The CHOLAs Chorus – free & random thoughts!!!

It’s clear-cut at the outset that I’d not endeavour to establish if the Anti-Corruption Commission is a chicken or an egg! One would say ‘Anti’ is, suffice it to say, self-explanatory – but anti to combat, or prevent or pre-empt? I’m not qualified to state if corruption is rampant in our society. But I know corruption is not only enticing but interesting to boot. So let me put forth my personal opinion about something that’s related and perhaps as interesting.

We hear a lot about corruption through hearsay and online forums. These aren’t official even if they are truthful. Many may not be truthful insofar as they are more of character assassination than whistle-blower. When it’s discussed in the media, then it’s official although anyone involved is, needless to say, innocent until proven guilty. Reporting corruption cases by the local newspapers every so often is not very surprising. It’s worrying, however. If it’s not very surprising, then is it indicative of how pervasive corruption is in our society? Who can say? I’d not be tempted to work my way up to be an authority on the correlation between corruption and population even if I’m offered a slot on a sumptuous, lifelong payroll. But there is something that is a tad bugging.

It’s the size of corruption, not its number. Almost every time a corruption case is reported, it stirs up mental and informal debate among people, concerned and therefore necessarily and otherwise and therefore unnecessarily. On the agenda is the size of the corruption case. There are two sides – one for Intent, and the other for Intensity. Misuse of one hundred ngultrums is, in view of the latter group, too insignificant a case to be called corruption and dealt as such. They contend cost will outweigh benefits. “It’s the Intent that’s more important and culpable”, the other group lashes out. Gertrude Stein wrote “Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose.” She meant “things are what they are”. So who would be incorruptible to mediate between the two sides?

So Intent and Intensity – who can identify and separate one from the other with pinpoint accuracy? No, it cannot be likened to a case of separating the wheat from the chaff. Intensity succeeds Intent, no question about it. But Intent is sometimes deliberate, other times accidental, coerced, seduced and inevitable. So who can judge the accused on his or her own merits?  Possibility of miscarriage of justice!

Now Intent and Intensity and their proportionality – one thousand ngultrums is peanuts for a minister but is a fortune for a sweeper. What amount in what proportion to what shall constitute a financial malpractice or malfeasance punishable by law? It’s of course a headache. This is only about money-related corruption. We all know corruption is of many varied forms.

Intent or Intensity is a matter of opinion. But judgment cannot be a matter of opinion. Who wants unintentional miscarriage of justice? Then the best solution, I think, is to be incorruptible. Rather it’s the best pre-emptive solution because it prevents wrangling over Intent and Intensity. What a pity we all disqualify for this!