What promised to be one of the most important debates of this legislature turned out to be one enormous missed opportunity. The opposition was far too hyped up for the occasion, and the government side was far too much politically on the defensive for any good to come out of it.

It seemed a throwback to the 1970s and the 1980s when the physical side of politics had the upper hand over the rational. Confusion reigned supreme with walk-outs following unclear declarations of voting intentions by some MPs. There is even talk of some MPs coming too close to 'crossing the floor' with intent to cause physical, if not political damage.

For the new Speaker, the debate was more than a baptism of fire; it was a rude call to come down to earth, with no 'honeymoon period' contemplated, let alone granted by his colleague MPs, and to boot by the resignation of the deputy Speaker!

Yet many of the participants seem appeased by the outcome of the fracas. The government won the day with a clear confirmation that the Gonzi government is not to be easily side-pushed from power; the opposition got the political show it was craving for with enough PR ammunition for the coming weeks if not months; last but not least Enemalta Corporation got the contract it wanted.

The Prime Minister may even philosophically muse that at least in the country governed by him, parliamentarians strain their ears for a 'Yes' or a 'No' when those of most other countries, certainly around the Mediterranean, are straining their eyes instead, to see if the financial, economic and banking skies are falling down upon them.

So who is left to complain? Well, yes, there is that minor detail of us voters who still have to understand what the long and short of what all this was about.

Symptomatic of the situation was the Bondiplus debate on the matter between Finance Minister Tonio Fenech and Labour MP Evarist Bartolo who, believe it or not, managed to unsettle that old hand of Lou Bondi, making him at one stage address them as if the two political grandees before him were unruly schoolchildren more intent on interrupting each other than allowing us viewers the possibility of following the debate.

Not to mention the one-sided monologues which the respective political television stations churned out, just in case there was one soul in Malta and Gozo who had not been exposed to the position taken repeatedly by the party leaders of both sides.

Within all this 'noise' lies wounded the dignity of the highest democratic institution.

It is also a lesson that the 'C' word is not to be bandied about until and unless there is the certainly behind it to justify its use. The diabolical formula adopted by the Auditor-General's report of "no hard and conclusive evidence" is to invite, no doubt unwittingly and perhaps naively, the unleashing of the political tornados which, in fact, it unleashed.

If fraud against the state or corruption of public officials had resulted 'conclusively', then action would have been taken. The report, all 188 pages of it, manifestly finds no such evidence; so why tantalisingly whet the appetite of the country to speculate on corruption at all?

Yet although the BWSC contract is now condemned to the fires of political hell, until at least the next election, the Auditor- General's report is certainly not to be thrown away or forgotten for any future action which Parliament may wish to take to follow up its many recommendations to avoid the recurrence of such situations.

This, to my mind, is the greatest disappointment arising from the so-called Parliamentary debate. One would have expected a bipartisan initiative to take up the 'administrative' shortcomings indicated by the report and establish a mechanism perhaps involving even non-political elements to ensure that the country will never again be exposed to the lynching of what is democracy's ultimate guarantee.

We are still in time.