This is in response to Undergrad2’s comments as per posting on April 24th, 2007 at 5:01 am .

Of course, as a matter of law, both ‘giver’ and ‘taker’ are guilty of corruption: it takes two hands to clap! For without ‘giver’, no ‘taker’ will be induced. But it is also true that if the ‘giver’ does not expect the favour and uses his position to delay or obstruct what the giver wants and is lawfully entitled, why would the ‘giver’ give? And the fact that the ‘giver’ is prepared to give, under these circumstance, makes the ‘taker’ continue to expect, as well as legitimize his expectation, as a matter of course. So the vicious cycle is perpetuated.

Why is it, in practice, the ‘giver’ is lesser prosecuted just like the ‘client’ whose patronage is solicited by a prostitute?

Maybe it is due to the knowledge deep within, but seldom openly admitted, that although both parties are guilty for complicity in a socially disapproved and an unlawful activity, yet between the two, the public official taking the bribe – and in the other context, the prostitute soliciting – is the ‘more’ guilty.

What is the justification for this line of thinking? The difference lies in one’s position and station as prescribed by society.

Now we all know that activities like corruption and prostitution have a tendency to be prevalent unless otherwise checked by social and legal sanctions because their roots lie in human nature, or shall we say, the frailty thereof : as in the case of the taker’s desire to use an official position for an unfair gain over others and the ‘giver’s desire to ‘buy’ this public official’s favour in unfair advantage over the rest in the case of corruption; and in the case of prostitution, the desire of the ‘giver’ to have sex without problems and costs other than quantifiable financial outlay, and the ‘taker’ for, money.

Now in such situations in which both sides are, as a natural human tendency, inclined towards a socially and legally sanctioned activity, the onus and burden of restraint is shifted and imposed on that side whose ‘position’ is such that the expectation is greater on him or her to exercise greater restraint to check, stop and discourage the prohibited activity.

In the case of corruption the greater burden is imposed on the ‘taker’ because of his official position being that of trust and guardianship of public welfare, funded as it were, by public/tax payers money.

In the case of prostitution, that onus and burden, perhaps of greater unfairness, is imposed on the female gender, which is supposedly the gatekeeper against unbridled sexual libidinousness and profligacy. As to why that it so, is a different story for another day, too long to expound here.

It suffices to say that if one goes further and compare the situation of the ‘giver’ (public official) being held more accountable for corruption with that of the other ‘taker’ (‘prostitute’) being held more accountable for prostitution, the former deserves more punishment because of the gravity of his crime.

The public official’s corrupt act is graver because its perpetration undermines the very fabric and orderly functioning of government and society, as it affects public welfare!

The same however is not comparable to the oldest profession which inflicts comparatively less harm on society and has more ‘mitigating’ factors.

The religious and morally rectitude amongst us will object in voices stentorian that the harm is greater in prostitution: it weakens the moral fiber of men/women and undermines the very institution of monogamous marriage based on sexual exclusivity and fidelity between spouses.

I of course beg to disagree even at risk of being adjudged less morally upright. First of all I have no idea whatsoever the meaning of this nebulous term “moral fiber” used in this context. I suppose it means restraint from what is desired based on moral principles but here we must ask what moral principles that are at stake here.

To which we are invariably dragged to evaluate the marriage institution based on principles of sexual exclusivity and loyalty between spouses, which have been dealt a blow.

Let me just say that this institution, which plays a vital and important role in contributing to many benefits to society and the orderly bringing up of children to perpetuate our species, is not entirely free of fiction: that the natural biological imperative for sex may be successfully restrained all the time and confine to one’s spouse without extension to others. That it cannot be so restrained all the time and for all people leads me to the irresistible inference that prostitution provides the safety valve by which excessive libido could be released harmlessly to protect the integrity of familial unity and maintain fiction of sexual fidelity that is necessary for the one man one wife and happily ever after one lifetime arrangement called monogamy with which prostitution is, but glove is to hand, and horse is to carriage!

The objection of “harm” from point of view of sexually transmittable diseases is also less convincing if clients wear Polyplastic condoms, prostitutes being not criminalized and made to go for regular medical checkups. In these days casual sex of an initially non commercial nature bears the greater risks of passing HIV!

Let me further say that the prostitute’s soliciting a non interested party inflicts no greater harm that mere public nuisance that must be balanced against her engagement in this trade as an expression of private entrepreneurship that is consistent with the highest ideals of a capitalistic society – of which the clients’ payment is but another form of redistribution of wealth.

The prostitute works hard and often hazardously to his/her physical and emotional well being for money. None of these mitigating factors avail to a public official who ought to have been reasonably remunerated from his salaries, bonuses and pensions but whose desire and greed are not satiated by comparison to his/her political masters who enrich and aggrandize themselves more by virtue of their more powerful position.