Anyway, my comment is about Injustice and not about ethics. I know if we go thru this ethics debate there will be no end to it.

The only hypocrite after going thru your comments, in my conclusion is still the government. They make the law, persecute the people for wrongdoings. But when it comes to the other way around, the whole machinery stop dead. This is a “bigger” pot calling a kettle black.

why you so naive one?? they got one set of law for themselves and another for the rest. you oso which rock did you crawl out from?? aiyaa..

why so stupid. if open court matter it’ll be in open court. if chamber matter it’ll be in chamber la!

no back room dealings la. certain matter cannot be heard in chambers and has to be in open court. which rock did you crawl out from??

Just a point of clarification, I postulated (rightly or wrongly) that generally human nature is inclined towards getting an unfair gain/advantage over others, which is root of corruption in various forms and manifestations, whether straightforward giving/acceptance of bribes, indulging in conflicts of interest and influence peddling. In the premises, l would ventuire to argue that even ordinary people, let alone politicians with access to power, would generally (not all) be susceptible to the lure of corrupt practices if they were not otherwise restrained by law.

Which is why we actually need the law to proscribe and punish corrupt acts in various forms without which, as you said, we all know where any country or society will end up.

To your question, yes the law should be applied to all without exceptions, and no one is above the law, and on your the other point whether in our context the “law seems impotent to these high level corrupted govt people? They seem to get away with it all the time”, the answer is doubly yes. Is this desirable state of affairs? Obviously no. In fact it is because of culture of corruption, the corrupt esp in high places get away from the net of legal punishment when in fact they ought not to be allowed so. That much is clear.

On your specific observation (of which there is no doubt as to accuracy) that powerful/politically connected personalities here get away with corrupt acts involving hundreds of millions and even billions, what I suggested was that even if the situation were opposite of what you said – ie. even if the corrupt in high places here COULD NOT get away from the net of legal punishment and were regularly held accountable by the law – the position will still be the same, and our fight against corruption should not flag or waver. So that your specific complaint that powerful/politically connected personalities get away with corrupt acts involving hundreds of millions and even billions could be construed (and I also said “misconstrued”) to justify or explain the true nature of grievance of what might be the attitude of many other ordinary people, who by themselves, have no compunction ordinarily to seize an unfair advantage or even behave corruptly when opportunities present themselves with little risks of being caught but who would also at the same time hypocritically condemn/lynch politicians and holders of public office for being corrupt….so that one is entitled to draw the inference that, to them, it is not corruption per se is wrong (in a culture where it is a norm) but that their real grievance is that equal opportunities to the fruits of corruption were not availed to them free of concomitant risks of being caught and punished (unlike the powerful and well connected).

I am sure in corrupt culture of politics many snipe at one another not because the other is corrupt and get away with it but that the gravy train is not distributed equally to the rest….

I am sure that thats not what you meant or the point you intended to be made or understood. (That is why I used the word “misconstrued” in my first posting).

I merely used it to illustrate my point about the ethical debate I posed – whether if corruption were a way of life and norm here and many of us ordinary people ourselves were ourselves involved in our daily lives in activities that might be termed corrupt or in the grey area of being construed corrupt, whether we still have the moral right to expect of our politicians a behaviour higher than that which we are prepared to live up to ourselves and self righteously condemn them for their corrupt behaviour….I have since come to conclusion that, though double standards, we still have that right in vindication of Loh’s point based on the rational differentiating factor that politicians and holders of public office should not be allowed to do so because of the trust reposed in their official and public positions which they claim (in exchange for our votes) they would hold sancrosanct.

Sorry, I have no intention to misrepresent your position based on your comment, although I cannot resist using it as a point of reference to illustrate the so called “ethical debate” above raised.

About ordinary people giving and taking bribes, they know, all of them do, that they are taking a risk. If got caught they are sure to be sentenced.
It is like running the red lights. They are doing it at their own risk.

Now can you apply the same rule of law to the current scandals or any other scandals which involve high ranking govt people? Did you see any big shots got caught?

This is not about, oh, I don’t have the opportunities to take bribes which involve billions or millions. Even if I do, but was protected and got away scot free from the law, how would you feel? Do you want justice or opportunities for everyone to receive bribes? If you choose the latter your guess is good as mine what this country will become.

So my point which you singled out, it is not about having or not having opportunities to receive bribes. But why the law seems impotent to these high level corrupted govt people? They seems to get away with it all the time.

What is noteworthy about this comment is that it may be construed or misconstrued as not condemning corruption per se but the inequitable distribution of opportunities to gain from corruption! So what we’re really aggrieved about is not corruption per se (since it’s a “norm” and way of life”) but unfair access to opportunities of unfair advantage/gain (corruption) where certain people (politicians or bureaucrats in power) can do so and make millions with impunity at our expense (tax moneys or EPF) and whilst we see our moneys being lost there, we do not have equal access and opportunity as them to do the same as recompense for what we lose over the other side (our tax/EPF moneys).

Which raises the ethical issue : if we, as ordinary people and voters are two faced – in the sense that personally we would not have qualms to make a handsome profit/kick back under circumstances where we won’t be caught and be held accountable, and there is no dire consequence except only a happy one of being financially more comfortable and giving our families a better standard of living and children a better education – what moral right do we have to want to lynch our politicians for desiring and doing the same as that which we cannot ourselves rise higher to resist if provided the same easy and safe opportunities by power?

Here I am addressing Loh’s other point that “ordinary people within a corrupt system, and practising corruption to stay away from larger problems”, where Loh also says that “they (still) have a right to prefer a system where corruption might be eradicated, and they expect politicians who are supposed to be responsible to bring about better life for the people to do so.

Do we have such moral right to expect of our politicians a behaviour higher than that which we, having such expectations, will ourselves cannot live up to if we were politicians vested power and subject to same temptations and opportunities Won’t it be not a case of a pot calling the kettle black?

A pot calling a kettle black is an old saying where ‘black’ refers to the soot which accumulated on pots and kettles which in olden days were both heated on fire stoves.

Nowadays we have electronic kettle of stainless steel so a pot heated black by fire stoves cannot (fairly) call a electronic kettle of stainless steel black.

The point here is that the pot is different position and in not like position as the electric kettle: though both subject to heat, the kettle is of a different material and subject to different source of heat (electricity), not stove fire.

By same analogy, though we’re same as our politicians (in terms of susceptibility by human nature to unfair advantage/corruption), yet politicians are placed on a higher plane of expectations because they hold public positions of power given by us to them through our votes in reliance on their claims to be able to execute high office with financial probity in same manner.

By virtue of a difference in position between politicians/holders of public service as trustees vested trust of power by us as beneficiaries, what Loh said – that we, even as hypocrites, have the right to expect no corruption from holders of political/public offices – is, in that particular context and sense, defensible…

First, I hold that there is much truth in what TI M’ysia Paul Low and even several commentators said in other threads of this blog – that corruption appears (on comparative basis) a norm and way of life. It is so in many other Asian countries too.

Second, levels of corruption here as elsewhere will depend on interaction of (1) political system/politicians’ values with (2) the values of voters/ordinary citizenry and the social standards of acceptance or rejection of corruption.

So if one agrees that as far as (2) goes, corruption is norm and way of life even amongst people/voters in Malaysia, then of course, no matter how desirous and necessary to curb/mitigate political corruption amongst ruling political elites/politicians, it will not be an easy task to eliminate political corruption when the social values keep sustaining it (like fuel to fire)! The point I am making is that unless ordinary Malaysians internalise a more ethical stance against corruption (in respect of our own personal behaviour and attitude), then it remains a doubt whether a regime change (even when Opposition wins the election) will see any serious mitigation of the problem of political corruption. A regime change might just likely turn out to be a kind of change of new wine in old bottles, something new placed in or superimposed on an old or existing form or system of patronage, influence peddling and conflicts of interest…

I have thought about what Loh commented – “the ordinary people live within the system, and practices corruption to stay away from larger problems”. It is true if one is talking in one particular context, for example, business people having to interface with corrupt bureaucrats and unable to get timely approvals without greasing. They don’t have much of a practical choice to do otherwise.

However this is not true in other contexts for eg. money politics, where Tunku Abdul Aziz in his essay “ Living in the shadow of Najib’s 1 Malaysia” commented about BN/UMNO : “To them democracy is a product you could pick and choose as and when you like, much like buying a kilo of sugar over a supermarket counter, in the same way they buy votes by the thousands at party election time.”

One may ask how could one stop politicians from being corrupt when the ordinary people (whether delegates in party elections or voters during general or by elections) continue giving votes to candidates not based on merits of their policies but how much candidates pay them money or give them freebies or by way of pork-barrelling offer entire constitutency a bridge a school or a road or other public works in exchange for their electoral support? In this sense the fight against corrupt politicians will be ineffective if the social values/attitudes sustaining corruption (like fuel to fire) are not changed !

some even say,watching sexy stars like Beyonce or Christina also a SIN!Go and ask Hassan Ali,he will tell you!

these are the beasts(including salak tinggi Tajudin,Jamaludin Janggut,KJ.,Pewaris Ibrahim,PM dept.Nazi,Najis right hand Hamidi,PAS Zulkifli and etc) that will guarantee Malaysia stays where thy are now for another 100 years!

We as plaintiffs may receive a notice of Court hearing whch are supposed to be open court sessions but when we arrive at the courts, it would be held in the Judges’ chambers.

Sometimes, the notices on the board of the High Court would also state that OPEN Courts, but still in chambers.

So is that justice as the defendants would benefit from the hidden agenda and of course the Judges would also avoid embarrassing scenario in the interest of true justice..

pw: agent David

2. whether after regime change, political affairs will on balance of probabilities really be conducted on a higher ethical plane by new set of opposition politicians now in power?

There is a saying that people can expect no higher ethical conduct from their leaders than what they themselves are, and people always get the government they deserve./// –Jeffrey

The ordinary people live within the system, and practices corruption to stay away from larger problems. But they have a right to prefer a system where corruption might be eradicated, and they expect politicians who are supposed to be responsible to bring about better life for the people to do so. The corruption in this country has been worse than anytime before 1981, because the powers-that-be set the example. Singapore certainly had all the minor corruptions that we Malaysians are still rampantly engaged in before Lee Kuan Yew took over. He decided that there should be no corruption, in the government, and the society there is better for it. For a start, the Police in Singapore could be trusted to do what they are created for. Malaysians want at least uniformed personnel to do their job, to reduce crimes.

We want to remove the present regime which is found to be corrupted. We will remove the next regime if they do not live up to our expectation. We want to hold to a corrupt-free standard, and the political parties will have to compete, to be in power.

We vote the government we deserve. That is why divide and rule is the greatest evil, and they act like the secret society taking the country resources as owned by a corporation they control. UMNO government has made the majority voting population enjoy, and seen to enjoy benefits over the minority, and that is all that the majority voters care. Those who do not have the power the change the government has to suffer, and thus in some countries, the minority group wanted to change the game of regime transfer though extra-parliamentary means. That means bloodsheds, and it happened all the time before voting booths was used. When the voting booths are misused, calamities might result.

But what we kopitiam fellas get rowdy with profanity is the injustice. Injustice to the common people like u and me.

Imagine u get caught for giving or taking bribes. Will the govt use OSA to protect you? Will the govt tell MACC not to investigate you? They say screw you. But these goons makan duit in broad daylight into the billions and get away with it. It is not only one facet of the govt is corrupted but almost all of it. The judiciary, the cabinet ministers, the public sectors. You named it you got it.

They are only interested in cover ups, not putting sincere efforts in fighting corruptions. So far have you seen any still-in-favor high ranking BN guys get prosecuted? The rakyat can smell these slime from 1km away but not our sophisticated govt machinery like Old MACC-donald.

Other countries are putting real efforts in combating corruptions. Ours is putting real efforts in enacting more laws protecting them from getting caught. That is the difference. That is why we kopitiam fellas get rowdy, Haris. That is why we profane.

Cseng- the policemen that stopped me on the road, I argued with them until they let me go.

Well we’ll get some indication if a poll be conducted, canvassing opinions of ordinary Malaysians whether they find acceptable corruption in (say) bribing (euphemistically a kind of ‘redistribution of wealth) the traffic police to escape heavier fines for traffic violations; receiving “kickbacks” in their business dealings, buying pirated VCDs or DVDs; using influence and money to get business contracts or as simple as just out of troubles or getting their children into prestigious government schools etc.
Just guessing, but it may not be surprising if many respondents of such a poll, if carried out, may find smaller facets of corruption quite tolerable with some qualifications (eg as long as its not mega like involving RM12.5 billion of public purpose etc). They may even admit they have participated in (say) bribing some police to help more effectively and quickly retrieve repayment of debt from someone accused of “swindling” them as a more effective recourse than resorting to protracted legal system/courts for redress.
In Boleh land we often hear people resorting to “white and black methods” or lawful or “extra lawful” (you may call it lawless) method of dealing with (say) a business problem….

For one thing, even the socio-economic re-engineering/a affirmative policy programme (NEP) being based on certain people entitled to receive special treatment and greater benefit from the state than others bear some resemblance to at least one other salient feature of corruption – ie. the unfair advantage / gain one party reap over others. So the twin laudable aims of such a socio-economic programme have in the process of implementation been hijacked/abused by some to be a licence for corrupt practices.

Mind you, Transparency International Malaysia president Datuk Paul Low said that corruption was a way of life in Malaysia. He did not say it was just a way of our politicians in power.

Yes, the evils of Corruption at societal and political level are well known and settled – how it corrodes society’s moral fibre, how once people acquiesce corruption as being tolerable, society’s core begins to rot, and virtue/ethics and distinction between right and wrong gradually fade away, economic resource allocation becomes distorted as the most important sector might miss out while the least important sector receives more than its share. etc

But if indeed corruption is however an ingrained part of many Malaysians’ ethos, attitudes, way of life ie our culture (budaya kita), as what cseng suggests, then there is a tinge of irony in many of us expressing our disappointment with the corrupt status quo and the unbearable effects of political corruption in the country, and seeking regime change, for it poses 2 fundamental questions: -

1. whether we can hypocritically condemn our corrupt politicians and politics so self righteously when they only mirror the very ethos and attitudes that we (as voters/tax payers) are complicit with?

2. whether after regime change, political affairs will on balance of probabilities really be conducted on a higher ethical plane by new set of opposition politicians now in power?

There is a saying that people can expect no higher ethical conduct from their leaders than what they themselves are, and people always get the government they deserve.

The list can go very long, is this budaya kita? I think yes.

Ask yourself, are you hated corruption as you have no chance to ‘eat’ money or you sincerely think corruption is bad? Answer that to yourself. If you think corruption is bad don’t give kopi duit anymore, can you live with that? Honestly I think I am part of the problem, are you? Ask this to younger generation, you will get the answer to this article’s heading.

I mentioned ‘class’ of kopitiam because monsterball suggests his (‘high class’, since everybody votes) kopitiam has risen to his call and vote with him, whereas my local (not-so high-class) kopitiam did (I don’t check every week) have people complaining and not voting. I’m not suggesting the way out of voting malaise is to attend more expensive kopitiams.

The place in Britain you’re thinking of is Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park. Not being able to express yourself freely is a living nightmare. It’s important that we give any and all methods of encouraging people to discharge their democratic duty a ‘helping hand’. Haris was wrong to criticise the efforts of people in kopitiams. While it certainly isn’t all that could be done, it is a contribution!

Whatever – we should try to put antagonistic politics behind us. Everybody should be taking part. Squabbling over the best way to do it is silly.

I’m afraid I can’t teach you how to impress the ladies. When it happens, it always seems like an ‘Act of God’ to me – inexplicable and impossible to repeat.

Don’t ask me to go to high class kopitiam as I don’t have the means to. Also it would difficult for me speak in such class as “Pardon me. The rain in Spain stays mainly in the phe-laaaainnn” kinda stuff.

Also we do not have a public platform to yell out to our hearts content like in Britain called something Square place think. I will be ISA-ed in a blink here.

How do you suggest we become more “civilize” then? I am all ears. I could learn a thing or two to impress the ladies.

Haris Ibrahim didn’t “degrade us that kopitiam fellas are low class uneducated people” or “asking us to shut up” – he implied that cursing and complaining while seated in a kopitiam is unproductive. It would be as careless to exaggerate his words as it was to first utter them.

There is undeniably a huge problem with political apathy in Malaysia. I’m optimistic that there are people like yourself and undertaker888 who use the kopitiam as a platform for bringing about change, but there also other ways and other places to do it.

I think Haris Ibrahim – by criticising the kopitiam folk – is just displaying his political naivete. Tunku Abdul Aziz did it too, when he was ranting about “fair weather Malaysians”. It takes all sorts to build a nation: casually insulting your fellows is careless. Rather than getting angry about it, you could probably just forgive him his foot-in-mouth moment. Next time you’re at the kopitiam, try: “Know what … Haris Ibrahim … say bad thing … about kopitiam man … heart in right place … but sometimes … words come out … too low on wrong side”. And then forget about it. I think he’s on your side, really.