In the recent days one has been bombarded by reports relating to cases of alleged corruption and the resulting noises in the Legislative Assembly. The one(s) making the noises reminds us of Shakespeare?s poor player ?That struts and frets his hour upon the stage / and then is heard no more...? and the speeches are reminiscent of the ?tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, / signifying nothing.? (Macbeth)

This situation is not new ? there were similar noises in the past about the sources of finance for the Sun Trust Building or about "caisse noire" at Air Mauritius and Tyack?s notebook or the findings of the NTan report to mention only a few. It would appear that those making the noises are always unwilling to go all the way maybe for fear that this would boomerang on them. These days no one mentions the names meticulously listed in Tyack?s notebook ? names of those from both sides of the House, it would appear. Politicians seem to know when to stop making noise and keep quiet and let time take care of the rest knowing full well that the population will soon forget.

It is high time we ask ourselves questions like: who finances political parties and why do they do so? Is it out of pure philanthropy or for some ulterior motive? Is this financial support a token of gratitude for contracts won or for favours obtained? Do people and organizations give in anticipation of future contracts or favours?

Lavish expenditures

Do we need to differentiate between modest donors with legal sources of income or those with modest expectations like a post of messenger in the public sector, and the really big donors ? those that actually support the lavish expenditure of big political parties which, by the way, are not required to submit accounts like registered associations or companies? Who are these big donors? These would be the recipients of large government contracts as well as those who are able to generate huge profits with minimum effort ? e.g., smugglers and drug traffickers. Should we then be surprised that politicians arrange for VIP facilities for drug traffickers ? in good faith, of course? Or that intermediaries approach companies for bribes in excess of Rs50 million for land development opportunities ? Or that advisors (as these intermediaries are sometimes called) allegedly receive large sums of money from those who have been awarded big contracts? Or that Dutch engineering firms suddenly develop an interest in Bollywood blockbusters?

Assuming that the link between party financing and drug smuggling exists, it would not be difficult to establish the nexus between drug smuggling and drug addiction, on the one hand, and between drug addiction and the crime rate on the other. It would thus appear that the rising crime rate is indirectly a consequence of the way political parties are financed and the resulting corrupt practices. What is more serious however is the direct link between this pervasive corruption at higher levels and the loss of moral bearings in the population and to an overall increase in criminal activities? If this is the case, can we effectively deal with the rising crime rate by recruiting more policemen or building more prisons?

Thus, if legislators are part of the problem can we expect them to be part of the solution? Should we be surprised by Cunningham?s eviction? Should we be surprised by the lame replies of a minister saying that he has requested a foreign company to confirm whether it has bribed local officials? Should we be surprised by the failure of ICAC to effectively deal with fraud and corruption in spite of the millions of taxpayers rupees spent on this institution?

Paul HAN</B>