The
sessions of the National assembly were drawing to a close and we got quite a
glimpse of our dear representatives fumbling for answers when questioned
closely about their deliverables and ultimately delivering so little. We were
getting quite exhausted with persistent requests, that were not entertained,
for commission of enquiries ( given the crisis, we cannot expect Government to
be allocating scarce funds for all kinds of enquiries, do we !!) ; the latest in the long list was the STC which
seems to have a natural knack of churning out hidden horrors from its
vaults-from the popular Amul, when all's said and done, had to be delivered to
prisoners, to the murky deals and well-concealed losses on the Malagasy Gros
Pois, to the lewdest of wiles in the
form of cross-subsidisation from diamond trading and the hedging costs that
were passed to consumers via the APM, and, neither last nor least, the hulking
monstrosity of being served with impure fuel relative to the minor inadvertence
of some horse gambling on the side . We had still the business of the Finance
Bill to go through and many thought that it will go through easily as most of
our dear representatives don't bother to look beyond the sound bites, even
though , with some efforts, the evidence is there for everyone to see. But not Hon. Pravind Jugnauth. Till now he has
done an excellent job of bringing to the public eye the pertinent issues of the
day. One thing for sure is that his interventions in the National Assembly have
not been found wanting in drive and determination, especially his caustically
effective forays in the domain of public finances laying bare the incongruities,
the lack of transparency and clarity of some of the budget policies and
measures – the quality of the stimulus package, for example, that is high on
promises and low on implementation and
the anxiety about growth because of the impediments borne out of past 4
years of neglect.
Amendments
to the Bank of Mauritius Act
Pravind
Jugnauth warns us that the Amendments to the Bank of Mauritius Act are a covert
attempt by the Minister of Finance to dictate its terms to the Bank of
Mauritius through his nominees in the Monetary Policy Committee. In the recent
situation of open conflicts between the Minister of Finance and the Governor of
the Bank of Mauritius as regards Monetary Policy and the tense meetings of the
Monetary Policy Committee (MPC), these amendments tend to convey such a message of interfering with the
independence of the Central Bank. It
was Pravind Jugnauth who in 2004 introduced a new Bank of
Mauritius legislation granting greater
independence to the central bank to better conduct its duties and
functions. One key feature of the
legislation was that it conferred increased independence to the Bank in the
performance of its duties and functions.
“ Clause 12 (3) eliminates the provisions of Section 19 of the existing Bank of
Mauritius Act which spells out that the Minister of Finance is empowered to
give directions to the Bank. It states that the Board in which the general
policy and administration of the affairs of the Bank are vested shall not be
subject to any direction from outside in the exercise of its functions. Thus,
the independence of the central bank is being clearly established and it can no
longer be issued with a directive from the Minister responsible for Finance.
This is in line with international best practices and will raise the level of
public confidence in the Bank”.
The
amendments increased the number of external nominees of the Minister from 3 to
4; is it to obtain absolute control on the Monetary
Policy Committee and on its decisions ? it means that the Governor would be
left at the mercy of the Minister’s nominees. Pravind is convinced that it is a deliberate attempt by the Minister of Finance to control the MPC and
dictate its decisions. He also believes that the MOF has the same agenda on the
issue of the establishment of a Financial Stability Committee which he will be
chairing. The MPC will be reduced to a mere appendage to the Financial
Stability Committee Committee. This is again against the spirit of the Bank of
Mauritius Act of 2004. Pravind Jugnauth does mince his words – “The hidden facts
paint a very consistent picture of an unscrupulous
mindset of an unscrupulous mind -The MOF
wants absolute control over the Central Bank’s main decisions He wants to
control the Central Bank and reduce the role of the Governor to that of a mere
puppet.” Is
this a good signal that we are sending to the financial community worldwide ?
But Pravind Jugnauth also walks the talk by proposing “that external Board Directors should not be appointed members of the
MPC. Putting more senior BoM staff members on the MPC would have been a good
signal” would have ensured a better working
environment for the Bank while reinforcing its independence.
New
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) provisions in the Income Tax Act
In the last Budget
Speech, it is said loud and clear that : « all profitable firms will have to either spend 2% of their profits on
Corporate Social Responsibility activities approved by Government or to
transfer these funds to Government to be used in the fight against poverty ».
But in the Finance Bill, Section 50L states that “companies shall in every year, set up a CSR Fund equivalent to 2% of
its book profit derived from the preceding year to –
(a)
implement
an approved programme by the Company;
(b)
implement
an approved programme under the National Empowerment Foundation; or
(c)
an
approved NGO.”
Pravind Jugnauth is not the
type to allow this to go unnoticed and
give the MOF a blank check on the CSR; he has done his homework and done it well; he drives home
the point that the MOF has acquiesced and bowed down to the private sector lobbies. Now, companies
are being given a freehand to use those 2% of profits to implement their own
approved CSR programmes and to add insult to injury, the Companies’ CSR Programmes “shall be deemed to
be an approved Government Programme”, although it is indicated that guidelines
will be issued. And the remonstrance by the MOF against the the MEF and JEC
"n’était que du cinema.”
Amendments
to Business Registration Act.
By
repealing Sections 7 and 8 of the Act, no renewal of registration or of
Business Registration card would be required after three years. Business
registration would be indefinite whether the registered person is actually
conducting business or not. But once
registered, the business is closely monitored by the Mauritius Revenue
Authority. Lifetime registration means lifetime monitoring by the MRA. Pravind
Jugnauth questions the motive behind this amendment. “A sinister motive, indeed ; We are also aware of the fact that many
people were lured by the big announcements in the 2006/2007 Budget Speech on
the facilities they would be entitled to if they register to get a Business
Registration Card. Then, many of those who registered realised that they had
fallen in the tax trap of the Minister of Finance. Many
people did not actually start any business at all after registration”. The figures
on the number of registered people who actually sought permits and trade
licenses and are actually conducting businesses should have been published. The
renewal of Business Registration Cards would have allowed us to have an idea of
the success and failure rate of new businesses.. Register or deregister is a
right, not a privilege.
Amendments to the Certificate Morality Act
Though
the MOF had to backtrack on this amendment, it is interesting to go though the
arguments against these amendments at the very least to get an inkling of the
purport. Pravind Jugnauth did not see any justification for bringing this
amendment in the Finance Bill; the motive behind the proposed amendment
appeared sinister to him. Employers
would be given the discretion to employ people ineligible for a certificate of
morality or whose previous conviction has been recorded on such certificate.
This adds up to the provisions of the 2006 Act which was meant to facilitate
and accelerate the process of granting a certificate of morality to previously
convicted persons. Some people may have an agenda or a mission to try to
whitewash as many culprits as possible. Pravind believes that the purpose of
this amendment is to facilitate the
recruitment of certain specific category of people and thus give a blank ticket to salvage culprits and
people with a gloomy past. He considers this as very dangerous as we shall be
exposing members of the public to such people. “The agenda of certain people cannot dictate Government’s course of
actions. We are against the proposed amendment and I request the Prime Minister
who is responsible for Law & Order in the country to reconsider the
amendment objectively in the interest of the people of this country. The
priority should not be safeguarding the interests of dangerous culprits but to
protect the people from dangerous individuals.” And he was listened to; Slowly but
surely this representative of ours is building a solid track record of
willingness to point to and take a hard look at contentious issues.
Amendments to the Employment Relations Act
The
three amendments proposed to the Employment Relations Act and the 35 amendments
proposed to the Employment Rights Act only six months after their proclamation,
testifies to the amateurish way these major legislations have been prepared in
the rush to satisfy the private sector. The amendments do not bring any
substantial change to these two legislations. The legitimate concerns of
workers and trade unionists have not been addressed. ‘It is a mere technical
exercise to reformulate some sections with more legal professionalism.”-a
professionalism that continues to be found wanting at the Ministry of Finance.
Pravind Jugnauth did however express his satisfaction to the amendment proposed
to Section 68(4) of the Employment Relations Act which corrects an anomaly since
the Ministry of Civil Service would no longer be judge and party to a dispute. But,
it would have been wiser to rationalize the whole system of dispute reporting
by making provision for officers of the Civil Service to report their disputes
to the Commission as is the case for the workers of the private sector. He also
welcomed the amendment to Section 44 of the Employment Rights Act. The payment
of temporary unemployment benefits to employees opting for a training or
re-skilling scheme until they become entitled to a training stipend, would
encourage workers to invest in their future and build up their employability.
As a Front-liner in the battle of wills and ideas, PJ at least prevents us from
falling into that apathy and torpor that petty politics
lulls us
-he rightly believes that “We should argue the policies, not personalize
things or it becomes somewhat so petty and childish”
