According to a survey conducted by Transparency International, 4% of New Zealanders have admitted to paying a bribe in the last 12 months.
We like to think we are a nation free from the taint of corruption, yet the survey shows that vice is on the increase.
I am one of those 4%. It shames me to say it, but offering bribes is a way of life. They're my way of getting things done, of getting the wheels moving. There's barely a day goes by without my offering an inducement to get things moving. I'll probably get struck off as a lawyer for admitting this.
Whether it's "if you eat all your dinner I'll give you dessert", or "if you sit on the potty I'll give you a jellybean", I simply can't spend more than a few hours without offering someone a reward in return for them doing something they ought to be doing anyway.
And sometimes it's cold, hard cash. "Make your bed every day this week and I'll give you pocket money" is my latest strategy.
Threats and extortion are also grist to the mill for me. "If you don't pick your toys up this instant there will be no bedtime stories!" is a useful threat when you need action to be taken quickly. Another one that is useful but which I'm not especially proud of is "If you don't hurry up and put your shoes on we'll stay home!"
It shames me to admit all of this, and yet I had be honest with you. I needed to get this off my chest.
Mind you, I'm surprised the figure is only 4%. How do other parents do it?
Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
How Far Does This Go?
The latest news of corruption in cricket will horrify most followers of the game, even if they may not be especially surprised to learn a team from the Indian subcontinent is again at the centre of allegations.
It's getting to the stage where you just can't rely on any result. And if the bookies haven't fixed the actual result of something, they're probably fiddling in some way. For example, nobody is seriously claiming the result of the Pakistan-England test was fixed. Instead, a certain number of deliveries in the game (at least three) were allegedly "bought" by bookies.
When I look back at some of the strange things that have gone on, I realise the bookmakers and betting syndicates may have been doing this for years.
You can see their influence as early as 326BC, when Alexander the Great faced the Hindu king Porus in the Battle of the Hydaspes River. Alexander was a legendary general, but there's no way he won that battle fair and square. Are we seriously meant to believe he sneaked over the river and outflanked the enemy without being detected? Either Porus was an idiot, or he took a dive. You decide. But isn't it somewhat convenient that after the battle Alexander allowed him to keep his title and lands, in return for his loyalty?
Some people have argued Alexander was the greatest military leader who ever lived. But I'll bet historians and archaeologists one day discover he had a long baggage train of Indian bookmakers following his army.
Another ancient battle I could never fathom was Cannae, in 216BC. There you had a vast and powerful Roman army (up to 80,000, depending on which ancient sources you believe), against maybe less than half that number led by Hannibal. In the end Hannibal's army outflanked the Romans, drove off their cavalry, and then annihilated them. Hannibal's tactics in this battle were either pure genius, or the whole thing was fixed. I'm just not sure why the Romans agreed to go along with it, because most of them were slaughtered. Mind you, one of the two Roman generals managed to escape, despite what must have been some pretty heavy bags. That gold would have weighed a tonne.
Hannibal's army was composed of a multitude of different races: Iberians, Africans, Gauls and Italians to name but a few. It would have been quite easy for a few bookies from the east to slip in unnoticed.
And what about the papal elections? I'm not saying the election of the current bloke was a complete fraud, although there have been some shock selections in the past. But I bet there would have been some serious money placed on when the white smoke would rise from the Sistine Chapel.
Talking of matters religious, how about that Jesus fellow? Gets nailed to a cross then turns up a few days later, apparently alive and well. Is anyone else thinking a few Roman soldiers might have been paid to look the other way? I understand that back in the day 30 pieces of silver was the going rate for selling someone out, but an operation like this would have been much more expensive, because of the number of people involved.
So this has been going on for years. Though if you think the cancer hasn't spread to this part of the world, think again. Our politicians continue to make decisions that defy all logic or reason. There is even a political party in Government whose policies seems to be designed to achieve the exact opposite of what they publicly claim. Can our politicians really be this inept? Or is something else going on? And why hasn't this been exposed by Ian Wishart? Or is he one of them? That would explain a lot of things.
It's getting to the stage where you just can't rely on any result. And if the bookies haven't fixed the actual result of something, they're probably fiddling in some way. For example, nobody is seriously claiming the result of the Pakistan-England test was fixed. Instead, a certain number of deliveries in the game (at least three) were allegedly "bought" by bookies.
When I look back at some of the strange things that have gone on, I realise the bookmakers and betting syndicates may have been doing this for years.
You can see their influence as early as 326BC, when Alexander the Great faced the Hindu king Porus in the Battle of the Hydaspes River. Alexander was a legendary general, but there's no way he won that battle fair and square. Are we seriously meant to believe he sneaked over the river and outflanked the enemy without being detected? Either Porus was an idiot, or he took a dive. You decide. But isn't it somewhat convenient that after the battle Alexander allowed him to keep his title and lands, in return for his loyalty?
Some people have argued Alexander was the greatest military leader who ever lived. But I'll bet historians and archaeologists one day discover he had a long baggage train of Indian bookmakers following his army.
Another ancient battle I could never fathom was Cannae, in 216BC. There you had a vast and powerful Roman army (up to 80,000, depending on which ancient sources you believe), against maybe less than half that number led by Hannibal. In the end Hannibal's army outflanked the Romans, drove off their cavalry, and then annihilated them. Hannibal's tactics in this battle were either pure genius, or the whole thing was fixed. I'm just not sure why the Romans agreed to go along with it, because most of them were slaughtered. Mind you, one of the two Roman generals managed to escape, despite what must have been some pretty heavy bags. That gold would have weighed a tonne.
Hannibal's army was composed of a multitude of different races: Iberians, Africans, Gauls and Italians to name but a few. It would have been quite easy for a few bookies from the east to slip in unnoticed.
And what about the papal elections? I'm not saying the election of the current bloke was a complete fraud, although there have been some shock selections in the past. But I bet there would have been some serious money placed on when the white smoke would rise from the Sistine Chapel.
Talking of matters religious, how about that Jesus fellow? Gets nailed to a cross then turns up a few days later, apparently alive and well. Is anyone else thinking a few Roman soldiers might have been paid to look the other way? I understand that back in the day 30 pieces of silver was the going rate for selling someone out, but an operation like this would have been much more expensive, because of the number of people involved.
So this has been going on for years. Though if you think the cancer hasn't spread to this part of the world, think again. Our politicians continue to make decisions that defy all logic or reason. There is even a political party in Government whose policies seems to be designed to achieve the exact opposite of what they publicly claim. Can our politicians really be this inept? Or is something else going on? And why hasn't this been exposed by Ian Wishart? Or is he one of them? That would explain a lot of things.
Monday, October 5, 2009
If This Is Cheating, Then Everyone Cheats
You really have to wonder why anyone would want to play cricket for Pakistan.
But are we really going to open corruption investigations every time someone drops a sitter? In that case you may as well indict the entire NZ team now and save us all future bother.
Pakistan has "form" for past nefarious activities on the cricket field, but if Younus really wanted to throw the game, planning to drop a catch would not be the safest way to go about it. It was not guaranteed that a catch would come his way. And I saw nothing else particularly unusual in the game as a whole - nothing to make me suspect match fixing, anyway.
It's debatable whether the dropped catch lost Pakistan the game. If Younus had taken the catch we would still have had wickets in hand, plenty of time to go and big hitters to come. Arguably the game was all but lost by that time. If you want the real reason for Pakistan's failure it is their batting, and the pressure some good NZ bowling put them under.
But these sorts of allegations will always occur when a Pakistani cricketer makes a costly blunder. Who'd be one?
Pakistan captain Younus Khan's dropped catch at a crucial point in yesterday's Champions Trophy cricket match against New Zealand has roused suspicions of corrupt play.I saw most of the run chase on the telly, and it was a close one until the last few overs. And the catch was a sitter. I'm not saying I'd have caught it (maybe if it had been the size of a basketball...), but then I'm not a professional cricketer. By the standards of professional cricket it was a shocker.
While strenuously denying deliberately dropping the ball, Younus conceded that the dropped catch cost his team the Champions Trophy semifinal tie in Johannesburg on Saturday.
But are we really going to open corruption investigations every time someone drops a sitter? In that case you may as well indict the entire NZ team now and save us all future bother.
Pakistan has "form" for past nefarious activities on the cricket field, but if Younus really wanted to throw the game, planning to drop a catch would not be the safest way to go about it. It was not guaranteed that a catch would come his way. And I saw nothing else particularly unusual in the game as a whole - nothing to make me suspect match fixing, anyway.
It's debatable whether the dropped catch lost Pakistan the game. If Younus had taken the catch we would still have had wickets in hand, plenty of time to go and big hitters to come. Arguably the game was all but lost by that time. If you want the real reason for Pakistan's failure it is their batting, and the pressure some good NZ bowling put them under.
But these sorts of allegations will always occur when a Pakistani cricketer makes a costly blunder. Who'd be one?
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The Disgrace That Is Formula One
It is almost impossible to believe that, after one of the most outrageous cases of cheating in sport, the team responsible has been given the equivalent of a slap on the wrist.
I am of course talking about the race-fixing charge laid against the Renault team in Formula One. Renault didn't even contest the charge.
Motorsport officials have argued that the people responsible for the race-fixing were former team principal Flavio Briatore and former executive director of engineering Pat Symonds, and that they are the ones who ought to be punished (Briatore got a life ban, Symonds five years). That is supposedly why Renault escaped with a suspended sentence: a lifetime ban from the sport, suspended for two years.
But that is absurd. When the head of an organisation is caught up in corrupt practices, as occasionally happens, we expect the organisation to be punished, especially if that organisation has benefited from the practices. If the CEO of a major company colludes to fix prices, or to dump toxic waste in a river, we expect that company to face massive penalties.
So why not Renault? It's hard to see anything other than politics at play. Formula One is run by two of the most unlikeable men in sport, Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley. It's a venture that is less about sport than money.
Clearly, punishing Renault might cause significant harm to the competition, and Formula One simply can't afford to hit Renault too hard. But for how long can Formula One's masters continue to act so disgracefully? At some stage the fans may just start moving towards the door.
I am of course talking about the race-fixing charge laid against the Renault team in Formula One. Renault didn't even contest the charge.
Motorsport officials have argued that the people responsible for the race-fixing were former team principal Flavio Briatore and former executive director of engineering Pat Symonds, and that they are the ones who ought to be punished (Briatore got a life ban, Symonds five years). That is supposedly why Renault escaped with a suspended sentence: a lifetime ban from the sport, suspended for two years.
But that is absurd. When the head of an organisation is caught up in corrupt practices, as occasionally happens, we expect the organisation to be punished, especially if that organisation has benefited from the practices. If the CEO of a major company colludes to fix prices, or to dump toxic waste in a river, we expect that company to face massive penalties.
So why not Renault? It's hard to see anything other than politics at play. Formula One is run by two of the most unlikeable men in sport, Bernie Ecclestone and Max Mosley. It's a venture that is less about sport than money.
Clearly, punishing Renault might cause significant harm to the competition, and Formula One simply can't afford to hit Renault too hard. But for how long can Formula One's masters continue to act so disgracefully? At some stage the fans may just start moving towards the door.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Afghanistanian Democracy
So why are we in Afghanistan? Clearly it's not because we want to see democracy flourishing there.
A UN-backed commission has declared it has "convincing evidence of fraud" in Afghanistan's elections.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has tried to bat away allegations of vote-rigging:
Most of the alleged vote-rigging has occurred in the south of the country, Karzai's political base. There can be no question that Karzai's faction is trying to secure his election without needing a further run-off poll.
All of this should be of concern to the West. We cannot be seen to support a government in Afghanistan that has no legitimacy.
Of course, it may be that the war there is already lost. I don't know, because I'm not an expert in the area. But the reports coming out of Afghanistan are less than encouraging.
Right now there must be a few Russian war veterans quietly smiling to themselves and thinking "told you so".
A UN-backed commission has declared it has "convincing evidence of fraud" in Afghanistan's elections.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has tried to bat away allegations of vote-rigging:
As far as the elections are concerned, there was fraud in 2004, there is today, there will be tomorrow. Alas, it is inevitable in a nascent democracyAlas, it is also inevitable that when you try to impose a "democratic" system on a people more used to being ruled by warlords and tribal leaders, the guy who ends up in power will be corrupt.
Most of the alleged vote-rigging has occurred in the south of the country, Karzai's political base. There can be no question that Karzai's faction is trying to secure his election without needing a further run-off poll.
All of this should be of concern to the West. We cannot be seen to support a government in Afghanistan that has no legitimacy.
Of course, it may be that the war there is already lost. I don't know, because I'm not an expert in the area. But the reports coming out of Afghanistan are less than encouraging.
Right now there must be a few Russian war veterans quietly smiling to themselves and thinking "told you so".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)