Galleries more

Videos more

Dictionary more

For the Attention of: The Semi-intellectuals / Half-wits at the PMO


You produced a pretentious, scurrilous and absurd “Communique” regarding the Petition submitted to the Ag. Prime Minister on Friday 27th September 2013.
Your first line reads: “A petition signed by one Mr. Alain Ah-Vee…”. Now who has ever heard of a petition signed by one person? Incidentally the “one” you use to qualify Alain Ah-Vee is a cheap ploy to convey your ignorance that Alain Ah-Vee is a well known member of the LALIT Party.

In fact Alain Ah-Vee signed the covering note that accompanied the Petition which was signed by the accredited spokespersons of 18 organisations, many of whom were actually present when the Petition was handed in at the Government House Police post, as all at the PMO were too busy to receive the delegation or the Petition.

Your Communique pointed out that the Petition only “contains 41 persons claiming to represent these organisations”: the signatories of the petition did not “claim” to represent their organisations. They are the democratically elected representatives of those organisations. You go on to say that “information being circulated to the effect that 70,000 or so signatures have been obtained against the MNIS Project is factually incorrect”. The organisers of the Petition have never claimed that the Petition was signed by 70,000 people: the declaration made to the press on the day the Petition as handed in made it quite clear that the Petition was signed by organisations. The title of the “Le Mauricien” article of Friday 27th September was “ Plusieurs organisations reclament la suspension des procedures”: nowhere in the article is there a mention of “70,000 or so signatures”. In the “Week-End” of Sunday 29th September, in an article titled “ID Card: la contestation s’intensifie”, there is written: “petition signe par les responsables de 18 organisations et representant un potential de 70,000 signatures”. Perhaps the subtlety of this formulation was beyond your comprehension. The inexperience of a few young journalists who started writing about “70,000 signatures” is no excuse for your bad faith. Not that intellectual integrity was ever an essential qualification for political nomination to the various posts at the PMO: perhaps the opposite.

The reaction of the PMO can only be explained by the realisation that your “communication and sensitisation campaign” has failed miserably to address the genuine apprehensions of a large number of citizens who see the new ID Card and the Centralised Data Base as potential threats to the Freedom of Movement and Right to Privacy, including that guaranteed by the Constitution; The proposed Electronic ID Card, taken together with the Centralised Data Base, represent the classical infrastructure of a repressive police state.