The authorities confuse schooling with literacy. They think that all those who've been to school are literate. Moreover they use a Victorian definition of literacy: a person, who can painfully scribble a few signs called a signature, is literate. Literacy is a different thing. It means more sophisticated creative, dynamic and progressive skills.

---

The Plight of the Small Time Mauritian Worker

I have often wondered what our dear Mauritian writers are up to nowadays. They must all be oh so busy writing about horticulture, about 'le salon de la maison and du jardin' and other nonsensical events that no one really remembers the next business day. None of these will ever raise questions, none will be shocked, none will get down on the streets with such goody feel goody writing. I have no care in the world about good old sanitized Mauritian literature. I demand to be shocked. I demand to be made to think. So when when when when will someone back home get his/her acts together and write about, ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce the topic once and for all… 'the plight of the small time Mauritian worker'. A guaranteed best seller, and that too worldwide!

No one writes about them, this sorry forgotten lot. Feels like time himself put them in a closet. The closet of lost dreams, lost causes. I dream of a book on our village folks who work in the five-star hotels along the littoral. Prakash, Sylvain, Jacques, Paul, Anand, Bebette, Bomzol, any of them as long as I hear their voices, as long as I listen to their stories told to me without bollywoodisation, without hollywoodisation. Just a plain voice telling me about a simple rich life. The life of a guy or gal who lives for work early in the morning, takes a couple of connecting buses, and arrives at the hotel, to get the honour to "serve" the whole day. A return to colonial servility my friend, and then to end with the cherry on the cake, he finally earns a terrible disgusting pittance. A spit in the face of our soi-disant free state. Thank you, Mr Prime Minister, merci merci. Modern colonization is still very much present like our shadow, but we do not seem bothered about it anymore.

Since the days of Independence, successive political units (MMM, Labour, PMSD) have often used the following marketing pitch, “The tourism industry will change Mauritius, there will be jobs à go-go, we will have a wild and sudden increase of foreign exchange, and prosperity will be back before we know it.” King Sugar is so dead. Long live King Sugar! Yes it created jobs. But what the public has completely missed out, possibly because we had assumed that the words of some dinosaurs will always ring true. That tourism is such a great thing. No one had bothered to notice the invisible lot of servile and oppressed slaves that the system has created in the process. The invisible ones. The slave waiters of the industry. They earn a pittance (what is it Rs 2000 per month), when the daily rate of a room is double, triple, quadruple this. Note I said the DAILY rate.

Last time when I was back home this debate was raging.
Government official: They have to share the profit. This little close circuit of families that own most of the valued lands around the coast, the cinq étoiles hotels and all, they need to pay back. Return the profits to the masses, let them prosper.
Representative of the rich hotels: Don`t we give back to them? We fund gardens, we hire taxis, we employ people, we wash laundry, we block and seal the golden beaches and make them exclusive to the folks from Germany and Sweden. Yeah we need them these folks from Europe.

I listened in rapt, enclosed in myself. But you Mr Representative of the hotel. Mr Rich guy with a house along the coast blessed with a private beach. What you have created is pittance, slavery of the masses. You have kept the juice to yourself and created a whole bunch of people with the following job description: Wash glass and plates, draw curtain, sweep floor, drive rich tourists to airport, sing sega and entertain rich tourist, prostitute themselves, clean car, walk on golf course with rich tourist, drive rich tourists to the hotel, etc…

They just do not get it. Do they? They don’t. They keep the juice for themselves and give the bagasse to the ignorant public. In the memory of the great ones, the maroons, who jumped to their death at Le Morne many decades ago. They jumped to avoid a life of captivity, of morosity. Somebody please ask them the following: Time has come to pay back messieurs, build schools messieurs, fund universities messieurs, let the locals rule. Give them the money. For god’s sake, let them rise above the shit!


Rattan Gujadhur
San Francisco

---

Retiring at 65 and PRB Report

Below are some points highlighting the inappropriateness of pushing retirement age to 65 at present.

The country page of Mauritius on the website of the World Health Organisation (WHO) clearly states the average life expectancy (2002) of males/females of Mauritius as 69/76, and the average healthy life expectancy as 60/65. Imposing work beyond the healthy life expectancy is simply inhuman. It cannot be applied simultaneously to men at 60 and women at 65 as it would be gender-discriminatory, so it has to be 60 for everybody. The PM had promised to change our lives. I am sure he meant change for the better.

The Education Officer (EO) is a typical "graduate scale" job with a salary scale Rs 10600 x 400 – 15000 x 500 – 17000 x 600 – 20000 x 800 – 21600 QB 22400 x 800 – 27200. The Officer reaches the top salary after 29 years. An EO who does not obtain any promotion would be receiving a reduced pension of Rs13600 pm after a full 400 months (33y4m) of service, and the retirement will entail a new recruit with Rs10600 pm. It will take seven years for the latter’s salary and the pension of the retiree combined to reach the salary figure of the retired Officer just prior to his retirement. The average retiree would be unhealthy by then, and expect to die in two years.

But an EO who obtains two promotions up to Rector level in the meantime (salary scale Rs28000 x 1000 – 34000), a likely scenario, will, if entitled to full pension, retire with Rs17000 pm as reduced pension and a lump sum equivalent to 25 months of last salary, which will be due whether retiring at 60 or, in all likelihood, at 65 also. The retirement of the Rector will induce the upward chain movement of the officers in several grades below, and recruitment of another Education Officer to replace the retiring officer at the entry level (Rs10600), which when added to the reduced pension of the Rector, will catch up to Rs34000 after 15 years, by which time the Rector would have died, according to the average life expectancy.

That is, no additional expenses, contrary to what one is being led to believe, are incurred by leaving retirement age at 60.

This evidently encourages employment, or reduces unemployment, gives new blood to the service, provides promotional opportunities for those below and reduces frustration. And, more importantly, it also removes low-performing or non-performing officers who would otherwise automatically get the chance of abc (Assizer Baize Casse) for five more years and prevent the chain below from moving upwards. Conditions for re-employment after 60 may be redefined and encouraged, and should be set with enhanced opportunities for good performers, assuming that Performance Management System (PMS) is really effective. Therefore the proponents of pushing retirement age to 65 years in the present context are simply wrong. The simple statement that there would not be enough funds and less working population to pay for too many retired workers is very general and imprecise. It should take into consideration that many retired officers are busy and productive. Grandparents looking after children are contributing enormously to society by providing a stable emotional and social setup for children, the benefits of which are simply incalculable in money terms.

The Labour Party had proposed in its programme to review State and Public institutions and can certainly review some very important ones, among others, like the Office of the Vice-President and question its validity. One Vice-President, who could certainly be substituted by the Chief Judge as in the past, and use the Office and Staff of the President, would save the pension and five additional working years of hundreds of ordinary people who work for more than 33 years to obtain a full pension, which is still equivalent to only half of the last salary. And the Vice-President only has to work for 5 years to obtain a pension which is equivalent to his full benefits while in office. It simply hurts. The National Day can also be celebrated in a more austere manner, saving millions, while still retaining patriotism. There are several other ways to save enormously, if we just take the care to look. And allocate it to those who work for decades and deserve some restful years before the final rest.

We hope that some valuable old ideas and concepts are re-introduced in the forthcoming PRB report, to assist in Performance Management, like Confirmation Bars, Qualification Bars and other hurdles for increments and promotions. Some ideas from elsewhere can also be introduced like sabbatical leaves, and unconditional leave without pay for at least one-year periods to encourage people to move around and widen their experience base, and provide opportunities to others to replace these officers on a temporary basis and gather experience, for a reasonable period normally one year but no more than two so that the beneficiaries do not hold the service hostage. Service would also benefit by new ideas, experience and dynamism.

PMS should entail a multi-disciplinary team, and not just the superior officer, to assess any officer, to avoid undue bias causing favouritism or victimisation. It should use a more participative (and team) approach, and not the top to bottom approach still so much in force in the public service.

The setting-up of a fast-track Public Service appeal tribunal would be welcome.

We have heard of a novel idea worth considering: application of the "alcotest" for public officers, requested by two officers, whether superior or lower in the hierarchy, or two members of the public, in the case of rude or unbecoming behaviour suspected to be due to excessive alcohol intake. Will PRB propose this or Civil Service Affairs & Administrative Reform consider this reform, which should include severe action against those who test positive?

The recruitment of officers in the Public Service should be more rigorous, and the confirmation bar re-introduced and be a really severe training and assessment period for two years. The PMS should thoroughly assess and eliminate officers who do not show the required capacity and mindset for a modern and efficient public service.

Finally, we hope that the PRB Report will not be an imposed finality but open to debate, and new ideas.

Satya Mewa

Port Louis