Most of us encounter corruption at a low level, often accepting, even participating in it as part of daily life.
How many of us see much wrong in slipping some cash to avoid a traffic summons or a parking fine? Has such a practice become part of what we consider normal? Or is any moral discomfort we might feel dulled by a sense of shared guilt?
Do we justify our actions by pointing to bigger scandals? “At least I’m not stealing millions,” we may tell ourselves. So we don’t see any harm in our actions.
But such small acts are not as harmless as they seem. They form part of a larger pattern of corruption spreading across society. This spread infiltrates our relationships, institutions, values and even our idea of justice.
What we don’t realise is that the same justifications are used by all perpetrators, from small acts to those that destroy the nation.
Social domain
Corruption thrives in the very way we relate to one another. Reported cases frequently reveal strong personal relationships between the briber and the bribed.
A senior government officer attending a wedding is seen as an honour, not a red flag. Likewise, businessmen often attend private functions hosted by powerful officials. Expensive gifts are exchanged, not as bribes, but as gestures of goodwill.
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara (ALIRAN), CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a regular pledge or periodic auto-donation to Aliran
- Become an Aliran member
Yet these gifts of large hampers and thick red packets often come with expectations. Over time, they influence decision-making, secure favours and tilt outcomes.
Our multicultural society provides ample occasions for such exchanges – open houses, weddings, engagements, house-warming parties, a child going abroad for studies. Rituals and celebrations that are meant to bring communities together become occasions where influence and obligation develop.
When corrupt transactions follow, they are rarely seen as wrong. They’ve been culturally normalised. And when wrongdoing is exposed, it’s usually the result of a disgruntled insider, not a functioning system of oversight.
Institutional corruption
In both government and private institutions, hierarchical structures provide fertile ground for corruption that is not always recognised or labelled as such.
Those vested with authority often exercise their power in exchange for favours and forms of gratification that may not fall neatly within the legal definition of corruption under the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2009 (MACC Act).
Such conduct diminishes the value of merit and hard work. It thrives in environments where discretion is unchecked and accountability is weak.
Nepotism – the appointment or promotion of relatives or close associates regardless of competence – is one form. The exchange of sexual favours – coercive or consensual – is another.
In educational institutions, favouritism in hiring, grading and promotions undermines academic standards and isolates those who uphold integrity. Published complaints speak of senior officials altering marks and grades to favour relatives and friends. Victims – whether junior staff, academics or students – often remain silent, fearing reprisals, stalled careers or the loss of livelihoods.
Although the MACC Act defines “gratification” broadly enough to arguably cover such corrupt conduct, no prosecutions have been reported regarding institutional favouritism of this nature. The silence is telling.
As in other domains, both perpetrators and victims become enmeshed in a culture where corruption is normalised. People no longer see it as an ethical breach but as a survival strategy or an unspoken cost of ambition.
The state and its resources
Governments control vast national resources and funds. Those who control them hold these resources in trust for the nation and its people.
Most of these resources go towards building homes, hospitals, roads, ports and more. Hence, each year, government expenditure far exceeds that of any private entity.
Individuals and committees make decisions on these projects. Rules and audits guide them – in theory.
However, oversight can be weak. Those tasked with accountability are often vulnerable to influence.
Corruption in this space is the most lucrative. The stakes are high, and so are the risks. People disguise bribes as consultancy fees, donations or third-party arrangements. Unlike social or institutional corruption, this form of corruption is not normalised – it is strategically hidden.
Corrupt actors may manipulate processes to bypass checks and periodic audits, such as by the auditor general or parliamentary oversight committees. They simply ignore or overcome the controls that should protect the public interest or turn them into tools that enable fraud.
Legal system
This brings us to one of the most alarming domains – the legal system. The public relies on it to investigate, charge and prosecute corruption without political interference.
But in recent years, we have seen how the system itself can be co-opted into the problem. High-profile trials are delayed or discontinued. Prosecution teams are reshuffled. Key figures are discharged midway through trial – “discharge not amounting to acquittal”, they call it.
The term “DNAA” has become a national byword for impunity. It signals that while a crime may have been committed, no one will be held responsible, at least not for now.
When justice becomes uncertain, inconsistent or negotiable, the very possibility of accountability collapses. People lose faith not only in the system, but in the idea that justice can be done.
Domain of public perception
Finally, corruption has claimed perhaps its most critical domain: the public’s moral compass.
A healthy society must abhor corruption, regardless of who commits it.
But political and religious rhetoric has blurred these lines. When political leaders are caught stealing from the nation, segments of the public defend them. They based their defence not on innocence, but allegiance.
When a political ally is accused, the reaction is not outrage, but defence. (Read Johan Arriffin’s excellent analysis of this point.)
Corruption is sometimes filtered through affiliations of race, religion and party loyalty.
Many now perceive the pardons process – intended as a final safeguard of justice and mercy – as a tool to erase accountability. When political elites walk free, the public becomes desensitised to the crime itself. This undermines the very idea of justice.
Yet even with all this, it is crucial not to conflate all forms of corruption. While everyday corruption reflects a culture of moral compromise, it should not be mistaken for the scale or consequences of grand corruption.
Grand corruption entails not merely the theft of the nation’s wealth but also the surrendering of its powers for personal gain.
Grand corruption of the type we are seeing today is a betrayal. When political leaders embezzle national funds, favour cronies or subvert justice, they commit not just a crime but moral treason. These acts sabotage a nation’s future and destroy public trust.
We must redefine such acts as a form of treason. The authorities should not only punish these acts as corruption but as acts against the nation itself – like the waging of war on the nation or the aiding of its enemies. Treason, in other words.
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
Corruption keeps growing like wild fire.
When PM’s & Politicians are wildly corrupted then what is the status of the country[?]
The worst scenario is, Corruption committed by [many in the country].
That’s disgusting!!!