Due to dramatic failure of governance many societies have experienced serious crises when certain events coincide. Manifestations of such dysfunctional governance are many: high level of corruption, failure of institutions to check executive's power, decadent political leadership, and weak rule of law resulting in impunity. In other words, the governance environment in such societies becomes so feeble that a minor event becomes the straw which breaks the camel's back.

In Hong Kong it was Peter Godber, a police superintendent. The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) was established in 1974 after a scandal involving Godber, who absconded from the colony in order to avoid prosecution. The commission, which was established in 1974, concluded that corruption in Hong Kong was deeply rooted, rampant, and highly organized. The response to such a dismal situation was the establishment of ICAC by enacting a law which has been described as "strong, clear and effective as it could be made."

The new laws criminalized corruption which included obstruction of justice, theft of government resources, blackmail, deception, bribery, making a false accusation, or conspiracy to commit an offence. The law gave authorities discretion to conduct searches, examine bank accounts, subpoena witnesses, audit private assets, and detain individuals, seize passports, property, and detain suspects when evidence suggests a risk of flight. These restrictions certainly infringed fundamental principles of due process but the peculiar circumstances in Hong Kong called for such special provisions to prevent individuals from leaving the territory and escape prosecution by taking advantage of Hong Kong's porous borders.

Let us look at Singapore's experience. Similar to Hong Kong, corruption in Singapore was a way of life. The British failed to tackle corruption and the breakthrough came in 1960, when Lee Kuan Yew's People's Action Party enacted the Prevention of Corruption Act (POCA), which gave the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) more power to fight corruption. Lee Kuan Yew won the general election by revealing a minister's --Chew Swee Kee -- acceptance of $233,000 from the United States government. Lee Kuan Yew had this to say: "[In 1959] when we took the oath of office ... we all wore white shirts and white slacks to symbolize purity and honesty in our personal behaviour and our public life."

But the anti-corruption measures had to be continuously revised: in 1981 the law was tightened by requiring those convicted of corruption to repay all the money received besides facing the usual court sentence. In 1989 the law was revised to enable confiscation of assets derived from corruption. If the defendant is deceased the court would issue a confiscation order against his estate. Semi-authoritarian government of Lee Kwan Yew was determined to transform Singapore from one of the most corrupt in Asia to what it is now -- squeaky clean.

Hong Kong and Singapore were both highly corrupt, police and political scandals triggered a series of reforms that restricted some personal freedom but in the process reduced the high level of corruption which resulted in impressive economic growth. Needless to say that there were other factors which also contributed to Hong Kong and Singapore's impressive achievements over the last few decades but at the expense of curtailment of some political freedom.

Bangladeshi politicians and their side-kicks took us for a ride and were about to show us the "proverbial High Court" on January 22. The criminal behavior of Messrs Tarique and Associates resulted in massive hemorrhage of scarce resources, undermining of law and order, destruction of institutions through the strategic placement of stooges, and the final straw came with the ultimate threat of turning Bangladesh into a "failed state." The venal parasitic politics became Bangladesh's "governance crisis."

The new government of Bangladesh, which took office on January 11, has taken some bold steps. Suddenly, political will has been re-discovered in Bangladesh and the country took a sharp detour to avoid a fatal collision, and the unthinkable is happening.

Is this the beginning of Bangladesh's new journey? Are our expectations too high? Are we going to persevere with this hard-line policy as did Lee Kuan Yew, et al? Whether some of us, being faint-hearted pseudo liberal democrats, will start clamouring for elections just to bring back the pre-1/11 politicians and their confrontational and internecine politics?

Fighting corruption is a generational task but it has to get off to a good start. The initial phase needs to be thought through and policies have to be implemented with rigour and extreme focus. Kid glove approach is bound to back-fire and it will furthermore weaken the resolve sufficiently to make the fight against corruption unsustainable.

In another continent and in a different context, a mass circulation tabloid coined: "If Kinnock wins tomorrow, will the last person to leave the country please turns off the lights?" If the present fight against corruption is not conducted with steely nerve and resoluteness then the advice of switching off lights may become applicable to many here in Bangladesh. Time will tell what fate hold us.

Barrister Manzoor Hasan is Director, Centre for Governance Studies, BRAC University.