Prayag Statements That Don't Survive A Fact-Check

 1. A budget is a country's moment of truth where illusions meet numbers (2026). Nope. The budget is a series of announcements some of which may not find their way into the Finance Act and fewer still implemented. There can also be a fair amount of creative accounting as we have seen in several of the budgets of the past 20 years. 

2. This year's budget more than ever will be a showdown between the reality of numbers and past practices (2026). The economic model of the recent decade of MSM rule is the same model implemented between 2006 and 2014 when Navin was at the helm.

3. This year's budget will say clearly what Mauritius can still afford, what it cannot finance anymore and what must be corrected before it's too late (2026). No guarantee about this as in last year's budget the BRP was deemed unsustainable but the government was planning 14 billion rupees into the construction of new roads when we already have way too many. It also didn't highlight the fact that the 15% flat tax and other unsustainable tax structures never delivered the 8% growth promise. And government didn't update the population on the renewal of the abusive IPP contracts.

4. For too long government has overspent with little regard to economic prudence (2026). The main problem of the last 20 years is the implementation of a low and for the most part flat tax structure which has basically ruined Mauritius. The economy is about 2.5X smaller than what the low tax structure was supposed to generate. It was not either exactly prudent to kill our savings culture so as to finance an unsustainable tax structure.

5. The cost of overspending has never been presented (2026). Since 2006 we've constantly updated the population on how they were being taking for a ride and how the unsustainable tax structure was ruining Mauritius. All of this was backed by numbers. For instance between 2006 and 2024 there has been a GDP shortfall of more than 6 trillion rupees.

6. The impact of overspending by government can be seen in the debt/GDP ratio, deficits and depreciation of the rupee (2026). For one the GDP is 2.5X smaller as expected so we need to take all ratios that use it with a big grain of salt. Budget deficits are also due to a drastically smaller economy. Trade deficits are the results of several terribly bad policy decisions. One such decision are the abusive IPP contracts that have pulled Mauritius down for more than 20 years.

7. We need to distinguish between blind austerity and budgetary responsabilty (2026). At the beginning of his toxic reforms Sithanen said that we need to make two years of sacrifice and then we'll be ok. Killing our savings culture is not what you would call a sacrifice. It's rather sheer economic suicide unless you're aware of an economy that thrives after its savings culture has been assassinated. As a matter of fact last year's budget was precisely that: blind austerity. You steal the pension of our old folks but at the same time you announce that you'll spend 14 billion rupees in the new roads. And you keep mum about the renewal of three abusive contracts but during 2025 you disconnect 21,000 subscribers from the CEB grid.

8. It's not about to abandon the most vulnerable or to destroy the welfare state (2026). This is precisely what has been going on since 2006. For a start have a look at how national income was distributed across the population for the five years which ended in 2012. And it looks as if you haven't heard what Jyoti Jeetun has been saying for a while. Namely that our public health system is a very heavy burden and that solutions will need to be found.

9. A state that spends without counting will end up not being able to help the most vulnerable (2026). The problem with the Mauritian state is that it embarked on a ruinous path since 2006 and this has caused some astronomical underspending including on our welfare state.

10. The next budget is going to be difficult but governing is not about buying social peace with public money (2026). Social peace is a top priority and all governments buy it with public money because having people rioting in the streets is not conducive to economic growth. Ask countries in the Middle East after the Arab Spring. Surely public money should not be spent paying a 35% return to IPPs that don't take any risks.

Gid Pu Konpran Byin Revolt Sitwayin Kont Reform BRP

Tiena irzans?

ADC tiena plin lozasion pu dir lepep ki zot pu repus pansion vieyes a 65 an. Ala 11:

1. pandan 10 an ki zot ti dan karo kan

2. pandan kanpayn elektoral 2024 (sirtu port a port)

3. lor zot paz FB ek ban lezot rezo sosio

4. lor radio dernie 10 an

Padayachy Statements That Don't Survive A Fact-Check

1. Mauritius is in an economic boom (2024). His justification in August 2025 is that we've clipped growth rates higher than 5% for the preceding three years. The only reason we've clipped these growth rates is, as the following chart pulled from WTVF shows, that the economy has been rebounding from the nearly 15% contraction caused by Covid in 2020. We should also note that Mauritius has been one of the last countries in the world to get back to its pre-Covid levels of activity. 

Sithanen Statements That Don't Survive A Fact-Check

1. No country invests more than 50% of their reserves in gold. Saying otherwise is pure folly (2009). Really?

What Did Trees in Beau-Vallon and Our Savings Culture Have in Common?

Another bleak reality is the decline in national savings rate. It has fallen from an average of 26 percent of GDP in the period 1996-2000 to 24.6 percent in the period 2001-2005. CSO is forecasting a very low savings rate of 19.5 percent for 2005. Here again, we must be utterly concerned. 

Rama Sithanen, 2005

... il a fait beaucoup de tort à la culture d'épargne des Mauriciens en enlevant les exemptions fiscales sur les prêts immobiliers ainsi que les études supérieures de leurs enfants, 

tout en taxant les intérêts bancaires.

Dan Bundhoo, 2014

Simple. They had gone through plenty but survived. There's a word for this and it is resilience. Granted it's a term that has been abused in Mauritius over the past decade. But it's easy to show what it really means. As RAFAL wrote about the resilience of trees recently I will focus on our savings culture. 

Pope to Spend Day With Victim of Unbridled Capitalism

He will find a Mauritius that's a lot more vulnerable than when John Paul II visited us thirty years ago. The damage done by an extreme version of trickle-down economics — 'dung of the devil' as Francis quoted a fourth century bishop to his Santa Cruz, Bolivia audience back in 2015 (as reported by The Guardian) and which has been dubbed Shaitanomics here since 2010 — is extensive and captured in chart 1. 

Freymwurk Pu Analiz Dekolonizasyon

Kifer Gandhi pankor mor?

Sel reaksyon Winston Churchill, selon Shashi Tharoor, se sa not la dan fayl

bann memo kot ofisyel Angle ti pe dir li ki dimunn pe mor lor sime dan Bengal  

Enn Ti Kestyon

Si mo dimann zot ki pei tiena pli gro lekonomi pandan plis letan dernye 2,000 banane ki zot pu reponn? Langleter? Lamerik? Lafrans? Lespayn? Non. Len. Len tiena pli gro lekonomi pandan 85% sa letan la. Sa ve dir 1,700 banane. Sirpri? Pa tiapran lekol? Pa konvinki? Be pran enn minit sink segon pu get sa zoli ti video ki The Economist ti fer an 2014 la. Li korobor seki Shashi Tharoor ti dir dan emisyon Q&A TV Ostralyen ABC Septam lane dernyer. Kav usi get enn rapor ADB pu gayn enn lot pies pezel. Len se enn ka interesan pu konpran konpleksite linpak kolonizasyon lor enn pei.

Lepep Not Mandated To Sell Any Part of the CWA

It’s Not in Their Manifesto

Page 19 has five points under the heading of “Fourniture d’eau”. One such point is “Remplacement à court et moyen termes les tuyaux désuets afin d’assurer une fourniture régulière 24 heures sur 24…” Basic common sense when we know that 1,600km of our pipes – some of which are over 50 years old – need to be replaced, right? Another one is “Aménager des barrages dans nos rivières pour récupérer autant d’eau que possible pour être canalisés vers les stations de traitement”. Who will disagree with this when we know we don’t capture enough of all the rainfall that we’re blessed to receive every year? The three other points deal with the Bagatelle dam, emergency water trucks and reforestation. No mention of privatisation of any part of the CWA or subterfuges like affermage. Didn’t see any plan for the CEB to create private companies to avoid the Central Procurement Board either.

Did Lepep Change Its Mind?

If it has it will have to ask voters for their permission on such a fundamental issue because there is no way it would have won 47-13 in December 2014 if one of its electoral pledges was to mess up our public utilities one way or another. It can do that in two ways. One is to call for fresh general elections and the other is to organise a referendum on the issue. A referendum is a lot better as it would enlarge our democratic space and enable Government to get the clearest of signals.

How Bad is Trickle-Down Economics?

Trickle-what???

What the hell is that? It's a deceptive argument that the economy can grow a lot faster if we keep on reducing the top tax rates. It was first tried by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and failed miserably. For example the national debt of the US increased from $1 trillion to $4 trillion over a 12-year period. This regressive taxation regime was reversed as from 1993 when one William Jefferson Clinton won the Presidential elections. And what has been its impact on Mauritius?

It Has Screwed Up Our Economy

Well, you've seen what it has done to our country after Sithanen implemented a pretty barbaric version of it as from 2006 – the flat tax – with the blessing of one pseudo-socialist. The bottom line is that we ended up with the smallest national cake baked over a five-year period as far back as we can remember and the cake-cutting was pretty bad too. At the end of 2012 there was already a cumulative GDP shortfall of about 275 billion rupees – that's the GDP of Mauritius for 2008 by the way – with respect to the promised 8% robust growth trajectory. If we make the very conservative assumption that government would have reduced its revenue collections to 15% of GDP this translates into a revenue shortfall of over 40 billion rupees – you multiply the last two numbers. 54 billions if it kept its revenue share of GDP at 20%.

Lev Pake Reste Turns 10

Yes. Already. A recap. So Ramgoolam nominates Bheenick as Governor -- one of his best decisions ever but that too after a year and a half of doing God knows what -- but Sithanen is unhappy so he threatens to resign or maybe he does. The PM is out of the country at the time but makes an appeal to the Minister on national tv. The latter eventually changes his mind -- after about a week -- when his pick as the BoM chief gets the SBM chairmanship. But not before swallowing something that's not exactly a grass snake and creating an urgent need to amend one famous Chevenement formula.

That was a really strange week. See if a Minister cannot be present at his office there has to be a colleague who steps in for him. We've seen this so many times: another member of Cabinet will answer parliamentary questions on behalf of the officeholder when the latter is out of the country. If a Minister resigns our excellent constitution takes care of that seamlessly. And that too without the PM having to be at his desk. The Ministry can also be reassigned to another colleague. For example SAJ held the Ministry of Finance for a few months last year. So did Ramgoolam in 2014. But none of those happened back in February 2007.

Plenty to Learn From US Election Process

Americans know pretty much what to expect from the person they will elect as President of the world's second largest economy today. And that's thanks in no small measure to the candidates thoroughly discussing the main planks of their plans and to several independent groups of people scrutinising them. If it's Trump they are aware that the extreme version of trickle-down economics he's proposing – a flat tax of 15% – would add 5 trillion dollars to the US national debt, make 3.5 million people lose their jobs and potentially throw the economy into a recession. If it's Clinton the economy should keep on growing from the middle out and that too without a Great Wall that Mexico would be made to pay for. The fiscal policies of these candidates are also consistent with the DNA of their parties: Democrats don't believe and rightly so that tax cuts for the wealthy work while the Republicans do.

Lepep Budget May Miss Boat, Again

Budget Doesn't Address Dominant Issue

Namely the extensive damage caused by the flat tax: 1. a massive GDP gap; 2. a serious impairment of our domestic savings; 3. making Mauritius less competitive and dynamic by keeping local pump prices at unreal levels and 4. generating the smallest increase in real disposable income for the poorest 20% of households of the last twenty-five years. Besides the flat tax was implemented on the basis of spurious claims.

Why Poverty is Winning

Because so much of it has been created over the past 10 years. Some people have been getting out of poverty for sure but a lot more have been falling into it. Of the pool of 126,200 poor people in 2012 a staggering 33,000 had joined it over the last decade. That's more than one in every four poor Mauritians. This has happened because our economy has not grown fast enough and whatever wealth was created has not been shared properly.

Massive Policy Failure

Which in turn has mostly been caused by dismal policy-making and the lack of dynamism of our economy. External events have certainly played a role but given that they were beyond our control we shouldn't have spent that much time crying over them. We should also acknowledge the fact that there has been a wide variation in the way poverty has expanded. Chart 1 captures that by looking at how it has progressed over a fifteen-year period. Which coincided roughly with three different governments and in one case with major policy changes.

Will the Budget Be a Non-event?

"On ne parachute pas au ministère des finances quelqu'un qui ne sait pas calculer la dette publique et qui ne connaît pas l'impact de la fiscalité sur la croissance...."

Rama Sithanen, 2009

Like last year's and most of the budgets since 2006? Well, it doesn't have to. It will essentially depend on a single decision. But first let us understand how we got into a deep mess for ten whole years.

Old Policy Crap in New Bottle

The last part of the quote above – emphasis mine – summarises pretty much the main economic story from Mauritius over the last decade. While tax rates definitely impact growth rates – and both of them drive government revenue – the relationship is far from being linear. And it depends to a great extent on the relative ability of our public and private sectors to create wealth or make things happen. In the 1980s for example, as Paul Krugman reminds us, American top tax rates were cut from 36.5% to 26.7% over nine years but they never got the growth rates that would have financed those cuts. What they did get though is a Federal debt ballooning all the way from less than a trillion dollars to four by 1992. And two decades later US politicians were trying to clinch a deal hours before Uncle Sam was scheduled to go into default. The Economist summed up the situation as essentially the product of two tax-cuts, two wars and one stimulus package.

Why Mauritius Need Not Worry About Brexit

Because we got far more important issues here to worry about. Here are a few.

1. A Minister wants to sell the CWA because he's not happy with its hotline. Now, if this is not a cause for worry and a reason for ministerial resignation, an urgent Cabinet reshuffle, a referendum or all three I wonder what is. Another Minister wants to sell the CHCL. That's totally inappropriate. Talks with DP World have to be immediately called off. We can keep on nicely developing our port by ourselves -- CHCL has invested nearly Rs2 billion over the last ten years. We've got the people and tons of unemployed graduates who should be given many opportunities to push Mauritius forward. For sure we could have done a lot better had Sithanen not messed up our savings rate and economy so badly with the impressive string of failed policies which have accompanied the worst form of trickle-down economics: a flat tax. See, he promised robust growth rates of 8% back in 2005 if we lowered top taxes. As the chart illustrates we not only never got anything higher than 6% during the past 10 years but 60% of those rates were under 4%. This has, as expected, caused our government to run out of money for capital projects -- which Badhain keeps repeating -- and pile up a lot of debt. Making us a lot more vulnerable at the same time.

Who's the Better Cake-Cutter?

We can get an idea if we look at the Household Budget Surveys (HBS) that our highly-esteemed CSO publishes every five years. Let us proceed the same way that a clock ticks and start comparing the 1991/92 data with that of 1996/97.

Lutchmeenaraidoo vs. Sithanen

These are quite interesting years as they coincide approximately with the last year for Vishnu Lutchmeenaraidoo as Finance Minister and the end of the first mandate of Rama Sithanen. It gives an indication of how the cutting of the economic cake changed from Minister to Minister. In this case from cousin to cousin.

As Table 1 illustrates every single group saw their share of the national cake fall except the richest one. The poorest 10% -- that's the group which is more vulnerable in case you have forgotten -- had their share reduced by 13%. The other thing you want to note here is that the ratio of the share of the wealthiest to the poorest which was 12.09 when Mr. Lutchmeenaraidoo left increased to 15.40. Which means increased inequality and that's bad for growth -- just like keeping energy prices much higher than what is reasonable, flattening taxes or creating a major structural problem by making a multi-billion rupee gift to a dead industry -- and for the general well-being of our country. Please note that these were both ministers under SAJ. And I guess you will be hard-pressed to find even traces of a savat-leponz-gato-pima effect in the 1996/97 data.