goodwill. The ongoing investigation into actress Boom Pannada’s Foundation for Good Deeds has brought the issue into sharp focus, with disturbing revelations emerging in news reports and leaving many who once held her in high esteem questioning what went wrong.
What makes this case particularly concerning is the public confidence Boom had built through years of humanitarian work. She was a familiar face during Thailand’s floods and other emergencies, organising relief efforts, distributing supplies and appealing for public donations. Her extensive involvement in social work helped establish her as someone willing to roll up her sleeves rather than simply talk about helping others. She had built a squeaky-clean public image until these allegations surfaced.
For many donors, she represented someone they could wholeheartedly trust. That personal connection helped attract contributions from people across different walks of life.
It is precisely why the current investigation has attracted so much media attention. When someone who has spent years building a reputation around helping others comes under investigation over the management of charitable funds, the public naturally wants answers.
When charity comes under scrutiny
Boom’s case raises questions that go beyond the individuals involved. It highlights potential weaknesses in how charitable foundations collect donations, manage their finances and account for money entrusted to them.
Too often, donors place their faith in the person at the forefront of an organisation, whether a respected celebrity, religious figure or prominent individual, without questioning how the money is actually handled. Unfortunately, that trust can be abused.
How I see it, the investigation has brought three areas of concern into focus: the alleged movement of donations between foundation and personal bank accounts, fundraising activities without the necessary permissions, and weaknesses in financial controls covering expenditure approvals, contractor payments and supporting documentation.
These are not minor administrative oversights. They point to loopholes that can be exploited when organisations handling public money are not properly supervised.
A foundation collecting public donations should in practice maintain separate organisational and personal accounts, undergo regular independent audits and make financial reports accessible to donors. Major expenditure should require proper board approval, while contracts, invoices and payments must be properly documented. Fundraising activities should also comply with registration and licensing requirements.
In my view, these should be basic operating standards, not measures introduced only after a scandal has erupted. Regular scrutiny by the relevant authorities is equally important.
It is unfortunate that allegations involving sums reportedly reaching an astounding billion baht have had to emerge before the public begins asking more serious questions about how charitable donations are managed.
Boom’s case should serve as a wake-up call for regulators to examine whether similar weaknesses exist elsewhere in the charitable sector. A celebrity’s popularity, public image and extensive social following should never be considered substitutes for proper financial governance. Foundations simply cannot rely on the reputation of their founders or the goodwill of donors. When public money is involved, transparency must come with the territory.
Not an isolated problem
Sadly, Boom’s case does not stand alone. Thailand has witnessed several troubling controversies involving temple finances and religious figures, further exposing weaknesses in the management of money entrusted to institutions.
The former abbot of Wat Rai Khing, for example, was sentenced to 50 years in prison in April 2026 after being convicted in a major embezzlement case involving more than two billion baht in temple funds.
More recently, the former abbot of Wat Phutthaisawan in Ayutthaya was arrested in September over allegations involving more than 92 million baht in temple funds. Investigators have been examining the movement of money and possible involvement by others.
Although the circumstances differ, these cases share an uncomfortable common thread: donations intended for religious or charitable purposes can become difficult to trace when financial controls and proper oversight are lacking.
We should not dismiss these incidents as isolated wrongdoing by a handful of individuals. They warrant a closer examination of how institutions receiving public donations operate on a larger scale.
Temples and charitable foundations occupy different positions in society, but both depend heavily on public confidence. Once that trust is damaged, rebuilding it is considerably harder than losing it.
The recent controversies have inevitably made some people more hesitant about making merit through temples or donating to foundations. That is particularly unfortunate for the many organisations and individuals who continue to do genuinely good work.
Who looks after the donors and beneficiaries?
One group that often gets overlooked in these controversies is the ordinary donor.
People contribute what they can afford. During floods, fires and other emergencies, donations often come not just from the wealthy but also from individuals who are themselves struggling financially but still desire to lend a helping hand.
Reports surrounding the Boom investigation have highlighted the extraordinary range of contributions, from as little as 19 baht to millions of baht, including donations from well-known personalities in the entertainment industry.
Whatever the amount, generosity should never be taken for granted.
Donors are not simply handing over money. They are placing their trust in someone else to deliver assistance on their behalf. They may never meet the people receiving the donations, but they believe their contributions will make a difference.
More importantly, those who ultimately depend on these contributions are often among society’s most vulnerable. When charitable funds are mismanaged or become entangled in financial disputes, the consequences go beyond accounting irregularities: assistance can be delayed, essential services disrupted and people deprived of help when they need it most.
This is particularly troubling when news reports show images of discarded items, rotting cans of food, water and other necessities donated for flood victims scattered at a location owned by the media personality in question. These are supplies that people gave in good faith, hoping they would reach families struggling through an emergency.
At a time when many Thais are already struggling to make ends meet, the country can ill afford further damage to public confidence in charitable giving.
Organisations collecting donations should be prepared to show where their money comes from, how it is spent and whether it reaches the intended beneficiaries.
A familiar face, a large social media following or a respected religious position should never be mistaken for proof that an organisation is being properly managed.
Giving should not become a gamble
Does this mean people should stop donating to foundations or making merit through temples? Certainly not.
Thailand has many worthwhile organisations and individuals doing meaningful work. Their contributions should not be overshadowed by those who have abused public confidence.
However, I believe donors need to become more discerning about where their money goes.
There are ways to support good causes without necessarily transferring money to a foundation or an individual’s account. People can donate directly to hospitals, schools and recognised public institutions, sponsor medical treatment or educational scholarships, and provide essential supplies through verified channels, not just during emergencies but whenever possible.
Perhaps it is also time to rethink what making merit through giving actually means.
For me, helping others does not always require a foundation, a fundraising campaign or a bank transfer. Sometimes, the most meaningful acts of kindness happen right in front of us.
Buying a meal for a homeless person, helping an elderly neighbour with groceries, providing school supplies to a struggling family or paying for someone’s essential medication can make a genuine difference. We can also offer our time, skills or simply a listening ear to someone going through a difficult period.
These gestures may not attract publicity or generate social media attention, but they offer something equally valuable: the satisfaction of knowing that our help has reached someone who needs it.
Of course, kindness should always come with respect for another person’s dignity. Not everyone is comfortable accepting assistance, but that should not stop us from looking for opportunities to help.
Making merit should remain an expression of compassion, not an exercise in blind faith.
Restoring trust requires more than promises
Thailand cannot afford to let repeated scandals discourage people from helping one another. Public generosity remains an important part of the country’s social fabric, and those who genuinely need assistance should not become the unintended casualties.
The investigations involving Boom’s foundation and religious institutions should remind us that organisations handling public money need proper supervision, clear financial responsibilities and the willingness to open their books to scrutiny.
Ultimately, charitable work should be measured by the lives it improves, not the reputation of the person standing at the forefront of it.
I believe we sometimes underestimate what ordinary people can achieve when they come together. Communities can organise meals for homeless people, collect groceries for struggling families, help elderly neighbours with daily necessities or pool resources to support children from less fortunate backgrounds. When floods strike or unexpected events leave families struggling, people from near and far can come together to provide food, temporary shelter and essential supplies.
There is always someone you can help who is a stone’s throw away from where you live.
For me, it is a person I often encounter on my way back home. I regularly buy sandwiches from a bakery for this elderly homeless woman with autism who cannot speak and has lost her teeth. Whenever she watches me bring food to her, I see her eyes light up as she eagerly digs into the soft, sesame-seed-covered sandwiches, which I presume are easy on her gums to chew.
It is a small gesture, but seeing her enjoy something as simple as a meal brightens my day too. It reminds me that giving is not always about how much money we contribute, but about recognising another person’s needs and doing what we can.
Perhaps we should extend this thinking to everyday acts of kindness. Instead of relying entirely on making merit through temples or foundations, why not tip the parking attendants, cleaners, street sweepers and other service workers who make our daily lives a little easier?
Who knows whether these gestures will bring us merit in the next life? But one thing is certain: the people receiving that money benefit immediately. For someone living from hand to mouth, even a little extra can make the day less difficult.
Foundations will continue to have an important role in society, but compassion should not be left entirely in their hands.
After all, the person who needs our help may be living just around the corner, serving us at a restaurant or sweeping the street we walk along every day.
Sometimes, doing good does not require a foundation, a campaign or even a receipt. It simply requires us to notice another human being and care enough to help.
The next time you come across a buy-one-get-one-free offer, why not give the extra one to someone less fortunate? It costs you nothing extra, but it could mean a great deal to someone else. After all, sometimes the smallest act of kindness can make the biggest difference!
CAPTIONS:
Top, Front Page and Third insert: Ms. Panadda Wongphudee, aka Boom, and her husband, Mr. Athip Anantawan, aka Got., Above photo – Naewna, below Amarin-TV-
First insert: Former “Phra Tham Wachiranuwat,” also known as “Sami Yaem,” of Wat Rai Khing where over two billion of baht was embezzled. Photo – Amarin TV
Second insert: Phra Wachirayan (Atichot Thammaworo), former abbot of Wat Phutthaisawan, renouncing his monkhood following allegations of embezzling millions baht of temple funds. Photo – Amarin TV
Also read:
When a child’s fame becomes a family crisis: Why parental accountability can no longer wait
Thai GL: From Screen Romance to a Global Phenomenon — And the Price of Success
