When is assistance to a politician just that ­ assistance ­ and when is it corruption? This must be among the most critical questions to come out of the days and weeks of evidence given by Schabir Shaik during the course of his trial in Durban.

It is abundantly clear from what Shaik has said that he gave help to Deputy President Jacob Zuma. Was this genuine help to a man who did not have his house in order ­ and I can think of many otherwise notable businessmen in the same position ­ or was it for favours?

I have it on good information that, some time over the next week or so, a list will mysteriously emerge which will reveal who has received what and from whom. The names will include, I gather, very senior members of the present government.

Now that is going to make really fascinating reading ­ unless, of course, so much leaning is applied that the list disappears conveniently from sight.

The issue really revolves around whether it is right to assist, for example, politicians returning from exile who were deprived of any opportunity to build an asset base, or whether the very fact that they were offered and accepted help, of whatever kind, is an offence. Is it wrong, for example, for a politician to accept help in educating his children, or paying for expensive medical treatment? If, on the other hand, this is thought acceptable, what is the attitude to a grant in the form of cash?

The purists will argue, of course, that zero tolerance is the only way. In any event, if zero tolerance is indeed to be the yardstick, then every one of those whose names appear on the list, from top to bottom, must be investigated.

Ho, hum *1

With acnkowledgements to David Gleason and Business Day.

*1 Yum, Yum - Bumiputera.