“The role of government is to maximise welfare, not profits”
Interview: Kugan Parapen, Junior Minister of Social Security
‘The government shouldn’t seek private sector approval for social welfare goals that conflict with corporate profit motives’
* ‘This government is certainly an improvement over the previous one, yet it still has much to do to convince the population that they made the right choice at the polls’
* ‘Actions speak louder than words. Implementing the 40-hour week and a uniform torrential rain policy will decisively shift the needle to the left’
The landslide victory of the Alliance du Changement brought with it a wave of socialist expectations: a 40-hour work week, fuel price relief, and a rejection of ethnic politics. However, the 2026 global economic landscape — scarred by the Iran-US conflict and a looming debt ceiling — presents a narrow path for the government.
In this week’s interview, we sit down with Kugan Parapen to discuss how the government intends to “move the needle to the left” while handicapped by fiscal constraints. He outlines a bold vision for a “Fair Share Contribution” from the top 5% of earners and warns that any retreat from electoral reform is a “red line” ReA will not cross. Is the government a hostage to capital? Kugan Parapen provides the answers.
Mauritius Times: ReA leader and Social Security minister Ashok Subron has sparked significant debate with his forceful rhetoric against what he terms the “historical hold of large capital” on the Mauritian economy. Minister Reza Uteem has categorically denied any capitalist hold, favouring “tripartite dialogue.” Between Subron’s “class struggle” approach and Uteem’s “institutional pragmatism,” where do you stand? Is “social dialogue” a tool for progress or a stall tactic for the patronat?
Kugan Parapen: It will come as no surprise to anyone that the private sector has its entries into the corridors of power. This has always been the case in the post-independence era, especially since the ‘historical hold of capital’ opted to withdraw to the shadows of the democratic electoral process while continuing to influence political decisions through the financing of the political class.
Such influence has often in the past resulted in an undermining of democracy. Whereby the will of the electorate is often purposefully ignored in spite of its legitimacy. And conversely, the will of an unelected but powerful force becomes the dominant force.
We need not look further than the advent of smart cities to understand this usurpation. Smart cities, a concept imagined by the sugar oligarchs as their way forward in a post-sugar world became the backbone of MSM’s economic vision for our Republic. Here’s what was said about smart cities by the then Finance Minister in 2015:
“Smart cities – a concept that will bring about a total revolution in the way we live, work and play… this is a legacy we will want to leave for our children and their children.”
It is thus important to fully grasp the context when referring to Ashok’s stance. It would be a mistake to reduce the debate to a Subron vs. Uteem issue. This is definitely not the case.
As the Minister of Labour, Reza Uteem has to consult all stakeholders, and this is what he is doing. Ultimately, the executive must also not forget that it was given a clear mandate to deliver a 40-hour work week for the working class. ReA will make sure that this commitment is not forgotten.
* In light of that commitment, how do you respond to Ashok Subron’s recent assertion that the government is ‘listening to the orders of the masters’? Is there a risk, as he suggests, that the Cabinet is being held ‘hostage’ by a ‘clique of capitalists’ at the expense of the working class mandate?
Ashok Subron called out attempts by the private sector to influence the government’s agenda. This is not to say the government is being held hostage by a ‘clique of capitalists,’ but in a coalition as broad as the Alliance du Changement, you would expect manoeuvres by power brokers seeking to amplify private sector influence over the state.
We should remain vigilant. Actions speak louder than words. The advent of a 40-hour work week and a uniform policy for all workers during torrential rains will go a long way towards moving the needle to the left.
* Minister Subron argues that the 40-hour week should be legislated without waiting for employer endorsement. On their part, business leaders warn that the combination of the Rs 21,500 minimum wage and a mandatory 40-hour week will bankrupt SMEs. Do you believe the government has the political will to bypass Business Mauritius if they continue to resist?
If the government thinks that a 40-hour work week is in the interest of our society, it should go ahead with the measure.
We often tend to forget that the role of government is to maximise the welfare of its population as opposed to the role of the private sector which is to maximise profits. Given these divergent objectives, we cannot expect the government to ask Business Mauritius for its endorsement to attain an objective (i.e. maximisation of welfare) which is not the objective of the private sector. However, its collaboration should be sought to implement the measure.
* This principled stance on the ‘divergent objectives’ between the state and capital reflects your party’s roots, but nevertheless, the Opposition accuses ReA leaders of playing “double roles” — radical activists on the weekends and government ministers during the week. How do you maintain the “disruptive” spirit of ReA without undermining the stability and collective responsibility of the Cabinet?
At least the Opposition recognise the fact that we are working round the clock. On a more serious note, Rezistans ek Alternativ has been mandated to act as a watchdog within the ranks of the majority, and it is a role we are intent on fulfilling.
We have already expressed to the Prime Minister our desire for more progressive, leftist policies in the next budget. Advocating for less economic inequality and rooting for the emergence of a unified Mauritian identity is far from radical in our view — it is actually the direction we should embark upon if we are to deliver real change. After all, if change is not disruption, then what is it?
* On the other hand, your “12 sous” math was factually correct, but many supporters felt it lacked the “symbolic solidarity” expected from a socialist leader. Don’t you think prioritizing logic over empathy has damaged your party’s credibility, and would you now support cutting MP salaries purely as a gesture of social cohesion during this time of high inflation?
Let me make it clear from the onset – I have absolutely no issue with reducing the salaries of MPs. I have been asking for a review of the perks of MPs since the last budget and this is on record in the Hansard. The point I wanted to make with respect to the 12 cents calculation is that the solidarity of MPs alone will not make a significant real difference for the population. If the price of petrol falls by 12 cents tomorrow, will it make a difference?
That is why we need to enlarge the pool of people who contribute to finance the real difference. At no point did I suggest that MPs should be exempted, I only suggested that citizens who earn the highest salaries contribute more to the economy by paying additional taxes, including MPs. Taxing a salary results in a lower net salary as far as I know.
Back in 2015, the MSM government introduced a 3-rupee levy on each litre of petrol to fund the ‘Build Mauritius Fund’. This was done at a moment when the price of petrol was historically low on international markets – an opportunistic measure some might call it. But with the level of oil prices back to above 100 dollars per barrel, the opportunistic measure of an era of low oil prices needs to be reversed. To fund such a reversal and given the fiscal constraints of the government, we should consider levying a corresponding amount from high income earners (the Top 5%) to neutralise the shortfall from the removal of taxes on petrol.
Relieving the whole population through a permanent reduction in retail prices of petrol while asking the Top 5% to shoulder this effort fiscally is fair in my opinion. The threshold for the Fair Share Contribution for income earners is set too high in my opinion. It only concerns those earning more than 12 million rupees a year. Anyone earning between 2 million to 12 million per year is taxed at a top marginal rate of 20% only. This is at the low end of what the norm is around the world – close to 30%.
* Is your suggestion for a 30% tax on high-income earners (those earning above Rs 150,000) to fund fuel price reductions officially on the table for the 2026-2027 Budget, or is this a personal ReA stance that currently lacks Cabinet consensus?
This is not a Cabinet decision; it is a proposal from Rezistans ek Alternativ in line with the party’s values and ideology. We are asking the upper classes to shoulder their fair share of the fiscal burden.
* Recent reports suggest that tax arrears — including corporate income tax, VAT, and gambling taxes — have reached significant levels. It appears that while many SMEs took advantage of the Tax Arrears Settlement Scheme, a “hard core” of major companies still carries substantial unpaid balances. In your view, what should be done about this? Would you advocate for “naming and shaming” these entities, or do you have other measures in mind?
In the name of transparency, the identity of those companies that owe the State should be publicly available. But more importantly, the recovery of such unpaid sums is crucial – and the responsible authorities should not hesitate to seize assets, if available, to recover what is due to the State as far as possible.
* You’ve also mentioned a “Fair Share Contribution” for banks and conglomerates. Given the current energy shocks and the 2026 Iran War’s impact, is now the right time to increase the tax burden on the private sector, or could it trigger capital flight?
The Fair Share Contribution for the private sector was set at 10% for profits above 24 million rupees in the last budget. Contrary to the Fair Share Contribution for income earners, the threshold for the private sector was set at an appreciable threshold, in that it covered a substantial number of profitable companies. We should also keep in mind that an additional fiscal effort was also asked of the banking and telecom sectors. Overall, the maximum tax rate for corporates has been set at 35%, a significant increase compared to what it used to be.
What is the “fair share” of the private sector? Fairness is inherently subjective; what one group deems fair, another may see as unjust. However, we have always maintained that a society must strive for a stable equilibrium where the fiscal burden is distributed responsibly. In recent years, the high proportion of indirect taxes shouldered by the population has effectively asphyxiated the middle and lower classes. This is not a state of stable equilibrium.
* Many workers see you and Ashok Subron as the ones making sure the government stays true to its socialist promises. What is the one “red line” in the upcoming Budget that, if not met, would make ReA reconsider its position in the alliance?
In the current context, it is essential to provide real relief to the population — the most vulnerable groups and the middle class. A budget which does not go in this direction will be a bitter pill to swallow.
* The government’s proposal to remove community-based classification for election candidates — thereby nullifying the Best Loser System — has met with strong opposition. Different voices have argued that the move unfairly impacts underrepresented groups, particularly the General Population, and maintain that any reform must ensure broad, diverse representation to safeguard social equity. Idealism should not come at the expense of fair play, isn’t it?
The government is not proposing to remove community-based classification. It is proposing to make it optional as was the case in 2014 after the then Labour government came forward with a temporary constitutional amendment. The amendment featured as the main measure in the electoral agreement between Rezistans ek Alternativ and other members of the alliance. The leaders of the different parties agreed to its re-instatement within six months of coming to power. Surely those who opposed such a measure and who supported the Alliance du Changement should have made themselves heard then.
You earlier asked about a red line – and failure to respect this particular electoral agreement — specifically the removal of community-based classification for candidates — is a definitive red line that Rezistans ek Alternativ is not prepared to cross. At the core of the party’s values is its fight for the emergence of a Mauritian culture and an electoral system which denies its citizens the possibility of standing as a candidate at general elections on the basis of citizenship only is an unacceptable system and needs to be reformed as it goes against the very notion of nation building.
The constitutional amendment is not an end in itself; the true holy grail is electoral reform. Should this long-awaited reform materialize before the next general elections, any provisional constitutional amendment would become redundant. However, if this government — backed by a landslide mandate to deliver such reform — fails to do so, those who refuse to classify themselves along ethnic lines should not have to bear the brunt of that failure.
Imagine we are in the year 2100; are we still to rely on a 1968 agreement to justify the status quo? What about 2200 or 2300? Some would have us believe that the premise of our electoral system is divinely ordained and, as such, eternal. But change is not just necessary — it is inevitable.
* Finally, would you say the government is delivering on its mandate and electoral promises, or is it better positioned to do so now that the Bérenger distraction is over?
This government is certainly an improvement over the previous one, yet it still has much to do to convince the population that they made the right choice at the polls. Unfortunately, the economic landscape acts as a major constraint on several measures. The Mauritian economy is currently in a delicate state, having reached a debt ceiling that severely curtails the government’s spending capacity.
This is a new reality that must sink in, as it will persist over the medium term. Such a legacy does not evaporate overnight. In this context, re-engineering our economic model must be the priority. Promoting new economic sectors must also be at the very top of the national agenda.
Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 8 May 2026
An Appeal
Dear Reader
65 years ago Mauritius Times was founded with a resolve to fight for justice and fairness and the advancement of the public good. It has never deviated from this principle no matter how daunting the challenges and how costly the price it has had to pay at different times of our history.
With print journalism struggling to keep afloat due to falling advertising revenues and the wide availability of free sources of information, it is crucially important for the Mauritius Times to survive and prosper. We can only continue doing it with the support of our readers.
The best way you can support our efforts is to take a subscription or by making a recurring donation through a Standing Order to our non-profit Foundation.
Thank you.
