.png)
WE have seen how politicians from various parties suddenly become so generous when state or federal legislative bodies are dissolved paving the way for elections.
They come up with novel ideas to do “charity”. Voters are given cash “reimbursements” to cover travelling expenses – free petrol is poured into motorcycles, bags of rice and other food are handed out, special allowances are created and paid out supposedly in accordance with laws and procedures, among other things.
Novel explanations are then given for doing all this “charity” at this particular time. The latest is that “intention” for doing all this charity is important. So if the intention is good, such as to help lessen the people’s (voters) financial burden in difficult times, it is a genuine charity which does not violate any election or other laws!
Yes, “intention” is important. Intention is a creation of the mind, just like sensitivities are. It is not something tangible like a document, like an inscription engraved in stone. It can change to suit the whims and fancies of the people. Someone who kills an accidental intruder into a residential area could put up the defence of “good intention” – that he did so to prevent the intruder from sexually harming the girls and ladies in the area.
When goodies in whatever form are given to voters during election periods, all defences of “charity” do not hold any water. The generous givers do it with intention, which is to induce and win the support of voters in the form of votes on polling day. The givers will swear there is no “evidence” to prove their “charity” was an inducement. No tangible evidence is needed in this case.
The law of evidence provides the principle of “presumption” to make a conclusion when there is no other or direct way of doing so. In the case of election “charity” by politicians, the giver’s intention has to be presumed as he will not put a rope around his neck to admit it was for the purpose of inducement to get votes.
The issue of such “charity” has been going on for decades because it was sidestepped by both the Election Commission (EC) and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC). Non-action by these agencies has been taken as tacit approval of such “charity” by the government and it is only getting worse and worse.
Now that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has spoken emphatically stating that such “charity” is a form of corruption, will the EC and the MACC get into action and resolve this once and for all. Take the matter up to the Federal Court for a ruling on the hidden intention behind such charity.
Thanks to Anwar for taking the bull by the horns. No other prime minister before this had said that such “charity” was corruption. Now it is up to the EC and the MACC to continue and stop this corruption. – The Vibes, January 24, 2023
Ravinder Singh is the head of Parti Rakyat Malaysia’s media and communications bureau