As reported, in the evening of Wednesday 9^th April 2008, the MBC television relayed the reactions of Prime Minister Dr Navin Ramgoolam against Mr Raj Meetarbhan, editor of l'Express, regarding the latter's accusations about the government's « lenteur » in his editorial of 9^th April 2008 « Une coûteuse lenteur ».The transcript below is translated from Mauritian patois and based on the audio file from the Défi Media Group website.It is followed by the reply of Mr Meetarbhan and an analysis to enable readers to situate the relevant issues, accusations and counter accusations, and arrive at their own conclusions.

Navin Ramgoolam's transcribed reaction

<<I wonder whether an editor of a supposedly independent newspaper should not behave more responsibly than he (Mr Raj Meetarbhan) has been doing.What does he do?Does he sit in his office chair, call a few people he knows, call Mr Bérenger (present leader of the opposition) and then writes his editorial?

He wrote two lies in his editorial « Lenteur » which he tries to stick on our backs, meaning the Labour government.He states two lies :

1. Raj Meetarbhan says that it is only now (meaning in the aftermath of the loss of life due to the floods of 26^th March 2008) that the government has reactivated the plan to construct drains.But, had he taken the trouble to find out what we said in the Assembly in reply to a PNQ yesterday (8^th April 2008), he would have known better.I made clear that we have to follow procedures.I pointed out that in 2003-04 when the 'poulin' of Mr Meetarbhan (meaning Paul Bérenger) became PM, Rs200m was budgeted for drains but he only spent Rs42m.Why did Raj Meetarbhan not write an editorial about this at the time?Because he is bias.He might have spoken to Mr Bérenger in the morning and in the afternoon he writes his editorial. Regarding the budget, Bérenger replied this was the first year, upon which I reminded him of the year 2004-05 when another budget for Rs200m was voted and he only used Rs100m.I know what the delay was about.There are procedures.The Minister cannot allocate contracts to contractors he knows.If this had happened, the press would have said that he was taking bribes.What we have done now is invoke emergency procedures.The Minister of Finance has allocated Rs675m to the Minister of the Environment.
2. Raj Meetarbhan's second lie is about « congestion routière ».Do not just believe what I am telling you.Just go and check what Mr Meetarbhan had said about « congestion routière » between 2000 and 2005 (when Sir Anerood Jugnauth & Paul Bérenger were Prime Ministers in a 3:2 deal).He makes as if this problem only existed after I became PM.He did not find such problem between 2000 and 2005.On the contrary, he congratulated Ajay Gunness because he moved the taxis from the Places d'Armes as if this was a great achievement in resolving the road congestion problem.
   
   

A third lie is that he claimed that the government tried to undertake the construction of a bridge but it became scared because of toll charges.This is a lie, lie, lie, as we already decided in Cabinet that there would be such a toll because there is an alternative.If drivers do not want to pay, they can take the other route.I do not know where he got his information in his office, may be from Mr Bérenger.

Just to give you another example, Raj Meetarbhan was against my decision to block the Ferney Road Project.He had argued that we need not look only at environmental issues, and any endemic trees and plants could be moved.This shows how ignorant he is on environmental matters.They keep printing lies day after day and declare themselves part of the « independent press », and we will respond « coup pou coup » for each and every lie they print.« Faire critique.By all means faire critique », because no one is perfect and there are things which do not go well.One has to criticise.But do not print lies.It is thanks to me that the Ferney environment has been saved and, fortunately people like Meetarbhan are not in politics and cannot take such decisions.All he can do is sit in his office and write editorials, that's all. >>

Raj Meetarbhan's reply

In the reply in his editorial « Dérives », l'Express of 10 April 2008, Raj Meetarbhan argues that:

1. The PM has resorted to a totalitarian tone « pour insulter et dénigrer un éditorialiste », which he (Mr Meetarbhan) regards as dangerous.
2. As reported on the official site for his office, the PM had said that, via his Minister for Environment, « projects have been prioritized to be implemented under Emergency Drain Clearance Programme », and further argued that this means that the project has been « reactivated ».
3. Regarding the toll charge, he holds official sources that delay was due to resistance from certain Ministers.
4. Readers will judge if it is false to say that the « qualificatif «lent» colle bien au gouvernement en place. »

Analysis

1. The word « reactivate » means to activate something which has been dormant.Has Mr Meetarbhan used the right word here?Was the drains project dormant, or was it delayed, just like it was under the previous government, due to procedures as explained by Dr Ramgoolam?In the aftermath of the 26^th of March 2008 floods, has the present government invoked emergency powers to speed up matters, or have they merely « reactivated » that which has been dormant?
2. Regarding the toll charge, the PM said that this was a Cabinet decision, but Mr Meetarbhan maintains that, from his « official sources », the matter was delayed because of resistance from certain Ministers.Since the editor is unable to name those Ministers, can his sources be regarded as « official »?
3. If, as alleged by Mr Meetarbhan, the general description of « lent » befits the present government, is he right in using this allegation to justify his specific accusation of « lenteur » against the government in the matters of the Drains Project, and the toll charge as a means to tackle the « congestion routière »?
4. Accusing the government, for which PM Ramgoolam is responsible, of « lenteur » is a value judgement made against the PM himself and against which accusation the PM takes exception because « lenteur » denotes incompetence.Is Mr Meetarbhan confusing the word « lenteur » with « red tape », as in complex procedures in government?If not, what proof has the editor given to show that the delay was the result of incompetence, and what were his suggestions to expedite matters within the laid down procedures?Or, was it merely a gratuitous accusation to tarnish the government in favour of the opposition as effectively alleged by Dr Ramgoolam?
5. Or, has Dr Ramgoolam resorted to totalitarian means to « insult » and « denigrate » Mr Meetarbhan who has 'exposed' the alleged incompetence of his government, and are the PM's accusations of « lies » against Mr Meetarbhan unjustified?
6. As editor of l'Express, has Mr Meetarbhan addressed the issues with an independent mind or has he shown bias against the PM and his government?Has he demonstrated fair reporting of the views of government, the opposition and people generally? For example, has l'Express given a faithful account of what the PM had said (see above) on the contents of his editorial?Or, is Dr Ramgoolam justified in accusing Mr Meetarbhan as being bias, given that the latter has confessed that « nous serons toujours plus exigeants envers ceux qui excercent le pouvoir qu'envers l'opposition.C'est notre devoir. » (10 April 2008).Is this a feature of independent and fair reporting?

M Rafic Soormally
London