Reactions to the budget outside parliament this year have been just as fiery as the debate inside. The private sector?s views on to this ?social rather than economic? budget have been quite moderate. The main issues giving rise to real ill feelings are the introduction of the tourist arrival tax and the rebate in duties on medicines. The trade unions are for their part incensed by the use the government wants to make of the EWF fund.

The tourist arrival fee has led to a tense atmosphere in the tourist sector. At a time when tourist arrival growth rate is low, operators think that this fee may be yet another obstacle to the promotion of the island. This new fee of 20 euros for adults and 10 euros for children might not make a big difference to the jetsetters of Royal Palm but the country also welcomes less affluent tourists. For example, the regional tourists, particularly from Reunion Island, might not come as often and this could mean the demise of small operators and hotels.

The disappointment of the tourist sector is not with the fee as such - it was a suggestion made by the industry itself - but with its use. ?This is far from what we had in mind,? says Patrice Hardy, managing director of Naïade Resorts. The proceeds of this fee ? some Rs 350 million a year ? should be used for the promotion of the country, which is not what the government means to do. Likewise, the increase in the budget of the Mauritius Tourism Promotion Authority by Rs 20 million is considered peanuts and not a sign of encouragement to the industry.

A survey by De Chazal Du Mée of private sector managers shows their despondency. Although 58% of the managers questioned found the budget positive on the whole, 66% admitted that it did not meet their expectations for their sector. Though the general ideology is positive for the country, they feel that the support they expected is lacking.

The majority thinks that the economic goals set - drop in unemployment rate, boosting of foreign direct investment, increase of local private investment and fall in budget deficit - may not be reached. In a nutshell, the general feeling is that the economy is the ?poor relation? of this budget.

The pharmaceutical sector seems to have even fewer reasons for rejoicing. The decrease by 13.5% in the price of medicines announced by Pravind Jugnauth has received an icy welcome. Although some pharmacists say they realise that the fall in prices will help the population at large, they are strongly protesting after the minister of Commerce announced on Friday the immediate decrease by 9% of medicines already in stock.

The president of their association, Ravin Gaya, finds ?this situation absurd. It seems that we are living in a dictatorial state and not a democratic one.? He has the feeling that the government wants to make pharmacists suffer the consequences of its own policy. ?Pharmacists are angry. Some of them are thinking of starting a strike but we have reminded them that they have a responsibility towards the population ? we provide an essential service, don?t we?? The association met last night to decide on measures it would take to face this situation.

The project of democratising the economy by allocating plots of land to employees from both public and private sectors is also under heavy fire. The trade unions say there are very sceptical about it. The main contention is that the money to be invested in this Real Estate Investment Trust would come from the Employees? Welfare Fund (EWF).

The 350 million rupees to be invested represent the contributions of the employers for their employees through the EWF.

What is forcefully rejected is the fact that the shares offered would be bought with their own money while the EWF is supposed to be invested in the employees? welfare. There is another anomaly: employees who have not contributed to the EWF would still benefit from shares. ?It would have been more appropriate to take money from the government?s consolidated fund,? Yusuf Suklall, president of the free democratic union explains.

The reform of the basic State pension is another issue that trade unions are going to follow closely. They have not elaborated on it as it was already the focus of political opposition. As it was the topic of two Private Notice Questions (PNQ) in three days, the minister of Social Security, Sam Lauthan, had a rough time. Navin Ramgoolam pressed for clearer explanations. As minister Lauthan refused to answer the second time, the opposition members walked out on his speech on the budget.

The opposition leader wanted to know more on the pension reform: what would happen to the widows? and orphans? pensions, as well as with the subsidies on School Certificate and Higher School Certificate exam fees. He wanted to be sure that the ?affluence test? would be voluntary.

To say the least, Minister Lauthan remained vague on the subject. He only explained that the reform process started some ten years ago but that there were ?many obstacles?. ?This delay is thus perfectly normal,? he added. He explained that the budget had announced a ?policy decision? but that there was a need for ?fine tuning?.

The development of small and medium entreprises (SMEs) is another sore point in the budget that embarrassed a minister. In another PNQ, Navin Ramgoolam wanted to know whether the various measures to boost SMEs had succeeded and what were the future plans. But minister Joe Lesjongard could not explain why there are only two companies in partnership with foreign firms, for instance. Finally he tried to get through by pointing out that the creation of a specific ministry for SMEs was proof enough of a will to boost the sector. But this did not seem to convince the opposition leader.

Debates in the National Assembly are supposed to be constructive for the good of all Mauritians. However, both the opposition and the government alliance have indulged in their favorite activity: exchange of personal and political criticism to get popularity in the public?s eyes.

The ruling alliance has kept congratulating itself on the good work accomplished so far. The ?extraordinary budget? presented by their minister of finance, Pravind Jugnauth, has been a good way of putting government in the limelight fifteen months before the next general elections.

Some ministers and MPs may have succeeded in convincing their peers that the budget will have a real impact in certain fields. Sushil Kushiram, for instance, insisted on the social aspect of this budget: ?A government has never before put so much emphasis on policies for the most needy people.? He even asserted that the unemployment rate and the increase of the public debt are not so bad, considering the bleak international outlook.

However, most speakers remained vague and some deliberately avoided comments on the budgetary measures.

The opposition fulfilled its role. As expected, its members used the budget as a political weapon. Democratisation of the economy, a key issue in the budget as well as the favourite topic of the opposition leader, Navin Ramgoolam, was heavily criticised by its advocate. ?The government has failed regarding democratisation of the economy. They are the ones to be held responsible for the gap between the richest and the poorest.? Likewise, Rama Sithanen, the Labour party spokesperson believes this budget ?does not do anything for the economy.?

The budget continues to be the talk of the town with the examination at committee stage and the vote. Will the government stick to the measures announced or will it give in to pressures?

<I>?Both the opposition and the government alliance have indulged in their favorite activity: exchange of personal and political criticism to get popularity in the public?s eyes.?</I>