In response to Cheah Kah Seng's critique of my earlier letter, I would firstly say three things.

One, my arguments for a 'nuance-ed' approach to fighting corruption had no prongs as such. Two, I specifically and selectively counter argued Kim Quek's letter only on three points as in my view, these were the most contentious. Three, I think that in your letter, the use of metaphors as a literary device has lost all meaning.

My argument in favour of the multi-faceted approach initiated by the Malaysian prime minister would repeat the contention that corruption permeates every level of society and transcends all existing social boundaries.

When the knee-jerk reactions of the opposition and other pundits call for the application of only specific devices e.g. public asset declaration, or specific use of civil institutions, e.g. the press in unearthing corruption, they are dealing, and even then arguably so, with only a 'high-profile' limited segment of corruption.

While there are positive effects from 'high-profile' convictions, as I argue later on, assuming that all manner of corruption and its underlying causes can be addressed by focusing on this limited segment is patently wrong. Furthermore, this inadequate conventional focus also thus shifts emphasis away from other potential corruption fighting devices that could be effective within our local contexts.

The new government leadership's approach in fighting corruption is correct in that it formulates multifaceted plans of action for a multifaceted problem. For argument's sake, the PM's battle against corruption can be generally categorised into two fundamental strategies.

One, the high-profile investigations and prosecutions carried out by the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) has reduced the acceptance of corruption, within contemporary contexts, as a foregone conclusion. In other words, the act of corruption is now more of a conscious act and less of an automatic one.

Two, the long-term National Integrity Plan and its corollary mechanism, the MII, aims to instil a deep-seated principle across all strata of the rakyat that corruption is entirely regressive. These public instruments aim to thoroughly convince the courtroom of public opinion that corruption in any form is unacceptable.

Over time, the two strategies begin to positively bear on each other, thereby mutually and broadly reinforcing the fight against corruption. Put another way, the mind set-changing approach to preventing corruption will progressively underpin the punitive approach to punishing it, and vice versa .

With all this in mind; in concluding, I would say that while your assertion that ' Malaysia is following a slippery slope down the abyss' is colourful at best, it is naively cynical at worst.