S$215,000 raised for toddler with rare disease, then S'pore-based Give.Asia returns money to donors. Here's why
SINGAPORE — Singapore-based fundraising platform Give.Asia had already raised RM715,272 (S$215,200) for a Malaysian family whose toddler is suffering from a rare disease, when it announced in a Facebook post on April 14 that it would return all funds raised back to the donors.
The rare move was the latest twist in a saga that has played out largely over Malaysian social media, involving the family of 21-month-old “Baby Reese” and two fundraising platforms – Give.Asia and Malaysia-based One Hope Charity (OHC).
The saga centres on Give.Asia's refusal to hand over the sum it had raised to OHC, which was taking over the fundraising efforts, as well as a hospital's refusal to accept the sum directly from the Singapore-based platform.
Give.Asia said that it could not transfer the funds to OHC as the charity was unable to provide “necessary documents needed for due diligence checks”.
Reese's parents, Mr Jason Tan, 47, and Ms Rachel Chung, 38, told TODAY that they are currently “seeking advice from the authorities” pertaining to the issues that had arisen before deciding on their next steps.
WHAT HAPPENED
After their daughter, Reese Tan, was diagnosed with spinal muscular atrophy type 2 (SMA type 2) in September 2022, Mr Tan and Ms Chung approached Give.Asia with the intention of starting a fundraising campaign to raise a target sum of RM9,500,000.
SMA type 2 is a genetic neuromuscular disorder that affects the nerve cells that control voluntary muscles. While there is currently no known cure for it, the amount raised would allow Reese to receive Zolgensma gene therapy, the treatment she requires before turning age two.
Prior to the campaign being published on Give.Asia’s Malaysia site on Nov 25, 2022, it was agreed that all donations raised would be transferred directly to Pusat Perubatan Universiti Malaya (PPUM) Hospital, for the hospital to purchase the necessary Zolgensma gene therapy medication from pharmaceutical company Novartis.
Of the total funds raised for the cause on Give.Asia’s platform, a portion would be used to cover Facebook marketing costs to push the campaign before more viewers and raise awareness, while part of it would also go towards processing fees charged by the banks. The final balance would then be paid out to the hospital.
Responding to queries from TODAY, Mr Tan and Ms Chung said that after the fundraising campaign had commenced, they began receiving phone calls and text messages from friends asking to directly transfer amounts into the couple’s personal bank accounts instead of donating via the Give.Asia platform.
Some said that they were not comfortable with providing their personal bank card details on the platform and preferred a direct bank transfer instead. In addition, there was a transaction limit and a default tipping setting which they were not aware of.
Some donors said that they felt it would be unfair for the fundraisers to bear the Facebook advertisement charges for the campaign, while some companies also requested to donate via a bank transfer or cheques – a mode of donation which was required for tax exemption and which Give.Asia’s platform was unable to offer.
“We did not want to accept personal bank transfer because we want to ensure transparency and credibility during the fundraising exercise,” said Mr Tan and Ms Chung. They were also “very uncomfortable” with the suggestion of raising a sum higher than the initial RM9,500,000 required, so as to cover Facebook advertising fees.
Given their predicament, Mr Tan and Ms Chung decided to end the campaign with Give.Asia on Dec 10 and asked for all funds raised till then – RM715,272.03 – to be transferred to a new fundraising platform, Malaysia-based OHC.
Give.Asia stated that it would need to “undergo its compliance process before the transfer can be completed (and) OHC will have to submit the necessary documents needed for the due diligence checks”. The documents included a form that requested more information on OHC’s background, as well as its charity registration document, bank statement and annual financial statements.
As OHC was unable to provide these documents, Give.Asia maintained that it could not transfer the funds to the charity.
While Give.Asia and Reese’s parents had also discussed the possibility of transferring the funds directly to PPUM Hospital, Mr Tan and Ms Chung said that the hospital refused to accept this as the amount raised was “not enough to purchase the drug and there’s no outstanding bill for Baby Reese”.
“We are so lost and confused with their payout process and we are not legally trained, so I think it's better for us not to interpret and compare both (platforms') agreements. For both agreements, I believe the aim is the same, which is to ensure the donation is used for proper purpose – for Baby Reese's treatment,” said Mr Tan and Ms Chung.
“For Baby Reese’s treatment, time is crucial as she must receive the Zolgensma treatment before she turns two. In order to avoid further delay for Baby Reese’s treatment, OHC had paid in advance to the pharmaceutical company, using their emergency reserved fund, for the shortfall amount that was supposed to be transferred from Give.Asia.”
With OHC’s payout, Reese successfully received the required Zolgensma treatment on Feb 8 this year.
In a press release issued on Tuesday, Give.Asia stated that it had reiterated, on Feb 22, the need to abide by the Singapore Charities Act and Regulations, and the importance of its compliance team conducting due diligence checks on the donations’ recipients.
“As the necessary documents from OHC were still pending at this point, the donations were unable to be transferred,” it said.
Give.Asia also reiterated its obligation to donors to ensure transparency and accountability for the donations.
As an agreement could not ultimately be reached by the parties involved, Give.Asia stated in a Facebook post on April 14 that it would provide a 100 per cent refund to all donors of the campaign, which would take five to 10 business days to complete.
“Give.Asia will also cover the cost of the operating fund (approximately RM45,000) for processing the donation and the Facebook advertising previously used to drive further awareness on the campaign,” it said in its subsequent press release on April 18.
When TODAY spoke with Give.Asia on Friday (April 21), it said that the refund process was underway.
Regarding Give.Asia’s latest move, Mr Tan and Ms Chung said: “We are currently seeking advice from the authorities pertaining to the issues arisen from Baby Reese’s campaign, such as the payout process, fundraising issues and refund issues.
“Upon obtaining such advices, we will take the necessary steps to ensure Baby Reese’s campaign achieves its purpose without any abuse or misconduct, as well as to make sure the kind assistance from the donors and OHC do not go wasted.”
‘CREDIBILITY AND REPUTATION AT STAKE’
There is no legislation surrounding donation-based crowdfunding for private causes, but many platforms including Give.Asia have voluntarily subscribed to Singapore’s Code of Practice for Online Charitable Fund-Raising Appeals.
“Legally, Baby Reese’s case is considered raising funds for a private cause and not a charitable purpose because to qualify as a charitable purpose requires the element of ‘public benefit’,” said Dr Tang Hang Wu, a law professor at the Singapore Management University.
Law experts believe that the reason Give.Asia has refused to hand over the funds to another platform is because its credibility and reputation are at stake if the money is not used for the described purposes.
Dr Tang said: “The funds were raised for purposes of purchasing Zolgensma gene therapy medication. But Give.Asia is unable to verify that the money would be used for this particular purpose based on the documentation provided to them and is refusing to hand over the money without proper documentation.”
Mr David Chee, a partner at law firm WongPartnership, said that if the money was transferred to OHC and it does not eventually go to the hospital, Give.Asia could be held liable.
He added: “The main duty imposed on the person conducting the fundraising appeal – Give.Asia – is that they have to be absolutely transparent and accountable to the donors.
“If the funds are raised with a particular object in mind – so it depends on how they have scoped the request, what the money is going to be used for – then they have to use the money for that particular purpose, or based on what has been described to the donor.
“And if they cannot use the money in the way that has been promised to the donor, then under the rules, they have to return the money to the donor.”
Both experts said that, ultimately, fundraisers who use such platforms are bound by contractual law, and are subject to the terms and conditions agreed upon by both parties – the platform and the fundraiser – when the contract was signed.
“When the fundraisers use the Give.Asia platform, they must have agreed to submit to Give.Asia’s terms and conditions. I am sure that the terms and conditions would have included the term that payment would only be made upon verification of purpose,” Dr Tang said.
Mr Chee added: “Certainly, the law doesn’t delve into the contracts or the agreement signed between the platform and each fundraiser.
“The starting point has always got to be: What exactly is the fundraising request and how is it couched.”
Noting also that the fundraising campaign had spanned across two territories – Singapore and Malaysia – Mr Chee said that the Republic's fundraising rules do not have extra-territorial reach.
“Our rules are only applicable to fundraising appeals carried out in Singapore,” he said, adding that such cross-border cases are “very hard to police”.
TODAY has reached out to One Hope Charity and the Singapore Commissioner of Charities for comments.
