It was disappointing I must say, though I don't blame it on him. He was invited to the talk show in the burgeoning era of cable television, when airwaves ought to be constantly soused with crispy sound bites for endless 'infotainment'. For that we need lots of people to talk, and in that desperation we are constrained to invite even those who are undesirable. But I must say it was sad to see him on that show. It was embarrassing.

Really, it was a shame to watch him on TV when the only reason why he should have been there is to make a confession and offer an apology. Instead, he participated in a debate of national significance. A man, who allegedly took bribes and abused his office, was offered an opportunity to comment on the rights and wrongs of our national politics.

Why? Even if the issue in discussion concerned his constituency, why did we have to hear anything from this man? How could we take his words after he already violated our trust reposed in him? Why did we give quality airtime to this man whose reputation can give a swindler run for his money?

I appeal it isn't the only example, neither will it be the last example of how we condoned despicable crimes and gave hero's welcome to notorious men. They are on TV, interviewed by newspapers and magazines, and invited to speak in workshops and seminars. They belong to clubs and associations, many of them sitting on the committees that run schools, madrasahs, mosques and other institutions. Of course, some of these men are people's choice and sit in the parliament.

Should we give lift to these people? Should they be allowed to prowl our social corridors despite their moral failings, some by womanizing, some by defalcation, abuse of power and other depravities? Those who torture their maidservants, steal from the company, beats their wives or default on bank loans, should we ever let them talk to us about anything?

In fact, corruption persists because we don't realise that public life is an exponential growth of private responsibilities. If we ask for references and credentials before appointing a peon or guard, why should we lower the standard for people who run the country or shape our opinions? Shouldn't we scrutinise these people? Shouldn't we check their backgrounds?

I agree a man isn't guilty until proven. We know there are many rotten people who have shady lives, black money, mistresses, seedy habits, and dubious characters. I agree we should let ten guilty men go before punishing one who is innocent. But what about those men who are known for their grotty caracters, people who have lost their jobs under allegations of bribery, extortion, falsehood and deception?

Ten months into his tenure as president of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz has started his crusade against “the cancer of corruption” by calling a spade a spade. He blocked US$800 million in lending to Indian health projects, because Indian politicians were said to have their hands on the health funds. The bank has frozen lending to Chad, whose government had reneged on a promise to spend its oil revenue on poverty reduction. Five loans to Kenya have been held up because of corruption.

The World Bank has interrupted a project in Argentina that topped up the wages of poor workers, some of which money may have greased the ruling Peronist Party's electoral machine in 2003. The government has brought charges against one senior official and fired 10 others. The bank has postponed debt relief for Congo. Fourteen road contracts in Bangladesh have been cancelled because of corrupt bidding. Two government officials have since been fired, and the private firms involved might be banned from future World Bank contracts.

Time to turn around, and it works. It works because corruption grows in the dark, damp dungeons where our indulgence, like the mythical monster, grows manifold from a drop of silence. We condone, we conceal, until our conscience is devoured by the moths of acquiescence, until we are gagged as evil sinks its fangs into our mind and soul.

At the root of all evil is our inability to stop that evil. We hate the sin, not the sinner even when the sinner doesn't repent his sin. People who steal from others and build their lifestyle around that ill-gotten money, people who don't renounce their possessions, people who keep what they usurp, they don't deserve our compassion, commendation, cognisance or consideration. This is where we need to turn around, this is where we need to flip. We must hate these sinners as much as we hate their sins.

Everything has a price, and so must sin. But if a dishonest man is given indulgence, his profile enhanced by the glamour of publicity, if he is showcased on television or in the pages of newspapers, his views entertained on microphones, this man whose blood is thickened by the inordinate comfort of his fulsome luxuries is, in effect, being rewarded for his misdeeds. This man comes to the studio in style riding the car bought with his questionable money, and then he faces the camera unabashed because we give him confidence that end always justifies the means.

When it comes to that our nation lives in contradiction. It rewards those who are reprehensible. We elect businessmen to the parliament, knowing that their source of wealth is less than honourable. We elect politicians knowing that their past record is despicable. We fall for the glib tongue, our minds trapped in the recurring spell of evil, as if it is our destiny to repeat the same mistake again and again.

Today all bucks stop there. We are unable to crash over this impediment, our lives somewhat captive in the silence that perpetuates in our condescending attitude towards power and money. We hate nepotism yet live in the awe of those who can give us jobs.

We hate greed yet appreciate those who can give us money. We hate fornication and adultery, but full of praise for leaders who are womanizing.

That explains why we have so many successful people in a failed country. That explains why we have dynastic proclivities in the midst of democracy. That explains why we have demons in the guise of devout Muslims. That explains why we have desperate opportunists in the name of enlightened protagonists. That explains why after more than three decades of freedom, our political future still rotates in the vicious cycle of pride and prejudice.

The man who came on TV and the likes of him who appear in the news, talk shows, meetings, seminars, workshops, boards and committees irk me. They make me angry just like the mischievous pimp. Every time they smile at us on the television screen, every time they pretend to tell us about truth and justice, every time they try to tell us anything, we must know who they are before we even listen to them.

Those who run newspapers, television centres, opinion polls, surveys, research centres, policy dialogues, roundtables, conferences, seminars and workshops, for God's sake listen to me. Please boycott anyone who gets caught in wrongdoing. Be it corruption, conspiracy, loan default, murder, bribery or any other mischief.

If you keep showing their faces, it makes the rest of us hide our faces.

Mohammad Badrul Ahsan is a banker.