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.

Eski Sithanen Enn Kosmar Pu Popilasyon?

Kestyon bet, non? Kosmar disparet ler uver lizye. Parkont lanfer so bann politik ekonomik kontinye fer u lavi vinn margoz pandan buku banane. Sithanen finn reponn a sa kestyon la resama avek kat kestyon. Anu analyz zot.

1. Linn dimande si pa enn politisyen de long dat kuma Ramgoolam ti pu pran enn risk vinn tir li depi kot liete si li tienn kosmar. Anfet Ramgoolam pe pran enn mari gro risk reprezant Sithanen kom minis de finans apre sa bann gro gro dal ki linn fane ant 2005 ek 2010 (nu tu finn remarke ki lalyans pep tuni pann gagn sa kantite plis dimunn ki lalyans papa piti dan miting nasyonal le duz oktob). Me kan de parmi trwa pli gran parti zwen sa amenn suvan bann gro skor dan elekyson: sa lalians la gagn lao 50 siez. Me pa tu letan (ek sa eleksyon ki pe vini la pa enn eleksyon ordiner ditu sa). An 2005 Ramgoolam ti gagn enn viktwar istorik ler enn gro parti ti bat 2 gro parti.

Anfet telma Sithanen ti fann dal kom minis de finans -- avek so kamwad Ali Mansoor -- ki Ramgoolam finn bizin ed Pravind Jugnauth eli dan No. 8, donn enn segon manda prezidan SAJ pu finalman fer lalians ek MSM ek pa donn tiket Sithanen. Parksi Ramgoolam ti kone si ti donn li tiket kitfwa Ramgoolam mem ti pwal manz feyaz. Sithanen pann gagn tiket ar Berenger usi byen ki Berenger -- papa kominalis syantifik sa do -- ti dir ki Ramgoolam finn fer fos ek bann Tamul-morisyen parski Berenger kone ki elekter pa kas latet ar kominote bann faner dal.

Mauritius Edging Dangerously Towards Plutocracy

Have you ever really asked yourself why taxes were flattened to 15% between 2005 and 2010? Probably not. That was done because it made the wealthiest segment of the population a lot richer. Not because of some bogus Triple External Shocks argument. And some politicians would want to do this because the opaque financial contributions they receive would get larger. A lot larger. Even if it meant killing savings in the economy or throwing a lot more people into poverty. This is called a plutocracy. Not a democracy.

Indeed Household Budget Survey (HBS) data tells us that there were an extra 500 or so poor people in Mauritius after the first term of Navin Ramgoolam. But that by 2012 there were a record 22,000 more people that were thrown into poverty – bringing the total of poor Mauritians to 126,200 – compared to the preceding five years. Which coincides pretty much with his second term and the start of the reforms. That's like increasing the speed at which pockets of poverty are created by 44 times.