Once in a while, an innocent man is sent to the legislature.
– Mark Twain, American writer
Mark Twain’s paradox would postulate that, in a perfect world, the whole idea of running for public office is to serve the public selflessly. Hidden agendas, unseen hands, ulterior motives, undue influence, deception, deceit, and chicanery are out of the equation – in a perfect world, of course.
In America, your success in any election depends on your highly honed ability to raise money throughout the campaign trail. Money politics reign and rule supreme after the US Supreme Court struck down limitations and prohibitions on campaign financing from whatever source in the celebrated Citizens United case of 2010. The floodgates could never be shut. Monkey-see-monkey-do in other nations, too.
In Malaysia, treating, undue influence, and bribery are the major highlights of the Election Offences Act 1954 (Act 5) that is statutorily punishable. These three offences, willy-nilly, involve money which raises the question as to whether it is humanly possible to conduct elections without its attractive stench.
In a perfect world, you plan, prioritise and plot your campaign trail with your own money, and the money that your supporters are willing to spend and expend on themselves to give you the support optics as you go around the country telling voters what you can do, and what you will not do.
Do you need banners, buntings, posters, photographs, neon lights, and other accoutrements? What law, habit, custom or tradition mandates campaign-sponsored money from a moral, cultural, political, religious, ethical or legal standpoint?
If you are an incumbent, the voters know you, and if you are not, then your personality and charisma, if there’s substance in them, ought to take you to the finishing line, right? So, ignorance, innocence and naivete aside, why does money come into the picture knowing that the election laws forbid treating, bribery and corruption?
Despite the three offences mentioned in the law of the land, elections-seeking candidates are in the habit of accepting money in the millions from private individuals and private corporations in the hope of being awarded juicy contracts worth billions. That has been the norm. It bears the stamp of a customary elections culture in most democracies.
Why the stench of expensive money deposits for a candidate seeking election in Malaysia? It’s waived in the Republic of Ireland and Canada.
The Federal Constitution (FC) at Article 118 offers a “method of challenging election” at the High Court involving an election to the Dewan Rakyat or the Legislative Assembly of a State. It is painted with a precision brush upon the canvas of judicial independence.
The findings and judgment of the Election Judge is considered final, with some exceptions, under section 36 of the Election Offences Act 1954 (Act 5) as upheld in Wee Choo Keong v. Lee Chong Meng & Anor 1996 [CA], a case involving a winning election candidate who was convicted and fined before the elections.
The three election offences mentioned speak volumes for vote-buying when the High Court affirmed and confirmed a petition in the Donald Lawan/Bkt Bangunan case (1995) in Sarawak. Transparency International organised a political financing forum in 2009 which witnessed the legendary passing of the buck scene between the No. 2 man of the Election Commission and the MACC spokesperson as to who should be the enforcer of the law. Surely, the forum was aware that politics and puppet-masters constitute the supreme law of the land.
The best punishment obviously lies in the hands of the voters who are not afraid to watch their wallets. Roman historian Plutarch summed it up for all time: “The abuse of buying and selling votes crept in and money began to play an important part in determining elections. Later on, this process of corruption spread to the law courts. And then to the army, and finally the Republic was subjected to the rule of emperors.”
Plutarch’s observation rings true today in many “democratic capitalistic” regimes that unabashedly and unashamedly endorse vote buying. Egalitarianism is frowned. The inferiors fight for equal treatment. The equals fight for superior status. This madness between have-little and have-much must be destroyed. What exactly does equality under the law mean when socio-economic and political equality are untenable, unreachable and unavailable?
Who knows, a day may come when elections without money will gain a stronghold and offer a just society where equality is not associated with any ludicrous political formula. It’s not utopian to yearn for such a state of affairs when contentment destroys all the unwanted negativity.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of New Sarawak Tribune.
