One is amused at the consternation being shown all around at the phony pilot licenses obtained by some pilots of the Indian skies. Somehow there seems to be a tacit assumption that while the entire country has a constitutional right to be corrupt, for some mysterious reason, pilots are not supposed to exercise their constitutional right! Well, welcome to reality – corruption like water, finds its level into every nook and cranny of the society. Politicos and army generals, like ubiquitous civil servants and the constabulary, are drawn from the same stock as pilots and the petty babus, whether in the government or outside it. If you look closely – who knows – you may even find flying clubs that log in the trainee- pilots’ lunch-time as flying time to save on their own fuel costs, even while expediting the CPL for the pilots, earning their ‘goodwill’ at the same time – a true Win-Win! Corruption is no respecter of regulators, rulers or the ruled. It corrodes one and all equally.
I have said it earlier, and I may as well say it again, corruption needs curtailing not because it inflicts an enormous cost upon the exchequer. That it does. But that is mere economics. It is not the economics that strangles a nation. After all, the economic cost of corruption can easily be made legal as service fees, and not many may complain having to pay Rs. 50 (service tax extra) to be able to meet a Section Officer. Corruption needs curtailing because corruption makes no distinction between right and wrong, between life and death, between one’s own country and that of the enemy’s. A corrupt general or a commanding officer of an army unit on take from suppliers seriously compromises the nation’s security, just as a corrupt clerk in a private telecom company issuing a sim-card to the 26/11 gang compromises the nation’s security, or as a corrupt banker violating the know-your-customer norm aids the terrorists, or as a corrupt contractor laying the roads to Siachen or Kargil may endanger the border security. There is no way we can be tolerant to corruption in this area but not so tolerant to corruption in that area. One is either tolerant to corruption or one is not.
That is what we could learn from the SEC in the US when it goes hell for leather after a Rajarathnam of Galleon or a Rajat Gupta on suspicion of insider trading – a matter that may be largely laughable by Indian standards of corporate governance. If the US makes any concessions to the past reputation of wrong doers, it would be one-step closer to tolerating a certain kind of corruption and that in a modern society must be a strict no no. That’s why a Bernard Madoff or a Martha Sewart went to jail, while similar characters in India may well remain thriving and respectable tycoons, sometimes making it to the highest policy making bodies of the country. That’s why SEC levies enormous fines, running into tens of millions of dollars for the slightest infraction of norms, while in India most SEBI penalties get set aside.
One often wonders, OK, we know all this, but what is the solution? For some reason, we always fail to see that the solution must come from within us. For some reason, our traffic is in chaos because all the others are bad drivers; them, not us. The country suffers from the malignant tumour of corruption because all others are corrupt; them, not us. The fact is that the fight against corruption must begin from ourselves, not them. It may not always be possible to avoid being a victim of corruption. But surely we can push against corruption as much as we can, rather than becoming a tame or a willing participant? Surely we can have the moral fibre not to weigh our lives in monetary terms? Surely we can take pride in our personal worth by not succumbing to corruption because ‘everyone is doing it’?
Interestingly, more corrupt countries like ours are also very high on power-distance index. Power distance index (PDI) is the index of the obsequiousness of a people. In a high PDI society, the perceived distance between a senior and subordinate is very high. That’s why in the a developed country with low PDI, the Janitor would hail the CEO in the lift as ‘Hey Bob’ or the security guard at the airport will frisk a Vice President as he would anyone else. And that’s why whether a Madoff or Martha, a Rajat or a Rajaratnam, none may escape the majesty of law, unlike our Ramalinga Raju, et al. And that’s why in India a white Ambassador with red light can pull right through the security gates of the parliament, because given the huge power-distance index, the security guard dare not stop that obvious symbol of power, lest the “VIP” in the car kick his ass red-hot.
High PDI is also the reason why we will stand mutely with bovine patience when a ‘leaderish’ looking fellow in whites with a safari clad security guard in tow, jumps a queue in the airport. So every time a politician bulldozes his way through the airport security we are as much at risk as we are from the pilots of fake licenses. In high PDI countries, rules are for the lesser mortals. One is worth nothing unless one can violate rules. And the bigger one’s imagined worth, the more audaciously one will violate them. And then from jumping queues for one’s turn at the airport, one graduates to jumping queues for house allotments at an Adarsh Soceity; or to allotments of shops, gas cylinder agencies, or virtually anything else. High PDI is also the reason why the subordinates almost never question the senior’s wrongful actions. That is why a Minister can have his babu do virtually anything for him without question and make thousands of crores either through a 2G scam or a CWG scam, or a fodder scam, with some crums thrown at the babu as well. High PDI is also the reason why a CM of a democratic country, who could not give his citizens decent sidewalks to walk on, will think nothing of blocking a whole road for as long as 15 to 20 minutes, when we with bovine patience for him to pass!
Interestingly, speaking of pilots and PDI, the very researches into PDI started when they found that in many countries, the planes were at higher risk of accident when piloted by the more experienced pilots than they were when piloted by less experienced pilots! Deeper research indicated that the underlying reason was the high PDDI in these countries. So when the senior pilot was on controls, the junior pilot dare not correct his mistakes! So the second pilot was effectively redundant. On the other hand, when the junior pilot was on the joystick, he could easily be commanded upon by the senior. So there were indeed effectively two pilots in charge of the aircract and the aircraft was understandably safer! The research did not include the safety issues related to fake pilot licenses though!
But if you wish to make a small beginning at reducing our PDI, here are two suggestions. One, next time a self-absorbed “VIP” jumps a queue ahead of you, stop him. Tell him, if he is a leader, he better show the way. Second, next time you are waiting for a VIP to pass the traffic where you are held up helplessly, blast your horn full blast, for whatever it is worth. As hundreds of waiting folks blast their horns in unison, hopefully the noise of protest will fall on the VIP ears. But at least let not that bloke get away with it with dignity. So HORN PLEASE!
Can we please agree that in the real world corporations exist for one purpose, and one purpose only: to make as much money as possible, which means cutting costs as much as possible?
On Sunday, March 13, an Alaska Airlines flight from Mexico was met at the Los Angeles airport by fire crews, foam trucks, FBI agents, Transportation Security Administration personnel and police because three Orthodox men were praying on board with tefillin -- black leather boxes containing parchments with verses from the bible. Fourteen months ago, in January of 2010, a U.S. Airways flight from New York to Louisville was diverted to Philadelphia after a 17-year-old passenger's tefillin were mistaken for a bomb. Both incidents make clear that praying while wearing tefillin on a plane risks misunderstanding.
Observant Jews -- along with their Christian, Muslim and other co-religionists -- face an inherent tension. On the one hand, 21st century America affords unparalleled freedom of religious expression, a blessing to be treasured. On the other hand, rights come with responsibilities. American political philosopher Michael Walzer once wrote, "[E]ven the freest of men and women still experiment and innovate under moral constraints, which derive from the social and political world that is their inheritance as well as, sometimes, their burden." Our freedom to pray in the public square (with all the bells and whistles) comes with parallel obligations: We must communicate with others so that, as best possible, they can understand what we are doing and, when necessary, we must understand how our obligations should change so we can co-exist with others. Can this tension be successfully navigated? For Jews, we believe it can.
First, a few important points of Jewish Law:
Must observant Jewish travelers pray with tefillin on board? No. Traditional Jewish sources such as the codes of Rabbi Jacob ben Asher (1270 - 1343) and Rabbi Josef Caro (1488 - 1575) rule that Jews can fulfill the obligation to wear tefillin at any point during daylight hours (Tur/Shulhan Arukh, Orach Hayyim, Ch. 30). Typically, tefillin are worn when reciting the morning shema -- the Jewish credo to be recited morning and evening (see Deuteronomy 6:7) -- because the paragraphs of the shema which include the mitzvah to put on tefillin (Deuteronomy 6:8, 11:18) are contained inside the tefillin boxes. Tefillin are one of the most tangible ways Jews are given to connect (physically) to the word of God, a powerful religious experience filled with beauty and mystery. Saying the shema without tefillin is compared by the Talmud to bearing false witness (B. Bavli Berakhot 14b-15a). Saying the shema while wearing tefillin is ideal, but it is not required. If one is on a plane and the time for saying the shema arrives, one can say the shema without wearing tefillin and then put on tefillin later in the day, sometime before sunset.
A separate, but related, issue faced by observant Jewish travelers is the shacharit prayer, the first of Judaism's thrice daily prayers. Must we stand up and pray at 30,000 feet? Again, no. The rabbis taught that the ideal way to achieve kavanah -- focus -- in prayer is to first say the shema and its blessings and then, immediately afterwards, to say the Amidah -- literally the "standing prayer." But again, that is only an ideal. Rabbi Caro rules that even if it means decoupling the shema and the morning prayer, "it is greatly preferred that one should pray at home, rather than recite the shacharit prayer in its time while traveling" if one can focus better at home (Shulhan Arukh, Orach Hayyim, 89:8). If one cannot avoid praying on a plane -- as is the case on most trans-Atlantic flights -- many rabbinic authorities rule that while it is ideal to pray while standing, one may pray while seated if it helps one's ability to concentrate. In his code of law, Maimonides wrote, "a person sitting in a boat or in a carriage, if able to stand, should do so; if not, he may sit in his place and pray" (Mishneh Torahs, Laws of Prayer, 5:2). Given the cramped, overcrowded spaces at 30,000 feet, not only might it be disrespectful to flight attendants and inconsiderate of fellow passengers, praying in precious aisle space could be counterproductive if one cannot concentrate.
Urging greater piety, traditional Jewish sources will often claim "the more stringent, the better." Other Jewish sources speak of "the pious fool." We suggest a middle-ground, a holy common-sense, if you will.
Balancing obligations to God and fellow travelers is achieved by paying closer attention to, rather than ignoring, surrounding circumstances, especially when they are outside one's immediate control. Jewish law calls such circumstances ones, or sha'at hadachak. In a world far less insular than the one for which much of Jewish law was written, Jewish law itself requires one be sensitive, not callous; flexible, not rigid. Rabbi Shimon taught, "A person should always be gentle as a reed, not inflexible as cedar." This is why only a reed may be used for writing -- you guessed it -- tefillin (B. Bavli Berakhot, Taanit 20a-b). One serves God by being in the world, not transcending it.
We believe it is best to pray quietly before the flight or, if necessary, seated, where one can focus and not disturb others. If one can humbly engage airline staff and fellow travelers so one can pray undisturbed -- and without disturbing others -- great. Until then, best to put on tefillin later, not in flight.
Rabbi Aaron Alexander is Associate Dean of the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies at American Jewish University in Los Angeles where he teaches rabbinic literature and Jewish law. Rabbi Daniel Greyber is a fellow at the Mandel Leadership Institute in Jerusalem and the incoming rabbi of Beth El Synagogue in Durham, North Carolina.
The New York Times reports that GE marketed the Mark 1 boiling water reactors, used in TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi plant, as cheaper to build than other reactors because they used a comparatively smaller and less expensive containment structure.
Yet American safety officials have long thought the smaller design more vulnerable to explosion and rupture in emergencies than competing designs. (By the way, the same design is used in 23 American nuclear reactors at 16 plants.)
In the mid-1980s, Harold Denton, then an official with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said Mark 1 reactors had a 90 percent probability of bursting should the fuel rods overheat and melt in an accident. A follow-up report from a study group convened by the Commission concluded that "Mark 1 failure within the first few hours following core melt would appear rather likely."
Sound familiar?
The National Commission appointed to investigate the giant oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico last April recently concluded that BP failed to adequately supervise Halliburton Company's work on installing the well.
This was the case even though BP knew Halliburton lacked experience testing cement to prevent blowouts and hadn't performed adequately before on a similar job. In short: Neither company bothered to spend the money to ensure adequate testing of the cement.
Nor did Massey Energy spend the money needed to ensure its mines were safe.
And so on.
Don't get me wrong. No company can be expected to build a nuclear reactor, an oil well, a coal mine, or anything else that's one hundred percent safe under all circumstances. The costs would be prohibitive. It's unreasonable to expect corporations to totally guard against small chances of every potential accident.
Inevitably there's a tradeoff. Reasonable precaution means spending as much on safety as the probability of a particular disaster occurring, multiplied by its likely harm to human beings and the environment if it does occur.
Here's the problem. Profit-making corporations have every incentive to underestimate these probabilities and lowball the likely harms.
This is why it's necessary to have such things as government regulators, why regulators must be independent of the industries they regulate, and why regulators need enough resources to enforce the regulations.
It's also why the public in every nation is endangered if the political clout of its biggest corporations -- BP, Halliburton, Massey, G.E., or TEPCO -- grows too large.
Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores.
No comments:
Post a Comment