Public money, public scrutiny

The overseas travelling expenses of Junior Ministers, parliamentarians and even the Speaker and Deputy Speaker have been given wide publicity in the media, and rightly so, since these expenses are paid from the budget and borne by taxpayers. Such expenses should be justifiable in terms of the necessity and objectives of such missions and the benefits that the country is expected to derive. We have to give due credit to the Prime Minister for divulging the statistics. The disclosure is also in line with the spirit of transparency and accountability.

The cost

The travel costs amounted to Rs 18.1m over 20 months. Whether this figure is high or low is very subjective, since there is no benchmark. We could compare it with similar expenses in the past for corresponding periods, but we do not have the statistics. My guess is that the figures were manifold more under the previous government. In the absence of such comparison, we can only look at the cost in terms of recurrent expenditure, amounting to Rs 230bn in 2025-26, which is infinitesimal compared with recurrent expenditure. Irrespective of the amount, all funds should be used judiciously. The public today is more demanding, particularly at a time when the population is called upon to make sacrifices ad infinitum.

There is a misconception that such travel is like a pleasure trip decided by the beneficiary. However, there is a process for approval of overseas missions which is followed and, ultimately, it is the Prime Minister who has the final say. I am sure the latter exercises due diligence in giving the green light. This applies equally to travel by public officials. We have read in the press that approvals were sometimes not granted.

The benefits

We agree that meetings or conferences should be productive and beneficial to the country. What is surprising, however, is the expectation that there should be tangible results immediately and that the Junior Minister or parliamentarian should come back with a bagful of ready-made products or projects, as if he went shopping. It is simplistic to expect benefits to accrue immediately after the return from a mission. It is just like making an investment today and expecting benefits or dividends tomorrow morning. Building international relationships and networking takes time, and concrete results do not accrue overnight.

It is pertinent to ask what the country stands to gain by such participation. It boils down to a cost-benefit analysis. The benefits of participating in meetings at sub-regional, regional, continental and international levels are numerous. They should not be assessed in pecuniary terms only. They provide an opportunity to share our own experiences and learn best practice from others, since countries might have faced similar problems and found solutions to them before us, so that we do not have to reinvent the wheel. They constitute an element of mutual support when the need arises. Establishing contacts, building networks, strengthening relationships, and participating in decision-making to promote and protect our interests are all part of the game. They help to foster economic and political cooperation and also market Mauritius on the international scene. They also lay the foundation for business opportunities and economic partnerships. Moreover, participation implies that decisions which have implications for our country are not taken without our knowledge.

We live in an interdependent world in an era of globalisation where alliances are forged by dint of necessity and our prosperity or destiny is intertwined with what happens internationally. Mauritius has made a choice to be an open economy dependent on international economic relations. As Alexander Pope said, no man is an island. It is vital for us to broaden our horizons, to participate actively in numerous forums and to be involved in decision-making that will have an impact on the country’s future. Building an effective international network has always been part of our national strategy, which is largely responsible for our economic success. Our presence should be felt and our voice heard. Absentees are losers. Foreign travel by parliamentarians and Ministers should be seen in this light. Of course, we have to be selective and prioritise our participation, since we cannot afford to attend all meetings or conferences. My own perception is that the themes of the meetings attended during the period under consideration are highly relevant and do address genuine concerns of the country.

In the information age, there are alternatives to attending meetings in person. For example, videoconferences are widely used, but they are no substitute for faceto-face meetings. It is common knowledge that many issues, especially at the political and economic levels, are subject to protracted negotiations and to bargaining and compromises; these are thrashed out in the corridors rather than in the plenary open sessions. Moreover, it would be odd to participate by videoconference when all others are present physically, unless the entire meeting is held by videoconference. But the choice of format depends on the organisers rather than on us. It is suggested that our embassies can represent the country in different forums. While in practice they do participate in various meetings, they do not have the expertise in diverse fields; this would presuppose staffing them with a number of officers, which is beyond our financial means. However, it is debatable to what extent our embassies have been effective in economic diplomacy, in attracting investment, expanding exports and promoting tourism or other services.

Turning participation into results

Exposure at the international level should lead to better performance by participants and to enlightened decision-making and action in the respective Ministries, which should hopefully improve productivity, although it cannot be easily quantified. It enhances our human capability to address many challenges, whether in the fields of health, agriculture, the environment or many others, provided there is proper follow-up and action. This is where the focus should be for continuous improvement in the public sector.

To start with, the public will be in a better position to appreciate our participation if the conclusions and recommendations of meetings, as well as our own contributions, are widely disseminated. It may be idealistic to implement all recommendations, but even if a very few areas for improvement are identified, they will be a step in the right direction. The ball is in the court of participants, past, present and future.