JUDGMENT

Hj. Mohd. Noor. bin Hj. Ahmad J:

By this Petition, the petitioner, the unsuccessful candidate seeks to avoid the election of the respondent who was returned as duly elected in the election for the Johor State constituency of Pasir Gudang on 21 October 1990. The sole ground of the Petition is that a corrupt practice under s. 32(c) of the Election Offences Act 1954 was alleged to have been committed by the respondent or his agents with his consent and/or knowledge in that on 20 October 1990 at or about 8.40 p.m. until the early hours of the election day, land titles were given to voters in the said constituency at Felda Cahaya Baru in pursuance of a promise made earlier that day.

Section 11 of the Act defines and prescribes the punishment for a corrupt practice, which by subsection (l) (b) thereof includes the offence of bribery, and s. 10 provides that the persons specified therein shall be deemed guilty of the offence of bribery in the circumstances enumerated in that section. The material provision applicable to this case appears to be paragraph (a) which reads -

every person who 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;

In considering this case, I have not lost sight of the principles pertaining to elections echoed by Judges previously, notably -

it is of significance to note that the primary purpose of the diverse provisions of the election laws which may at first-hand appear to be technical is to safeguard the purity of the election process and the courts will not in ordinary circumstances minimize their operation. It is the concern of the courts to purge elections of all kinds of corrupt or illegal practices so as to protect the political rights of the citizens and the constituency. [per Raja Azlan Shah J. (as he the was) in Ali Amberan v. Tunku Abdullah [1969]

Election is something which must be conducted fairly. To arrange to spend money on the eve of elections in different constituencies, although for general public good, is when all is said and done an evil practice, even if it may not be corrupt practice. The dividing line between an evil practice and a corrupt practice is a very thin one. It should be understood that energy to do public good should be used not on the eve of elections but much earlier and that even slight evidence might change this evil practice into corrupt practice. [per Hidayatullah J. in Ghasi Ram v. Dal Singh & Ors. AIR 1968 SC 1191].

It is well settled that an allegation of corrupt practice is of a quasi-criminal nature in as much as a finding of corrupt practice entails penal consequences. The onus is on the petitioner to prove corrupt practice viz. bribery beyond reasonable doubt by evidence which is clear, unequivocal and unambiguous.

The facts which are undisputed reveal that:

(1) The witholding of the delivery of land titles to 191 settlers by Felda had been a hot issue at Felda Cahaya Baru for quite some time at the latest since 1987. It was sparked off by Felda's refusal to hand over the titles to the settlers unless the settlers signed a supplementary agreement with

Felda making Felda the management agent for the settlers, in conformity with its national policy. Despite the State Executive Council's decision on 15 October 1986 to exempt the Felda Cahaya Baru settlers from signing the said supplementary agreement, 237 settlers in Felda Cahaya Baru had voluntarily signed it and were given the titles some time in 1987. However, the 191 settlers refused to sign the said supp