What about election corruption Pak Lah?

The euphoria these past weeks prompted my question, what about election corruption Pak Lah?

The administration denies that the recent spate of arrests for corruption with promises of more to come, has anything to do with the general election in boosting popularity for Umno or the Barisan Nasional (BN). Rightly so, as it would be certain death to Pak Lah's esteem, if he stops his fight on graft, short of the general election.

These arrests of the allegedly corrupt, are made on almost the eve of election day, so to speak, with punters citing end of March as election day. It should become incumbent upon the administration to respond to corrupt and illegal practices at elections as well. Pak Lah would certainly be much embarrassed if like he said, "cakap tak serupa bikin" (words do not match deeds).

In my sojourn with election campaigners in 1999, where for the first time, so many of us actually read the electoral laws, opposition candidates said that it is almost impossible to get elections set aside on illegal and corrupt practices. They should know better, they have tried. There were also grouses expressed on enforcement agencies like the AntiCorruption Agency (ACA) and the police on their "tidak apa" or lackadaisical attitude on public complaints or reports on corruption.

In the Bukit Begunan (1997) case in Sarawak, a witness informed the court that he went to the ACA to lodge a complaint on corruption, but ACA officers told him that it was not necessary to lodge a report. He then went to lodge a police report in Sekama, but was given the runaround. He managed to lodge a police report at another police station in Sri Aman. He tendered this police report in court.

In the Likas case in Sabah (2000), the election judge exposed the fact that he was given "a directive over the phone" to strike out the petition without a hearing. The petition was based, among others, on a tainted electoral roll and illegal and corrupt practices. The judge's words are in the case report as a reminder to us of the fragile position of our judiciary.

Political masters

But we have been promised that change is in the air. In the words of the judge in Likas, "a

government is trustee of the people, and being elected by the people, it owes a higher responsibilityit must act honestly and responsibly."

We hope that this change is not limited to what this administration thinks ought to be prosecuted. The urgency to combat corruption wherever it may fall, should filter down the ranks. Enforcement should be a matter of course and not direction from the socalled "political masters".

In an election petition case where illegal and corrupt practices are cited, it is the petitioner who will have to prove the allegations in an election court under the Election Offences Act.

In all other cases, it will be the ACA and the police who are responsible in investigating any complaint or report of corruption. In this case, it would be the state (public prosecutor) who will bring the case to court. This is even so, if the corrupt practice happens at an election and is an electoral offence.

The Election Commission (EC) has very little powers of inquiry and no enforcement powers on illegal and corrupt practices at an election, although an EC officer like any other person may file a report or be called as a witness in a given case.

Multiprong strategy

There are possible multiprong strategies for campaign workers and human rights defenders to raise concerns to combat corruption at an election. These may fall under the Election Offences Act or the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Penal Code. Complaints in any case could be lodged with the National Human Rights Commission or Suhakam and the Police Commission.

This would be in addition to any other NGO initiative like the Charter 2000Aliran Malaysian Election Media Monitors Initiative, and the Majlis Transparensi Malaysia initiated by His Majesty's loyal opposition.

In the Bukit Begunan case, the election judge himself took the option under section 37 of the Election Offences Act, to report the corrupt and illegal practices of three persons who have been proved to be involved in bribery and votebuying in that case. They are not parties to the election petition. The same section allows such persons to be first heard and show cause. This is perhaps the first such case, where this has happened, only because I think we had a proactive judge in that case.

This special section also allows the EC upon receiving such a report from the election judge, to deregister the voter, after publication of the report in the government gazette. The remedy in this section is independent of the Prevention of Corruption Act or the Penal Code.

Fear and intimidation

The difficulty of proving illegal and corrupt practices is perhaps reflected in the same Bukit Begunan case. In that case, one witness who was to give evidence of "fishing" for the votes at a longhouse for RM2,750 has simply disappeared. Intimidation and much fear surround these events. We hope nothing worse has happened to potential witnesses other than being suborned.

This must have prompted the election judge in that case to make a special comment. He said, "The evidence reveals that some persons had set in motion the wheel of fate and had chained voters to it and this wheel had crushed and is going to be everturning and crushing virtues unless stopped in its track. It is fortunate that the voters in this case, at least those that we know of, had broken themselves free from this chain and came to court to testify."

The fear of coming forward to give evidence in these situations may be so because there is inadequate support from police and the ACA whose offices are mandated to fight crime and graft. Perhaps this administration will also see it fit to discipline errant officers promptly as well.

Corrupt and illegal practices at elections take many forms. In the recently launched Charter 2000Aliran initiative, concern is also expressed on "government subsidies or fund allocations" that would amount to bribery and abuse by the caretaker government.

'Malaysian way of life'

In older election petition cases, these instances might not annul the election. In a 1993 case, the election agent of the returned candidate visited land settlers, who are voters in the constituency and promised them land titles on Oct 20 1990. Polling day fell on Oct 21, 1990.

The election agent was a member of the state executive council and a decision had already been made by the executive council to deliver titles on Oct 15. The titles were actually due several years ago in 1986 but were given only in 1990. The allegation of corrupt practice unfortunately failed. The election judge among others considered the task of the agent in delivering titles as a task he was "officially assigned to do" and it fell within the scope of the government to pursue promises.

In the Likas case, the candidate in question and his supporters "days before election day", brought and distributed to the people food stuff such as 25 kg rice each, milk, sugar, cooking oil and flour. Some voters were supplied building materials such as zinc roofs, planks, boards and water tanks. Roads, canals, boats and perahu (smaller boats) were built for the voters. There was also distribution of money. However the evidence was held to be too general to prove corruption.

The election judge in Likas said something quite disturbing. It was perhaps a cynical observation. He said that the "generous care and concern" of candidates to voters, which, happens once in every five years is "a Malaysian way of life, a tradition as it were, that prior to an election, contesting candidates will visit their constituency with all types of gifts or presents in their endeavour to win or influence voters to their side.:

'Irresistible inference'