This refers to the story Selangor should stand firm on zakat .

There are only three possible reasons for unaudited accounts where said monies are being held in trust.

One is criminal intent. The second is the person /organisation knows it is unnecessary because they know the monies are well spent and any auditing is taken as personally insulting.

A third reason some public entity would want no audit is to avoid the politics of negative reaction from some quarters, as to where the zakat was being distributed and where it was not.

None of the reasons is valid for negating the benefit to society of the transparency and accountability of audited accounts.

It is not a question of selective mistrust. No one person or organisation is being singled out. What mandatory auditing recognises is statistically, public monies do get used criminally and people have suspicious thoughts.

Auditing mitigates both the frequency of corrupt acts and worrisome thoughts.

Democracy is a majority rule with minority rights. When the majority needlessly suppresses a civil liberty that has a more adverse effect on the subgroup than any benefit to the majority, it is persecution. For example, denying people aged 50 to 59 the right to vote is persecution.

Conversely, if the minority exercises a civil right, the exercising of which has a more deleterious effect on the majority than any benefit to the minority, it is anarchy.

If every public, religious and secular entity exercised a legal right to not have an audit the result would be anarchy.

Both anarchy and persecution have no place in a democracy.