I have followed with interest the issue of the examination fees for the School Certificate and Higher School Certificate and I am utterly dismayed by the frivolous and irresponsible, not to say malicious and perverse, attitude of the opposition. I am astonished to read that some are drawing a parallel between the situation today and that of May 1975. Having been in the heat of the action, I would like to point out two striking differences between the two situations :

(1) In May 1975 one of the main demands from the organizers of the protest (mostly from State colleges) was that the same facilities that were available to the four State colleges be extended to the private colleges, which were of much lower standard. It was in the spirit of caring for the less fortunate. What the opposition is asking today is the absolute negation of that spirit : taking money that has been redirected to increase assistance to the poorest section of the population to provide subsidies to everybody. Three-quarters of the money would be spent on the wealthiest two-thirds of the population. Is that Mr Berenger?s notion of solidarity with the poorest ?

(ii) The student movement of 1975 was by large organized by the students themselves to express the feeling that prevailed among students; not by power-hungry politicians. When the MMM realized the importance of the demonstration they did their best to recuperate the movement as testified by the number of secondary school teachers, and even one of the student leaders, that stood as MMM candidate for the 1976 elections.

In the present situation, we have seen no student organization that has voiced their opposition to the measures proposed by the government. However it has started with the opposition politicians desperately trying to incite students to protest. A union leader, one of the ?ya!ya!? man of Berenger is making an absolute fool of himself. I must hasten to add that it was no Herculean task. He had written letters to several ministers to request the government to consider the possibility of giving loans to parents for the examination fees.

The government did even better by arranging for loans at preferential rates to be made available to parents facing difficulties to raise the sum for the fees. Many private institutions have joined the initiative. However, in the mean time, His Master?s Voice had changed and the union president was dancing to a different tune.

I am convinced that most of our students are too intelligent not to see through these ?prophets of doom? and will continue to ignore their cheap and distasteful plea for some political serum. The picture of Berenger and his état-major sitting with the union leaders to organise his crusade, reminds us of Cervantes? hero, Don Quixote. It produces a mixed feeling of pity and embarassment. I prefer not to comment the participation of Pravind Jugnauth in the student?s rally.

The PM just before Christmas told us of his resolve to put our country back on the right track. The targeting approach in relation to subsidies had been clearly announced in the last budget . Foreign investors have regained trust in Mauritius and we must not send confusing signals to them. The population should be reminded that the budgetary measures are not just about reducing spending but redirecting funding so as to broaden the circle of opportunities and allow the reinsertion of those excluded from the mainstream of our society.

All Mauritians who love their country expect a signal from our PM that he is not going to give in to a bunch of pedo-politicians who are trying to use our children to further their own base causes. It is essential that an insignificant number of people, however vociferous, not be allowed to hold hostage the rest of the country.

The prime minister must not allow us to be governed from the street. This is what happened from 2000 to 2005 and that is why the population at large agreed with Navin Ramgoolam when he said in 2005 : ?Bizin changement (change is needed)?.

S. B.