Need I remind our readers that Mauritius became independent in 1968? Well, on paper. Since then, governments have changed, alliances have changed, party colours have changed and politicians have changed sides so frequently that ideological consistency should perhaps be placed on the list of endangered species.

Yet the electoral formula has remained wonderfully stable.

Before elections, promise everything.

After elections, discover the national debt.

Then explain that the public must make sacrifices because the previous government behaved irresponsibly. While the newly elected binge on all financial perks while in power and or office for some.

Five years later, return to the public meeting, switch on the loudspeakers and promise everything again.

Not every promise since independence has been empty. Mauritius has developed significantly, diversified its economy and built important systems of education, health care and social protection. But its political parties have also perfected the art of offering benefits without honestly presenting the bill.

Mauritian electoral politics has become a restaurant where politicians order the champagne, distribute the menus and leave future taxpayers to wash the dishes.

Every major party claims to represent social justice. Every party promises pensions, subsidies, free services, salary increases, reduced taxes, cheaper fuel, better hospitals, more jobs and homes for everyone. It is electoral socialism performed with capitalist donors, family controlled parties and business class hospitality.

Calling every major Mauritian party genuinely extreme left would be ideologically inaccurate, but it does wear the cloak of leftist attribute. They are not proposing the nationalisation of every hotel, bank and supermarket. What they practise is something more flexible and electorally useful:

At public meetings, everyone is a socialist. At private dinners, everyone understands the importance of business confidence. At party headquarters, the most important economic policy is often ensuring that the correct relatives, financiers, friends and loyal supporters remain confident.

The parties do not necessarily follow Karl Marx. Their preferred economist is usually Saint Manifesto, patron saint of promises that need not be independently costed.

Before an election, Mauritian politicians acquire supernatural abilities.

They can raise pensions without raising taxes. Reduce debt without reducing expenditure. Create jobs without improving productivity. Lower prices without affecting businesses. Increase salaries without causing inflation. Build houses without sufficient land. Improve hospitals without solving staffing shortages. Reinvestigate murder which shocked the country and even MI5 would no doubt have doubts. Lower the price of petrol as promised on all media platforms, so much that people are already salivating on the amount they will be saving. They can even promise to return a pension to the age of 60 without explaining who will fund it.

It sounds miraculous. It may receive applause. The small difficulty is that nobody can explain how the formula works.

During an election campaign, arithmetic is treated as a colonial instrument designed to oppress political imagination.

After the election, arithmetic is suddenly rediscovered. Ministers appear on television with serious faces, economic reports and phrases such as structural adjustment, demographic transition and fiscal sustainability.

The voter who was promised paradise is then informed that paradise has been postponed because the Treasury is experiencing technical difficulties.

The manifesto becomes a historical document. The promise becomes an aspiration. The aspiration becomes a long term objective. The long term objective becomes the responsibility of the next government.

Pravind Jugnauth has recently promised that, if returned to office, the MSM would restore the State pension at the age of 60. Public reports recorded the promise, but no complete actuarial or financing plan accompanied it.

This is politically clever by scrupulous being surrounding Pravind like vultures circling their next meals. Getting rid of his usual entourages will do justice to his future.

The Government has created public anger by changing pension eligibility and introducing permanent reductions for people claiming before the prescribed age. The opposition has responded with the oldest instrument in Mauritian politics: a larger promise.

The question is not whether people would like a pension at 60. Of course they would. People would also like lower taxes, cheaper food, free electricity, a modern hospital in every district and roads without potholes.

The question is:

Under the Bill, later pensioners claiming five years before 65 may face a 30 per cent permanent reduction because the pension is reduced by 0.5 per cent for every early month. A person delaying from 65 until 70 may receive a 45 per cent increase. The decision is stated to be irrevocable.

Restoring the full pension universally from 60 would therefore require billions of rupees in recurring annual revenue. Not one payment. Not one asset sale. Not one recovered loan. Not one exciting press conference. Recurring revenue.

That means some combination of:

• Higher taxes
• Higher social contributions
• Reduced expenditure elsewhere
• More Government borrowing
• Faster economic growth
• Better collection of existing taxes
• A properly funded national pension reserve
• Less generous benefits for wealthier recipients
• A later retirement age for those capable of working
• Significant reductions in waste and political privilege

Until Pravind Jugnauth publishes the number of beneficiaries, annual cost, ten year cost, funding mechanism and effect on debt, the promise remains an electoral slogan with a pensioner standing behind it.

The MSM may say economic growth will fund it. Economic growth is the favourite political answer because it sounds serious and sends no immediate invoice. But saying growth will pay is not a financing plan. It is the fiscal equivalent of telling a restaurant that prosperity will settle the bill later.

Perhaps the pension could be financed by selling Angus Road? Or the other building? That makes an excellent point, but it is not a lawful funding model.

Angus Road or Sun Trust have been the subject of allegations and financial investigations. However, allegations and investigations do not allow the State simply to place private property on Facebook Marketplace and advertise it as pension fund, slightly used.

Any forfeiture would require lawful proceedings, evidence and judicial determination. Even if properties were eventually confiscated and sold, the proceeds would be received once. A pension must be paid every month. You cannot finance a permanent entitlement by selling one political controversy and hoping another scandal matures before the next payment date.

Perhaps Maradiva could be sold. Perhaps the money described by political critics as having been swallowed during the COVID period could be recovered and placed into the pension fund.

The difficulty is that public controversy is not an audited financial asset. Maradiva's operating company reportedly received substantial financing involving the State Bank of Mauritius and the Mauritius Investment Corporation. The matter has attracted official scrutiny and investigation. But the existence of loans, concerns or investigations does not prove that money was criminally swallowed. That conclusion must come from evidence and due process.

Even complete recovery would represent a one off amount. A pension system is a permanent liability. Recovering several billion rupees might fund pension expenditure temporarily. It would not create a sustainable national pension scheme.

A hotel loan is not an actuarial strategy. A beach villa cannot be converted into 30 years of pension payments merely because a politician points at it during a public meeting. Therefore Navin's campement is also out of the window.

The nation requires a credible funding system, not a political car boot sale featuring Angus Road on one table and Maradiva bathrobes on the other.

The Finance Bill runs through 28 clauses and numerous schedules. It changes Customs, taxes, pensions, gambling, public debt, State land, VAT, insurance, social assistance and political retirement benefits.

Some measures are necessary. Some are sensible. Some need safeguards. Some appear to have been drafted with the legal equivalent of one eye closed. And some reveal the great Mauritian principle of public finance:

The legislation will be called the Finance Act 2026 once passed. A promising title. The word finance suggests careful planning, disciplined expenditure and sustainable revenue. The Bill itself often suggests something slightly different: give the authorities more information, create new taxes, raise penalties, protect selected exemptions and hope discipline appears during the next fiscal year. It is rather like renaming a leaking bucket National Water Retention Strategy 2026.

Customs may require people importing goods worth at least Rs500,000 to explain the source of the money used for the purchase. The Director General may apply this on a risk management basis. The objective is legitimate. Money laundering, tax evasion and undeclared wealth must be investigated. But risk management basis needs transparent standards. Otherwise, the procedure becomes:

Importers should receive written reasons, clear evidence requirements, confidentiality protection and a right to challenge unreasonable demands. Customs should not become a financial confession booth where the officer determines the penance.

The Bill allows Customs to consult other agencies when goods may be prohibited. Those agencies have 30 days to answer. If they do not respond, the Director General may clear the goods. This is astonishing. A potentially dangerous product does not become safe because a Government department forgot to reply. Poison does not turn into fruit juice on day 31. Counterfeit medicine does not obtain medical approval through administrative silence. The proper response is escalation, independent testing and conditional release only where there is no risk to health, security or the environment. Otherwise, the Government's new safety standard becomes:

Several Customs penalties rise dramatically, including increases from Rs4,000 to as much as Rs100,000 and from Rs20,000 to Rs200,000. Deterrence is necessary. Fraud should be punished. But the law should distinguish between organised deception and an honest administrative mistake. A small trader who enters the wrong code should not be treated like an international smuggling syndicate simply because both possess a calculator. Penalties should depend on intent, harm, repetition and turnover. Mauritian enforcement frequently prefers one simple philosophy:

Customs may test samples from seized goods. The importer can request another test but must bear the cost. This means the State may test the goods, reach an incorrect result, disrupt the business and then charge the owner for demonstrating the error. It is a wonderfully efficient arrangement. The Government can be wrong at the citizen's expense. Where the first test is materially incorrect, the cost of retesting should be refunded and compensation considered for unjustified commercial loss.

The Bill provides transitional treatment for certain semi knocked down goods where local processing adds at least 20 per cent of their import value. Encouraging local production is sensible. But the law must ensure that the activity involves genuine manufacturing, jobs, skills and technology. Otherwise, a company may import nearly everything, tighten several screws, attach a label and announce the rebirth of Mauritian industry. Local value addition must mean more than teaching an imported product to pronounce bonjour.

The Bill introduces an excise charge on plastic bottles, with exemptions for numerous essential products. The intention is environmental. The design is suspiciously convenient for revenue collection. A small bottle may be charged Rs2. A large bottle may also be charged Rs2. Apparently, environmental damage is not measured by weight, material or recyclability. It is measured by the ancient scientific unit known as one bottle. A proper environmental levy should consider plastic weight, type of plastic, recycled content, recyclability, collection rates and reusable packaging. Mauritius also needs a deposit return scheme. The revenue should be reserved for recycling and waste management. Otherwise, the plastic levy will become an ordinary tax wearing a green shirt and posing beside a recycling bin for the official photograph.

Members of the National Assembly retain access to a motor vehicle at zero excise duty per tenure. This is where national sacrifice becomes particularly inspiring. Citizens may face more expensive insurance. Workers may face reduced pensions. Businesses may face higher penalties. But the legislator arrives to explain fiscal discipline in a vehicle relieved of excise duty. Apparently, austerity travels by bus while parliamentary privilege drives in the overtaking lane. The concession should be abolished and replaced with a transparent, taxable transport allowance.

The Bill shortens deadlines for public accounts and audits. This is positive. However, some consolidated financial statements may still take many months, initially reaching periods close to 20 months before completion. Accounts produced nearly two years late are not modern accountability. They are financial archaeology. By the time the report appears: the Minister may have changed, the board may have been replaced, the accounting officer may have retired, the money may have emigrated, the public may have forgotten the original scandal. The phrase the accounts are being finalised should not be allowed to celebrate its third birthday.

The Bill expands the framework for interactive gambling, digital games, remote betting and business licences. This is commercially modern. It is also socially dangerous. A traditional casino requires a person to travel. An online casino travels inside the person's pocket. It is available after salary day, after an argument, during depression, at midnight and while the family believes the user is checking WhatsApp. Government will see licence fees and tax revenue. Families will see empty accounts, unpaid school fees and debts. Online gambling should require strict age verification, deposit limits, loss limits, affordability checks, cooling off periods, a national self exclusion system, restrictions on gambling with credit, strong advertising controls, and funding for addiction treatment. The State cannot tell citizens to save responsibly while installing a 24 hour casino inside their telephones. That is not financial education. It is financial education accompanied by a roulette wheel.

Employees and members of the Authority must declare assets and liabilities. This is positive. But the system contains administrative leniency for late declarations in certain circumstances. Mauritius has developed an interesting moral hierarchy: the citizen who submits a tax return late receives a penalty; the official who discloses wealth late may receive an opportunity to regularise. Honesty remains the best policy, but punctual honesty appears optional for selected professions.

The Bill creates progressive individual tax rates, including zero tax on the first Rs500,000 of chargeable income, 10 per cent on the next Rs500,000, 20 per cent on the following band and 35 per cent only on income above the highest threshold. This is progressive taxation, but it does not transform Mauritius into the Soviet Union of the Indian Ocean. The Bill also contains significant relief for investors, international structures, selected foreign professionals and start ups. Its real ideology is not extreme leftism. It is selective flexibility. The ordinary worker receives a tax table. The sophisticated investor receives a consultant, an exemption and a paragraph beginning with notwithstanding.

Qualifying start ups may receive a ten year exemption, with turnover potentially reaching Rs100 million. A company earning up to Rs100 million may therefore remain a start up for ten years. At this rate, the company may reach adolescence, grow a moustache and ask for the car keys while still claiming to be a newborn enterprise. A better scheme would provide full relief for three years, followed by reducing exemptions over another three years. Support should depend on real jobs, exports, research, technology and local investment. A new registration number should not function as a financial baptism washing away ten years of tax.

The CEB and CWA may be required to report high annual utility bills to the MRA. This can help identify undeclared commercial activity. But a large utility bill is not proof of hidden wealth. It may involve several families sharing a property, a home business, medical equipment, construction, agricultural activity, a leak or a defective meter. The bill may justify a question. It should not become a conviction. Otherwise, leaving the air conditioner on could become the first stage of a tax investigation.

The Bill gives the MRA broader access to civil status information and other personal data. The objective is tax enforcement. The risk is uncontrolled State surveillance. The modern MRA may soon know where you live, who you married, what car you insure, how much electricity you consume, what you import, and whether your business advertises online. The only missing information may be what you had for breakfast, although a future Finance Bill could require supermarkets to report suspicious purchases of imported cereal. Access must be limited, electronically logged, independently audited and subject to strict penalties for misuse. Tax enforcement is necessary. A national gossip database is not.

An additional duty is imposed on certain residential property transfers involving non citizens and land connected with State leases or Pas Géométriques. This may discourage speculation and capture revenue from scarce property. But the seller may simply add the tax to the price. Revenue should support social housing, coastal protection and infrastructure. Mauritian beaches should not become private investment catalogues while citizens search for land somewhere between a sugarcane field and a drainage reserve.

The MRA may enter into compliance agreements with taxpayers. The taxpayer may surrender the right to object or appeal. The agreement becomes final and binding. However, the MRA may reopen the matter where new information appears or relevant information was not disclosed. The taxpayer closes the door. The MRA keeps the key, a duplicate key and the address of the locksmith. A fair agreement should provide equal reopening rights where there is fraud, serious error or important new evidence. A settlement should not mean surrender.

Future Members of Parliament are moved towards a defined contribution arrangement, which is positive. Yet the Bill allows future members to opt out of contributing by notifying the Minister. Ordinary workers are told that contributing for retirement is essential. A politician may apparently write a letter. Political pension reform should be compulsory and transparent. There should be no special retirement universe where actuarial gravity affects citizens but respectfully avoids former Prime Ministers.

The Bill replaces the Basic Retirement Pension with the State Age Pension and introduces eligibility and calculation rules based on age and date of birth. For later cohorts, claiming at 60 instead of 65 can mean a 30 per cent permanent reduction. Delaying until 70 can produce a 45 per cent increase. The choice is irrevocable. This appears financially neutral in theory. In practice, it may reward wealth. A person with investments can wait. A manual worker with health problems may not. The wealthy person delays and receives more. The poorer person claims early and receives less for life. The Government may call this flexibility. The citizen may call it choosing between reduced pension and immediate hunger.

The law needs protection for serious illness, disability, physically demanding work, long contribution histories, involuntary unemployment, and carers unable to continue working. There should also be independent counselling and a cooling off period. An irrevocable lifelong choice should not be made after a ten minute conversation at a counter while twelve people wait behind.

Government should publish the actuarial assumptions behind the reductions and increases: life expectancy, mortality, inflation, discount rate, differences between income groups and long term fiscal savings. The public should not be told that 0.5 per cent and 0.75 per cent are correct because the spreadsheet has spoken. A spreadsheet is not an oracle. It is merely a calculator wearing a tie.

The Bill permits certain debts owed to Government or statutory bodies to be deducted from pension benefits. Only final and legally established debts should qualify. There must be notice, an appeal and a protected minimum pension. The State should not reduce an elderly person to poverty over a disputed administrative claim. A pension fund is intended to support retirement. It should not become a debt collector with reading glasses.

Future retiring Presidents and Vice Presidents may receive pensions linked to their final remuneration. Public service at the highest level deserves fair retirement protection. But the arrangements should be viewed alongside the sacrifice expected from ordinary pensioners. The ordinary worker may lose 30 per cent for claiming early. The former high office holder receives a pension linked to final salary. The difference is apparently justified by constitutional dignity, which fortunately has a stronger immune system than manual labour.

The Bill expands the definition and reporting of public liabilities to include guarantees, pension obligations, accounts payable and other commitments. This is one of its strongest provisions. But reporting alone does not control borrowing. It installs a better speedometer without installing brakes. Mauritius needs a medium term debt target, annual reduction milestones, a primary balance rule, publication of all guarantees, stress testing of public bodies and an independent Fiscal Council. The Government should not merely announce that the ship is taking on water with increasing statistical accuracy. Someone must also repair the hole.

A person challenging certain tax or Customs determinations may have to pay 5 per cent of the disputed amount, capped at Rs5 million. This may discourage frivolous appeals. It may also prevent legitimate appeals by people without cash. A wealthy company can pay and proceed. A small trader may have to accept a potentially incorrect assessment because justice requires a deposit. There should be hardship relief, bank guarantees, security arrangements and repayment with interest where the appellant succeeds. Access to justice should not operate like a nightclub:

The Bill allows certain accrued social benefits to pass to relatives and permits reimbursement of funeral expenses up to a limited amount, subject to a short claim period. The principle is positive. The deadline should be generous. A grieving family should not have to leave the cemetery and immediately ask whether Form SCB 14B was stamped in blue ink. Public administration should occasionally recognise that citizens are human beings rather than delayed applications.

The State Lands Act is amended through repeals and replacements. The public needs a side by side explanation showing what the former provision said, what the new provision says, who benefits, who loses, which leases are affected and what revenue changes. Otherwise, Parliament is effectively told:

State land is too valuable for legislation by hide and seek.

The Bill moves towards at least 25 per cent female representation on certain statutory boards. This is an improvement. However, appointment should be based on competence and independence, not merely the selection of politically convenient women to decorate a board already controlled elsewhere. Replacing one token appointment with several loyal appointments is not necessarily empowerment. It may simply be patronage with better gender balance.

The Bill may require VAT to become due after a period even where the business has not received payment. This creates a cash flow problem. The customer has not paid the supplier. The supplier must nevertheless pay Government. The Treasury therefore becomes the only participant guaranteed payment from an unpaid invoice. The Bill also introduces a 5 per cent tax on general insurance premiums. The probable cycle is: Government taxes insurance; insurance becomes more expensive; people reduce cover; disaster occurs; Government announces emergency assistance; politicians distribute cheques at a photographed ceremony; the assistance is described as compassion rather than the partial repair of an earlier policy mistake. Protection against disaster should not be treated as a luxury purchase.

The Bill validates a resolution adopted on 19 June 2026. The legislation should identify the resolution clearly and explain why validation is required. Parliament should not be asked to approve a mystery object. It resembles receiving a blank cheque accompanied by the reassuring message:

The Finance Bill cannot be examined separately from the wider political culture. Mauritian parties frequently speak of equality while operating through family leadership, personal loyalty, political patronage and networks of influence. Political power can create access to appointments, contracts, licences, State land, tax concessions, Government guarantees, public financing, advisory positions, diplomatic appointments and board memberships. The opportunity may reach friends, relatives, political supporters, financiers and business associates. Entirely by coincidence, naturally.

Mauritian politics has produced so many coincidences that Parliament may eventually need to establish a Ministry of Unexpectedly Fortunate Relationships.

This does not prove that every politician, relative or associate is corrupt. It proves why strong safeguards are essential. Public contracts should reveal beneficial owners. Political donations should be disclosed. Ministers should declare conflicts. Officials should recuse themselves from decisions involving family, donors and business partners. Independent institutions must be able to investigate those in power. The State should not function like a family company where taxpayers provide the capital, politicians occupy the boardroom and accountability is asked to wait outside because it has no appointment.

1. A Costed Manifestos Act. Every major electoral promise should be independently costed before an election. Anyone promising the pension at 60 should publish the arithmetic before printing the posters.

2. An independent Fiscal Council. The Council should assess budgets, manifestos, pension proposals, debt forecasts and major tax concessions. It must be independent of Government and report directly to Parliament and the public.

3. A permanent Pension Actuarial Office. Pension policy should not be redesigned at every political meeting. The office should publish annual projections on demographics, expenditure, funding and fairness.

4. Special protection for difficult occupations. People in physically demanding work, with serious illness or long contribution records should not suffer severe permanent reductions merely because they cannot continue working until 65.

5. Compulsory political pension reform. Future MPs, ministers, Presidents and Vice Presidents should enter transparent contributory schemes. There should be no opt out, no hidden State contribution and no unlimited accumulation of publicly funded pensions.

6. Abolish duty free political vehicles. Replace the concession with a taxable transport allowance. A politician announcing new taxes should experience at least one of them personally.

7. Full political finance disclosure. Political parties should publish donors, expenditure, audited accounts and beneficial ownership behind major contributions.

8. Anti nepotism legislation. Appointments and contracts involving relatives, donors and close associates should require declaration, recusal and independent review.

9. Real public procurement transparency. Publish ownership, bids, evaluation scores, contract variations and final costs.

10. Control online gambling. Require loss limits, deposit limits, affordability checks, self exclusion and addiction funding.

11. Protect essential insurance. Exempt basic motor, household, agricultural, cyclone, microinsurance and essential medical protection.

12. Limit MRA surveillance. All access must be necessary, logged, audited, time limited and punishable when abused.

13. Rewrite the Bill properly. Every cross reference, section number, commencement date, right of appeal and penalty should be independently checked. Citizens are required to obey the law. Parliament should first ensure that the law knows what it is saying.