AL election | Anti-corruption chief defends ‘breakfast incident’ ruling

The head of the government’s anti-corruption department, when defending his stance on the controversial “breakfast incident” during the legislative election, said that the idea that “even one dollar can be considered an advantage” should not form the basis of whether an act constitutes electoral bribery.

Commission Against Corruption (CCAC) chief André Cheong was responding to media enquiries regarding New Macau Association’s complaint about the bureau’s response to the incident.

It was reported that some residents were offered a complimentary breakfast on September 17, the day of the Legislative Assembly election, by the electoral list headed by lawmaker Ho Ion Sang. However, the CCAC quickly ruled out the possibility of electoral bribery upon determining that there was no intent to sway voters.

The corruption watchdog stated that the breakfast did not “suggest, implicitly or explicitly, that voters [should] vote or not vote for certain candidates.”

In a statement issued by the CCAC over the weekend, the bureau appeared to equate the free breakfast provided on election day with the distribution of tissue packets by a New Macau member during the official campaign period. Adopting the notion that “even one dollar can be considered an advantage” would implicate New Macau in electoral bribery, the entity stated.

A member of the pro-democracy group commented on social media that the act of distributing tissue packets does not constitute electoral bribery, since it took place during the campaign period as part of normal electioneering activity.

The CCAC rebutted that, according to Macau law, such acts may constitute electoral bribery regardless of whether or not they occur within the official campaign period.

“Beyond doubt, giving away tissue packets is to draw electors’ votes for a candidate list,” stated the CCAC in its official communication over the weekend. Nevertheless, the bureau does not consider this bribery because “the values [of such items] are not high enough to influence the electors’ voting intentions.”

Cheong’s ruling implies that the CCAC will continue to use its discretion in determining how valuable a giveaway item must be in order for the act of  its distribution to constitute electoral bribery. DB