Galleries more

Videos more

Dictionary more

Open letter from Lindsey Collen of Lalit to fellow citizens in the run-up to the general elections

16.06.2005

Lindsey Collen has written the Open Letter to Fellow citizens reproduced below in the context of the coming General Elections.

13th June, 2005

Dear Fellow-Citizen,
I write this letter to you in the name of Lalit. I write to you because you are a “thinking person” as opposed to being someone stuck in old prejudices.
My letter is in three parts, all of which aim to show the importance of using your vote intelligently and of voting for the Lalit candidate/s in your constituency. And, of course, to convince you rationally of the need to persuade other people to vote for Lalit too. This is how real debate works. People discuss things in an open-minded way. This, in turn, creates the space for real progre and real changement, not just empty slogans.
The first part of this letter is about the nature in philosophical terms, of a vote. And how this creates the conditions for you to vote for Lalit’s candidate/s. The second part is why, for political reasons and for programmatic reasons, it is historically important to vote for Lalit. And why we should vote against the two Alliances. The third part is more practical: pointing out how Lalit already practices politically what it proposes.
What is a vote voting for?
First there is the question, a reasonable one, why vote at all.
There is a point in voting. But, to be fair to the cynical, the point is not an evident one.
The right to vote – you know this as well as I do – was won through the victories of past struggles against rulers who imposed slavery and indenture, against colonial tyranny, against misogyny, against racism. As a sign of respect for these past struggles, and their victories, we should, in general terms, use our vote. We should also go out and get other people to vote.
But we need to vote intelligently.
And we also need to convince others to vote intelligently. We need to find a way to vote, so as to express our opinion as to what kind of world we would like to live in. So as to begin to raise a voice against the terrible reality we find ourselves living in. With unemployment rising fast. Jobs being destroyed. With the sugar price about to plummet, by some 40%. With free zone factories flying by night. Leaving Plaine Lauzun like a job cemetery. Haunted. With VAT being the tax system that robs the poor. With the rupee falling so fast that basic prices continue rising. With concrete being poured over the best agricultural land at Ebene. With the Ferney forest being destroyed to make way for an unnecessary motorway. With beaches being stolen from villagers in the South to be handed over to a destructive form of tourism. With village elections that used to be held every three years from 1952 onwards after the uprisings on the sugar estates, both postponed and now, as things stand, banned forever. With the leaders of all the parties in power after 1995 and 2000 elections having prima facie cases against them for receiving money illegally. With some two-thirds of our prison population being people on remand, rotting in overcrowded jails while they wait to be tried. Often for trivial offenses not associated with any violence. With repressive laws like PSA and POTA hanging over the heads of a people thirsty for freedom. With communalist groups acting with impunity. Attacking an NHDC complex in La Gaulette. No charges against them. Attacking the MGI. No charges laid yet. The Prime Minister receives them graciously instead. Just as he can meet Cehl Meeah when he is finally released from jail, and then the independent DPP can announce that all 33 charges laid against him have been lifted. Were the charges that were first laid when the MSM-MMM came to power false all along? Or what?
We need to vote against all this. But, let us look at how elections were declared. This will give us an idea of what we are up against. It was the Chief Justice who dissolved the National Assembly. Odd, you may say. But this must appear particularly strange to people like you who have a memory that runs for longer than five years. Because the entire electoral campaign of 2000 was run on the supposed new “sharing of power” between Sir Aneerood Jugnauth and Paul Berenger, a sharing of power between two persons, rather than two institutions. SAJ would get the power to check one thing important: When Paul Berenger would decide to dissolve Parliament, SAJ would “assess” whether anyone else in the National Assembly (the understanding being it might be his own son) could claim a majority. Every newspaper in the land was on about this “special extra power of the President”. Come 2005, Paul Berenger, from very early on, and off his own bat, announced “election anticipee”, even if he tried to go on bluffing that the MMM-MSM-PMSD Government had stayed a whole mandate. These early general elections are because the MMM-MSM could not face a by-election in Port Louis Maritime and Port Louis East after the resignation of Siddick Chady from the National Assembly.
So then, SAJ is out of the country at a certain moment. Then the Vice-President Raouf Bhundun is curiously dispatched to replace Paul Berenger at an international function. At this moment, Paul Berenger then announces the dissolution of the National Assembly. So, Justice Ariranga Pillay, standing in for the President, is in charge of doing the assessment as to whether anyone else could muster a majority, and dissolving Parliament. Curious “separation of powers”. Reminiscent of the resignation of two Presidents of the Republic, Cassam Uteem and Angidi Chettiar over the POTA law. When Justice Pillay signed the repressive law into being. The same man who may have to take a decision as to its Constitutionality.
Anyway, so much for “partage du pouvoir” that was made such a fuss of in the Medpoint Agreement, because it is none other than the Chief Justice who ends up dissolving the National Assembly.
So elections arrive in this ungainly fashion.
We must find a way to make our vote protest against all this. How can we make our vote speak out for us. Not just for the instant, but in the long flow of living history. On the subject of the economic crisis that is already upon us. On the subject of the gradual drift towards new forms of tyranny.
And we should try to find a way not just to vote for either the old oppressor, Paul Berenger, or a new old oppressor, Navin Ramgoolam.
Within the victory of gaining the right to vote, as happens always, there are always inbuilt defeats, too. This means that the democracy we’ve won so far, when we won the right to vote, has been kept minimal.
Look how minimal it is: Once every five years we can vote for three candidates, who may be in a Party which may have a program, who stand for election to the National Assembly in the Constituency we live in. That’s all the power we have. And there is nothing to hold a candidate down to his program afterwards.
Then, after the votes are all counted, the President of the Republic (who right now is someone left over from the same Med-Point Agreement hurriedly signed before the 2000 general elections) calls in a man whose photo he has noticed is stuck up on electric poles everywhere, because he is the leader of the Alliance which has won most seats. (Here we assume the leader actually got elected in his Constituency, which he may not).
The President then asks him to act as Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister then, just like a King, appoints from amongst those elected his Cabinet Ministers, who help him as much as he wants them to help him, to run the country just as a King might have done long ago. He can replace them whenever he wants to. And he rules for five years. With near impunity. While all the other elected members are then left with very little role, and next to no institutional power.
Any association or trade union or co-operative is run on more democratic lines than this. The members elect the Committee members. And can revoke them at any time. The Committee members elect the President. And can revoke him or her. And elections are annual.
But this lack of accountability in the actual voting system for the National Assembly is not the only distortion.
Because society is still very unequal in terms of accumulated wealth, because the democracy we have has never extended to cover decisions about the economy, there is another problem. The rich make donations (in underground parking spaces, and in private clubs) to Parties that are in favour of the rich, so that they remain in favour of the rich after elections. This transaction is called “corruption”. But even when there is solid proof, the politicians are not brought to court. Instead the Economic Crime Office (ECO) can just get closed down, when it calls in a politician. The Government just amended the Constitution and closed the whole Office down. Anyway, the donations that a Party gets are then used for getting agents to work for them, and they then work to get the electorate to vote for them. Sometimes through direct “treating” and “bribing”. Sometimes through more subtle means of propaganda and commercial advertising, the unethical hidden forms of persuasion of “communications”, the art of deception.
Then the winning party’s leader becomes Prime Minister and he does what his “bayer de fon” tell him to do. Grosso modo.
So much for voting for three candidates “in your constituency”. The President of the Republic took your vote and added it up, then looked at pictures on the electric poles, and called in someone to name him a kind of five-year tin-pot dictator.
But all this assumes that we let this happen. We have to agree to let this happen to us. We have to abdicate our political power to permit all this to happen.
It also means when we vote, we must vote not just for three candidates in our Constituency, but also so as to change the rules. Not just to decide who will be in power, but to express our will to change the nature of power. Not just to get a new Government, but to change the balance of power between the State and the people so that it is more in favour of the people. Not just so that we make a “choice” between the MMM and the Labour Alliances, only to find the two making a hurried coalition after the election results.
A vote for Lalit, as opposed to staying at home, or as opposed to choosing between two well nigh identical Alliances, is a way of expressing your desire for a change in the nature of power. Every one vote for Lalit means this. Every one vote for Lalit stands as a warning to those in power that there are citizens who think with a certain independence of spirit.
The long struggle for universal suffrage is still in its very early days. All we have won so far is just this one ballot paper every five years. This system is only just “democracy”. A vote for Lalit is a way of saying we want more democracy than this system gives us. But a vote is, of course, only part of what’s necessary. A vote is one of many other political acts that will be necessary to contribute towards such a change.
The content of a vote for Lalit in political terms
We can also vote so as to express the kind of society we don’t want to live in anymore and to begin to imagine the kind of society we would like to live in.
Here are the problems facing us, under the rule of MMM-MSM-PMSD, and not promising to be any different under the PT-PMXD-MMSM-MR-Les Verts-MDS.
Economy
The economy is in total crisis. The Sugar Protocol is over. 10,000 jobs have been destroyed in the countryside by the Berenger government. And the man is proud of having done this. Lalit has members, including one of our woman candidates, Chantal Lefranc, who have received the Voluntary Retirement Scheme package. We know what the VRS is. We know from the point of view of the cane field workers. Unlike Berenger and Ramgoolam who, in their ignorance, fight over its paternity. Everyone in the countryside, including those who accepted the scheme, loathe it. They loathe it because it pays them compensation that they deserve in exchange for destroying their children’s future jobs. Thinking human beings do not like having this kind of role imposed on them.
It could have been otherwise. The Government did what suited the short-term interests of the Sugar Estate owners. Instead, Government should have forced the Sugar Estates to convert their mills to other forms of agro-industry to keep agriculture in the fields alive – something easy enough to do through ordinary fiscal policies. What Government did represents a crime: It permitted over half the country’s mills to just close down, and leave a deathly silence around them.
Lalit has since 1983, when we ran a campaign called “Disik, ki lavenir?”, constantly warned of the danger that is now upon us today. It has been a real chronicle of an announced death. The Government and bosses had 22 years to gradually plant other crops interline (with a minimum of re-arranging of the rows of cane, for example). But now the crisis is upon us.
We need to think big.
Minister of Labour and Employment, Shawkatally Soodhun, says there is no unemployment. You have to look for the jobless, he says, with a torch.
This means that for the outgoing Government Alliance, there need be no strategy to create jobs.
Navin Ramgoolam proposes to give each student a free atlas, for example. Nothing wrong with this, but it is not exactly a program for the economy.
The bosses have for 200 years monopolized job creation and have siphoned off surplus into their private sphere. Now they admit there is a crisis. So now, they must agree to proper democratization. Not the kind proposed by the L’Alliance Sociale, no. But a genuine popular control over the means of production and sustenance.
We, in Lalit, oppose and have over the past 10 years opposed the hideous, destructive policies of the IMF and World Bank, and the mercantilist nihilism of the WTO. And we have since 1992 been part of the world-wide mass movement against this capitalist globalization. Only now do certain other intellectuals in the country begin to point out rather timidly the ghastly dangers of commercializing everything from knowledge to medicines, from ideas to nature’s own seeds. Only now do others start to warn of the galloping imperialism of modern-day capitalism. Only now do others begin to see how this is all related to a wicked war machinery, that kills civilians as a strategy for control of oil and other raw materials. True terrorism, carried out by the State. In the interests of an out-of-control rabidly greedy capitalism.
We refer you to Lalit’s Program for the Economy, in which we explain the necessity for massive re-thinking to create a huge agro-industry for exportation, colossal investment in ecologically planned fishing and fish farms. Massive re-thinking of industrial development so that it is based on something long-lasting, not the fly-by-nightism of the free zone style of development. And of all the economic developments that are most fragile, tourism is the worst. It is both fragile, and destructive. It destroys the environment, destroys culture, and destroys independent human beings, who are gradually trained into being a new class of medieval servant to the rich: cleaning, gardening, smiling, driving, playing music to those who over-eat while they eat, serving at table, serving at the bar, and generally being invisible.
Democracy
The MSM-MMM-PMSD government will go down in history as a government that has attacked the peoples’ liberty in many ways. But perhaps most criminal has been the destruction of democratic rights gained in the countryside from 1952 onwards, after very hard struggles. The village elections that united everyone in the countryside, in the preparation of programs for three years, have been abolished by Berenger. No longer do all the different parts of villages unite into representative election teams to imagine their village and its future. The Village Councils, after having had their budgets reduced to nothing at all, have finally been destroyed.
Why?
The reason is obvious to anyone living in the countryside. To make way for the cancerous growth of tourism. New hotels in Bel Ombre and St. Felix, closing up popular beaches and fishing areas, destroying indigenous forests at Ferney, would not be easy to impose on a lively set of village councils. The government-supported Integrated Resorts Schemes (IRS) are busy creating rich men’s ghettoes all over the countryside, instead of a proper government-supported new economy for the countryside based on production.
The Government has also gone on tolerating and engendering the impunity of police officers who use violence against citizens. Charges are still not laid against the three officers in charge of Kaya when he was found dead in his cell with 32 wounds on his body, after having been locked up on remand with no injury at all.
When the State tolerates this kind of violence, it means we, the people, end up paying taxes to nurture the men who beat us up and torture us in police cells and prison cells. The men who torched peoples houses in two hamlets near Goodlands and Triolet respectively, have not yet been brought to Court yet either.
And on top of it all, the Government has passed the hideously repressive law, worse than any other apart from the State of Emergency, the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Last month, the United Nations Human Rights Committee in New York criticized the Government of Mauritius for using the problem of terrorism as a pretext for passing this law. It is a law which goes against human rights.
Communalism
Lalit is concerned about the rise of communalism. Over the past five years, in a new degeneration into racism and ethno-religious language, government Ministers have been addressing people by their community in the course of official functions. More and more public funds are poured into divisive cultural centres, while the peoples’ history in the National Archives turns to dust through lack of funds. The two Alliances and even the press, have gradually begun to classify citizens into smaller and smaller groups, different communities. This is in turn taken as an act of aggression. Now today, as Lalit prepares this letter to send to you, men in 150 vehicles, roam around the country supposedly to protect candidates of a particular community. Berenger has meanwhile reduced foreign policy from a political policy to an ethno-religious level, with his abject politics of “pays de peuplement”, while at the same time, bowing down in the most cowardly way to the Bush-Blair plan of world domination.
Lalit warns of the dangers of groups like the Voice of Hindu, the Hisbullah current (under any other name), and all the other communal groupings: they thrive on the peoples’ rejection of neo-liberalism and invading imperialism. And they do this, while also accepting and promoting this very neo-liberalism by their lack of any alternative. While they run the risk of doing irreversible social harm.
Which is why we in Lalit not only present economic alternatives, propose more democracy so that we can work towards these, but we also have to constantly oppose this rising communalism. There are many ways to do it. Preaching does not work. No-one in the country is “communalist”. They are all against. They are only defending people against attack. So preaching is useless.
Action is what is necessary. And we have over the past 20 years found out where to put the action: it has to be against institutionalized communalism. Not against communalism in peoples’ hearts. Who are we to pretend to see into peoples’ hearts and into peoples’ “mentalite”. But we can see the Best Loser system and its communalism.
So we attack it.
In 1983, 1987 and the year 2000, we refused to classify ourselves when standing for election to the National Assembly. This became a long battle. The law held that your candidature would be rejected if you failed to fill in “community”. We are a party with political responsibilities that are not just on one subject: we have to propose an economic alternative, we have to stand up for women’s rights, we have to put the closing down of the US-UK Diego Garcia military base on the electoral agenda, we have to oppose the banning of village elections.
So, we had found a way of defying the system. We drew lots.
In 2000, M. Yousouf Mohammed took us to the Supreme Court. Our members gave evidence as to why we had drawn lots. Judge Seetulsingh then had the unenviable task of “classifying us” on a communal basis. But, in his judgement he said the State could not decide on the “way of life” of candidates without becoming a “Big Brother”, and he said that in any case there was now a “Mauritian way of life”. He said he was constrained by the law to place us in the General Population, but at the next elections, this could be challenged anew.
So, again in 2005, we drew lots.
This time we did it while also having launched a 230-paged book against the communal Best Loser system. We have, in Lalit, over the past five years at great length discussed other possibilities (like leaving a blank space, as the Rezistans ek Alternatif party did), but decided against for three reasons. Firstly, logic dictates that if all anti-communal parties did this, it would lead to only communal parties benefitting. This is far from our aim. Secondly, for progress to be made on political issues like racism and communalism that are very widespread problems, there are times when a political decision has to be taken, and when leaving it to the judiciary can be risky. The risk of a negative judgment, as happens in some Constitutional cases, might also further entrench the iniquitous system. Thirdly, this kind of action would reduce our party to a “single-issue party”, putting all the emphasis on the Best Loser system, at a time in history when the economic and social problems in the country are truly immense and need to be centre-stage: unemployment, an economic crisis of drastic proportions, the Diego Garcia issue, women’s emancipation, ecological disaster, the banning of village elections are all issues people need to be able to vote on.
We will have to see, after the Balancy judgment in the case that the Rezistans and Alternative brought against the Electoral officers and commission what the political effect will be. Because legally, the Best Loser system is still in place. Best Losers will still be named on 4th July, and, unless the Constitution is amended, at the next General Elections too. All the perversion of everyone’s votes is still in place. The case has established that not filling in what community candidates are in cannot invalidate their nomination. And it has made a profound political attack on the Best Loser system. But Berenger is surely dreaming or bluffing when he says it will “die a natural death”. Who ever heard of a law dying a natural death?
Lalit in action
So, when you vote for Lalit, and encourage others to vote for Lalit it is on the basis of a clear program:
For an alternative economy based on the vast development of agro-industry for export and on massively developed ecologically sustainable fishing.
For a job for everyone, and for unemployment benefits for all. (Unemployment benefit is the best way ever invented of reminding the State that there are unemployed people, especially at times when the Minister of Labour and Employment, Mr. Soodhun denies the existence of unemployment.)
Workers rights must come before private profit.
The right to go on strike is the difference between slavery and being a worker. It must be in the Constitution.
Lalit stands for the democratic wherewithal to ensure such an economic system, with full power to elected village councils, for example, and in the towns with power to the wards. With an accountable Cabinet, and a Prime Minister accountable to the Cabinet.
Against repression (whether in the law or through violence by State officers) and for freedom.
For women’s emancipation, liberation, and equal representation.
For social benefits as a universal right, and against “targeting” which is the very opposite of a “right” and also a disadvantage for the poor. For a house for everyone.
For an environment protected from savage concrete and tar-mac.
For the mother tongues to be used in education and in the National Assembly.
For the end to occupation, be it in Palestine, Iraq or Diego Garcia, and for the closure of all military bases, including Diego Garcia. For proper reparations for the displaced people of Chagos. For the Mauritian State to put the UK before the International Court of Justice at the Hague. For the re-unification of Mauritius, through the complete decolonization of Chagos.
And equally important. Lalit acts on these ideas. It is Lalit that has opposed the mono-crop of cane, and warned of the fragility of investment in the free zone. It is Lalit that has helped workers at factories like Leisure Garments to demand unemployment benefits. It is Lalit that warned of the dangers of the AGOA law and its iniquitous conditions. It is Lalit that has headed the campaign against capitalist globalization, the commodification of everything. Against the privatization of everything from health care to beaches, from pensions to public gardens. It is Lalit that has spearheaded the campaign, still ongoing, for the truth about Kaya’s death. It is Lalit members that were amongst those that held up lamps at the concert in Olivia to mark 5 years since Kaya’s death, the first major concert since 1999. It is Lalit that organized a fine petition against Inspector Radhoa, that ended in his transfer, at a time when the MMM Municipality was giving him a medal. The U.N. Human Rights Committee, when it criticized the Mauritian State last month, relied in part on Lalit documents and experiences. Amongst those who set up JUSTICE, are Lalit members. And of course it is Lalit members who get false charges against us, for “molesting police” when they come and spy on meetings, or for “rogue and vagabond” when we interview someone who has come to us because the police beat him up. It is Lalit members who opposed the bull-dozers that destroyed the houses of people in Camp Chapelon. It is Lalit members who have persisted in promoting the mother tongue languages politically, until we are now nearer to victory. It is Lalit members who organized the people of Richelieu to keep the houses they had moved into after having been promised them. It is two Lalit members, Alain Ah-Vee and Ragini Kistnasamy, who joined up as international volunteers to live in the Occupied Territories of Palestine and to support the people of Palestine in their daily struggle against occupation. It is Lalit members like Ram Seegobin, who are in the international campaign against war and militarism and to close down all military bases world-wide.
And for elections, it is also important, as you are a thinking person, to realize the importance that it is Lalit that respects women and supports women’s liberation. After all the hoo-hah about women candidates, the two Alliances put up less than 15% women candidates, while Lalit puts up 44%. 14 of our 32 candidates are women. And we are women who know all the different aspects of the economy, or society, and of neighbourhood life.
While the two Alliances talk about the importance of young people being in politics, they have no young candidates. Lalit has six candidates less than 30 years old, four of them around 22-23 years old, voting for the very first time. All our young candidates are confident, vocal and politically coherent. Maybe you have heard two of them on the private radio stations.
While the two Alliances use endless rhetoric about the working class, especially in their public meetings, they have no working class candidates. By contrast, Lalit’s candidates are people who are members of our party. They are not “brought in” to stand for election just before the polls.
In fact, in general terms, Lalit has the most impressive variety of candidates: planters, brick-layers, teachers, two university students, a mother of six children between two and 14, a woman bus conductor, free zone workers, a doctor, two computer workers (one on the hardware side, one on data capture and analysis), gardeners, a woman who took VRS who is now a cleaning operator, a watchman, a graphic artist, child-minders, a lorry driver, a piano teacher, store workers, a shoemaker, and me, a writer. This variety is why we understand Mauritian society so exceptionally well. When we meet in our branches, regional meetings and all our discussion meetings, we have instant understanding of the reality of society by the very variety of our members. And through understanding reality, we can imagine changing it. We learn the forces within society that can change it. By studying society, by participating in its ongoing movements, and not through dreams, no. But through real possibilities that exist within society. This is why we have the symbol of the tools that humans use: it is after all our tools and our language that characterize us as human. We have a billhook linked crossed in unity with a hammer, and this symbolizes the unity of the countryside with the city. Together a future can be built by human beings, when we rely on our capacity to understand the present mechanisms of society and to share a common understanding of how to move from the here and now to a better future.
Human beings refuse tyranny. We all yearn for freedom. We yearn for the security that comes from knowing we can feed our little ones. For the comfort of knowing that the society we live in shares with us the load of caring for our families and for our loved ones. We do not want to be left in a social jungle, alone with our families, scared of what the future holds, insecure about the next contract job, worrying about the next mouthful of food.
And, during an election period, we can express our will in many ways. But most importantly by saying out aloud that we will vote for the kind of society that we would like to see. We will vote Lalit. This way, we can put our voice into a current of voices that wants to change not only who is in power, but the nature of power itself.
We can vote in a way that we avoid being sitting ducks after the election when Berenger and Ramgoolam start putting on hypocritical expressions for the occasion, and announcing how patriotic they are, and how a coalition is now essential.
When we vote for Lalit, every vote for our party, changes the balance of social forces a little more in favour of freedom and equality. And we remind you, though we are sure you often reflect on this: both the Labour Party and Berenger’s MMM were stronger as parties for change before they even had members of Parliament. They changed life more before they came to power than afterwards. Because the balance of social forces changes outside of Parliament, as well as in it. Remember that the right to vote was first won without having the right to vote. And then when we have the right to vote, we can use it in creative ways, like to change the balance of forces.
We can help to change things by a vote for Lalit.
Humanity now has the scientific and technological wherewithal to feed everyone, give everyone a home, care for everyone’s health, and the social sophistication to guarantee rights to everyone to live as they choose to live. And we have the electronic wherewithal for an advanced form of democracy that we have not yet fully imagined. And there is no more sure way of seeking justice, freedom, equality, emancipation, than through democracy.
We are free to do as we wish. Or put more accurately, as the French philosopher who was shot by the Nazis put it: “On ne combat pas pour tre libre, mais parcequ’on l’est dej.”
Yours sincerely,


Lindsey Collen for Lalit

List of Lalit’s Program Books and booklets for this election
Program for an Alternative Economy
Program on Diego Garcia (230 pages)
Program Against Communalism and against the Best Loser (230 pages)
Program on Freedom
Program on Women’s Liberation
Program on Language
Program on Workers’ Rights
Program on Ecology and the Environment. (All programmes available at our offices).
*Our candidates are:

GRNW AND PORT LOUIS WEST (No 1)
Lindsey Collen
Sergio Monple
Laval Yves
Port Louis SOUTH & P. L. CENTRAL (No 2)
Pascale Mavisa
P. LOUIS MARITIME & P. L. EAST (No 3)
Ram Seegobin
P. L. NORTH & LONG MOUNTAIN (No 4)
Shardanand Lilldharry

PAMPLEMOUSSES & TRIOLET (No 5)
Pushpa Lallah
GRAND BAY & POUDRE D’OR (No 6)
Kisna Kistnasamy
PITON & Riv. Du Rempart (No 7)
Alain Ah-Vee


Q. Militaire & Moka (No 8)
Cindy Clelie
Stephanie Phillipe
Nilmanee Sutchoo-Mungra
Flacq & Bon Accueil (No 9)
Marie-Anne Phillipe
Montagne Blanche & GRSE (No 10)
Rada Kistnasamy
V.Grand Port & R.Belle (No 11)
Julianna Sabine
Suresh Ramsohok
Chokaye Naiko
Mahebourg & P. Magnien (No 12)
Roland Fozoo
Riv.des Anguilles & Souillac (No 13)
Francis Jolicoeur
Savanne & Black River ( No 14)
Cadet Couyava
Chantal Lefranc
Gasson Sukhoo
La Caverne & Phoenix (No 15)
Jacdees Bhantooa
Vacoas & Floreal (No 16)
Sarojni Govinda
Curepipe & Midlands (No 17)
Andre Pierre
Martine Mavisa
Rajni Lallah
B. Rose & Q. Bornes (No 18)
Sarah Jane Naraina
Stanley & Rose-Hill (No 19)
Ally Hosenbokus
Christian Batour
Seetressen Murday
B.B. & Petite Riviere (No 20)
Ahmad Tallybally