One would think, or perhaps hope, in the post-BHC and current "Pay to Play" era, that a Parliamentary debate on the need to strengthen Bermuda's anti-corruption laws would usher in a rare afternoon of bi-partisanship.

One would also think the debate to be a no-brainer; the parties falling over themselves to demonstrate their commitment to impeccable ethics, high standards of conduct, and clear rules and remedies to address abuses of power or position by public servants.

Sadly, but predictably for the cynics, this wasn't the case. Instead the integrity and credibility gap between Bermuda's political parties deepened.

Representing the Government with their trademark "strong leadership" was the grand total of two Ministers. The Premier, who really had no choice but to speak, led off for his side, and was followed shortly after by Minister Michael Scott.

And that was it for our soon-to-be-higher paid Cabinet Ministers. No Deputy Premier Brown. No Finance Minister Cox. Nada. And it wasn't only Cabinet that displayed a remarkable lack of interest in preventing corruption. Only one Government backbencher found the energy to contribute as well, and that was Alex Scott nemesis and ex-Minister Renee Webb.

The UBP's speakers included the Opposition Leader, who brought the motion and led the debate, plus six more of his colleagues. For the non-math inclined, that's seven ? or 50 percent ? of the UBP's members, versus three ? or 13 percent ? of the PLP's.

After the Government's anaemic presentation it was evident that Bermudians were being presented with a stark choice between two very different philosophies:

The PLP Government has adopted the "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" approach; not quite what the public look for in "progressive" legislators. The UBP on the other hand, followed the philosophy of that great philosopher of the modern era, Google; "don't be evil" is the mantra that the Internet company's employees live by.

It's hard to argue with the latter approach to doing business, even harder it's the people's business. But, in one of their more bizarre moments, the PLP Government did.

The Premier maintained that the mere mention of corruption, even efforts to prevent or eliminate it, can "taint outside countries views of us ? It can do an injury to this country if someone launches on such a campaign."

Huh? Let's examine that for a second. The highest public office holder in the country doesn't even want us to discuss ways to tackle corruption, because it will make people think we have a problem with corruption, and then they won't think well of us?

What? If the Premier was even slightly informed he'd be aware that corruption is one of the things that is holding back aid to many developing nations, that it discourages private sector investment, and is the kiss of death to reputable jurisdictions.

So was the Premier's head in the sand approach ? and outright denial of public sector corruption credible ? or was it just more of his incessant and increasingly desperate spin?

Well, let's turn to the Premier himself to clear that one up. Now we know that Mr. Scott claims to distrust the Press, so it's probably best to refresh his memory with his own statements.

A little more than a year ago, in the wake of the Auditor's BHC report and the Police's "unethical but not illegal" investigation, the "The Man" himself promised an update to the antiquated anti-corruption legislation in the Criminal Code?

More recently, less than two months ago ? May 5 to be precise ? the Premier gave the following commitment during his televised "Address to the Nation":

"I have also directed my Ministers to ensure that in their conduct, at home and abroad, that they recommit themselves to the path of integrity, respect for others and good governance."

Call me crazy, but ordinarily you don't need to ask your Cabinet to individually "recommit" to the path of integrity and good governance unless the previous commitment has lapsed.

The only reasonable conclusion then is that the Accidental Premier has either had a change of heart, or decided to validate the old joke that "Denial isn't just a river in Egypt".

It could be denial. Mr. Scott and his colleagues wouldn't be the first Government to lose touch with reality.

Alternatively it could be a deliberate strategy. Aware that they are spent, devoid of energy and ideas, the PLP Government might have opted to manage perception rather than the problem.

Could it be that the PLP Government is implementing its very own version of a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy?

If we don't talk about corruption it won't exist. If the Press would just stop printing the details of our increasingly frequent and severe incidents of violent crime, then we won't have one. If the public would stop complaining about the lack of affordable housing then it would all be affordable. Plunging air-arrivals? Don't mention it, tourism's great. Wave your flag, drink some ginger beer!

Why talk about anything at all in fact? We can just pretend that our problems don't exist, and they won't! Governing is much easier that way, for the Government at least.

Once this whole range of issues is removed from the public arena important time can be spent debating the real issues: like how close GP1 can be parked to the Premier's jet; or how much Cabinet can pay themselves; or how fashionably late one should arrive at a cocktail party.

That'll help outsiders think of us in the right light. We'd hate them to think of us as a jurisdiction with zero tolerance for corruption.