THE following has always been said of the Sedition Act 1948 (Act 15): It is inherited from colonial times; the British introduced the legislation to neuter threats to its position as a colonial power; it is repressive and archaic – a colonial holdover.

The act’s use or misuse by those in power to silence political opponents and stifle legitimate criticism violates the very essence of democratic principles, inhibiting the development of a free and open society.

But the country has inherited many laws from colonial times, one of which is the Election Offences Act 1954 (Act 5).

Both the Sedition Act and Election Offences Act were first passed by the Federation of Malaya Legislative Council (1948-1963 and predecessor of the current Parliament) as Ordinances –Sedition Ordinance (Ordinance 14 of 1948) and the Election Offences Ordinance (Ordinance 9 of 1954) respectively.

The latter and its successor (Act 5) are made up of the following.

Part I: Preliminary and Interpretation
Part II: Electoral Offences
Part III: Corrupt Practices
Part IV: Election Agent, Election Expenses and Illegal Practices
Part IVA: Enforcement Team
Part V: Excuse for Corrupt or Illegal Practice
Part VI: Grounds for Avoiding Elections
Part VII: Election Petitions
Schedules

Part III on Corrupt Practices provides for the offences of “Personation” (Section 7), “Treating” (Section 8), “Undue influence” (Section 9), “Bribery” (Section 10). The last provision in the part is on “Punishment and incapacities for corrupt practices” (Section 11).

Part III has remained the same except for amendments in 2002 so that it shall be corrupt practice if one were to commit the offence of treating, undue influence and bribery “before, during or after an election”. The amendments also enhance the punishment under Section 11.

Like “serious tendency” in the Sedition Act, each of the corrupt practices is broadly worded.

Treating is corrupt practice whenever a person who, corruptly, by himself or by any other person, either before, during or after an election, directly or indirectly gives or provides or causes to be given or provided, or is accessory to the giving or providing, or pays or engages to pay wholly or in part, the expense of giving or providing any food, drink, refreshment or provision, or any money or ticket or other means or device to enable the procuring of any food, drink, refreshment or provision, to or for any person for the purpose of corruptly influencing that person or any other person to give or refrain from giving his vote at such election or on account of any such person or any other person having voted or refrained from voting or being about to vote or refrain from voting at such election, and every elector or voter who corruptly accepts or takes any such food, drink, or refreshment or provision or any such money or ticket or who adopts such other means or device to enable the procuring of such food, drink, refreshment or provision shall be guilty of the offence of treating.

In short, any person who, either before, during or after an election, corruptly gives, provides, accepts or takes any food, drink, refreshment or provision, or any money or ticket or other means or device to corruptly influence voting at such election shall be guilty of the offence.

Bribery is even more broadly worded. There are nine categories of persons who “shall be deemed guilty of the offence of bribery.” It is not guilty but deemed guilty.

Paragraph (a) alone says a person shall be deemed guilty of bribery if he, before, during or after an election, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person on his behalf, gives, lends, or agrees to give or lend, or offers, promises, or promises to procure or to endeavour to procure, any money or valuable consideration to or for any elector or voter, or to or for any person on behalf of any elector or voter or to or for any other person, in order to induce any elector or voter to vote or refrain from voting, or corruptly does any such act as aforesaid on account of such elector or voter having voted or refrained from voting at any election. 

The Election Offences Act has been law long before the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (Act 694) and its predecessor, the Anti-Corruption Act 1997 (Act 575).

If the Sedition Act is repressive of political dissents, why isn’t the Election Offences Act repressive of corrupt practices before, during and after an election which similarly violate the very essence of democratic principles? – July 31, 2023.

* Hafiz Hassan reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.