I had stated in an earlier post my belief that as humans we are all predisposed to corruption. My point then and now is that, no matter how hard we try to avoid it, it is inevitable that we will be electing into office someone who is either already corrupt or someone who will most likely become one.
I’m not saying we are all doomed to corruption. My belief is that we just need to have a full-proof system that can ensure that the corrupt will be dealt with accordingly. Even more advanced countries such as the United States have problems with corruption. The only difference is that, under their system, the guilty parties inevitably get caught, charged, and penalized.
I was researching on evangelist Brother Eddie Villanueva and I came across this inquirer.net article that seems to bear out my contention that corruption is an inherent trait. The relevant parts are in bold letters.
Brother Eddie hits Palace smear campaign
MANILA, Philippines — Evangelist Brother Eddie Villanueva has alleged that a Malacañang official was behind a smear campaign to make it appear that he was accountable for the appointment of a Securities and Exchange Commission official who has been linked to fraud.SEC commissioner Jesus Martinez has been named by witnesses as among those that contributed to the collapse of the Legacy Group of Companies.
“Obviously, the intention is to take the heat away from Malacañang. That top Malacañang official wants to shield the President, who was Martinez’s boss anyway,” Villanueva said in a statement Sunday.
“He has resorted to a combination of a negative spin and disinformation on the endorsement issue,” Villanueva said of the Palace official he did not name.
Villanueva said the official sent text messages to the media, saying that Martinez is a JIL member, on the day the SEC commissioner was accused of graft.
In his statement, Villanueva claimed that reporters “confirmed to him” that they received the Malacañang official’s alleged text message.
Villanueva described his sources as “Christian media news reporters” but did not identify them as well.
Villanueva said Martinez was not a JIL member but endorsed him for the SEC post in 2002 based on his merits and qualifications.
Villanueva said he then believed that Martinez “could then be an asset to the new government” which at that time, the JIL founder supported.
“But Commissioner Martinez appears to have co-opted and swallowed by a system that has bred widespread corruption in government,” he said. “He has become a pathetic case.”
Villanueva said the experience with Martinez “showed that people in government service need… a spiritual and moral transformation in the exercise of their political power, duties, and responsibilities.”
It’s interesting that Brother Eddie thinks that state workers need “a spiritual and moral transformation.” However, I find that his statement is nothing more than soundbyte material. Is he seriously saying that such a transformation is possible? More importantly will that really put a stop to corruption in the government?
While I can see the value of “spiritual and moral transformation” as pep talk material, I don’t think it is worth anything in real terms. Such a statement is nothing more than just a campaign slogan, one that can be expected from a presidential hopeful who is banking on his image as a Man of God. If only spurring real change in the government were that easy.
I suspect other possible candidates with public personas less than ideal than Brother Eddie’s will also use the phrase “spiritual and moral transformation” and its variations to get the public to vote for them. My unsolicited advice to all voters: ignore the statement no matter how attractive it may sound.
Ridding the government of corruption requires more than so-called spiritual and moral transformation — even if it were possible. What we need is a real change in the system, which may be accomplished by plugging all the loopholes, setting up tighter checks and balances, imposing graver punishment, etcetera etcetera. Of course, much of that work falls more on those already in power. As voters, the best we can do is to elect leaders with realistic, doable and achievable plans and not just promises of paradigm shifts, change and other far out concepts.
On a system against corruption.
If we just leave everything up to government officials, corruption will not stop. We, each one of us, must make a decision to be part of the fight against corruption.
I am not talking about marching in the streets or any of that jazz.
All we need to do is stop bribing our way through things, even traffic tickets. We need to take time to report corruption, file complaints, and haul people to court.
The system in the United States works because I’d think that it is a deeply ingrained cultural trait among Americans to know the rules and report violations of those rules.
This is probably why it is said that Americans are the most litigouous(?) nationalities — meaning they’d sue anyone over anything. This can be a bad thing, but it can be a good thing — people there are quite careful because even their own neighbors might file a complaint against them for violating a rule against cooking barbecue or not mowing their lawn. Perhaps that’s why people keep to the rules.
[Reply]
lpgd Reply:
April 19th, 2009 at 11:53 am
of course we the public should also do our part. but, i still think the burden of ensuring corruption free governance rests more on those in government. the public can only do so much. lawmakers in particular have in their hands the power to initiate real change in the system (of course i don’t mean charter change especially as it is being bandied about at present).
most people just can’t be expected to do the right thing (eg stop bribing one’s way through things such as traffic tickets; take time to report corruption; file complaints; haul people to court) under the present situation. i’m just being realistic here. take the traffic management situation as an example. under the present system, motorists are practically welcome to offer bribes because traffic enforcers are not the least bit inclined to refuse moreso cite these motorists for bribery or whatever applicable citation is available. it is also worth noting that some if not many apprehended motorists also resort to bribery because they know enforcers are slapping them with trumped up violations. for me, the obvious remedy here is to set the system up in such a way that the traffic enforcer will be forced to do only what is right at every turn — apprehend only motorists who committed real violations, issue the corresponding traffic violation ticket with no questions asked, automatically cite the motorist for a higher penalty in case of bribery or any other tactic (use of id/badge) to avoid citation etc. of course, the system should also ensure that the motorist is given equal power to pose a challenge if he chooses to. I think setting up such a system is far more doable than seeing to it that all motorists will always do the right thing.
in any case, i really believe no matter who gets elected corruption will remain to be a problem unless the system is improved. i’m willing to bet a whole year’s salary on that. the only way to rid the government of corruption or significiantly minimize the risk is by having a massively improved system of checks and balances. hopefully, it would be a system where nepotism, patronage politics or palakasan, and all the other conditions/situations that lead to graft and corruption are easily detected and penalized heavily.
an afterthought. lawmakers should consider passing a law that automatically includes an accused government official’s spouse/partner as a co-accused in case the official is charged for graft and corruption. i think this makes perfect sense because it should be expected that the spouse is fully aware of the government official’s illegal activity and actually benefits from it. such a law should hopefully make government officials wary about engaging in graft and corruption that is if they care at all about their spouse/partner. i seriously doubt it though if any lawmaker would consider crafting such a law.
[Reply]