27 November 2014
Petites Annonces Gratuite
FacebookTwitterGoogle PlusLinkedin
Facebook Like
M Rafic Soormally

M Rafic Soormally

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Shreemati Shushma Swaraj, Indian Minister for External Affairs (Foreign Minister) in newly elected Narendra Modi’s BJP government, who when in opposition, having survived the Gujarat atrocities in 2002, whose blame was put on the shoulders of BJP, especially on Narendra Modi (allegations never proven) who was Gujarat Chief Minister at the time, is a well-bred and intelligent person, which explains why she is number 3 in Modi’s Government, who was invited for the commemoration of the arrival of Indentured Labourers in Mauritius held on 2nd November 2014. Unfortunately, PM Ramgoolam mistook the commemoration for a religious function.
Sushma Swaraj, the Indian External Affairs Minister (FM) due on official visit to Mauritius in November 2014, may even take Ramgoolam’s ‘reason’ for not informing Mauritians of the date  of the general elections as an insult to her, her government and her people as this is not the way Indian Democracy functions. Just put the question to her.

Although the Mauritian Constitution does not spell out the citizen’s right to privacy, this does not mean that the Mauritian citizen has no right to privacy. Whether a country has a written or an unwritten (like the UK) constitution, every citizen has an inherent right to privacy. Privacy is also classed as a right under the European Convention of Human Rights. Even though PM Ramgoolam is a public figure, the sanctity of his home and family must be respected. But if citizens have as Prime Minister or President or Mayor who is strongly suspected as a wife beater or an adulterer or of corruption, the people have the right to be informed and it is up to the authorities to initiate their investigations.

We are all Mauritians. Ramgoolam and Sithanen are not more Mauritians than other Mauritians. But our religions, ethnicities and cultures must be recognised and respected. This is what every human takes with him when he dies, not his (Mauritian) nationality. Ramgoolam has no right to interfere with this.
If all Hindu candidates decide not to declare their community (section 2 of the Temporary Provisions Bill), this would mean that there is no Hindu community, and the BLS mechanism would surely die. This would clearly be unconstitutional.
Dan Maraye is spot on when he says: « La VoH agit selon les directives de Ramgoolam ».
In the constitutional case brought by Rezistans ek Alternativ in its challenge against the BLS minority protection system, it would be in the public interest for the Court to arrive at a decision upon which any government would be better equipped to bring any necessary reform rather than do things by trial and error through “on” and “off” masquerade.
When the MSM withdrew from government, it clearly weakened PM Ramgoolam in spite of the latter's continuous denial. The MMM/MSM Alliance had all the chances of winning the next general elections, but Paul Bérenger blew it. The fact that Ramgoolam is prepared to share 30/30 tickets in an eventual PTr/MMM [...] alliance is clear indication how he has been weakened.
Bearing in mind that not every political party can field candidates in every constituency because of financial constraints, it would be unjust, unfair and discriminatory to impose an arbitrary 10% of the national vote to be entitled for PR seat/s. [...]
Those who are against ethnic recognition are often described as racists. The fact that a census includes ethnicity and religion does not make it ‘communal’.
Page 1 of 5