In Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist, the character Mr Bumble is told that he is legally responsible for his wife’s theft of some jewellery as “the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction”. Mr Bumble replies: “If the law supposes that … the law is an ass — an idiot... I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience.”

He argues that the law is as misguided as a fool, and with some more experience, “his” eye would be open, and the law would realise that women are independent people and their husbands don’t control them. Thereby Mr Bumble should not be held responsible for his wife’s stealing.

No, this column is not a lesson on the great writer’s works, but reflects on how the law is interpreted or misinterpreted by those is power.

First, MACC deputy chief commissioner (operations) Azam Baki said the offer of a travel allowance to entice voters to return to their hometowns to vote is deemed a bribe. However, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Paul Low summarily dismissed this notion, arguing that voters are not obliged to back the party or individual who sponsored the trip.

“Does that influence someone to vote for you? I don’t think so. So, unless the person says to a voter, ‘I give you the money provided you vote for me’, then giving such funds cannot be considered an act of bribery,” Low, who is in charge of governance, integrity and human rights, was quoted as saying.

Azam went further to exonerate politicians who offered genuine aid, such as rice or a donation to poor folk, this would not constitute a bribe...