\"\"

Why corruption needs a redefinition

On Dec 18 last year, a team of us met with some of the leadership of this country related to integrity and corruption and argued that corruption involves more than financial exchange of money for wrong reasons. Mere evidence of improper transactions may not yet define this evil deed.

Corruption and bribery has a cost on all relationships in human society. It is therefore important to define such losses, as an exchange value of any relationship, within the context of any society. Any such fair and willing exchange between any two parties must be both legitimate and fair; to both parties and the third parties uninvolved in the specific case.

Legitimacy is defined by the rule of any existing law. Fairness or fair value of that exchange must be decided by the public interest involved by every segment of society. Public interest is the composite interest of all relevant stakeholders in any defined society; including observers or visitors. So-called national interest alone may not always define the public interest in terms of human dignity of every living person; as actors who are different parties; including the observers.

Private sector accommodation

Within an economics and accounting framework of a private business, such losses of fair value can be defined ‘internally’ as ‘costs of doing business’; usually a euphemism for corruption payments. Furthermore these losses of value can then be measured against income and recalibrated as profits, costs, or losses, at a much later date. Corruption is simply treated as a cost.

And, with further maturity of time, even such losses can be aggregated and hidden with new asset valuations or reappraisals; and therefore the operations can still become ‘profitable’ again. But is that really moral or good economics for the macro conduct of governance in a nation-state?

In terms of the economics of societal operations, what really is the cost of any cultural, environmental, or socio-political degradation of basic and core values of society? Whose real profit and what real losses is it then? What is the real cost of value addition or attrition in such a society; and what do we bequeath for our grandchildren? Let us all learn from the current destruction of the nation-state of Syria today.

One friend defines corruption simply as follows: ‘Action, behaviour, or thought by people departing from either agreed, or established, rule or procedures’. But, is this a good enough standard for any nation-state? What are cultural and unwritten ‘rules and procedures’ of civic culture, or even the religious or cultural norms in any society?

These important issues need an answer for any clearer definition of corruption.

Bribery and corruption – one redefinition

Bribery is always an individual and personal volitional action. All corruption is located within a relationship of unfair exchange of value between persons or legitimate entities. Fairness or otherwise must therefore be determined by an objective, professional and uninvolved party representing an ‘other’.

And, when any such misconduct becomes a composite operating value of the majority in any society; it has become a culture of corruption. Macro-level corruption, if it can be measured can become a composite measure of leakages of total value. It can be used as an explicit proxy measure for degeneration of universal values or rise of decadence in that society.

Measuring corruption

To attempt any serious measurement, we need to therefore define a single unit or factor of value in any exchange within a relationship which captures both levels of activities; i.e. bribery at individual level, and corruption at the societal level. Moreover any single unit of measure, which then needs to be aggregated, must be reducible to a common but relevant measure, both at the individual and societal units of analysis.

My contemplative reflection therefore offers one simple model and concomitant measure. The following is the measure which I apply into my personal life issues:

If my intake or absorption of any value exceeds my outward focus or outflow of the same value in any relational exchange; then I am propagating a corrupted way of life.

Further simplified it could mean: My intake of any value cannot exceed my outputs or outward value creation for the betterment of others (Intake > Outputs). One cannot take in more than one creates or gives out for the benefit of others.

Another way to understand this is: If my love for my neighbour, as a brother or sister, does not exceed my love for personal self or family; it is a form of corruption in the proposed definition. The same principle can be generalised to any other good item of value.

Two case applications and one concern

Case-Story 1: If I own a dog, and daily take my dog for a walk in the park in front of my house. Now, if my dog does his business on the public park; whose responsibility is it to clean up after the dog? By the way, the same logic can be applied to cats or any other animal kept as a pet in modern life.

Case-Story 2: I bought a house in a neighbourhood 30 years ago. When they sold me the house the developers gave a layout plan that indicated all the green lungs in my neighbourhood. It was approved by the local authority. Over the past 30 years though, seven plots of green lungs have been ‘marked for development’ or consented for development by the same local authority. Can I therefore not refuse to pay assessment for my house and home because the local authority is promoting corrupt conduct based on my earlier definition?

Case-Story 3: The 1MDB case-story is now highlight of world news and Malaysia’s reputation is taking a serious beating and we may well be enrooted to become a rogue democracy. Whither corruption in Malaysia and my question to every single Malaysian is how do we stop all such decadence?

My further question is: If this trend and assertions plus arguments about the lack of a simple but clear definition of corruption is real; what are we leaving or bequeathing our grandchildren?

Conclusion

In all the above cases the ‘actors” (whether the citizen, or the local authority or national leadership) appear to be extracting more value out in the specified relationship than they are contributing into their lived community. In all three cases the main actors are conducting themselves with corruptible values which take out more than they contribute to the rest of society.

Such corruption, if continued unabated in any society in all relationships, will lead to the complete decadence and destruction of that society, over time.