Having retired as a Permanent Secretary after over 40 years of loyal and relentless service in the public sector, I feel challenged by the ongoing debate over the recent visit of two of our eminent citizens now established in the United Kingdom, well known eye surgeons, from Cambridge and London, with a proposal to assist the Health Authorities in Mauritius in their campaign for the early detection of glaucoma, an eye disease that is very common among patients with a history of diabetes. It is also reported that our two visitors had carried in their luggage some ten implants costing GBP 1,000 each which they had intended to donate to the Ministry of Health and Wellness for the treatment of patients suffering from glaucoma. However, the bureaucracy being so pervasive at the latter Ministry, our two visitors were given a cold welcome, with the result that the Prime Minister’s intervention had to be solicited to help unlock the situation.

In a statement he made to one of the local radio stations in Mauritius on Monday 10 August 2026, the Prime Minister, known for his reputation to call a spade a spade, did not mince his words and retorted in the following terms: “Si dimounn pale travay, pran zot retret ale papa, pa blok progre pei...” These remarks were understandably directed towards the senior management of the Ministry of Health and Wellness for their lackadaisical attitude and displaying their bureaucratic propensity to deal with a serious health issue. Such words coming from the mouth of no less a person than the Prime Minister himself speak volumes of the level of slackness and red tape that have pervaded our public sector organisations these days with a strong passion, not for excellence in service delivery, but a commitment to mediocrity. The reaction of the Prime Minister was, to say the least, timely, legitimate and most opportune.

It constituted a sharp, brutal and unequivocal slap across the face of those who are vested with the constitutional responsibility of service delivery in the Ministry, and as facilitators of business. Indeed, the Prime Minister was perfectly right in accusing those at the helm of the Ministry of putting spokes in Government’s wheel and of obstructing progress and the smooth functioning of Government. I am not too sure as to whether the clarion call by the Prime Minister enjoining those concerned to retire prematurely has had any effect as of now, and if the culprit(s) has/ have had the decency to pack up and go, although my own information reveals that it is business as usual and the very people who have had to bear the brunt of the Prime Minister are comfortably ensconced in their seats at the Ministry. What a pity! For less than that, many have been sent packing in the public interest.

Since then, there have been a lot of arguments in the press as well as on social media. In an excellent article that appeared in the issue of l’express of Monday 17 August 2026, titled Vol au-dessus d’un nid de coucous à la Santé, couched in his usual legendary style and writing acumen, Nad Sivaramen, Director of Publications of La Sentinelle, paints a gloomy picture of the prevailing state of play at the Ministry of Health and Wellness, and qualifies the top brass of the Ministry as “les intouchables”. So are they to my mind for no amount of public criticism, still less from the Prime Minister, seems to have triggered an iota of self-respect in those “mandarins et potentats” as a former politician and prolific journalist put it as far back as October 2004.

In another editorial, on Saturday 22 August 2026, Nad Sivaramen goes as far as suggesting that our public service should be inspired by the qualities of the late Freebairn Liddon Simpson, the first Secretary to Cabinet of Independent Mauritius, although Nad Sivaramen does not advocate Simpson’s exhumation from the grave for that matter. Similarly, in his kronik of Sunday 23 August 2026, under the caption “Servir ou se servir”, KC Ranze provides yet another illustration of the rot that has set in and the manner in which it is impacting service delivery at all levels of our public institutions, albeit with a few exceptions, which he refers to in his chronicle based on his own experience.

However, the most striking part of the text by KC Ranze posits that “... le fonctionnariat doit fonctionner et le service civil doit servir… Le service civil a le devoir de se regarder en face. S’il est des droits, il est aussi des devoirs !... Et c’est bien au pouvoir politique de le faire voir et aussi d’apprendre à résister à la tentation de recrutement/ nominations de nature politique, plutôt que méritoire !”. And obviously the final nail in the coffin emanates from Nad Sivaramen when, in his paper of 17 August 2026, he goes on to raise some very fundamental and pertinent questions about the accountability of senior civil servants, to wit, Senior Chief Executives or Supervising Officers in charge of a Ministry/Department. This is what he writes: “Que se passe-t-il lorsqu’un haut responsable tarde à exécuter une décision ? Lorsqu’un projet reste bloqué sans explication claire ? Qui rend des comptes ? Et combien de temps faut-il attendre avant que l’inaction devienne elle-même une faute ? Comment évaluer ? Comment sanctionner ? Comment mesurer le résultat plutôt que la présence ?”

It is provided in section 89[4] of the Constitution of Mauritius that: “Before any appointment is made to the office of Secretary to the Cabinet, of Financial Secretary, of a Permanent Secretary or of any other supervising officer within the meaning of section 68, the Public Service Commission shall consult the Prime Minister and no appointment to the office of Secretary to the Cabinet, of Financial Secretary or of a Permanent Secretary shall be made unless the Prime Minister concurs in it.” This implies that the Prime Minister also has the power to discipline any recalcitrant Supervising Officer.

Taking into consideration their lack of commitment and seriousness of purpose in the discharge of their duties and obligations, will the Prime Minister now make bold to administer the dose of the tough medicine of discipline and sanctions for underperformance by the senior civil servants involved? How will the operations and decision-making processes in the Ministry of Health and Wellness be streamlined so as to avoid situations akin to those rightly queried by the Prime Minister in his statement to the Press on 10 August? Is the timing opportune for Government to review the mode of appointments of Accounting Officers in the Civil Service? Nad Sivaramen has very ably summarised it: “Le véritable problème n’est pas le fonctionnaire. C’est le système...” How do we then reverse the trend and make our top managers accountable for results instead of hiding behind silly rules and procedures while maximising the size of their office and status? Peter Drucker, one of the gurus of modern management, once said: “Rank does not confer privilege or give power. It imposes responsibility.” This holds true for both public and private sector managers.

Obviously, a new system may per force necessitate a complete revamping of the terms and conditions of service, including the mode of appointment of public sector managers who are seen to be too permanent and therefore absolved of any action for poor performance and misuse or injudicious use of resources leading to nugatory or wasteful expenditure of public funds. A new system built on new terms and conditions will make Supervising Officers in charge of Ministries/ Departments more responsible and more accountable for achieving results. The bottom line is that if we want a dynamic and high-performing public system, we must change the way we do things for the sake of efficiency and effectiveness, and in order to restore public trust and confidence in Government.

In some quarters, it has been argued that the senior civil servants in Mauritius earn hefty pay packets and enjoy a panoply of benefits and perks that are undeserving and not commensurate with their performance and output compared to their counterparts in the private sector. And, it has been rightly suggested that such facilities should be withdrawn in case of failure to achieve results, for underperformance and mismanagement of public resources, including cost overruns in project management, especially, in the absence of a Fiscal Responsibility Act. This is, no doubt, a revolutionary idea and is likely to shatter the foundations of the Civil Service as it is tantamount to challenging what is constantly viewed as a long-term acquired right.

In a separate paper, I will enumerate, for the scrutiny of public opinion, some of the main benefits that accrue to our Supervising Officers in the Civil Service as contained in the PRB Report 2026, and argue as to whether there is merit in continuing with the present system in the public interest.

(To be continued)