MonsoonWind wrote:
all who assume high political (or buraucratic) office should not seek to make large personal fortunes for themseles or for those close to them. THEIR sole motivation should be to serve the community.

...

HE SHOULd give thanks and gratitude to god for his good fortune and not covet that which is not rightfully his.

BEING governor of a land with a capitalist economy does not mean the top politican has to be a capitalist himself!

I think this hits at the key difference. In Confucian tradition, poverty is not a virtue. Sure sure there's an emphasis that public officials has a DUTY (not motivation) to serve "the community" (codeword: heaven's mandate). But the reward for fulfilling his duty is almost purely materialistic: wealth, even opulent wealth, for himself and his descendants. Again perhaps the "wealth" part is not so explicit in numerical terms, but it's encoded in the pompous ceremony component of Confucianism. In some way very similar to English nobility.

Modern Western thinking is actually this very uncomfortable menage a trois of Christianity & Democracy & Capitalism. Each is not really compatible with each other, a 3-way mix is downright a mess. E.g. Christianity preaches poverty and humility, but Capitalism denies good intention and allows greed as the sole legitimate and honest motive force. Democracy emphasize freedom and seeks to empower the humblest of persons, but Christianity demands undoubting obedience to an unseen God and his unelected officials.

So there's this pervasive use of the word "serve", a President is elected to serve the people, a soldier enlists to serve the nation etc. Where does it come from? It's Christian mindset, to serve God.

So perhaps in the Western mindset, this idea of serving the community makes it so horrifying to find senators, governors and judges who behave like everybody else. So you end up focusing on if an official accepted gifts and bribe, or otherwise got rich against some written laws or rules. Whereas I (not necessarily representing all of the Orient) focus on how well he performed his duty, or flipside does he make a royal mess, e.g. going into a bad war, allowing diseases to spread etc.

So if you take the typical definition of corruption: does someone take or accept bribes/gifts; then I say it's a problem, but not of top priority. Other factors may make me tolerant of some corruption. Kind of like people smoking or chewing gum in public, it's not a good thing, but I wouldn't necessarily lose sleep on it.

Beentheredonethat wrote:
I wonder if this is a uniquely Western attitude. For a politician to take money from the public coffers for self-enrichment is viewed as a high sin. However, for a politician to ear-mark a little "pork" to benefit his home district or State is regarded as politics as usual.

In other words, a politician who is corrupt in the sense of enriching himself through the use of public funds will never get re-elected. However, a politician who seeks money for a pork project in his own district will improve his chances of getting elected.

In Asia a corrupt politician is tolerated as long as the country avoids disaster and people feel like their lives are safer and they feel better off in general.

First let's take the "unique" language out. The world is globalized now, nothing is purely or uniquely Western or Oriental anymore.

There are two issues:

There are two kinds of pork politics: it's legitimate that congresspersons and senators try to influence Federal politics to benefit his/her home states. It's not legitimate when he/she SCREW national interest in the process. E.g. it's legit when states seek Federal support to build a bridge; it becomes illegit when it turns out the bridge goes nowhere. But EITHER the good or bad kinds of pork politics is clearly NOT covered by the definition of corruption. It's brought up as something that smells stinky, much more stinky than say a typical corruption case where politician stealing a $100k here, a couple millions there.

I.e. it's brought up to highlight the insignificance of typical corruption cases.

The second issue is covered by my previous post. In short, competence on fulfilling one's duty is the key question. There is a correlation between corruption and dereliction of one's duty. I.e. ones who derelict on one's duty is often also corrupt, but the reverse is not true, ones who takes bribes may also be doing one's job very well. Enriching oneself and/or family is seen as an unofficial perk/side benefit for reaching a high office.

Actually there are some odd cases: W Bush is a classic case of dereliction of duty. His 8 years were the biggest mistake Americans made in at least 100 years. But he's not corrupt. He's a bumbling fool who let bad people surround him and exploited him. He didn't consciously try to enrich himself and his family. Not corrupt, but very bad, far far worse than a plain old corrupt politician. There is even a chance Obama is just as bad. Not corrupt, but far worse than corrupt.

I'm not saying Asian angle on corruption is in anyway a superior or more desirable (theoretical) structure than the West. But in practice, at this particular point in time, China's corruption problems doesn't seem much more serious and dangerous than the general state of affairs in Washington. Another example is Japan, using Western definition, every little thing is greased by gifts, money and family relations, but the national economy rolls along and people lives are decent.

Ok, perhaps we can agree that the commonly used meaning of the English word corruption is someone who receives a bribe to expedite or facilitate some transaction. In Arabic the word is baksheesh, in Indonesian the word is uang licin (or slippery money). I don't know the word in other languages, but the action is the same.

We decide how bad or not bad this is at another time.

ding73ding wrote:


I think this hits at the key difference. In Confucian tradition, poverty is not a virtue. Sure sure there's an emphasis that public officials has a DUTY (not motivation) to serve "the community" (codeword: heaven's mandate). But the reward for fulfilling his duty is almost purely materialistic: wealth, even opulent wealth, for himself and his descendants. Again perhaps the "wealth" part is not so explicit in numerical terms, but it's encoded in the pompous ceremony component of Confucianism. In some way very similar to English nobility.

Modern Western thinking is actually this very uncomfortable menage a trois of Christianity & Democracy & Capitalism. Each is not really compatible with each other, a 3-way mix is downright a mess. E.g. Christianity preaches poverty and humility, but Capitalism denies good intention and allows greed as the sole legitimate and honest motive force. Democracy emphasize freedom and seeks to empower the humblest of persons, but Christianity demands undoubting obedience to an unseen God and his unelected officials.



THANKS for that insight Ding, Worth reading yours and other posts for the likes of that.

I would like to comment on one of your definitions for sake of clarity: Christianity preaches poverty and humility.

I Agree with the humility part - if more of it was practiced across this planet we would have a better world. BUT poverty?

IT IS True that CHRIST chose for himself a life of austerity, but he does not appear to have been against the ownership or accumulation of wealth per se.(IF YOU Are conversent with the contents of the NEW TESTIMENT you may be familar with his parable of the talents). WHAT CHRIST seems to have condenmed was making wealth an obscession to the point that you make it your god and become oblivious to the real GOD. THAT and the misuse of wealth - an abuse of GOD"s gifts. IN that regard those who brought about the recent global financial crisis (THOUGH I DO NOT wish to prejudge every individual) could be considered very sinful men.

TRUE THAt christian churches of the past may have taught that poverty is holy; but manifest as a rule manditary for all I WOULD discount such a teaching as heresy - out of line with Christ's intent. POVERty is holy only if you chose it for the sake of freeing yourself of all incumberances in pursuit of a higher truth.

I agree that unselfishly serving one's community is service to GOD in ANother form.

an unseen God and his unelected officials? THAT notion is as proposterous as the practice (NORMALLy found only in a madman) OF railing against the force of gravity because it pins us to the surface of the EARTH, preventing us from levitating into the sky, soaring like eagles (unaided by artifices like aircraft and baloons). Without the force of gravity we would not only all drift into outer space and perish but this earth of ours would disintegrate and return to cosmic dust.

THERE IS nothing "DEMOCRAtic" about the workings of the force of gravity. NOR SHOUld there be - it is there for our benefit.

GRAVIty is still a mystery - we know it is there but still do not know what causes it. God is likewise a big mystery.
.......................................

(THE gospel according to monsoonwind)

Two parties are involve in any act of corruption.

The person who give is as dirty as the person who receive it.

TheMiddlePath wrote:
Two parties are involve in any act of corruption.

The person who give is as dirty as the person who receive it.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption

Political corruption is the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain.

Corruption poses a serious development challenge. In the political realm, it undermines democracy and good governance by flouting or even subverting formal processes. Corruption in elections and in legislative bodies reduces accountability and distorts representation in policymaking; corruption in the judiciary compromises the rule of law; and corruption in public administration results in the inefficient provision of services. More generally, corruption erodes the institutional capacity of government as procedures are disregarded, resources are siphoned off, and public offices are bought and sold. At the same time, corruption undermines the legitimacy of government and such democratic values as trust and tolerance.

IT matters not to this author thatthere are states on this EARTh that seem to combine highlevels of corruption with high levels of economic growth. Nations with corrupt systems of government are unerringly UNJUST societies.

NO such thing as corruption for the purpose of promoting natural justice.

Did you know that the United Nations has a line item in their budget to pay money to government officials when it is necessary to accomplish their mission. Apparently the greater good is more important than the transgression of paying money to bribe an official.

There is no corruption in America! Seriously, that's the truth, because it's called lobbying (with money of course!).

That's how Americans brainwash the world, just sexy up whatever they don't like and make their own rules. If they can't win as many gold metal in Olympic as China, they will count the total instead (one day soon they will count the number of participants!)

Anyone in China can be the country leader (Mao is only a teacher) but in US, you have to be the rich upper class.

The communist China and Tibet government is the result of the overwhelming majority uprising against the rich and corrupted minority (that is supported by american and british, who else!) and yet the Amercian tried to claim democracy??

check out transparency international's website, they will tell you everything you want to know about corruption... nz least corrupt, canada #8, usa #19, china #79... let us not pretend that corruption is good, or even harmless: why did all those chinese schools collapse in the last big earthquake? why were some who tried to complain about it imprisoned? here in canada we have a breaking story regarding the federal govt's chief real estate dude handing out millions in contracts to a pal (we're #8 for a reason)...

corruption exists because some people seek an advantage over the law-abiding and others are willing to sell said advantage and thereby subvert the opportunities of the law-abiding or improperly "connected." corruption= theft...

just thinking aloud here, aq, not telling just saying, i suspect all corruption is systemic: the differing types of corruption all have in common that they are subsumed into what is acceptable in a given culture. confucian cultures have long underpaid their civil servants in the expectation that they will find other ways to make a $ (one of singapore's brilliant innovations was to pay their civil servants well, in turn they were expected to be "clean"; a big reason they are a remarkable #3)... the "systemic" corruption of america is in turn, if not acceptable, at least comprehensible: legislator's need to spend millions to get elected, there are 3 lobbyists for every legislator, it is understandable that money changes hands for favours...

There is a clear difference between cultural and system corruption.

Chairman Mao called his compaign in 1960s "cultural revolution"
to rid off many corruptive traditions. Red guards are your
typical ideological teenagers who wanted to change the world.
Now everything is back, with a vengance. Culture is amazingly strange animal.

However, these corruptive traditional culture don't have much impacts on the economy, as it has been for thousands years.

The systemic corruptions are different. KMT, the nationlist,
were so systemic corrupted, they lost to communists in
a short four years, even they had controll of the everything.

Today's US is not very different. Corruptive "lobby" is
one thing (which is not new). The "bailout" is entirely
otherworldly. I called Obama "bamboo shoot"
a year ago for a very good reason. He has an empty inside.