Whilst in opposition, this government promised the voters anything under the sun to gain political power. Two of their proposals were free transport for senior citizens and students plus universal old age pension immaterial of the potential costs involved. Now the same politicians are bleating about the financial burden of these measures.

When the previous government decided to target only those in need to receive the old age pension, the opposition at that time were the first to object vehemently and promise to restore the status quo when they get back to power. Now perhaps, they are realizing the folly of that undertaking. When will all politicians realize that if you really want to help the poorest of our society in a sensible and efficient way, all benefits must be means-tested.

Since the last budget, the minister of finance has appeared on the television, aired his views on the radio, gave interviews to the leading newspapers ad nauseam in order to explain and justify his budgetary measures. Still no joy, the population remains nonplus; perhaps the communication machinery needs to be oiled.

The lord mayor is reaching the end of his second year of tenure, yet the problem of hawkers is the same if not worse. The problem is being shifted from road to road, previously, President John Kennedy Street now La Chaussée. Perhaps a third year of tenure would help. Please, I am only kidding.

Employees at a call centre have been victims of the overzealousness of the long arm of the law. Plaudit to the minister of women for reacting positively. Deafening silence from the others ministers and the loud backbenchers who never miss a chance to shout the odds in order to get noticed.

Following a visit to a well known beach, we have heard a lot from three ministers about ensuring unhindered access to our beaches for all of us. Is that why some of them are now crowded with transats? Funny way to do it.

I thought that to become an honorary citizen of a town/village was dependent on one?s achievements for that said place... Obviously I am mistaken in view of the identity of one of the recipients recently.

There was a minister on a radio chat show on the 16th of October, I feel that if there was a prize for waffling, he would win first prize. He spoke for 15 minutes without saying anything concrete in answer to a specific question from the radio presenter. Is that what is meant by gobbledegook?

I fail to understand how the Mauritius Broadcasting Corporation can justify giving 20 minutes of prime air time to the speech of the prime minister during the news broadcast of Sunday the 21st of October. Was he speaking at the congress of the labour party as the labour party leader or as the prime minister of Mauritius? that is the question. The powers at the MBC claim to be fair and equitable in the allocation of air time. The proof will be when the other major political parties have their congress, will they equally benefit of the same amount of prime time? If you believe that, then you must believe in Father Christmas

<B>C. C. C. </B>