The Editor, Sir:

In protecting our homes we all use a number of lines of defence: a gate; a dog; grilles; locks; doors and, finally, entry alarms.

If the alarm goes off, it becomes our last line of defence - the intruder is in the house.

It seems our only line of defence against improper behaviour by our political masters is the law. Did a given act break a law?

Like the entry alarm, a breach of the law signals the defences have been overcome. We need to look at what should be our first line of defence, which in my view is the integrity of those who choose to serve in public life.

It appears the simple test of 'Is it right?' is not applied, rather the test is 'Can it be presented as right?' or 'Show me where it says this is illegal?'

Inspired by our Attorney-General we could apply a three-way hanky-panky test (with help from the Oxford Dictionary and apologies to the Rotarians):

Is there naughtiness

(especially sexual)?

Is there double-dealing?

Is there trickery?

This is the test the Hon. AG says makes a donation unacceptable and it seems the Trafigura 'gift' failed it.

As the agent of a large multi-national I have to attend integrity seminars every year and I know I cannot suggest the sort of donation originally attributed to Trafigura without immediately seeing the termination of my appointment.

All our public servants, not just the embattled PNP, need to look again at the simple matter of integrity and foreswear using spin as a deodorant to cover up the smell of corruption.

I am, etc.,

SIMON SIMPLE

Kingston