I always recall hearing during my formative years that there are two things that no man or woman can eliminate, and a third that no man or woman can avoid. The first two are corruption and prostitution, and the latter is taxes.

I was brought up on the philosophy that all men and women are human and consequently always remain prone to mistakes and temptation. We will leave prostitution and taxes to another opportunity for discussion, although they remain matters to be reckoned with for different reasons.

Every so often, the news breaks that somebody in authority or in a place of relevance has fallen subject to the temptation of corruption. Evidently, the possibility of making a quick buck on the side may at times carve inroads into one’s principles. Let me be clear, I am not here to judge these people and will avoid making judgmental observations.

Firstly, a general comment: corruption is prevalent and takes place on a daily basis in Mediterranean countries and beyond. We have it in our country, albeit our level of corruption is often considered of a trivial nature, despite the fact that, in my opinion, there is no need for a minimum quantity or threshold for an act to reach the level of the definition of corruption; the value of the deed is irrelevant. In practice, however, it remains difficult to establish to what extent there is corruption on a larger scale.

The talk of the town, however, contends that it does exist on a larger scale – but this remains the talk of the town. I do not deny that it may be true, but with hindsight – from both my professional experience and from drawing a parallel – where it was believed in the past that drug traffickers were large fish in big ponds, the successful fight against drug trafficking has shown us that this was but a myth and that, by and large, there is no pattern to the nature of a drug trafficker.

This therefore leads me to the conclusion that corruption is not an issue of who one is, who put one in that place or who exposed him or herself to the wrong company, but is an issue of character, of one who finds him or herself too weak in a particular set of circumstances to stand up and say no, or of one who finds him or herself enthralled by the prospect of racking up a quick stash of euros without much effort and which would, one expects, improve one’s wellbeing.

The political haggling of who knew who and who nominated who is, to be frank, immature and out of synch with what Joe Public demands and wants. Using unfortunate situations for political mileage will, in my opinion, be counterproductive with those who have a modicum of intelligence. Yes, it will impress the few who follow like sheep and idolise their political leaders, but then again, these constitute one of the main reasons why Winston Churchill questioned democracy.

The issue with corruption is not its elimination, since that is a lost battle. The issue with corruption is, firstly, the moral fibre to identify what is right from what is wrong, secondly to ensure that we have the structures in place to fight corruption and, thirdly, ensuring that we have the willpower to do so.

The moral fibre of a country is not beefed up as a result of any one incident. Media reporting on any particular incident of corruption raises gossip and maybe, provides an opportunity for a political party to gain political mileage, but in practice we require more than media reporting.

An understanding of what is right and wrong, both personally and for the society in which we live, is not built as a result of an event; rather, it is the result of the character formation that we should all receive during our formative years at home and through our educational institutions. It is there that investment needs to be made. Education should never become a playground for political football. We need to invest in the educational trail that leads Joe Public to where he ultimately ends up. Ultimately, we are in the hands of – and at the mercy of – our educators throughout our educational process.

The destiny of our society is in their hands. They in turn are in the hands of their mentors, the University where they studied which, in our case, is primarily the University of Malta. It is imperative that standards are upheld there and that it does not become a numbers machine, which would constitute a failure and a disservice to our society. However, this is another discussion we will leave for another day.

The structures are in place and one can address the consequences of wrongdoing, or may perhaps opt to introduce the Whistleblower Act with more efficacy – however, its provisions remain what they are. The consequences for those who fail may also be addressed, but one can never arrive at what is an acceptable consequence, as this inevitably varies from case to case and there is no real measure to determine what is best in all circumstances.

The will to fight corruption is clearly there in democratic countries, including Malta. I cannot perceive or understand what a government may stand to gain in not pursuing anti- corruption legislation or measures.