Its good politics for Opposition [PR/Kit/Karpal/Tunku Abdul Aziz and all who wish for good/democratic governance] to harp on the PM’s “infamous RM5 million “deal” at Rejang Park” as a corrupt act under our Elections laws and that includes goading MACC why its not investigating.

In a very ‘broad’ – and even common sensical – sense it looks like, sound like or at least skates at the edge of corruption. Corruption is a behavior which deviates from the formal duties of a public role. There are various types but lets focus on two types: (1) bribery ie use of a reward to pervert the judgment of a person in a position of trust (public official) and this includes bribing the traffic cop who waives the summon for private gain; (2) the reverse in an electoral situation where a public official bribes or tries to bribe voters to vote for him or his party. This is wrong because candidate is not supposed to bestow such financial rewards to skew the judgment of a voter who then votes for him not on the merits of his capability as a public official or the merits of his professed policies or policies of his party but by promise of private gain on the part of the individual voter. In both cases of (1) and (2) both giver and taker are corrupt.

We are sure that in all the elections and by elections of the last 50 years – invcluding Sibu – there were rampant incidences of electoral corruption in sense (2) above. It just that there’s no proof. An example of such corruption is where the candidate or his campaign agent gives a wad of notes to (say) a Tuak Iban community headman with an arrangement that he procures all votes of himself and those he leads in the long house to vote for the candidate. For a corrupt act to take place our election laws make clear that the corrupt gift need not only be money involved – any benefit in kind would suffice which would include fishing net, refridgerators, washing machines, televisions, even food and drinks or even a position in the government or a waiver of a fine or a charge, ineed any favour.

However by that same election laws what is deemed corrupt when given to an individual voter is not deemed corrupt when given to a class of voters, whether that “class” pertains to the Iban Community of a certain district, a school, a township like Sibu plagued by flooding or a community like Felda settlers, or class of people in the state or a class of people of a certian age group.

This makes many think the law is an ass. How could an act like giving RM500 to a voter is corrupt by our election law be turned “white’ and washed clean as not corrupt when given not to an individual voter but a class of voters in amounts 10,000 times larger (RM5 million) to a class of voters (Sibuans) by way of financial assistance for Sibu’s flooding problem?

The reason is that whilst the intent of that gift is corrupt (to improperly influence votes), yet the improper motive could camouflage itself under a lawful/proper pretext of allocation of development funds – never mind that its done selectively – or articulation of political policies. Politicians on both sides do it all the time. In Sibu/Hulu Selangor by elections, monies (not personal money or slush funds but Federal Funds) was given or promised to be given to schools, FELDA settlers, churches and in fact whole town of Sibu for the flooding. PR too make promises that if it came to power all Sarawakians above 60 would get a sum of money and Sarawakians wwould get 20% instead of current 5% of Petronas oil royalties. Even in the US if Obama says if you vote for him/his party he would cut taxes a kind of monetray inducement for votes. But articulated as a political policy and if monies benefit not an individual voter but a class its not deemed corrupt by law!

The PM is of course not that naive to openly break the law (though we opposed to BN would hope he does so).

Our law is already settled as long ago as in 1981 Federal court case between DAP’s Teoh Teik Huat against the late MCA’s Penang Chief Lim Kean Siew over the Pengkalan Kota seat. Lim Kean Siew won. DAP’s Teoh alleged that victory was tainted by corruption and illegality under our Election laws of what then Finance Minister our Tengku Razaleigh promised the electorate. Tengku Razaleigh promised that if the Barisan Nasional won, he would personally give more money for the improvement of Pengkalan kota!

The Federal Court did not agree that what Ku Li said was corrupt or an offence under our election laws. The highest court ruled that it was not an offence but in line with the responsibility of the government to ensure development and allocate funds regardless of whether there was an election This is what the presiding Judge EUSOFFE ABDOOLCADER said: (Quote) “On a careful and considered examination and evaluation, I can only conclude, in a penumbra of phrases knitted in alliteration that the words allegedly uttered by Tengku Razaleigh to the effect that if Barisan Nasional wins, he would personally give more money for the improvement of Pengkalan kota, perceived in passionless and in the proper context of an election campaign often conducted with a fervour calculated to outdo even the Befrienders and invariably pregnant with partisan promises and in which some forensic flexing of political muscle is not an uncommon or unknown phenomenon, did not perforce pose or constitute a promise or pre-engagement by him in his personal capacity with any corrupt intention of any designated sum of money or valuable consideration to ot for any one or more particular elector or voter for corrupt inducement to exert his or her personal predilection at the polls in favour of the 1st respondent (Lim Kean Siew) but were in effect and in intention no more than a broad political articulation in his office as Minister of Finance of the party in power’s potential pull on the public purse-strings to pursue promises, propitiate pleas and propel and promote projects and programes for amelioration and development in the constituency for the benefit and progress of that locality and all its commorants generally if the ruling party gained the seat in contest and that he was personally in a position within the pale of his portfolio as the Minister to sanction schemes and endorse expenses on behalf of the governemtn to this end. To hold otherwise in the circumstances of this case would be to effectuate and sanction a spurious conversation of political proclamations and catchwords manifested as a promise of public action into an inflexible electoral offence with criminal connotations bereft of the essential prerequisites therefor” (Unquote).

Two things must be borned in mind.

First: Eusoffe Abdoolcader was not a pro bodek government judge. He was one of the five judges sacked in 1988 for standing up for Tun Salleh Abas against TDM.

Second: Karpal Singh knows this law pretty well and yet for political puposes he wants to cite Najib in parallel situation like Ku Li exonerated. This is not only because Karapl is a famous lawyer erudite in law but more importantly he was the lawyer arguing that 1981 case for DAP’s Teoh Teik Huat. When Lim Kean Siew died recently this is what Karpal himself said publicly in memoriam of Kean Siew: (Quote)” I first knew him in 1968 when I was reading chambers but I faced him in the courtroom when the DAP filed an election petition against Kean Siew when he won the Pengkalan Kota seat” (Unquote).

What I said is in accordance with Malaysian elections law (1981 Federal court case between DAP’s Teoh Teik Huat against the late MCA’s Penang Chief Lim Kean Siew over the Pengkalan Kota seat). I could not give details here for readers’ benefit as I have been moderated consistently for trying to explain the position.

Quote) “On a careful and considered examination and evaluation, I can only conclude, in a penumbra of phrases knitted in alliteration that the words allegedly uttered by Tengku Razaleigh to the effect that if Barisan Nasional wins, he would personally give more money for the improvement of Pengkalan kota, perceived in passionless and in the proper context of an election campaign often conducted with a fervour calculated to outdo even the Befrienders and invariably pregnant with partisan promises and in which some forensic flexing of political muscle is not an uncommon or unknown phenomenon, did not perforce pose or constitute a promise or pre-engagement by him in his personal capacity with any corrupt intention of any designated sum of money or valuable consideration to ot for any one or more particular elector or voter for corrupt inducement to exert his or her personal predilection at the polls in favour of the 1st respondent (Lim Kean Siew) but were in effect and in intention no more than a broad political articulation in his office as Minister of Finance of the party in power’s potential pull on the public purse-strings to pursue promises, propitiate pleas and propel and promote projects and programes for amelioration and development in the constituency for the benefit and progress of that locality and all its commorants generally if the ruling party gained the seat in contest and that he was personally in a position within the pale of his portfolio as the Minister to sanction schemes and endorse expenses on behalf of the governemtn to this end. To hold otherwise in the circumstances of this case would be to effectuate and sanction a spurious conversation of political proclamations and catchwords manifested as a promise of public action into an inflexible electoral offence with criminal connotations bereft of the essential prerequisites therefor” (Unquote) – Eusoffe Abdoolcader Federal Court 1981.

pw cheng, its not that the law is an ass, its just that its extremely difficult, from the practical view point- in the area of electioneering and political contestation to proscribe promises of development funds, which by all definition is an inducment to vote for benefit of money) as “corrupt” or illegal. This is because politics concern getting as many votes from different contituencies and segments. Anywhere in the world different segments are interested how they benefit as a group from a particular cnadidate or party and this benefit is always something to do with money – whether federal allocations for scholarships, acquisition of land, more oil royalties, more financial assistance for the needy, whether handicapped, aged or sometimes just economically handicapped….If ist not direct allocation its another form of monetary benefit ie reduction of direct or indirect taxes or provision of subsidies (for fishermen farmers etc). How to escape from the Money Equation when articulating one’s political platform?

Having said that, its also how you put forward something. Many people take offense with the way the PM condescendingly puts it -“Lets have a deal, can or not???” It exacerbates the feeling that its hardly best practice in democracy when one leverages against rakyat that (development funds) which rightly are what they are entitled whether or not that segment votes for his candidate and party. Also with such powers over selective allocation the Opposition is fighting on an unlevel playing field with gradient steeped against it, in favour of the incumbent, even if they misrule.

But because of the difficulty of drawing the line, its pretty settled that such promises of development funds and financial benefit (from state coffers and individual monies) not to individual voter but classes of voters as a group (as part of articulation of political policies) is definitely lawful and not corrupt within meaning of the law.

The BN govt has turned this leverage to state of art. To gain votes and maintain its political dominance it had promised all sorts of gifts to the different communities: more scholarships for peasants and the most deprived Malays, increased expenditure for infrastructures in the villages, the creation of two million jobs in five years. The government had promised funds for Chinese schools and land for Indians for the reconstruction of destroyed temples. It reaffirmed its will to maintain the NEP in the face of demands for reforms from the non-Malay communities. This explained quite a lot why it could maintain power for so long.

Due to the deepening of democracy at least within some classes of Malaysians we would eschew this blatant abuse of federal allocation. But we cannot for practical reason change or expect the law to be changed but we do expect incumbent to make federal allocation in good faith and not in an unfair way.

I bring up to this point is simply because much as we eschew such practices we cannot say they are against our election laws when they arer obviously not. And MPs including Opposition are supposed to make and know the law of the country and ought not, for political points and advantage, say something is against the law when its not. Esp when the MP is a lawyer who fought the very case that laid down the law. In that case Ku Li as Finance Minister promised that if the BNl won, he would personally give more money for the improvement of Pengkalan kota.

It is Lim Kam Put’s forte to insult (all form and no beer remarks) just so to provoke reaction and get attention. This is the way to commence an argument even if there’s no reason to provoke one in the first place except the advantage to get into one for its own sake. Its a game he plays that does not even require thinking or getting any facts or perspectives right first. The reason is simple : nothiong guarantees a provocation of an argument for argument sake better than just making some nonsensical insulting remarks, dsitorting what the other says, the more one gets the facts wrong and the other’s comments, the better the assurance the other would respond and stoop to his level of entry into the argument in the first place. In other language its called flaming.

I don’t see how he is helping the Opposition’s cause. This blog is linked to many other websites like for eg The MalaysianInsider, Malaysiakini and others of serious readership.

Instead of adding credibility to this blog to help disseminate varied points of view – in hope that grass roots can get insight and expand democracy from masses’ level – what he does here is like what a commentator (cto) described as a “pyromaniac” to start flames whether for his own personal amusement or relieve his egocentric impulses in each case undermining or provoking altercations undermining the credibility of this blog in the eyes of others who visit here. This tendency of his is even mentioned in other blogs eg Susan Loone’s.

“Limkamput may be sometimes another nut there and maybe another erstwhile imposter elsewhere too but this one is worse. Imagine the LKS moderator(s) giving him all the leeway there nevertheless. It reflects on LKS’s blog.
That’s why I don’t partake in commenting there. Rather disgusting.”

By commentator, wits0 – March 25, 2009 at 10:51 am

Ref: http://sloone.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/kit-siang-when-will-the-opposition-topple-najib/

///Jeffrey, nice try to get me moderated or thrown out, don’t you?/// – LimKamPut.

You are very wrong: if I want to get you thrown out why would I go to our Moderator?

Trolling – ie the posting of provocative, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, notwithstanding it is due to pent up frustration, paranoia, various personal insecurities or just overall boring and unfulfilling lives – is a cyber offence under our cyber laws – and a simple complaint to the proper authorities via filling up a form and emailing it, citing the number of instances of your trollish postings, forming permanent record in cyber space, easily retrievable will be sufficient for the Regulator to requst this blog for your Internet Protocol.

It is just that I still respect the freedom of speech not to think seriously of this.

Just because you don’t agree with postings you make allegations that the poster is “compromised” or bought over.

According to your own postings you had served the BN government in public service and got benefits and medal/title out of it: who are you to rant others of being “compromised” or bought over when better part of your productive life has been doing that, serving an administration that after retiring you criticise??? In what way you’re different from Mahathir talking about Zubir being the only one asked to leave in Sime Darby RM1.8 billion losses when in his time Ismail Zakaria was only one asked to leave???

No wonder a commentator here says in #43 that you’re “a little mahathir in ego and a lot of nazri” posted on Saturday, 30 January 2010 under Blog thread “Disappointed Doctor” filed under Good Governance, public service.

//Prove it, show it//

You deny that in archives you yourself had said you had a pingat? Not too long ago when Godfather mentioned some honour you deny you posted that he downgraded the honour/title you actually received? Would you get one if you did not serve BN??? Don’t twist and turn for convenience like Mamakthir!

/// But if i complain against you, i am sure nothing would happen, right or not sage. You really can’t see your own follies, you are a nincompoop.///

You wanna run a test?

///But the fact is if one has worked in the public service, that does not ipso facto preclude him/her from talking about issues of public importance to this country/// – LimKamPut

That is true. Just like the fact that under Mahathir’s administration the fact that only Ismail Zakaria was asked to go when Sime Bank’s loss blew up in public face does and ought not preclude the ex premier from now criticising why only ex CEO Ahmad Zubir was asked to be accountable ion the latest Sime Darby’s mega financial loss.

So I must be wrong. So was Kit when he said “however, Mahathir should not be overhasty in his bombardment of Musa and Sime Darby, as during the Sime Bank Bhd financial crisis when it incurred losses amounting to RM1.8 billion during the 1997/8 Asian financial crisis”.

We’re talking of same thing, aren’t we – whether “compromised” or bought over (short term) or long service under BN admin???

///Glad all are faarking him….left and right/// – MonsterBall though there’s always the risks of getting a syphilitic sore.

I mean metaphorically speaking a syphilitic sore in the brain, lest I were misunderstood!