OPINION | Are We Turning Bribery into a Racial Issue?
27 Jan 2026 • 5:00 PM MYT
.png)
Fa Abdul
FA ABDUL is a former columnist of Malaysiakini & Free Malaysia Today (FMT)
Photo credit: The Vocket
Stirring up controversy, a Terengganu state executive councillor claimed that “Type C often gives bribes whilst Type M often receives bribes” - a reference to the ethnic Chinese and Malay communities, respectively. The remark was made in response to a Sarawakian MP who had defended the Dayak community by saying that while his people eat pork, they do not engage in corruption.
A fascinating framing, really. Corruption, it seems, is now a racial relay race. One group runs with the envelope, another waits patiently at the finish line with an open palm.
But let us take this claim seriously. Very seriously. After all, satire works best when logic is allowed to run freely - straight into a wall.
If bribery exists, someone must give and someone must receive. This is often compared to the chicken-and-egg problem. Which came first? The giver or the taker? Except unlike chickens and eggs, bribery does not occur naturally. Money does not wander into pockets on its own. Envelopes do not leap into drawers. A bribe only becomes a bribe the moment it is accepted.
So if we follow the statement to its logical conclusion, then the most important character in this story is the receiver. If the receiver refused and lodged a report on the giver, no such incident would occur at all. End of story. Roll credits. No corruption culture, no scandals, no statements to explain later.
Which leads us - inevitably - to an even spicier hypothesis. If acceptance enables corruption, and repeated acceptance normalises it, then perhaps those who receive frequently begin to like receiving. And those who like receiving may eventually ask when nothing is offered. That, after all, is how habits form. How “culture” is born.
Now add demographics to the mix. If Type M makes up roughly 70% of the population, can we safely conclude that corruption survives not only because Type M receives, but because Type M also asks freely? Technically speaking, without Type M, corruption would not exist at all.
There. Does that sound offensive? It should. Because this is what happens when we racialise behaviour instead of examining actions. The logic may appear neat, even “technically correct,” but it collapses the moment we remember that people - not races - give bribes, receive bribes, and ask for bribes.
And that is the real problem. Not who gives. Not who receives. But how easily we trade accountability for labels.
So perhaps the lesson here is simple: corruption is not a racial trait. It is a choice.
And if a theory sounds clever but leaves entire communities offended, maybe the problem isn’t the people - maybe it’s the theory.
Let’s learn. Let’s move on. And maybe, just maybe, let’s stop blaming chickens for eggs they didn’t lay.
Stirring up controversy, a Terengganu state executive councillor claimed that “Type C often gives bribes whilst Type M often receives bribes” - a reference to the ethnic Chinese and Malay communities, respectively. The remark was made in response to a Sarawakian MP who had defended the Dayak community by saying that while his people eat pork, they do not engage in corruption.
A fascinating framing, really. Corruption, it seems, is now a racial relay race. One group runs with the envelope, another waits patiently at the finish line with an open palm.
But let us take this claim seriously. Very seriously. After all, satire works best when logic is allowed to run freely - straight into a wall.
If bribery exists, someone must give and someone must receive. This is often compared to the chicken-and-egg problem. Which came first? The giver or the taker? Except unlike chickens and eggs, bribery does not occur naturally. Money does not wander into pockets on its own. Envelopes do not leap into drawers. A bribe only becomes a bribe the moment it is accepted.
So if we follow the statement to its logical conclusion, then the most important character in this story is the receiver. If the receiver refused and lodged a report on the giver, no such incident would occur at all. End of story. Roll credits. No corruption culture, no scandals, no statements to explain later.
Which leads us - inevitably - to an even spicier hypothesis. If acceptance enables corruption, and repeated acceptance normalises it, then perhaps those who receive frequently begin to like receiving. And those who like receiving may eventually ask when nothing is offered. That, after all, is how habits form. How “culture” is born.
Now add demographics to the mix. If Type M makes up roughly 70% of the population, can we safely conclude that corruption survives not only because Type M receives, but because Type M also asks freely? Technically speaking, without Type M, corruption would not exist at all.
There. Does that sound offensive? It should. Because this is what happens when we racialise behaviour instead of examining actions. The logic may appear neat, even “technically correct,” but it collapses the moment we remember that people - not races - give bribes, receive bribes, and ask for bribes.
And that is the real problem. Not who gives. Not who receives. But how easily we trade accountability for labels.
So perhaps the lesson here is simple: corruption is not a racial trait. It is a choice.
And if a theory sounds clever but leaves entire communities offended, maybe the problem isn’t the people - maybe it’s the theory.
Let’s learn. Let’s move on. And maybe, just maybe, let’s stop blaming chickens for eggs they didn’t lay.
