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.

In the 2008, several journalists who were covering the general election in Kuala Selangor were “given” RM200 each by a candidate’s representative to “cover their expenses, having come all the way from Kuala Lumpur”. My former colleague Terence Fernandez was one of the few who refused to accept the money and duly wrote about it in his column.

The following January, two journalists from the Merdeka Review reported to the police that they had been “given” RM300 each at the Information Ministry’s media centre for the Kuala Terengganu by-election.

Chan Wei See and Chen Shaua Fui lodged a police report about the incident at the Kuala Terengganu district police headquarters. Reporters say an official working at the media centre asked them to write down their names, the organisations they represent and contact details on a piece of paper that was circulated around.

In both these instances, there was hardly a whimper from the authorities. During election time, as journalists, we come across some fellow scribes carrying the latest model of mobile phones, and in those days, even cameras – “donated” by candidates or their agents.

‘Gratification’, as defined in law

To put matters in the right perspective, let’s look at this scenario: A candidate meets you and gives you, say, RM100 and says this is for your “travel expenses” knowing the polling station is a school within walking distance of your home. As a parting shot, he says: “You know whom to vote for…” Does it constitute a bribe?

The website of the MACC provides the answer: “Any person who corruptly solicits or receives or gives any gratification for himself or for any other person as an inducement doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of any matter commits an offence.”

In its FAQ, the MACC answers its own question:

Q: Is bribery only in the form of monetary cash?

A: No. Bribery can also take shape in the form of gifts in-kind, discount offers, votes, services (including sex), job position/placement, loan and many other forms of payment for payments and purchases.

The MACC Act also defines “gratification” as: money, donation, gift, loan, reward, valuable security, property or interest in property, being property of any description, whether moveable or immoveable, financial benefit or any other similar advantage.

Simply put, gratification covers money or money’s worth. So, would bags of rice constitute gratification? Let’s take it a step further and look at the on-going civil suit between electrical appliance dealer Florence Lee Jye Wen, and minister in the PM’s Department Shahidan Kassim, Perlis Umno secretary Zahidi Zainul Abidin and Perlis Umno treasurer Rozabil Abdul Rahman.

In her statement of claim filed on Apr 6, 2017, Lee said a sales representative approached her on May 15, 2015, saying that Perlis Umno wanted to buy 60,000 units of 1.8L rice cookers. She also said she was also informed that Perlis Umno required the rice cookers to bear the approved Perlis Umno logo and Shahidan’s initials, “DSSK”.

Let’s not get involved in the legalities of the case, but one question lingers: Would giving rice cookers to voters be deemed as corruption? Going by MACC’s reasoning, giving rice to the poor is not a crime. Then obviously providing the utensil to cook the rice too will not constitute a bribe. What about refrigerators and washing machines? When does the giving stop and what constitutes a bribe?

So, isn’t the law an ass after all?

R NADESWARAN says the MACC has seen tremendous transformation but on this issue of “donations”, it falls short. Comments: [email protected]

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.