A brazen example is our chief whip in parliament. Print media featured reports about his kitchen being run at huge public expense. Lo and behold, instead of feeling culpable, we saw him set out to justify the wrong and sue the newspapers for sullying his image, if at all he has an image worth mentioning. He also brushed aside negative reviews when his son, a connoisseur of exhortation, was arrested on suspected carjacking charge.

True to the nomenclature of his position, he whips the whole nation when he defends his son or his right to feed all and sundry at public expense. Are we then not to conclude that the word resignation is something obsolete to him and his ilk?

Interestingly, offspring of chief whips seem to share a knack for media headlines: one of the colourful sons of the immediate past chief whip was also reportedly arrested in 2003 by the Rapid Action Battalion.

Then we have a High Court judge who had run into controversy over his degree certificate. Any sensible person simply would have released academic records to disprove discrepancies he or she is accused of. But the judge prefers otherwise, and we marvel at his immense capacity to remain unperturbed against disparaging insinuations.

Like the chief whip, he is perhaps also under the illusion that the court would miss his profound legal scholarship if he happens to choose the civilized way of calling it quits. But now that his judgeship is confirmed, there is a good chance that some day he would be elevated to the Appellate Division as he continues to weather adversaries. He might even end up becoming the chief justice!

The latest addition in the list is our chief election commissioner, unfortunately again a Supreme Court judge. In early January, the High Court directed the Election Commission to revise the existing electoral roll, rather than prepare a fresh one. Instead of compliance, the Election Commission field a writ petition with the Appellate Division.

But in May, the chief election commissioner's brethren on the bench rejected the arguments of the institution he heads, and retained the High Court ruling. He truly cuts a sorry figure. And now that the US-based National Democratic Institute following a field visit has observed that there is a danger that "public confidence in the chief election commissioner will continue to deteriorate to the point that he should not continue his duties" does he regret for not moving out earlier to salvage whatever public standing he has had as a judge?

Barring a few poor souls, our high-ups perhaps believe that it is their religious duty to cling onto power, as if their absence will hasten catastrophe. Do we hear them say "apres moi, le deluge" a la Louis XV? Sworn to protect the constitution, highest-ranking judges opted not to confront unconstitutional takeovers and instead protect their own seats.

We can rightly doubt if there would be among them a Saiduzzaman Siddiqi, the former chief justice of Pakistan, who, along with five of his colleagues, refused to swear allegiance to the regime of Parvez Musharraf (and therefore ceased to hold office).

Are our ministers aware that one of their counterparts in the Indian state of Orissa resigned sometime in April, taking moral responsibility for the illicit liquor deaths of a few tribal people? We have our examples of General Osmany and Barrister Moinul Hossain resigning from parliament when one-party system of government was introduced in 1975. But they appear not to be inspiring anymore.

This then leads us to wonder, why? Cynical as it may sound, but it is perhaps true that with the decadence of social values, our people in position have successfully learnt the art of "adaptability." Over years, skin has thickened too much for folks to be troubled with humiliation. No wonder, resignation because of personality conflict, or difference of opinion over a worthy cause, is on the fast-track to oblivion in Bangladesh.

Nayeem Jafar is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.