Publicité
B.P. 247
<B>Surendra Bissoondoyal?s changing tune</B>
In its issue of 4th June 08, l?express publishes the discoveries and view points of Surendra Bissoondoyal on our educational system. One of his contentions is that we did not have a foresight.Is it because Mauritius is a small country that he thinks we have a short memory? Mr Bissoondoyal had been for donkey years at the helm of educational reforms in this country and today he is moaning and groaning about a system he himself had nursed and vehemently defended. He is emulating the achievements made by Singapore when during the Parsuramen era he had been admonishing the very measures which that tiny state had taken and is still following. Early tracking, controlled corporal punishment (which is inflicted even in European countries like Scotland), and tough competition have made of Singapore what it is today. How can Mr Bissoondoyal, once a decision maker, admire the Singapore experience when the likes of him had been against the Singaporean success recipe? He is like George W. Bush?s spokesman now scoring own goal by condemning Iraq invasion. It?s too late, man, to lick the buttered side of bread. Bad for health.
To answer his questions, we are definitely not a nation of blind followers not even when he has jumped on the MMM bandwagon.
Dharumvir Takoor</B>
 |
<B>Electoral Reform : Keeping the BLS is a non-starter </B>
The Best Loser System (BLS) may have provided some assurance of inclusive legislative representation in the early and tense days of Independence. The Sachs Commission rightly points out that at no time has the BLS been critical in our National Assembly. I submit it is ripe time to remove this instrument which is braking our path to nationhood and electoral reform. Does it matter today to any community if it is under-represented in our National Assembly? Isn?t it more critical to place in our National Assembly people with integrity, vision, leadership and care for all irrespective of their community? Here is why the BLS must be dumped for the good of Mauritius. First, BLS reflects the 1972 ethnic composition, which is a far cry from today?s Mauritius. Second, Proportional Representation (PR) adjustment is not as effective when applied together with BLS. Specifically, whichever of PR or BLS is applied first or second will not lead to an equitable outcome. Suppose, BLS is applied first to adjust for communal under-representation in the First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) constituency seats. The ?positive? effect of BLS may actually be undone when the PR adjustment is made as communities may be ranked differently in the various party lists. The other situation of applying PR adjustment first and then BLS is even more chaotic as not only does it confound FPTP and party list votes but more importantly, it is unclear whether BLS can fish out a candidate from a party list if none can be found among the FPTP losers. Last and foremost, I repeat that BLS is detrimental to nationhood. We are Mauritians, pure and simple, not XXX-Mauritian. As long as we are represented by people of good character and goodwill, their community should not matter.
We have a unique opportunity for electoral reform. This is the time for true political leaders to assert themselves. BLS is backward-looking and removing it will engender meaningful electoral reform and propel Mauritius to true nationhood. Hear this, Navin, Paul, Pravin?
<B>Dr Singfat CHU, Singapore</B>
Publicité
Publicité
Les plus récents
