100 years since UK saw an election offence committed

Election laws on bribery and the giving of treats or gifts are so strict in the United Kingdom that there has been no recent case of such an offence being committed, says lawyer Azhar Azizan Harun.

Therefore, to explain what constitutes bribery or other election offences in the UK, Azhar ( left ) had to cite case laws from the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The most recent was a case of bribery he could cite at a Bar Council seminar on election offences he spoke at today was one by an election candidate in 1911.

"You'll see why these are old cases. In the modern times, the UK people just don't do it anymore," Azhar said at the seminar held in Kuala Lumpur.

In one case, known as the Youghal Borough case of 1869, a person declared himself an election candidate about a month before the UK Parliament was dissolved and began offering treats to voters.

The UK court later declared the candidate's action as tantamount to ‘prohibited treating', even though it was committed before the election nomination day.

Another example he cited was the Megantic Case of 1884, where an election candidate handed £100 to another person, who in turn handed £20 from it to a local leader for the purpose of building a town hall, although he was going to vote for the candidate anyway.

“The judge held that the act of giving money (for the town hall) was not an act of liberality or charity. It was a gift with a view of influencing a voter to be favourable to his candidature.

“Additionally, although the money was initially given in the candidate’s absence or knowledge, he finally knew about the payment and did nothing to stop it. Therefore he was guilty of corrupt practice,” said the lawyer, who sometimes writes under the penname ‘Art Harun’.

Another speaker at the seminar, Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs (Ideas) CEO Wan Saiful Wan Jan ( left ), concurred, and related it to his experience in running for a local council office in the UK in on a Conservative Party platform in 2007.

“The party agent acted more like my boss. He basically said, ‘Wan, you must not pay for any drinks. You must not take anybody in your car to the polling station. You must not do anything that may be construed as you giving money or trying to induce voters by using your own resources’,” Wan Saiful said.

However, Malaysia seems to follow India’s lead on the definition of ‘corrupt practice’, where elections, Azhar noted, are plagued with allegations of ‘general bribery’.

Citing the Indian Election Court’s 1968 judgment in the case of Ghasi Ram vs Dal Singh, Azhar said the court in Indian held that it is not corrupt practice if a minister or government official offers help to a large section of society during an election, unless a promise is obtained from them as a condition for that gift.

India's approach a huge difference from UK's

“So, there is a huge difference between the Indian approach and the UK approach. The Indians say if it is a huge, general gift, it is not corrupt practice if it is given by a minister or someone in the government to a class of the public.

“It must be to a class of the public, not to you or me alone, unless he obtains promises from the voter as a condition for the help.

“The burden (of proof) for that condition is a bit high, and of course our court has adopted this test many a time,” he said.

Cases in Malaysia have also set a precedent where additional elements need to be proven for a successful election petition on grounds of corrupt practice.

These include proving an element of ‘bargaining’ in making the gift or promise, showing that it was made with distinction, whether the voter is the candidate’s supporter or not, and convincing the court that it has changed the voter’s voting preferences.

“How are you going to prove all these?” Azhar asked.

He added that these examples applied to cases where the candidate or his agent was directly involved in a corrupt practice - which was unlikely - or if it is done with their knowledge or consent – which would be difficult to prove.

Otherwise, a corrupt practice needs to be so extensive that it can be ‘reasonably supposed’ to have affected the election result, Azhar added.

On another issue, Wan Saiful told the audience of about 30 that the National Registration Department (NRD) should be held responsible for alleged irregularities in the electoral roll.

When a member of the audience questioned whether he was absolving the Election Commission of blame for the irregularities, Wan Saiful said both EC and the NRD should be held responsible.

However, the EC has been taking so much flak from the public that the NRD has appeared to have been ignored, he said.