Money Politics - finding the bigger culprits

There has been many accusations by politicians and public about vote-buying (aka money politics) in the current (and past) elections within a political party. So far, only a few cases have been proven and the guilty have been punished with suspension. (I wonder if the money paid was returned?)

There are only 3 in competition for Deputy President and about 8 for Vice President, making a total of 11 people involved.

So all we do is ask a question, let them dwell on the question before we collect answer.

Now, all we have to do is ask them if they paid anyone to vote for them. Ah... everyone of them will deny it. So we separate them and ask them individually again the same question. I am quite sure that they will also deny. So we trust them? Well, lets continue with the questions.
We next ask, "Who used money to pay for votes?" Some will accuse others, some will declare ignorance. Let's analyse the answers.

Those that accuse someone else will probably come from 3 groups:
1. He did not pay, and therefore is unhappy that someone else "cheats"
2. He paid, and is unhappy that someone else paid (more?) too.
3. He paid, but wants to use an accusation (to show that he is against money politics) as alibi.

Those that did not accuse someone else will come from these groups:
1. He did not pay and is not aware.
2. He paid and hope that no one else has paid.
3. He paid but doesnt want to accuse others for fear of an investigation that will show him up too.

The 1s are the honest people. The 2s are small-time cheats and the 3s are the crooks.

Which brings us to the next question (number 3).
Tell the candidate, "You have been accused of money politics by 3 other candidates and we have recorded statements from them. We are investigating both you and them. I can't tell you who the 3 are. If they are found clean, then we know they speak the truth about you paying for votes. What do you say about this?"

1. Denial because he is clean.
2. Denial because he doesnt know how to answer yet.
3. Denial with his own accusations of others.

Again the same groupings of 1s, 2s, and 3s.
Should there be a person that was not accused at all after these 3 questions, he is likely to be not involved in money politics. And we should have a decent idea of who are involved in such practices.

Now, for question number 4.
Group the 3s together with a list of accusations against them including the accuser. Let the 1s and 2s watch the discussion/debate/argument. Ensure that the conversations of both groups (the 1s and the 2s/3s) are clearly recorded. Whenever the 3s bring up the names of any of the 2s, the 2s will probably add on to the accusations of the 3s. Record it down!

Now with all the gathered accusations. Put all of them together and give them the list of all their accusers and accusations. Tell them this: "Obviously, most or all people here are involved in money politics. And because we want to be seen to be fair and clean, we must be seen to clean house. So we will suspend 3 of you if we have evidence. So far we only have accusations. Whichever 3 we can gather the most evidence on, we will suspend. If we dont have evidence at all, we'll suspend 2 DP candidates and 5 VP candidates with the most accusations. Can you provide any further information for our investigation?"

Let them have 15 minutes (or until the discussion threatens to be violent, whichever comes earlier) to discuss and then separate them into different rooms with interviewers to record the statements.

This should be conducted over 1 full day (starting at 8am to 5pm when the last question is asked, and last until 11pm when all are released separately).

Oh yes, all the above must be conducted by foreigners from respected professions and academia, something like an engineering professor from Singapore, a lawyer from Australian, a doctor of medicine from Thailand, etc. Overseeing these interviews should be 3 audit firms from Malaysia.

Fees to Malaysian Audit firms - RM80,000 (3 firms x 1 mgr + 11 staff, 1 day of work)
Fees to foreign interviewers - RM88,000 (11 interviewers, fees, food, travel, lodging)
Fees to Hotel for facilities - RM10,000
Fees to equipment rental (microphones, video cams) - RM10,000
Fees to Misc Expenses - RM12,000

Summary:
Total expenses: RM200,000 (1sen per malaysian, worth it?)
Question 1: Are you paying people to vote for you? 15min
Question 2: Who used money to buy votes? 30min
Question 3: Others have accused you of buying votes. What do you say? 1 hr
Question 4: (not asked) Put the highly accused together, give them the list of accusations against themselves and let them argue it out. Let the lesser accused watch. Record all mutterings, ramblings, shoutings, etc. 2 hr
Question 5. Explain that if we gather enough evidence, 3 of them will be suspended. If we dont have evidence, we'll suspend 2 DP and 5 VP candidates, thus making it a non-election. 4 hr

Result:
* A cleaner (or perhaps "not-so-dirty" is more apt?) list of candidates.
* And some work done to help the ACA too.
* A good practice in the skill of asking questions.

Any other ideas that are simple (not necessary easy) and not-too-expensive to try out?