MIC: ‘Why do we go after Rs 45 million but leave the billions to rest?’

Interview: Nita Deerpalsing

‘Why do we not begin with the largest recipients of money from the MIC, such as Maradiva, NMH, Medine, and Omnicane?’

* ‘The current public discontent isn’t just about unfulfilled promises; it’s about the attitude and sentiment people feel toward what they are seeing from the government’

* ‘Paul Bérenger’s criticisms of the Bank of Mauritius (BoM) are seen as entirely justified, particularly given the public “telenovela” that has unfolded in recent weeks’

---

A year into its mandate, the Alliance du Changement government faces a public that is more aware and critical than ever before. Nita Deerpalsing, in a candid conversation, suggests that judging the government’s performance requires new ‘lenses’—lenses that account for a populace no longer willing to tolerate the old ways of doing business. From the pension debate to allegations of cronyism, she provides a sharp analysis of the government’s decisions.She also addresses key concerns, from the controversial pension reform to the ongoing saga at the Bank of Mauritius, and questions whether the government’s approach truly signals a break from the past.

---

Mauritius Times: While it’s still too early to make a definitive judgment on the performance of the Alliance du Changement government, do you find reasons to be optimistic about its ability to govern effectively and fulfil its mandate as a united bloc?

Nita Deerpalsing: Let us start with where we were this time one year ago. There was widespread discontent with the previous regime: widespread corruption, nepotism, passe-droits, executive opacity all the more aided by a ‘goalkeeper’ in parliament which blocked accountability. The wife of the former prime minister was reportedly heard in the ‘Moustass Leaks’ giving instructions to high-ranking police officers, to the minister of finance, etc., and making all kinds of derogatory comments on all ethnic groups of the population. All of it served with a huge dose of arrogance, denial of any wrongdoings (“kotmonnfote”). We had really reached a point where our democracy could not breathe. Even before the ‘Moustass Leaks’, it had become clear to decent Mauritians that the previous regime had to go although there was fear of electoral bribes of all kinds, including on the pensions issue.

Therefore, all those who could see the danger of yet another Jugnauth mandate, rallied around the opposition forces. Not because everyone thought the then opposition forces were newly found saints but relatively just a much lesser evil than those in power then. Rightly so, there was tremendous outcry against corruption, nepotism, clientelisme towards those who were the political financiers of the day, wastage/siphoning of public funds, bad governance, a dysfunctional parliament where accountability was stifled instead of flourishing. All of this significantly raised the population’s consciousness about the very injustice that all of these represented. Before we look at the current incumbent, it is important to realise that the sentiment animating the population in October-November 2024 was not a mere passing discontent with a regime. All these above-mentioned scourges were rightly elevated to the status of Public enemies. Keep in mind that once a population’s consciousness is raised to a certain level regarding corruption, nepotism, clientelism, etc., that level of consciousness cannot be wiped out, or lowered at will.

* What’s your reading, from your perspective as an observer, of the measures the new government has implemented to rebuild public trust in democratic institutions, and to demonstrate a clear break from the MSM’s regime?

This is where you have to use new lenses to examine the current incumbent. New lenses that reflect the rise in consciousness of the population. Many people believe that the current discontent is solely about promises not kept. This is why, on the current incumbent’s side, you hear them repeating, ‘Be patient; the promises are to be kept over five years, not 10 months’.” However, they are missing something important from the undercurrent collective psyche. The current public discontent isn’t just about unfulfilled promises; it’s about the attitude and sentiment people feel toward what they are seeing from the government, what they gauge against the backdrop of that raised consciousness. The raised consciousness has a lot to do with trust and the valorization of the people’s voice, citizen’s opinions, and engagement. I would say that, until the budget and its infamous pension measure, that was still kind of there.

The pension measure should never ever have been included in a budget exercise. The problem was not only about the unpalatable content of the pension measure. It was first and foremost about the way it was done. Factually unilateral, imposed from the top. Not a single consultation. Lo and behold, not even with the minister responsible for this portfolio! A decision taken by a few unelected individuals behind closed doors. One of whom hails from the rent-seeking oligarchy that Sameer Sharma referred to in your previous edition. Not to mention that the individual was schooled in the private schooling sector rather than public schooling. Nothing wrong in that per se, but in my opinion, those who have not gone to public schools miss something important about the Nation’s deep-seated makeup. And therefore, it is very dangerous to leave to them alone the crafting of such an important public policy measure. Not one single whisper to any trade union, citizen group, or any stakeholder. Just a few sentences pronounced in a speech. Right there in the approach itself, started the clash with that newly raised consciousness.

People had thought and expected that, contrary to the previous lot, the current incumbent would cultivate public discourse, public debate on policy issues, encourage consultations. However, there was none of that. And in that crushing of that trust, took root the first suspicions of whether we were seeing some early warning symptoms of reading a page from the previous book.

Then of course came the substance of the pension reform. I can only guess that those who pushed for what it contained have not read anything published by the Fabian Society. In an interesting research on Welfare provisions byTim Horton and James Gregory entitled: ‘The Solidarity Society: Why we can afford to end poverty and how to do it with public support’, which was published in commemoration of the 1909 Minority Report by Beatrice Webb of the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, they give evidence-based research on what are the outcomes of welfare provisions.The book by Horton & Gregory demonstrates how a welfare state is not only about “giving” to those “in need.” A universal welfare state also cements citizenship instead of segregating it. It is an important intangible asset of nation building. This is why it was shocking to hear some in Parliament lamenting that we are one of the rare nations to have this!More importantly, regarding the ultimate outcome, ultimate results of a welfare state, Horton & Gregory demonstrate forcefully that “perhaps counter-intuitively, welfare systems which are focused on addressing ‘poverty’ do worse in poverty outcomes than broadly based systems which aim to reflect a shared sense of citizenship across society.” We have to acknowledge that this is indeed counter-intuitive and it is precisely this counter intuitiveness that has been weaponized by the pro-targeting clans.

* But there was also the risk for the country of a downgrade by Moody’s in view of the rising public debt. That had to be addressed, didn’t it?

The argument for the unilateral-no-consultation-imposition of the reform was that we are on the brink of being downgraded by Moody’s on account of the level of public debt and that the public expenditure on Basic Retirement Pension (BRP) was going to balloon out of proportions.The disadvantage for the incumbent regime with the unilateral-no-consultation-imposition approach is that it prevented its assertion from being confronted with fact checks of the underlying claims and assumptions.

Let us clinically look at the parameters that are said to contribute to the ballooning-out-of-proportion expenditure on BRP with respect to the 60+ club.

• First, is the aging population, meaning we have more and more older people due to lower birth rates. Will this trend continue until 2050?
• Second, are people aged 60 and over living longer due to an increase in life expectancy? Is this still true?

Let us examine these two parameters. First, the actual number of people joining the age 60 club. From various sources, it seems that our birth rate peaked at around 1961, after which it has been on a constant, sustained decline. (see screenshots in Figure 1). With respect to the baby boomers generation, it would mean the number of people born in 1965 reaching the age of 60 in 2025 is about 46,800 (assuming no deaths). Now if we look at the number of people born in 1990 who will reach age 60 in 2050, that amounts to around 27,690. Arithmetically this means there will be around 40% less individuals joining the age 60+ club in 2050.

In the consideration of the total number of people in the 60+ population, we also have to consider the thousands of Mauritians who have left and are still leaving the country by the hordes. True, this also means that there are less young people. And this is where the “dependency ratio” argument comes in. But is it true that the post-age 60 people are completely outside of the production cycle and that only the pre-60 age group is producing GDP growth? Do we have any concrete data on the contribution to GDP that the 60+ club contributes? Do they not spend, consume, produce, pay for their children and grandchildren expenses for housing/education etc.?

Is the BRP amount that they receive kept under a mattress and is completely outside of the production cycle? Is it completely insignificant? Do we have any concrete data on this? Don’t forget that BRP is paid out of the Consolidated Fund. So, the more you grow your GDP, the more revenue into the Consolidated Fund. And, on the other side of the spectrum, in order to address a lower number of ‘active’ population, there are a number of policy measures that can be adopted, including the import of labour. Another important issue to address is how do we bring back the thousands of productive Mauritians who have decided that Mauritius does not offer any future to them?

Second, now let us consider the argument that payments will be more because people are living longer due to an increase in life expectancy. Yes, it is a fact that since independence, the life expectancy has significantly increased. But a closer look at recent data raises a question about whether that still holds true.

You will note from Figure 2 that from the screenshot of the WHO data, life expectancy was at 74.2 (total) in 2016. In 2021, this goes down to 73.4 years. The screenshot from the Population and Vital Statistics Mauritius 2024 report by Statistics Mauritius shows a similar decline from about 2016 after decades of constantly going up. (By the way, interestingly since I started talking about this and posted the screenshot from the Statistics Mauritius 2024 report, the link to that page no longer seems to be available!)What does this more recent data mean? Do we have a confirmed decline in life expectancy? Is there any new population studies data that provides more insight into how the population above age 60 will evolve from now to 2050? I use 2050 because this is the fatidic date used to say that if we do nothing now, in 2050 the BRP will no longer be “sustainable.”

And what about the projected estimated GDP towards 2050? Are we so pessimistic about our ability to grow the GDP from now to 2050 so that the percentage of public expenditure on BRP decreases? Will there not be enough active population to produce a level of GDP which can cater for a 40% decrease in the age 60+ population in 2050? Those are valid questions which have not been canvassed at all. Instead, all we have heard is the parrot repetition of ‘not sustainable.’ The people who are repeating this as parrots, have they looked at recent population dynamics? Have they pondered on our capacity (and the means to do so) to produce increasing GDP?

Allow me to wrap up on this BRP issue by quoting what Clement Atlee said in the House of Commons in 1946:“The question is asked – can we afford it? Supposing the answer is ‘no’, what does that mean? It really means that the sum total of goods produced and the services rendered by the people of this country is not sufficient to provide for all our people at all times, in sickness, in health, in youth and in age, the very modest standard of life that is represented… [in the National Insurance Bill]. I cannot believe that our national productivity is so slow, that our willingness to work is so feeble or that we can submit to the world that the masses of our people must be condemned to penury.”

So, there are two fundamental questions to be considered:

1. Are we confident that we can work relentlessly to increase our GDP and, by extension, bring more revenue into the Consolidated Fund?
2. Have we based this policy measure on evidence-based projected BRP expenditure figures using more recent data than what a (possibly outdated) 2019 article by Mr Gilbert Gnany referred to?

It might be worth considering the possibility that the political will from the ’60-0′ victory was squandered on policies based on outdated data. If true, it would represent a substantial challenge to the credibility of the Alliance du Changement.

* On the other hand, Paul Bérenger’s two consecutive press conferences, in which he publicly aired his discontent about certain decisions and omissions, don’t help maintain the cohesion and unity of the alliance. In fact, they’ve added to the confusion about the team’s ability to make it to the end of its current mandate. But could he be right on many counts this time?

I always take Mr Berenger’s pronouncement with huge bales of salt. However, both on the Bank of Mauritius (BoM) and the Air Mauritius (MK) issues, I believe Mr Berenger was completely right, especially after what we have witnessed in public on the BoM saga over the last weeks.It is utterly unbelievable that the population has been served such telenovela scenes. This is unprecedented behaviour for the whole public to witness via press conferences. With utterly puerile public statements about each one having the PM’s support which sounded more like school children claiming “the teacher likes me more.” I mean at the level of the BoM? Honestly?

To me, this is evidence that one may have great IQ but zero or negative EQ that is required to lead and work with human beings. I work in an organisation which produces technical economic reports. I always say to my teams that leadership is about leading people, real human beings in flesh and bones with their flaws, their sparks of genius and creativity, their weaknesses and their mistakes. Leadership is not about leading reports or graphs or data.

Growth – whether personal or professional or for that matter even national collective growth – can only come when we are confronted with obstacles, with challenges. To me, this holds true whether we are talking about spiritual growth, intellectual or professional growth. It is as true on the yoga mat as it is in the gym. Any progress on your growth path is only possible when you confront the no-go areas and you persevere through consistence and disciple, animated with a spirit of bienveillance. No real growth or progress in anything is achievable with toxic ego trips which unfortunately, a good portion of the human species is prey to. Neither is any growth possible if you keep seeking external validation rather than counting on your internal potential.

* In fact, it might be difficult to tell Paul Bérenger that he is wrong about the Mauritian Investment Corporation (MIC), the Bank of Mauritius, or about what he considers wrong choices in terms of some political appointments. He is perhaps echoing what a large cross-section of citizens generally feel, isn’t he?

As far as MIC is concerned, I believe that Sameer Sharma has provided much valuable insights as published in your previous edition. In the spirit of accountability, the public is demanding answers. Why has there not yet been a proper forensic audit of all the funds given out by the previous regime? Why do we not begin with the largest recipients of money from the MIC, such as Maradiva, NMH, Medine, and Omnicane? The question is, why do we go after Rs 45 million but leave the billions to rest? This is a sentiment echoed by Rajen Valayden, who stated on a radio show that he has yet to see action on the inquiries he made regarding Medine and Omnicane at the former ICAC.These are indeed some of the questions on the public’s mind. If all the deals the MIC made were badly structured and deliberately against the public interest, is the public not right to demand a full forensic audit? Such an audit would reveal who structured those deals and which consultants or advisors were involved. Or is this precisely what we do not want to discover?

* The Alliance du Changement secured a supermajority on a majority of promises to tackle the high cost of living, strengthen institutional independence, and overhaul the economy. Looking at their first several months in office, how effectively are they prioritizing these commitments, and what are the most significant obstacles to delivering their reform agenda?

When you talk to people on the street, in supermarkets, in public spaces, it seems there is something already broken between the people at large and the incumbent regime. Unfortunately, it does not help to be in a state of denial. When the public is accused of things like ‘hystériecollective,’ ‘démagogie,’ or ‘lisien ek ennbouttlezo,’ it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the public mood. This brings me back to my earlier point about raising the population’s consciousness about issues like corruption, nepotism, and clientelism while in opposition.

Once that consciousness has been raised, it cannot simply revert to a previous state. So, when there was a recent series of nominations of family members of individuals in the majority to public institutions, the loud outcry was not a sign of ‘hystériecollective.’ To suggest otherwise would be to also qualify the 60-0 landslide victory as ‘hystériecollective.’ The public’s criticism was not about the nominees’ competence, qualifications, or ability to perform in their designated posts. Nor was it a personal attack on their character. No one was suggesting that these individuals were bad people who would intentionally act against the public interest in their respective roles.

I think it would be good to keep in mind what has just happened in Nepal. People are fed up with the previous regime’s servings of all kinds of nepotism that was practised then. The reaction we saw on those recent nominations which were subsequently declined due to public pressure gives an indication as to the saturation point at which the public is with respect to nominations emanating from close family members of the 60 people sitting in parliament. And to come and say that it would constitute a gross injustice if these 60 individuals’ family members were to be excluded shows that there is something that is escaping their comprehension.

This can be very dangerous. Because when people protest (here gently only online and in the media) and in the face of that protest you come and offer any justification or an attempted guilt trip (hystérie collective), this can be the recipe for augmenting outrage rather than appeasing it. I believe this new level of public consciousness about what power is used for and in whose ultimate interest is a good thing. This is one step towards greater public accountability, and it is good for our democratic health.

The next step is to raise awareness and public consciousness about the nefarious links between politics and the money trail in the millions and even possibly billions. The millions of reward money withdrawn just one week before the elections suggest that we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. Furthermore, this information pertains to only one political side.

Financing elections, but also the whole 5-year mandate with all the festivals, etc., implies the moving of humongous amounts from individuals and companies to politicians. Of all political colours. We are possibly no longer talking in millions but billions when we consider a full 5-year horizon together with two elections at each side of that period. Where do all those funds come from? We know that there is policy capture by the rent-seeking class. And I am not talking only about the historical oligarchy. Over the past decades, rent-seeking has been properly ‘democratized’ which means that the rent-seeking class now includes all kinds of neo rent seekers who, for example, under the previous regime were given permits to construct luxury clinics etc. etc. Do we know whether drug barons also finance political parties and/or leaders? On a radio talk show Rajen Valayden said that we have only changed mafia teams. I see that we are now talking of electoral reform, but this seems to be limited to the rules of the game regarding who gets to be admitted in parliament.

What about financing? Until the billions flowing through the political circuit are addressed, a fundamental flaw in our democracy will remain uncorrected.

* Regarding the financing of our welfare system, isn’t the real question for Mauritius not a false choice between fiscal stability and social protection, but whether there is enough political will to reallocate resources effectively? And if so, can market-oriented reforms – like privatizing state-owned enterprises and tightening public spending – truly drive growth without hollowing out the very welfare system that underpins social cohesion, as suggested by Sameer Sharma in these columns?

In a country where rent-seekers have taken it all since independence, I am wary of private ownership of the same clan of strategic sectors providing essential services to the public. For example, I believe that energy production, water, the port, etc., should be largely owned by the public sector but managed by private professionals — open applications to attract top-notch international experts and definitely not political nominees. This is to prevent any private entity having the power to keep any government hostage if it wants to negotiate higher prices. This is certainly not speculative; it happened in recent years when one of the Independent Power producers threatened to turn off supply if the government would not negotiate higher prices. This is a sector where IPPs are happily milking a 35% plus return on the back of the public! Talk about Justice!

At the end of the day, I think that what Mauritian citizens expect is to see the vision and action plan that would lead to a country where we can live and breathe: Justice. Social Justice, Economic Justice, Environmental justice, etc. Where people can live a decent life in a humane, rights-based country where rule of law applies to every single citizen without exception. Because there can be no dream of nation building in any country where injustice prevails or even the perception of injustice is interiorized by various segments of the nation.

 

---

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 12 September 2025

Tags:Accountability, Alliance du Changement, Bom Saga, BRP Sustainability, Consultation, Corruption, Democracy, Demographics, Economic Justice, Electoral Reform, Environmental Justice, GDP, Interview Nita Deerpalsing, Life Expectancy, Mauritius Times, MIC Audit, Moody’s, Moustass Leaks, Nepotism, Opacity, Paul Bérenger, Pension Reform, Political Finance, Public Consciousness, Public Trust, Rent-Seeking, Rule of Law, Social Justice, Welfare State