The Return of the 3-Credit Policy: Expanding Educational Access

Opinion

By Jan Arden

The Hon. Minister of Education upon taking office announced that, as promised during the electoral campaign and reversing his predecessor’s controversial measure, pupils having only 3 credits at SC will henceforth not be excluded from pursuing their studies to HSC level.

Tertiary Education Minister, Dr Kaviraj Sukon, followed suit at a meeting with public university directors in January, both underscoring the government’s focus on maximizing opportunities for Mauritian children while keeping those unfortunates not to have secured 5 credits at SC off the streets and in a school environment.

In some quarters, perhaps those associated with former Education minister Mrs Leela Devi Dookun-Luchoomun’s restrictive or elitist policies for access to Grade 12, have raised the issue of whether this would lead to a lowering of standards, while Minister Gungapersad has recently complained publicly of officers in his own Ministry balking at implementation of the measure.

We have to peruse PQs to confirm that the Ministry of Education had implemented the quasi-identical measure after a review of criteria for admission to Lower VI and this was approved by Government in January 2011. This had “provided new opportunities for a greater number of students to have access to the upper secondary school by introducing more flexibility in the system without compromising on the quality of education and its outputs.” The then Minister added that some 50% of the 350 students with 3 credits who sat for HSC or A-levels in 2010 had passed their exams satisfactorily.

This was then essentially a return to an established past practice which the MSM Minister of Education and her Education House establishment had overturned without, to our knowledge, any detailed study whether there had been a noteworthy lowering of standards over the years the three-credit system was in application. While we believe that students not attaining their full potential in a purely academic and competitive environment should be guided to more fruitful avenues, there is no legitimate reason to exclude pupils with 3 SC credits, from ever completing their HSC studies in a school environment, particularly if 50% of them end up with success. Any officer blocking a mandated policy of the Alliance du Changement should be firmly invited to tend to other occupations.

*  *  *

Strengthening Accountability: The Need for ‘Dereliction of Duty’ Legislation

In these columns we have deplored time and again the propensity of the highest-level cadres of the public service of bending and fawning to whims and desiderata of a powerful political clan at the expense of duties and responsibilities they had been entrusted with on behalf of the common good.

We understand the rapport that each and every Minister has to develop with his or her key cadres to get things moving or accomplished, including perhaps through some reciprocal back-patting and sweeteners (for instance, attendance on plum boards, accompanying the Minister on a perfectly useless overseas trip, as for the shocking Dubai expo jalsa paid for from public purse or the plane-hopping world discovery tour by a former Foreign Affairs minister).

These rapports between a temporary body politic and a more permanent high-level civil service have and will always be around, skewed certainly by the constitutional amendment of 1982, which gave the upper hand to political masters of the day.

From a layman’s perspective, these and other past abuses of the Mauritian taxpayer are not my beef here as, under normal functional circumstances, there should be working checks and greenlights have to be obtained, if not at Cabinet, then ultimately by the PMO.

Similarly, malfeasance and misconduct while in Public Office, may come under the Prevention of Corruption Act (POCA) when specific matters dealt with fall clearly and squarely under that law’s ambit.

We can empathize with those senior most cadres who face inappropriate and often unwritten demands for skirting or breaching legislation, allocate contracts or otherwise restrict bidders for their Minister, although the more astute ones know how to cover their tracks.

They know or should know that at the slightest whiff of a scandal or revelation, their political boss will easily shrug the matter off (contracts and tenders are not my baby!), look for scapegoats or leave them out to dry.

Working relationships between political bosses and top civil servants, or more ominous offences of corruption already fall under the law and are not our concern here.

But what has irked and shocked many concerned citizens under the previous regime, is the general ease and sense of impunity with which top-notch civil servants looked away or actively connived and colluded with their political bosses to make a mockery of their office or their statutory duties to taxpayers and countrymen or the reputation of the agencies over which they exercised their imperial rule.

Nobody needs reminding how the former CP and his subordinates, including medico-legal department, were blasted by a Magistrate for a « new level of [investigative] incompetence » bringing the whole Police Force into disrepute. Or the singularly inept direction at what was ICAC/FCC where dossiers on white-collar crime of the nomenklatura in office were obviously piling up to no avail. Similar remarks could well be told about the CCID/MCIT, the ADSU, the FSC/FIU or the BoM/MIC. Some of them are busy these days answering probing questions on alleged frauds, scams or corrupt acts from an FCC free to conduct its enquiries without fear or favour.

Again, we are but ordinary laymen who have felt the powerlessness of our laws, regulations and statutes to prevent wholesale abuse by holders of key posts at crucial investigative agencies who, in serious cases, willfully neglect their duties without reasonable excuse or justification and bring disrepute over their agency or institution. What do we do for instance when a Commissioner of Police blithely ignores directions from an enquiring Magistrate or the Office of the DPP in a political murder case? Or when files gather dust at an investigative agency charged with taking to task those who have obviously crossed red lines of fraud and corruption? These are neither regrettable mistakes or omissions, nor do they fall under POCA.

According to the UK’s Law Reform Commission (2020), “there is an ongoing need for criminal or common law offences that specifically target serious misconduct by public office holders,” beyond those covered by the POCA or fraud charges. While “gross misconduct” might be legally vague, we find “dereliction of duty” to be a more suitable common English term. This term emphasizes that responsibility entails accountability, and failures in accountability should carry serious repercussions, exceeding mere disciplinary actions or a swift retirement with full benefits.

While the upcoming Fiscal Responsibility Act may address part of the issue, our best legal minds should reflect on how serious dereliction of duty » should be treated in law and prevented from ever tarnishing the country’s reputation.

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 28 March 2025