(MACC) Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan declared categorically that money politics money politics that constitutes corruption is “when you pay people to vote for you”. I suppose he means paying electors/voters not just in by – elections and general elections but also paying delegates/divisions heads to vote one into important party positions.
This is way way too narrow. It is tipping the tip of an iceberg.
According to MACC Act, “gratification” as ingredient of corruption is very wide including, not just money and other tangible gifts like donation, interest in property movable or immovable or other financial advantage but also all promises of any public office/positions, contract of employment or services, rendering of services in any capacity, any valuable consideration of any kind, not just discount, commissions percentage deduction, rebate but also any promise to forbear demanding any money or to forbear taking any official action, exercising any official power, right or duty or taking any action or proceedings of dsiplinary, civil or criminal nature……etc The means money politics includes not just the distribution of financial and material benefits (money, gifts and rents and their kind), but also symbolic values like status and “inclusion” from promises of political and public posts.
In addition money politics coming under “corruption” will also extend to the other side of from where and what sources (corporate or public) and by what methods and for what consideration given in exchange campaign funds are raised to fight by elections and general elections.
All things considered, there is not a single politician who will pass the test of not being ‘corrupt’ one way or another under the MACC definitions.

To the question “what is the MACC waiting for?” it also means that if the MACC director general and the public prosecutor were not “selective” in investigating or prosecuting, and were to go strictly by the book and the MACC Act, just about every politician will be investigated and prosecuted for infractions, whether big or small, and the entire political system will implode. :)

YB Kit,

It is not a good idea at all for you (especially in circumstances of political defection or intending defection from BN to PR) to urge with alacrity and fervour the MACC to investigate/charge those whom BN defectors or intending defectors complain as having used money politics to defeat them as division chiefs – even if money politics is corruption !

This is because political defection from UMNO – the circumstances and reasons for it – are often laden with corrupt nuances, and to the extent that PR conduces, abets and facilitates such defections/crossovers – to make up the majority numbers in parliament to accelerate the earlier fall of the BN govt. before the next election – PR is equally implicated in corrupt acts as well under the same purview of the MACC as those whom these defectors accuse as corrupt for resorting to money politics to defeat them in divisional elections!

This means that as one points the forefinger at a wrong doer, the thumb is pointing back at the pointer. I will explain this a bit more in the next post(s) following.

I draw your attention to the MACC Act.

It is an offence under section 16(b) of that draconian legislation for any person (which may include a political party) to “corruptly” give, promise or offer to any other person(s) (which may include a political defector) any “gratification (which may include offering party positions) as an inducement to, or a reward for, or otherwise on account of. ..any person doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter or transaction, actual or proposed or likely to take place. . .”(which may include the act of political defection).

The key element is however the word “corruptly” : it must colour the entire transaction ie. the political defection of which PR here abets and facilitates.

The MACC does not itself define “corrupt “. We fall back on its ordinary meanings as explained in dictionaries : changing from a state of uprightness, correctness, truth, etc., to a worse state; vitiated; depraved; debased; perverted; marked by immorality and perversion; destructive or subversive of the principles of honesty or integrity.

I invite you to draw the proper conclusions.

The danger is that when one keeps overarching focus on the ends/objective (ostensibly to capture and return power to the people) and start making compromises in one’s means/methods (eg. canvassing & soliciting political defections without too much concern for the motivations of defections or whether one gets implicated in acts that border on corruption) just to accelerate the getting of the numbers as soon as possible), it may, as experience will teach us, all too easily lead to the means over taking and subverting the ends itself.

Compromise to, and reluctance to draw the line on certain principles often pave the way easier to make more compromises down the slippery slope.

Just like sex, it gets easier after the first time, and if one is not vigilant to draw a line may lead to promiscuity and debauchery.

Especially what is fought for is over power, and we’ re reminded of Lord Acton’s dictum, “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely” – as it has happened in BN’s case, it could happen to PR if we’re not vigilant about its method of securing power via political defections of BN’s politicians having their seats on B N’s ticket.

I have taken pains in above posting to show how PR in soliciting, conducing, facilitating crossovers may be implicated in abetment of transactions which may come under the wide and uncertain purview of MACC Act.

One will recall Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim Malaysia’s most famous crusader for integrity and transparency [formerly vice chairman of Transparency International and founder President of the Kuala Lumpur Society for Transparency and Integrity, the Malaysian Chapter of Transparency International] and now DAP national vice chairman is on record for being dead set against Anwar’s gambit of securing political defections as means to securing earlier power.

One also recalls none of the DAP’s stalwarts including YB Kit Siang or Karpal Singh have publicly endorsed or commended this pl an/method of Anwar though, in interest of PR’s unity, they do not publicly oppose or criticize it, and hence are deemed to acquiesce that which they cannot change even if they have preferred so.

Silence/acquiescence is not approval, endorsement or blessing.

On Perak defections readers may read this report by The Malaysia Insider at this link: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/16939-defection-prompts-tajol-to-quit-as-perak-umno-boss-soon

One interesting excerpt in the article is this comment : “The veteran Perak leader has seen his influence diminish when he was moved from the Parit parliament seat constituency to the Bota state seat in the last elections. While he won the state seat, he lost his Felcra chairmanship, a position normally given to an MP.”
l

The truly credible may not of course want you as a client whatever the fee you pay since you would want him to advocate along lines that are in accord with your sentiments even if it may lose the case, in impairment of his reputation/standing. :)

The DAP is not exactly in favour of Anwar’s strategy of courting crossovers of BN political factors.

The DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng is in favour of amending the Constitution to provide for legislation of anti hopping law. Guan Eng is reported to have said that there should be a byelection to allow those who want to defect to another party to first resign and re-contest the same seat.

See news report in The Star Published on Thursday January 29, 2009 by Zulkifly Mohamad under caption “Guan Eng: Need for anti-hopping law”.

There are two constitutional provisons presently arrayed against the proposed anti-hopping law.

The first provision is Article 10(1)(c) on Freedom of Association. In 1992, when a PAS MP hopped over to BN, the High Court declared the anti-hop law unconstitutional as it went against the Freedom of Association.

Any attempt to resign as MP in order to re–contest by-election on the other side’s ticket confronts the second obstacle in Article 48(6) which provides that a person who resigns his membership of the House of Representatives shall, for a period of five years beginning with the date on which his resignation takes effect, be disqualified from being a member of the House of Representatives…

For so long as these two provisions are not amended, the anti-hopping law can neither be legislated nor will it work!

So, without such anti hopping law, and by reason of Article 48(6), prevailing practice of political defector is not to resign as MP (even though he won this ticket under the auspices of the party that he is leaving) but just cross over to the other side, without having to seek fresh mandate from voters of that constitutency in a by- election as suggested by DAP’s Lim Guan Eng.

What should be noted is that Anwar Ibrahim’s current to canvass cross-overs & defections to topple the BN is based on this prevailing deplorable practice stated in preceding paragraph.

DAP national vice chairman Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim has criticized Anwar’s methods/ strategy that goes against the grain of what Lim Guan Eng said.

This is because such political defections actively canvassed by him are contrary to democratic precepts requiring the defector to first resign to re-seek fresh mandate from a by – election (which admittedly is presently not possible without constitutional amendment/anti hopping law in place).

It is not as if Anwar is pushing for constitutional amendments and antihopping law to be passed before he em barks on canvassing for defections. He is doing well before constitutional amendments and antihopping law – which makes current defections canvassed by him indefensible !

I criticise Anwar not only because his strategy of toppling BN by prevailing practice of political crossovers is undemocratic.

I question whether he knew what he was doing because the MACC newly enacted (esp section 16(b)) changes the whole complexion of elements within such political defections from the undemocratic to (arguably) the criminal/corrupt. He neither serves the cause of his own family, Pakatan Rakyat or the Country if, in the rush to topple the other side and secure power fast, he is unconcerned about the risks of being entrapped under the draconian provisions of MACC.

I don’t understand why some of you would so quickly defend him from criticisms in this respect.