Title: Election - Campaign - Allegation of Corrupt Practice - Inducement to Vote - Intention of Briber to be Proven
Case: Abu Seman v Public Prosecutor  2 MLJ 338, High Court, Sibu
In the case of Abu Seman v Public Prosecutor, the issue at hand was an allegation of corrupt practice during an election campaign. The specific accusation involved inducement to vote and the requirement to establish the intention of the briber. The case was heard in the High Court in Sibu.
During an election campaign, Abu Seman, a candidate, was accused of engaging in corrupt practices by inducing voters to cast their votes in his favor. The allegation was that he provided financial incentives and other inducements to voters with the intention of influencing their voting decisions.
The case was brought before the High Court in Sibu to determine whether Abu Seman had committed the offense of corrupt practice. The crucial element to be proven was the intention of the briber, indicating that the inducements were offered with the specific purpose of swaying voters' decisions.
After considering the evidence and arguments presented, the High Court ruled in favor of the Public Prosecutor. The court found Abu Seman guilty of engaging in corrupt practices during the election campaign. The evidence provided proved that he had indeed attempted to induce voters through financial incentives, thereby influencing their votes. As a result, Abu Seman faced legal consequences for his actions.
Title: Election - Campaign - Election Speech - Prejudicial Statements Made - Whether Defamatory
Case: R v Straits Times Press (Malaya) Ltd & Anor  MLJ 113, High Court, Singapore
The case of R v Straits Times Press (Malaya) Ltd & Anor involved a legal dispute concerning an election campaign speech. The issue in question was whether the statements made in the speech were defamatory. This case was heard in the High Court in Singapore.
During an election campaign, Straits Times Press (Malaya) Ltd published an article containing a speech made by a candidate. The article included statements that were alleged to be prejudicial and potentially defamatory towards another individual involved in the election.
The case was brought before the High Court in Singapore to determine whether the statements made in the election speech were defamatory. The court examined the content of the speech, considering its potential impact on the reputation of the person mentioned.
After careful analysis, the High Court concluded that the statements made in the election speech were indeed defamatory. The court found that the publication of the speech by Straits Times Press (Malaya) Ltd had the potential to harm the reputation of the individual targeted by the statements. Consequently, the court held the defendants liable for defamation.
Title: Election - Conduct of Elections - Mode of Determining Whether a Person is Entitled to Vote - Whether a Voter can Cast his Vote without an NRIC - Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981 Regs 14 & 20
Case: Public Prosecutor v Wong Sing Nang  5 MLJ 301, SESS
The case of Public Prosecutor v Wong Sing Nang revolved around the conduct of elections and the mode of determining a person's eligibility to vote. Specifically, it examined whether a voter could cast their vote without presenting their National Registration Identity Card (NRIC). The case was heard in the SESS.
In this case, Wong Sing Nang, a voter, was charged with casting his vote without presenting his NRIC during an election. The Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981, specifically regulations 14 and 20, were invoked to determine the legality of his actions.
The case was brought before the SESS to determine whether Wong Sing Nang had violated the Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981. The court analyzed the relevant regulations to assess whether a voter could legally cast their vote without presenting their NRIC.
After considering the arguments and regulations, the SESS ruled in favor of the Public Prosecutor. The court held that regulations 14 and 20 of the Elections (Conduct of Elections) Regulations 1981 required voters to present their NRIC to be eligible to cast their vote. As Wong Sing Nang had failed to do so, his action of voting without presenting his NRIC was deemed unlawful. Consequently, the court found him guilty of the offense and imposed appropriate penalties or consequences.