FAM’s audit belongs to the public

 Transparency is not government interference. When taxpayers help fund football, accountability becomes a public obligation.

The Football Association of Malaysia has every right to govern football independently.

What it does not have is the right to use that independence as a shield against scrutiny.

That distinction sits at the centre of the growing debate over whether the Asian Football Confederation’s full audit report on FAM should be released to the public.

After Bukit Gelugor MP Ramkarpal Singh called for the report to be disclosed and debated in Parliament, FAM secretary Noor Azman Rahman warned against government interference in football affairs.

Former president Hamidin Amin similarly suggested that any decision on disclosure should rest with FAM’s future leadership and discussions with AFC.

The concern appears straightforward: football associations must remain free from political control.

That code is important. It is also being stretched far beyond its intended meaning.

Nobody is asking Parliament to appoint the national coach. Nobody is proposing that ministers select players, run competitions or manage FAM’s daily affairs.

The public is asking a far simpler question.

How was Malaysian football managed during a period that an AFC audit found to be marked by deep weaknesses in oversight, finance, administration and organisational culture?

That is not interference but accountability.

Independence is not secrecy

Football’s governing bodies guard their autonomy fiercely because history shows what happens when governments attempt to control sport.

Fifa has suspended national associations when political authorities removed elected officials, dissolved football bodies, appointed administrators or interfered directly in decision-making.

Countries such as Pakistan, Nigeria, Kenya and Indonesia have all experienced disputes that crossed those lines.

The principle is clear: governments should not run football.

But it has never meant football organisations are exempt from scrutiny, especially when their actions affect the public interest.

There is a significant difference between political control and public accountability.

One undermines sporting independence. The other strengthens confidence in the institutions that govern the game.

FAM appears to be conflating the two.

Requesting access to an audit report is not the same as demanding control of football operations.

Calling for parliamentary debate is not the same as appointing administrators.

Seeking answers is not the same as taking over an association.

The public is not asking to run football. It is asking to understand how football was run.

Public money creates public interest

This is where the argument becomes much harder for FAM to sustain.

For years, Malaysian football has benefited from substantial public support through government allocations, facilities, programmes and various forms of assistance.

When the national team succeeds, football officials are often quick to acknowledge that backing.

When questions arise, however, independence suddenly becomes the dominant defence.

That inconsistency is difficult to ignore.

Public support inevitably creates public interest.

The AFC audit did not examine a private company operating behind closed doors. It examined the country’s most important football institution, one that carries the national badge, receives public support and represents millions of Malaysians.

The findings already disclosed were serious.

The audit found that annual budgets had not been tabled before congress for almost a decade.

It identified weaknesses in oversight, gaps in compliance, concentration of authority, staffing imbalances and a workplace culture where employees often felt unable to raise concerns openly.

Those findings alone would justify public discussion.

They raise legitimate questions about how decisions were made, how resources were managed and how accountability functioned during that period.

More importantly, they raise a question that FAM has yet to answer convincingly.

If the sections already revealed are this troubling, why should Malaysians not see the rest?

Puzzling reluctance

Perhaps the most puzzling aspect of this uproar is the reluctance to release the report.

Most organisations confronted with a comprehensive external review would seize the opportunity to demonstrate that they are serious about reform.

They would point to the findings, acknowledge shortcomings and use transparency to build credibility.

Instead, the conversation has shifted towards whether the public should even be allowed to read the document.

That is a strategic mistake. Secrecy rarely calms public concern. It usually amplifies it.

When information remains hidden, people begin to speculate. They wonder whether the disclosed findings tell the whole story.

They ask whether more damaging conclusions remain buried in sections that have not been made public.

The longer that uncertainty persists, the harder it becomes to rebuild confidence.

FAM says it wants change. The AFC says it will monitor progress for the next two years.

Both AFC and Fifa have effectively attached their credibility to a reform process that will require regular reporting, structural changes and measurable progress.

Against that backdrop, withholding the report sends the wrong signal.

It suggests that transparency has limits and that the people should accept the diagnosis but not see the medical chart.

That position becomes increasingly difficult to defend.

If FAM believes the audit marks the beginning of a new chapter, then it should trust Malaysians enough to let them read it.

Because the strongest football institutions do not earn confidence by hiding uncomfortable findings.

They earn it by confronting them openly. And until the report is released, the question will not be what the AFC found.

The question will be why Malaysians are not allowed to see it. - FMT

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.