Categories
Economics Politics & government Society

[2286] Of underestimation in Transparency International’s report

While I am at the issue of bribery, I would like to touch on the recently released Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer 2010 report that the chart from the Daily Chart blog is based on.

After reading it, or rather, skimming through it, I suspect some of the results underestimate what are actually happening on the ground. Of a particular interest in one question where it asks whether the questionnaire participant has bribed a public official within the past 12 months. According to the report, in Malaysia the survey was done through face to face method.[1]

Now ask this question. If some stranger asked, ”Have you bribed a public official before?”, what would be your answer?

Given that you do not know who the stranger is, and if you have bribed a public official before, would you actually say yes?

What if the stranger is a police officer and he or she is trying to trap you? What if the stranger recognizes you and reports you to the police after the interview? What if the stranger shares the information with the public, thus ruining your reputation?

Would it not be safer to say no?

I would think there is an incentive to be dishonest and say no. It is the most rational action to take given the uncertainty caused by the face to face method.

Thus, the aggregate answer to the question is likely to underestimate the true occurrence of this specific kind of bribery.

The further implication arising from this problem is this: the report indicates that 9% of members of the Malaysian sample have bribed a public official before in the last 12 months. Assuming good faith that the survey is representative, one could generalize that 9% of Malaysians have bribed a public official before. Due to the concern of underestimation however, the best one could say about the result is that at least 9% of Malaysians have bribed public official before in the same period.

If one wants to take the implication to the extreme, notice that there is no qualification about the maximum limit. Scary, is it not?

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1]Global Corruption Barometer 2010. Page 35 and 39. Transparency International. December 2010

Categories
Economics Politics & government Society

[2285] Of why is bribery wrong?

Bribery is wrong. That is a given. Yet surprisingly, I am struggling to explain why it is wrong.

The best I can come up with without referring to other sources is that bribery undermines a system of rules and it gives those involved in the transaction unfair advantage against those who adhere to the rules.

This casts too wide a net however, hence an imperfect reasoning. Not all rules are good and bad rules should be broken. Without looking into what separates the good rules from the bad, the breaking of good rules is a necessary condition in making bribery wrong but it is not a sufficient condition. The determination of wrongness depends on the kind of rules being broken.

Unfairness is also only a necessary condition but the concern for unfairness is only secondary because it arises from the breaking of rules. If a rule is broken, then it is immediately unfair because there are those who follow the rules, with an exception that I will go into below near the end of this entry.

The collective necessary conditions can be construed as the sufficient condition.

Is there any other sufficient condition?

I can at least define a minimum why bribery is wrong, which I propose as another sufficient condition. This goes back to the rationale of establishment of a third party or the state to protect individual rights. If a person bribes the authority to erode the rights of others to the briber’s benefit, then the briber has committed a wrong. When the rules involve individual rights, then the breaking of these specific rules becomes the sufficient condition for bribery to be wrong.

This minimum or sufficient condition is highly unsatisfactory however. Bribery can be wrong even when it does not involve the protection of individual rights. Consider a person who wants a document be kept confidential and there is a company offering safekeeping service, much like a bank. The person engages the company. And then, a third party becomes interested in the document and bribes the company in order to access the document. Quite clearly, a wrong has been committed. Or, maybe the wrong is not due to bribery but due to a breach of trust? I do not know. It requires more thinking.

In any case, if the idea that bribery is wrong is dependent on the idea of rule-breaking, then what if there is no rule? Would bribery be wrong under that situation? Under this situation, bribery ceases to be a concern anymore because the idea of bribery ceases to exist. Any action that can be construed as bribery under rule-based environment suddenly becomes just another mundane transaction in the marketplace under no-rule environment. Bribery simply becomes a purchase of service.

Now comes to the original question that piqued my interest in the idea of bribery in the first place, that subsequently made me to question my basic understanding of why bribery is wrong. What if there are rules but everybody breaks it? The Daily Chart blog at The Economist has a chart reproducing the findings on corruption from Transparency International.[1]

It shows that in Liberia, nearly 90% member of the public had bribed an official. Nearly ninety percent is nearly everybody. I am highlighting this because if everybody does it, it effectively takes the necessary condition of fairness out of the equation. Since nobody follows the rules, then the person who engages in bribery is not being unfair to anybody. Without the fulfilment of the necessary condition of unfairness, does bribery cease to become a wrong?

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — ONE in four people paid a bribe during the past year, according to the latest Global Corruption Barometer, which is published annually by Transparency International, an anti-corruption campaign group… Among the countries surveyed, this kind of everyday corruption was most prevalent in Liberia. Britain was the cleanest. [Something for your troubles. Daily Chart. December 9 2010]

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — I have found two very good short pieces by Richard Posner on corruption in general. They are:

  1. Economics of Corruption
  2. Corruption

I especially like Posner’s distinction between corruption in the public and private spheres. In retrospect, this blog post of mine involves bribery in the public sphere, i.e. public institutions.

Categories
Politics & government Sports

[2255] Of the Commonwealth Games disaster is good for India

A friend shared his thought about the upcoming Commonwealth Games in New Delhi, which poises to be a disaster, the other day. The Economist with its typical humor wrote:

INDIAN officials insist that the Commonwealth games, to which Delhi plays host in October, should not be compared to Beijing’s Olympic games. They are right. The 2008 Olympics were a symbol of China’s emergence as a great power. The Commonwealth ones seem to be heading for disaster. [Running into the sand. The Economist. August 12 2010]

Allegations of corruption revolving around the Games are everywhere and it is likely that these allegations are true. On top of that, New Delhi is seriously behind schedule, despite the Games being just less than two weeks away.

The friend, in addition to saying that nobody cares about the Games, states that the disaster is good for India. For the longest time, India has its own way of doing things. The way the Games is developing even before it begins, it is likely to be a very public embarrassment for the country. That embarrassment might prove to be big enough for India to buck up and encourage the country to do something about the widespread corruption, and the  Indian (government’s) way in general that appears to be chaotic.

Categories
Personal Politics & government Society

[2171] Of a story of migration

A dear friend was in Sydney recently. For old times’ sake, he called me up and asked if I was free for the day. I said yes. How could I say no? Both of us are Malaysians and both of us attended Michigan. We had some good times together.

We had not met for a long time prior to that meeting in Sydney. The last time we had a meal together was in Singapore, when we visited yet another alumnus of Michigan. That was a good four years ago.

February is a good time to visit the city of Harbour Bridge and Opera House. Apart from the rain, the weather is generally just fantastic. There are tons of activities to do without the need to worry about the presence of morality police. When they are not cracking jokes and become all-sarcastic, which is cute, Sydneysiders will generally leave you alone. To find a close friend visiting Sydney should not be a puzzle.

We had a long chat, reminiscing the days in good old Ann Arbor, our spur-of-the-moment road trip into the heart of South Dakota and our childish arguments. And we updated each other about our mutual close friends. I learnt that one is working in Germany.

Several are living in the United States. Another is just due west in Melbourne.

The conversation went on innocently until I felt that something was amiss. He asked, “How are they toward you?” He was referring to Australians.

The question slightly took me aback. I figured he was concerned with reports of racism in Australia. The country does have issues with racism. It is not as prevalent as in Malaysia but it is a problem nonetheless.

Yet, his tone was one not of interest in current affairs, or a concern for me. It is a tone reserved for the motive of self-interest. I became suspicious of his motive and began to challenge my assumption that he was here for vacation.

“Why are you here, exactly?” Jokingly, I added, “Do you really miss me that much?”

His answered forthrightly. He already had his application for permanent residency approved by the Australian immigration. All he needed was to have his passport stamped at an Australian gate. He needed to do that to activate his permanent resident status. “And here I am.”

I have friends who have decided to live abroad, or who have left Malaysia for good. I have heard and read stories of strangers, Malaysians nonetheless, doing the same. It is not a rare phenomenon but to hear it from him”¦ somehow, his answer surprised me.

My reaction to those who find solutions in migration had been, please, do not go, or if you do go, do come back.

It is almost a plea, because more often than not, those who chose to migrate share my values: liberty and equality. The more Malaysians holding these values leave, the harder will it be to man the dike against the tide of illiberalism, a hodgepodge of racism, religious bigotry and lack of trust in individuals that Malaysian politics is known for.

Under the bright sun, I did not find myself making such plea to him. I myself am unsure what the future holds for me any longer. Such act of convincing appeared futile to me, when I can hardly convince myself of it.

For a short moment, my mind raced to another occasion, where an Australian friend asked what I would do after earning a Master’s degree. I told him what I told so many others, “I don’t know.”

“Why don’t you just stay here? There are so many problems in Malaysia. I can’t find a reason why anybody would want to be there. Even you, as a Malay, get discriminated simply because you refuse to blend in. Besides, the pay here is much better, don’t you think so? What is the PPP per capita for Malaysia? Australia’s is over thirty thousand US dollar.”

At yet another occasion, a Malaysian who has been residing and working in Sydney for some time asked me the same question. I told him that I do not know but I would return to Malaysia.

“Why?”

I said because it is home.

“It is good that you still have the notion of home. As for me, it means nothing anymore.” He said that with incredible nonchalance that I almost took it as an insult. Deep inside of my heart however, I know that home is where liberty is.

My mind returned to the moment. Kids in school uniforms were flowing out of a building. Near the door, there was a banner, suggesting that these kids were there for some sort of recital.

The plaza besides the Town Hall is always buzzed with activities. Just days ago, a group of Iranians were there to remember February 11, the 21st anniversary of the collapse of the Pahlavi dynasty.

The Islamic Republic of Iran rose over the ashes of old Persia soon after that. I am unsure which one of these two is worse but I know for sure that they do not have the same liberty in Iran to hold public gatherings. Or in Malaysia for that matter.

I had to return to the moment.

“Will you apply for citizenship?”

“No,” he said.

“Why not take the extra step and be done with it?” I was the devil’s advocate.

“Malaysia is a good country. Only those who are managing the country are not.”

He did not see me rolled my eyes. I was not dismissing his opinion.

On the contrary, I share his sentiment. All I wanted to do was to let go a silent sigh.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

This article was first published in The Malaysian Insider on March 2 2010.

Categories
Politics & government

[2090] Of when the majority chooses perversely…

Much has been said about the candidacy of Isa Abdul Samad for the Bagan Pinang by-election in Negeri Sembilan. I wonder how much marginal originality I can write after all that. Yet, I am writing about it.

This piece is not so much to attack Isa Abdul Samad. Others have done so and I will let others who are more aggressive in their stance to take up that position. I have no appetite for harsh words when life has been kind to me. I am happy at where I am and I am not willing to go into a trance of strong words.

Rather, I am concerned with the conditioning that may come with such candidacy and its possible acceptance by voters.

A primer is necessary as a foundation of what I have to share.

UMNO disciplinary committee found Isa Abdul Samad — a former chief minister of Negeri Sembilan — guilty of corruption in 2005. This was a time when euphemism of money politics was used in place of a more direct term for reasons all may speculate. While found guilty, the issue was not brought up to the federal authority for prosecution and therefore, there was no criminal charge when the situation demanded of it.

But that was a time when UMNO could do whatever it wanted. It was pre-March 8 2008. The state was UMNO and UMNO was the state. Much like how the Communist Party of China is the People’s Republic of China and vice versa, there was no differentiation between UMNO the political party and Malaysia the state. Therefore, Isa Abdul Samad got off the hook.

He, as in the words of former Pahang state representative of Pekan, Mohd. Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz of UMNO, the former chief minister “was punished with the harshest of punishment for a politician — banished from the flock, forced to resign from all official posts.”[1] Perhaps, yet it is maybe the harshest punishment for a politician, but not as harsh as a punishment for a criminal.

In our imperfect world, politicians in the position of power with influential connections tend to get away from justice. The weight of the law is frequently not applied as firm as it should to such person of power. It is worth iterating this: Isa Abdul Samad got off the hook.

Regardless of that, there is a need to move on and his story is one of old. Issue died and it should be allowed to stay dead. After all, there is an issue of punishment and accommodation and perhaps, no matter how lightly he was punished, the society can accommodate him as long as he repents. Whether he did repent is something I am only willing to assume good faith.

Of more greater importance is the perception of corruption that the candidacy brings.

Like it or not, Pakatan Rakyat is focusing on the tainted past of the UMNO candidate. The checkered reputation of both UMNO and Isa Abdul Samad make it all too natural for Pakatan Rakyat to harp on. It is a magnet. Repeat the scenario in any other country, the issue to play is staring at one’s face. If Pakatan Rakyat had fielded a candidate tainted with corruption, Barisan Nasional would have done the same thing: attack the legitimacy of the candidate. Attack his capability to become a trustworthy lawmaker.

All of us deserve second chances. I know how badly I wanted a second chance. I got it and I cherish every moment of it here in Australia. Isa Abdul Samad may contest on the premise of second chance. Yet, the timing is most unfortunate for him. If UMNO really needed to field him, UMNO must sort out its reputation as a corrupt party first. Only then, a second chance for Isa Abdul Samad can come uncontroversially.

With regrets, or with great joy, depending on which side of the political divide one is on, UMNO has yet to clean up its house. And so, the fielding of Isa Abdul Samad — assuming he is deserving of a second chance — does not do justice to the former chief minister.

As a result, UMNO candidate and UMNO itself become a symbol of corruption, if it is not yet a symbol of one. Rather than the former chief minister reaching out for a second chance, he only strengthens UMNO’s unsavory reputation and while doing so, sullies his own sullied reputation.

This is sad because it is in the interest of all Malaysians to see the creation of competitive democracy; competitive in a way in a progressive manner, not to the bottom. UMNO simply is not living up to a standard required for a progressive competitive democracy that fights on advanced issues like the economy and the environment and not instead struggling on very basic issue of legitimacy of a candidate.

Even that, however, is not the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is that Bagan Pinang is a stronghold of UMNO and UMNO is to widely expected to win.

I am not sharing this because I am partial to Pakatan Rakyat. I am in fact quietly relishing the expectation that PAS will be beaten. My attitude towards PAS, especially against its conservative side, is one of quiet hostility. i distrust PAS, as I distrust many socially conservative individuals with power and tendency to move against individual liberty. I can say this because I am not a card-carrying member of the party that I sympathize with and my position is of mine alone.

I am writing this because, if Bagan Pinang chooses UMNO, it creates the perception that the electorates are tolerant of the culture of corruption that UMNO has not only come to identify itself with, but also strengthens with the candidacy of Isa Abdul Samad. When the electorates come to that point, one has to wonder whether the culture of corruption has spread so wide beyond UMNO and into the heart of common voters.

One would hope that voters who would vote for UMNO are UMNO members, who reason is no match for blind loyalty. Else, truly, corruption has become a way of life. No longer is corruption seen as a wrong, but rather it is being nonchalantly shoved aside and ignored.

If it is the voters and the majority at that, then truly, the perverse has won. The rot has truly spread.

That is what I fear.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — Very likely, the findings of the disciplinary board are meant for internal discipline. The dos and don’ts it listed were meant as club rules and those who violate them, were punished in accordance to forms of punishment provided for. In Isa’s case he was punished with the harshest of punishment for a politician- banished from the flock, forced to resign from all official posts. Having served the punishment, we, the moral police now want to step in and punish Isa once again? We took his flesh and now we want his blood too? To make things worse, we do that via the tortured definitions of morality. The depraved past vs. the pristine future, penny wise and pound foolish etc. [The immorality of the moral high ground-2. Mohd. Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz. Sakmongkol AK47. September 30 2009]