Law and lawmakers

By A.ASOHAN

We call Members of Parliament (MPs) and assemblymen “lawmakers” because, as part of the legislative arm of the administration, they are the ones who propose, debate, discuss and finally pass the laws that govern us all.

So it always comes as a surprise to me when many of them do not seem to know anything about the law.

No, I don’t expect them to have an in-depth knowledge of specific sections of selected legislation the same way a lawyer would have. I don’t expect them to be able to quote articles and sub-sections of various laws, or be able to drop some Latin quotes now and again.

Unless, of course, they’ve taken a stance for or against that piece of legislation, in which case I expect them to know what they’re talking about.

But ordinarily, I just expect people in these positions of power to have at least, you know, as much understanding of the law as you and I. If they don’t understand their rights and obligations, how can we expect them to uphold ours?

We ordinary Malaysians know enough about traffic laws to realise that running a red light is illegal, as is double-parking. We know what those yellow boxes are for. And emergency lanes are just for that purpose.

I remember about 10 years ago when an MP suggested that vehicles that stall along emergency lanes be issued tickets. His reasoning was that these vehicles were holding up traffic.

Yep, all those idiot drivers breaking the law and using the emergency lanes to beat traffic were being inconvenienced, poor things. So this MP suggested we punish those using emergency lanes properly so that lawbreakers would not be inconvenienced.

See what happens when all your commuting needs are met by chauffeurs and marked by police outriders?

Ordinary folk like us also know that corruption is a criminal offence and not merely a breach of an individual political party’s code of ethics, but going by the statements that have been flying around since the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) was formed and began performing its duties, this simple truth seems lost on many politicians.

Many manage to deny this simple truth by using such euphemisms such as “money politics,” so let me spell it out for our lawmakers: It’s C-O-R-R-U-P-T-I-O-N! No two ways about it.

A few months ago, when MACC first started hauling up minor political leaders, a branch chairman of a major political party said at a public gathering that this “crackdown” would only destroy the party.

He said something to the effect of: “Once MACC declares somebody guilty, he can’t prove his innocence and will not be able to participate in the party’s polls. It’s unfair. We should leave such matters to the party to handle.”

This office-bearer seemed completely oblivious to the fact that the MACC can’t “declare” anybody guilty. It can only investigate and prosecute. If the case goes to trial, then the suspect has a chance to prove his innocence through the due process of law.

Again, corruption is not just a party matter. It’s a criminal offence. Any political leader or party member who does not realise this is in essence encouraging criminal acts.

More recently, one of the smarter politicians around actually said that there was a need for the party’s internal mechanism because not all corruption involved money and therefore did not fall under the MACC’s purview.

Huh? Corruption involves any sort of gratification. It doesn’t have to be money. Section 3 of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 defines “gratification” as including money, donations, gifts, loans, fees, rewards, valuable security, property or interest in property, office (as in position), dignity, employment, contract of employment or services, and even any “valuable consideration of any kind” and “any other service or favour of any description.”

It’s all covered there, honest.

As for what constitutes a criminal offence under our anti-corruption laws, just check out Sections 16 to 28. Again, it’s all there.

And if you think that this is an anti-ruling coalition rant, I should point out that the members of the Opposition have generally been no better.

Every time there is a by-election around the corner or some sort of power grab playing out, someone will come out and confess that he was offered a bribe. No big deal, except that the bribe was offered something like eight months ago.

Hello? Why didn’t you lodge a police report then? Why wait for a politically-expedient moment to come out? Laws were broken. Don’t you think that as a responsible citizen, you should have reported it immediately?

Then there was the case of the assemblyman who said he couldn’t stand the pressure – he had been offered bribes and his family had been threatened. His children were going to be kidnapped.

What did this poor Opposition rep do? He “reported” the matter to his party leaders. Talk about taking the cult of personality too far. Did he think that his party superiors were going to ride in on white horses to save the day? He finally lodged a police report months later.

I don’t understand this at all. His political rivals had allegedly threatened to kidnap his children, and he only lodged a police report months later. Brother, as a fellow father I can tell you – you even look funny at my daughters, and I’m going to the nearest police station immediately.

Perhaps our anti-corruption laws should include clauses that make those who were offered bribes and failed to lodge a report within a certain timeframe, as criminally culpable too.

And perhaps we should make it a requirement that anybody elected to office should attend a legal course before they actually take office ... if only so that they understand the law as much as we ordinary joes do.

- THE STAR