said when the Opposition started ?playing around? and ?noising about? with concepts like corruption, they are broadcast abroad and may be misconstrued.

?It can taint outside countries views of us. It can do an injury to this country if someone launches such a campaign.?

The Premier said it was a dangerous campaign to embark upon and pointed to the wording of a number of Opposition motions due for debate in the House, as proof of their campaign.

?If I was just tuning-in to this debate and I was a visitor, I would say this is a bad and corrupt place,? he said. ?But this may not be true about this place. And when we taint our arguments with potentially explosive language, with a strong financial sector, this is not language we should throw about loosely.?

The Premier said he had zero tolerance for corruption and ?smearing? campaigns.

And he questioned the Opposition?s decision to adopt Jamaican legislation.

?Why choose Jamaica if you normally associate it with tax on tourists and when you talk of Independence you say you don?t want to be like Jamaica.?

But interrupted the Premier and said the Opposition had never said they did not want to be like Jamaica vis a vis going independent.

Mr. Scott conceded. He continued to say that the United Nations? own symptoms of corruption, like faulty Government, and problems developing policies, showed Bermuda was not corrupt.

?We have no corruption in the judiciary here,? Mr. Scott said. ?I thank the judges. They come under scrutiny every day. It is not an easy job but is an important one.?

He continued: ?People go online and see the headlines and say, wait a minute, if it was said by an Honourable Opposition Leader, he must have come to an honourable conclusion. That person has made a terrible mistake,? Mr. Scott said.

And the pursestrings of public servants should remain tied up, he said.

?Your life would be an open book to seek out corruption that does not exist at a scale they would wish you to believe,? Mr. Scott said. ?Have things gone wrong? Yes. Have we corrected them? Yes. But there is no wide- scale corruption in Government.?

He likened the motion on Jamaica?s anti-corruption legislation to a McCarthy-era political campaign.

And Bermuda?s own Criminal Code 1907 already contains punishments for those who practice corruption, including sentences of three years imprisonment or $10,000 fines, or both.

He said this legislation would be under legislative review, but it ?did not need a sledgehammer? taken to it, and instead needed ?tweaking?.

Two measures to fight corruption would be adopted ? robust internal controls and modernising the Criminal Code to make sure more corruption cases were brought before the court.

?Bermuda is a role model for every country in the fight against corruption,? the Premier said.

After his speech, Opposition MP said she thought the Premier moved like a ballerina.

?When I look at the spin that Premier placed on that motion it was akin to a pirouette,? she said.

She said the Criminal Code was written nearly 100 years ago.

It was common procedure to ?onion-ise? legislation from other jurisdictions into Bermuda, she said.

She gave an example of corruption as when a relative of Government Minister?s father was given priority in a housing list.

?While they boast of an Ombudsman, it is important to recognise Ministers are not accountable to the ombudsman,? she said. ?In question to the allegation we are trying to besmirch Government, no, Government has its own record, that ought to stand up to scrutiny. We are obligated to bring it to the floor.?

Ms Gordon-Pamplin denied that her party was trying to ?poison the public? as the Premier had suggested. She argued that the people of Bermuda are intelligent and would consider both sides of the argument and make their own decision. She spoke of the recent dismissal of South Africa?s Deputy President because of the implication of corruption and suggested that like President Thabo Mbeki a responsible leader should address corruption so that the public does not perceive politicians are acting unethically, whether or not they have actually done anything.

Ms Gordon-Pamplin felt that anti-corruption legislation was a step in the right direction. She ended her speech by asking the Government to stop being suspicious that any motion from the Opposition had evil motives because her party was only interested in good governance.

Minister of Telecommunications and E-Commerceasked why such legislation was needed in Bermuda. He felt that an Island which was the envy of the world with a Government that has never been tainted with corruption did not need to pass this type of legislation. He went on to argue that the only reason the Opposition had tabled the motion was ?sour grapes?. He said they were unhappy that the investigations into the Bermuda Housing Corporation had not yielded any corruption.

He said that by bringing the motion, the Opposition had acted irresponsibly and dangerously. By bringing the motion to the House he felt the Opposition had implied that corruption was a big issue in Bermuda. He went on to argue that the Opposition had been hasty to discredit the Government and had failed to look at Section 111 of the Criminal Code which dealt with corruption. He read Section 111 and said it was thorough and dealt with any aspect of corruption that could arise.

Deputy Opposition Leader pointed out that nowhere in the motion did the Opposition imply that the Government was corrupt and questioned why they were so against it. He read a quote from former Premier Jennifer Smith in the 1998 PLP Platform which said the PLP Bermuda was a country ?where Government acts in the sunshine of public scrutiny?. Mr. Furbert questioned what happened to this sentiment and said that at the moment there seemed to be a ?total solar eclipse?. He went on to read from the Auditor General?s report. He said the point of anti-corruption legislation was not to discredit the Government but to ?protect ourselves from ourselves?.

Shadow Minister of Youth and Sport asked how anyone could argue against the anti-corruption motion. He went on to say the House was not even discussing how such legislation should be implemented, but whether it should exist. He lambasted the Government for saying Bermuda does not need anti-corruption legislation because there is no corruption pointing out that the House passed anti-terrorism legislation despite the fact that Bermuda did not have terrorists.

He drove his point home by saying that Bermuda had anti-money laundering legislation not because it was a tax haven but because it wanted to ensure the international business community felt comfortable dealing with the Island.

Shadow Minister of Race Relations and Economic Empowerment said he hoped that another member of the Government would speak to the issue because that was the point of the Opposition bringing motions to the House.

He disagreed with Premier Scott?s statement that the UBP had acted irresponsibly and said: ?I see it as the opposite, it is our responsibility to bring this to the House. The challenge is good governance. What we?re trying to do is lead by example.?

He argued that countries which failed to focus on corruption have run into trouble. He stated that when the UBP becomes the government they will implement anti-corruption legislation if it has not already been done. Transparency International is a Non-Governmental Organisation which grades countries for their honest policies, Mr. Dodwell said.

The highest ranked country was Finland, he said, but Bermuda was not on the list.

?Because we?re not on the list we?re clean?? Mr. Dodwell asked in response to shouts from the Government benches. ?That?s outrageous.?

Tourism is a business wide open to corruption, he said.

?Botswana is doing it right,? he said.

?They are protecting their diamond mine revenue and holding it in an international trust account, making it harder for the politicians to get it.?

He said if Bermuda sends the right message, it will get the right investors and developers.

?This is not a political ploy, this is about good governance,? he said.

Opposition MP said Government was running scared on this issue.

?The Premier was like Rodney Dangerfield tonight, asking: ?Who me? I don?t understand?,? he said.

He brought up the pay-to-play allegations levelled against Tourism and Transport Minister .

?Anyone can make allegations,? Dr. Brown said. ?It happens once a month.?

Mr. Moniz said Ministers have to be good role models for the civil servants who work for them.

?In England and America it was like this 300 years ago, but they changed and updated,? he said.

The allegations of corruption came not from the Opposition, he said, but instead from the Auditor General and the Press.

?If you were cleaner than clean, you would say its? not a problem, we?ll set this up,? he said.

Government backbencher said she did not think anyone in the House was opposed to the anti-corruption legislation in principle.

?I believe there has been corruption in the past but it was not deemed to be corrupt because we did not have corruption legislation,? she said. ?It was considered business as usual.?

She said the House used to be a ?boys business club? because of all of the Government contracts that used to be handed out to former Ministers.

But when she said Trevor Moniz?s legal firm received ?most of the contracts that went through BHC? he responded.

?What she said is not true,? Mr. Moniz said. ?It was not most. I was never a Minister in Government.?

Ms Webb said she had never been a beneficiary of a Government contract but her company was. ?I told the company who the beneficiaries are. I wish my company was the biggest beneficiary, but I am not,? she said.

She said she declared her interests to the House and Cabinet. And she said she supported the idea of anti-corruption legislation 100 percent, just so it would clarify what corruption was and was not.

?The businesses that have really made money in this country are not on this side of the House,? she said.

She said only because a black Government was in power, was there talk of conflict of interest and corruption.

?They thought it was not going on under them,? she said. ?It was not corruption.?

She said people had been made richer under the PLP Government.

?But the majority of them don?t look like you and me,? she told Speaker Stanley Lowe. ?That?s the true tragedy for me.?

She said Scotland Yard never investigated any Members in the House regarding the BHC investigation. ?Or questioned us,? Dr. Brown said.

Ms Webb said she was tired of false accusations.

?We don?t have to get to any point before we bring in legislation,? she said. ?To do it does not mean the Government is corrupt.?

Opposition House Leader and Whip concluded the debate saying the legislation could be part of larger Parliamentary reform.

He quoted former Prime Minister of Jamaica Edward Seaga to say ?a new order is coming with a simple message. Government by systems, not by men. Men will come and go but systems remain.?

Dr. Brown asked why ?anti-40 Thieves? legislation had not been passed.

?That used to to be the way of doing business in this country. But it is no longer acceptable,? Mr. Barritt responded. ?If it was wrong then, it?s wrong now.?

Section 111 of the Criminal Code 1907 which deals with corruption of public servants was written below a law outlawing challenging people to a duel.

?Maybe there was a problem back then of people challenging other people to a duels but not today,? he said.