Since it is the Christmas season; allow me to reflect on the real good gift we Christians celebrate; that of God’s only Son, in the person of Jesus Christ as the ultimate sacrifice especially for the sins of mankind.

Any gift is always a function of the giver and never that of the recipient. So, in Christian theology, God gave mankind such a gift of his son (not a biological one but symbolic one) as the ‘representative sacrifice’ for the same reason Muslims and Christians believe that Isaac or Ishmael (let us not debate it) was almost ‘sacrificed by Father Abraham’. God then provided a ram caught in the bush – Jesus was that ideal-type and the Ram of God for the good of mankind.

That explains also the miraculous virgin birth Christians celebrate as Christmas Day. The Russian Christmas is on Jan 7. While the Christmas tree is part and parcel of Western Christmas tradition, many Eastern families have not adopted that tradition. Some use the Manger Scene with the Eastern three wise men, sheep, shepherds and lambs.

These practices vary and reflect cultural bias for Christmas celebrations. The Christians in Kerala also have a special star with an elongated tip pointing downwards.

The true meaning of Christmas is a message of love, forgiveness, and hope. We believe that because God loved us, he sent Jesus the Man to pay the price of the sacrifice and die for us. And then because he rose again, we can have hope of eternal forgiveness by God Almighty.

\"\"

But evangelical theology also makes requisite that every Christian accept this gift by admission of their personal need for such a Saviour. It is always a personal choice and never a tradition-based compliance.

Therefore, as a Christian living in Malaysia, I have little or no problems with the idea of a gift; any gift that God gives to each of us. But I have a serious concern or issue when any other human gets a free gift from some other human being or institution, especially if the person is the prime minister of my country. As the Americans like to put it: “There is no such thing as a free lunch.”

Defining corruption

“To dismantle corruption’s high walls, I urge every nation to ratify and implement the UN Convention against Corruption. Its ground breaking measures in the areas of prevention, criminalisation, international cooperation and asset recovery have made important inroads, but there is much more to do.”

– Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Message for the 2014 International Anti-Corruption Day

UM Professor Terence Gomez has articulated the concept of ‘degenerative corruption’ as further decadence of ‘developmental corruption’, which he used to describe the alleged state of bribery and corruption in Malaysia under Dr Mahathir Mohamad. I then used the same phrase to send a WhatsApp note to the president of the Institute of Integrity, Malaysia (IIM); our only global institute fully dedicated to promoting and developing a culture of integrity.

My good friend and current president of IIM, Dr Anis Yusal Yusuf, replied with a consequential question, “What do we mean by degenerative corruption?”

My proposed study

I have dedicated some free time to study and understand this subject viewing it from an entirely cultural perspective. Such a perspective would dig below the phenomenon being observed to study and understand; what are the underlying reasons for these ‘high walls of corruption’, which the UN secretary-general describes?

The UN’s approach has been articulated and incorporated and the UN believes once their convention is ratified by a nation-state; the war against corruption will start in any country. I do not agree with the UN’s implicit assumptions.

When we (Oriental Hearts and Mind Study Institute or OHMSI) first organised our first ever National Congress on Integrity or NCOI in 2005, one of my greatest problems arose when one bishop of the Catholic Church spoke publicly stating, “Gifts are normal in Asian culture and are usually symbols of goodwill!”

Another Christian co-organiser, who was more of an evangelical persuasion, privately protested to me about the bishop’s public statement and wanted to challenge it.

I disagreed because that was not the correct forum for such a debate or discourse. Asian courtesy and face concerns, I suppose.

Nevertheless, when does ‘a goodwill gift’, which is a very Malaysian cultural conduct (called ‘buah tangan’ in Malay culture) become an act of enticement towards bribery and corruption? To affirm the same ‘allowance of gifts’, public service rules in Malaysia do allow officials to receive such gifts but there are specific rules for how ‘expensive gifts’ need to be dealt with to maintain good and transparent governance.

Petronas is the only public organisation which has an explicitly stated policy on zero bribery and corruption. They had a full page advertisement recently for the UN’s Anti-Corruption Day.

Are ‘gifts’ the beginning of degenerative corruption?

When I first joined the International Trade and Industry Ministry (Miti), I even avoided going to dinner with any business person associated with my work. But, over five years of service there, I began to hold the view that ‘small gifts were not a problem’. In fact, when I went on a Foreign Trade Promotion Mission with the minister and we would usually get small gifts and the minister had no problem with it and I took it as an accepted norm.

In truth, the watch I still wear is one I was given in Japan by some industry player. That minister was also my Economics lecturer at Universiti Malaya (UM). But, is all this fair and good business or trade?

Therefore my question now; when does corruption of gift-giving and gift-receiving become a problem within any culture? Is it merely a matter of proportionality, scope, and scale? So then, is it okay to ‘gift four new free tyres’ for one’s car in the first year of public service in Miti?

But then it is not okay when some company makes the minister’s son-in-law as a legal adviser and they distribute ‘pink forms when listed to their partner agents’? And when that company gets public listed, the son-in-law becomes a millionaire. Is that corruption now?

Is it also okay for my classmate and MP Shahrir Abdul Samad, who has stood up for truth and integrity until now, to receive a gift from the prime minister and head of his party, after the PM, too, received a similar gift from some other giver or donor? Do current definitions of corruption and bribery close one eye and allow for all these?