What we are facing is not just police Corruption. Nor political corruption only. The whole society – cutting across racial and religious lines – is corrupt, including private sector, whether corporate, banking, insurance etc in which it is becoming more a rule rather than exception that everyone wants his cut, and all benefits and patronage of business is distributed on a I scratch your back and yours mine basis. Who in business or holding position of influence and power in corporations can sincerely without hypocrisy deny this? In recent years, it has become even more acute as society becomes more competitive, and prices of goods and services and costs of living keep rising along with expectations of better standard of living and also a sense of insecurity that the country is like a sinking Titanic, so better hoard up some retirement nest.

If the common rakyat cannot resist temptations and blandishments of bribes, is it realistic to expect that those in power can? I am not postulating corruption is a malaise that we should all acquiesce to but it is extremely difficult to feel a sense of great outrage at those abusing their power to make money when there is a nagging suspicion that many who feel outraged do so out of a lack of opportunity to be in position of power to do likewise rather than an innate abhorrence towards unfair gain at the expense of others! I think we’re all becoming hypocrites. If we’re not then our threshold of tolerance for this kind of sheninegans becomes markedly higher and we say, “Aiyah this is normal lah”.

Like it or not the culture of corruption is deeply ingrained and has broadened down from those in power to those amongst the general populace.

But just so that we’re not too harsh in judgment of ourselves, it should be recollected that corruption is also rampant in most other societies supposedly more advanced and first world than us. The core and kernel of corruption is always there. The veneer (pretence buttressed by institutional safeguards) around such core/kernel, hypocritically denying and fighting against it (corruption) is just thicker – but it does not mean it cannot be pierced, as once in while we read in the news it is (eg Enron scandal). Who dares say that there is no corruption in (say) the US, bastion of democracy or good governance? I want to make clear that I am postulating a general position. In every general position there are always exceptional individuals. We cannot however proceed on exceptions to prescribe for the general. :)

“In the US, the prosecutors do their jobs, the courts do their jobs. Without fear or favour” – Godfather.

That is a naïve view and a factually incorrect statement. You should ask Undergrad2 – who lives and ought to know the system there better – tell you.

Why do you think US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (loyal to Bush) was forced to resign recently? He fired 8 federal prosecutors under him. The dismissals were appeared to be politically motivated. The U.S. prosecutors fired said they felt pressured to investigate and prosecute Democrats before elections. Thousands of documents released by the Justice Department show a White House plot, hatched shortly after the 2004 elections, to replace U.S. attorneys. At one point, senior White House officials suggested replacing all 93 prosecutors. In December 2006, 8 were ordered to resign. In 2004, Gonzales also authorized a secret domestic spying program over citizens that was unconstitutional. Pursuant to that, FBI agents, over a 3 year period, demanded telephone and Internet companies to hand over their customers’ personal information without official authorization. In 2002 he rendered legal opinion to Bush Govt that permitted interrogators to inflict mental and physical pain on terrorism suspects.

The Americans say interrogation by torture is illegal so they do it in another way : they devise a program to outsource it, extraditing terrorism suspects from one foreign state to another for interrogation and prosecution. They say corruption and money politics are illegal but make rules to allow lobbying. Hence domestic corporations can contribute huge sums under the guise of campaign contributions to buy political influence of politicians. The moneys are paid into blind trust account(s). How do you think TDM could get a photo op with Bush if it were not through lobbyist Abramoff receiving US$1.2 million for his services? The Americans know corruption, like prostitution is as old as man’s history. What they cannot eliminate, they redefine certain aspects similar to corruption by legalizing them as legitimate lobby!

Corrupt judges ? I don’t know where to begin. Take the high profile ones : In 1988 the House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly today to impeach Federal District Judge Alcee L. Hastings for 17 high crimes and misdemeanors. The charges involve conspiracy to accept a bribe, perjury and improper disclosures of confidential information. Find out why Judge John N. Kirkendall of Michigan resigned in 2005. The New York Supreme Court had a case of a judge bribed in a murder case, In re Brennan; The Ohio Supreme Court had a case of a judge bribed in a murder case, Ohio v McGettrick, United States v Federal Appeals Judge Martin T. Manton, (judge who took $186,000 in bribes. For better overview read “The Corrupt Judge: An Inquiry into Bribery and Other High Crimes and Misdemeanors in the Federal Courts by Joseph Borkin.

Harvard Professor Dershowitz, became famous for arguing successfully Hustler magazine’s and its publisher Larry Flynt’s defence against a libel case brought by Reverend Jerry Falwell. The case was dramatized in Hollywood’s film “Larry Flynt (1996)” starring Woody Harrelson, Edward Norton and Courtney Love. In “Letters to a Young Lawyer” Dershowitz, speaks of the corruption in the American legal and judicial system. He advises all to be “suspicious of all legal and judicial institutions. Trust no one in power, including — especially — judges. Don’t take judicial opinions at face value. Go back and check the transcript & record. Cite-check the cases. You will be amazed how often you will find judges ‘finessing’ the facts and the law for ulterior motives.

World over, non-rich folk are often jailed – for petty offences some of which are without harmful consequences or victims – which they cannot afford to pay fines or afford legal counsel – where the real offense is that of poverty.

And world over the rich and politically connected are (comparatively) rarely jailed – even after committing serious offences.

And world over human greed lurks just below a veneer of ethics, easily pierced especially when possessed of power .

This is the general position varying in degree from place to place, whether we’re talking of US, UK, Malaysia or Nigeria or Australia.

But don’t take the words of the Whites for it that they’re so much less corrupt than the rest of us.

Most – and certainly not all – people here or elsewhere are not saints. They are what is called salt of the earth. They may be interested in politics but their main concern is themselves, their families, their spouses and children and their colective welfare. They rail against corruption because it favours the few politically connected or politrically powerful who could garner all kinds of “unfair” financial privileges over and above and at the expense of the masses and multitudes who put them there in position of trust in the first place by their votes, and outrage ensues when trust is breached with impunity. But it is only in this context. If these very same protesters against corruption were somehow “roped” in by the tentacles of political influence – not neccesarily as politican holding public office but his proxy or enabler, advisor or busines partner – to be placed at a vantage point to join the select few to amass huge wealth personally for themselves, their loved ones in the family and generations to come, the question that must be answered honestly is whether these same protestors will refuse the offer and say, “no, this is corruption, this is conflicts of interest, this is cronyism, I want to have nothing of this, this is bad for Malaysia?” How many would take this ethical position to say no when to do so is to say “no” as well not only to themselves personally the start up and headstart in life for their children and their children’s children – to break that generational cycle of poverty of financial mediocrity? Would “no” be fair to the financial future of spouses and children? When does ethics come in or go as balanced against not only one’s personal interest but one’s family’s interest and even generational interest? I am not advocating or trivialising corruption but just posing the basic – ethical – question whether if we can really do no better than the next guy if presented opportunity, is it not hypocritical to keep condemning the next guy for doing that which he is afforded the opportunity? How righteous can our moral indignation against corruption be when it is moral indignation tainted by jealousy with a halo?

Limkamput,

Yes “the light of the world and the salt of the earth” are in scripture. They are the subjects in the kingdom of God as described in Matthew 13. The 2 analogies refer to two types of people representing who we are (“Salt of the Earth”) and what we could become (“the Light”).

In my own personal interpretation (right or wrong) of what scripture means, the light are the few who are trail blazers, the exceptional few who are passionate about their principles believed and suffer great trials and tribulations to fight for them so as to “light” the way for the rest of us to follow and to tell us what we could all become. They are, for examples, the Nelson Mendelas, William Wallaces, Abraham Lincolns (where principles are about Freedom) but they’re also the Napoleons and Hitlers (where principles are power). They (1 or 2%) exemplify the extremes that humanity has created. They are the ideologues. They are the Utopians.

Now “Salt of the Earth” is the combination of both words – salt and earth. Earth is basic and refers to the natural condition of mankind, the world and society. It is a condition of brutish and cut throat survival of the fittest. Nothing else matters. The most selfish, the criminals (thief rapist and fraudsters) fit into this (also minority 5 to 6%) group who think only of themselves, their own survival and others be damned. The world if left only to itself (the earth), it will spoil and will become more and more defiled and putrid. It lacks the moral quality and life that it needs to cement relationships and to protect itself from moral breakdown.

In between, the majority (90%) are in between the light and the earth. “Salt” as you well know as “preservative qualities. That is why salt fish can be preserved and why sometimes you would gargle salt to try ward off flu virus from attacking your nasal tracts. “Salt” is a necessary element for human survival.

So salt of the Earth depict the multitudes noted for their worldliness, practical approach if you will; they are not bad as the “earth types”; neither are they saints and passionate and willing to die for their principles like martyrs like the “Light”. They care most for things people normally care food : material comfort, good marriage, spouses and children, good reputation or at least respectability (never mind what the actual character is) good jobs and good homes. Necessarily they are also probably most hypocritical. For some may have the innate human greed and selfishness to take advantage of others, to “steal” others money, others wives other jobs, but would not do so overtly or if chances of getting caught are great attracting bad consequences. At the same time, they are not the Light. They talk about principles as (say) Nelson Mendela did, they may lift a little to help if it is no cost, but they will not go al the way, join (for example) demonstrations where they are definitely going to be shot like the way some monks were in the streets of Yangon. They would give their lives for beliefs because they prioritize the normal things people cherish – their families, spouse, children, jobs and social respectability. They may go to temples of worship but they won’t be suicide bombers; they say adultery is bad but they excuse themselves when they visit prostitutes because that is just satisfying basic biological need and not adultery because it is not emotional premised. Worldliness, practicality, pragmatism, hypocrisy are all elements in character.

It is the Salt of the Earth that preserves basic civilization, let it continue (hypocrisies notwithstanding), slowly inching the way, vacillating between occasional inspiration but mostly basic concerns and sometimes quiet desperation. For the Light (if they are turn out to be Hitlers, suicide bombers etc ), they’ll ruin civilization. If they are just earth without salt, there will be breakdown of society. Salt of the Earth are the glue that hold society together.

In context, the Salt of the Earth are the ones who rail most against natural condition of corruption. They are taxed and much of it benefit the few privileged corrupt in power. Had it not been for these taxes unfairly sequestrated for purposes of those few powerful, the money may be saved for the welfare of themselves and the family. At the same time they would not be at the forefront to fight Power or to demonstrate against firing squad of riot police because their wives and children will say, why don’t you stay out of trouble, which they will heed. The acid test is when they themselves are given opportunities to indulge in the every thing – corruption – which they protest. If they could make millions (without adverse consequences) in cronyism with politicians that they disdain, would they desist on grounds of principles that corruption is bad per se? I should thinkj not. They are not in category of the Light. Their basic day to day concerns come first – good education for children, good comfort of home and car for family’s use etc.

Salt of the Earth are everywhere whether in US or Malaysia – human nature same – but because they have 200 years of government, they could refine check balances better than the monkeys here, and they have turned hypocrisy to a better art form. That’s all.

Knowing human nature, of course we have to advocate and devise check and balances – more to check our own tendencies – to keep corruption in check because otherwise the organisation of society and government will collapse.

But even as we protest against corrupt officials, for the above reason, let us keep our perspectives and not get too worked up – stress distorts our judgment, make us think of migration as first option – when it is realised corruption stems from the very Salt of the Earth condition that we ourselves, or at least a great number of us, are equally susceptible to (if given an opportunity), and our repeated vociferous expressions of moral indignation becomes jarring to the ears of others, appearing much like envy with a halo.

And to be precise, I correct the statement if it inadvertantly conveyed the impression that they had massacred red indians after 1776 (which I think they didn’t) but they certainly did when they were British colonies way before. Even then it is difficult to say how they had a government that could be described as “successful” stretching back 300 years….. Even arguably now, it is question of how you want to define “successful”. Adherants of the views of American linguist, philosopher, political activist, author, and lecturer, Avram Noam Chomsky would express misgivings.

Sorry everyone, but just a last word in response to what Limkamput remarked, “You should slap yourself on the face! You see, if it is other countries these people in Guantanamo would have be tortured and executed long ago, got it moron (this is the response to you comparing me with Grade 1 in case you don’t get)?”

Limkamput, you may be interested to know that former Army Sergeant Erik R Saar, 29 has writen a book, the most revealing account so far of interrogations of Muslim detainees at the secretive detention camp in Guantanamo Bay.

According to the draft manuscript obtained by The Associated Press, presently classified as secret pending a Pentagon review for a planned book, US female interrogators tried to break the muslim detainees by sexual touching, wearing a miniskirt and thong underwear and in one case rubbing her breast behind his back and smearing a Saudi man’s face (blindfolded) with what he was told by the female interrogator as her menstrual blood. It is such a taboo (to Muslims) that he spat at her in disgust even whilst maintaining an erection. The FBI also got a copy and has heard witnesses account. So far no one contradicted these controversial methods have been used (I will not detail other methods. There’s a long list)

So maybe you’ve made a good point : luckily for the titillated detainees in Guantanamo Bay, the detention camp is operated by Americans with their institutional checks and balance and respect for human rights. Can’t imagine if it were operated by Russia or China or even Malaysia! :)

“Why would anyone bother with answering this extremely rhetorical question ? It’s almost like telling UMNO to go on stealing because their behaviour is normal. It’s like telling the thieves that it is OK because everyone in their position would do the same thing” – Godfather.

Of course why would we honestly answer the rhetorical question in the affirmative and in that process indirectly tell thieves that it is OK for them to steal from us?

I can even agree with you that not only is it a rhetorical question but possibly not even a fair a question because of one essential difference : the thieves pose as public servants and get emplaced in position of power – through our votes – for the purpose of exercising it in trust for the welfare and common weal of the rest of us as beneficiaries but instead to steal from us!

That makes politicians (in general) who steal not only hypocrites but also deceivers and liars.

Having said that, it does not resolve an ethical conundrum posed by the question : if we ourselves cannot do better in terms of not taking advantage of power when afforded equal opportunities available to those whom we criticize and condemn, do we have a right to condemn them?

Ethically, when we criticize others it assumes we are on higher ground – that we can do better when placed in similar circumstances – but when we honestly can do no better, then our criticism and condemnation immediately lose their moral force.

Someone complaining theft when he is still not a thief because the opportunities are not available – what do you say to that ? Our moral indignation is exposed for what it essentially is – jealousy with a halo!

We are hypocrites. Recognise for what we are. We’re only a notch morally higher than politicians that steal because the latter are not only hypocrites but they also double up as deceivers, imposters and liars because they con us that they could rise above our own human failings to take unfair advantage when they know they could and would not. That (deceit & misrepresentation) is the only distinction that can reconcile from the ethical standpoint why we criticize behaviour that we personally can do no better to rise above!

I guess that is why great thinkers and philosophers of yesteryears have thought about things (politics, society and human nature) and had advocated institutions as a check and balance, knowing fully well the weakness of human nature and the tendency to abuse power.

This is the ‘veneer’ I was talking about encoating the kernel of human nature to take unfair advantage of others.

First world countries (say) like the US is better than third world precisely because they institutionalize – and have advantage of longer years to institutionalize – such safeguards (have a thicker veneer so to speak) but even then human nature being what it is, it is naïve to suppose that there is no rampant cases of corruption and abuse of power in these countries notwithstanding, and arguably, the situation would be even worse had these institutions not being in place.

To extend the analogy, with veneer, at least there is an outward shine – otherwise it is only the dull wood showing – but not forgetting that ever so often when the surface is scratched, you could still see the basic wood within in these first world countries : eg. abuses of detainees in Guantanamo Bay, ubiquitous domestic electronic surveillance, judicial & corporate corruption like Enron).

Veneer does not change the basic character of the wood for the better but it does preserve it from faster spoiling and deterioration.
That is agreed which is why we too must strive to do here, what we can, to build up check and balance and institutions (like the IPCMC or the Judicial Commission) to preserve our national wood, so to speak.

“It doesn’t matter which side you’re on, it is always greener the other side”. This true thats why it is uphill to persuade anyone otherwise.