I refer to the malaysiakini report Nazri: Umno members immune to graft law .

As sole contributing editor of the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 (Act 575), The Annotated Statutes of Malaysia Issue 2003, published by Malayan Law Journal Sdn Bhd ('the Act'), I would like to comment on the statement made on Nov 2 by Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Nazri Aziz.

To say that 'ACA's hands are tied' and 'Money politics are not public transgressions' is grossly and manifestly wrong, although the minister qualified himself by saying he 'may be wrong'. It is gainsaid that his opinion is as wrong as wrong can be! And if this was according to his 'understanding of it', then he had also completely misunderstood and misconstrued the Act, although he had tabled the Act. And to take the example of a 'family situation' is not only to compare an apple and an orange, but more appropriately, what chalk is to cheese.

First, section 10 and sub-sections (a), (b), (aa) and (bb) of the Act, which define the offence of accepting gratification, are replicated from section 3 and sub-sections (a), (b), (i) and (ii) of the repealed Prevention of Corruption Act 1961 (Act 57) (Revised 1971) ('1961 Act'), except for the penalty, which has been enhanced from a fine not exceeding RM10,000 or to a term of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or both, to a fine of not less than five times the sum of value of gratification or RM10,000, whichever is higher and imprisonment for a term of not less than 14 days and not more than 20 years under section 16 of the Act.

Secondly, the Supreme Court in Public Prosecutor v Chan Kit Tong [1991] 1 MLJ 358, held that the definition of gratification in the 1961 Act is wide enough to include the under-counter payment of RM15,000 for the purchase of a low-cost house from a developer. Most importantly, it was also held that the person who receives such gratification need not be a public officer. The Supreme Court thus restored the conviction, sentence and penalty ordered by the learned Sessions Court judge, which had been set aside by a judge of the High Court.

The Supreme Court referred to the case of Lim Kheng Kooi & Anor v R [1957] 199, where '... the two accused persons who were charged with corruption and abetment of corruption respectively, were private individuals and they were found guilty under section 3(b) of the earlier Prevention of Corruption Ordinance 1950'. Undoubtedly, the Act therefore applies to public officers and private individuals alike. Section 10 of the Act makes it very clear as it begins with 'Any person who by himself, or by or in conjunction with any other person'

Thirdly, if the Act applied to public officers only, then employees in the private sector are immune from prosecution under the Act, which could not be the intention of Parliament when the Act was passed. Therefore, the minister's opinion that 'members are immune from action outside the party (for wrongdoings within the party)' is also completely wrong and clearly untenable as adumbrated above.

If this is the case, then public officers being prosecuted under the Act could claim that the Act is unconstitutional as the Act violates Article 8 of the Federal Constitution which provides for equality before the law. Corruption, whether committed by public officers or private individuals is still corruption, pure and simple.

Fourthly, money politics is the scourge of political life in Bolehland and to say that it is confined to political parties is to simply miss the wood for the trees. The president of Umno becomes the prime minister upon winning his parliamentary seat in the general election. Unlike what the minister had tried to claim to the contrary, money politics in Umno has everything to do with the public as candidates elected as branch and divisional leaders during party elections become councillors, senators and ministers, as of right, during the 'horse-trading' and sharing of the spoils after every general election.

The stakes in party elections are very high indeed and it is common knowledge that hundreds of millions of ringgit change hands to ensure the election of certain candidates. The lack of the political will to fight this malaise had nurtured the unbridled corruption and monumental financial scandals of the past 22 years from July 1981 until October 2003. And these continue to flourish unabated under the present prime minister, thus institutionalising corruption as part of our national culture.

Finally, the lack of accountability and transparency in the public and private sectors, abuse and misuse of power, and colossal waste of public funds in public projects, are mainly a result of money politics. And to say that money politics 'does not affect the public in the sense that it does not involve public projects and public funds' is spinning the spin. More so, when the minister was a former advocate and solicitor.