We expected little to come out of the parliamentary debate. And we were not disappointed. We expected a lot of cosying up after the publication of the white paper and we were generously served. The Private Notice Question (PNQ) is supposed to make the government shake and grope for answers. And there is no shortage of issues which could make very good material for the most important question in our national assembly, what with the theft in the port and its implications on our ambition to become a regional transhipment station. Then the crooks who have allegedly been feeding us stolen food and shamelessly digging deep into our threadbare pockets to make us pay the full price for the privilege of being unknowingly accomplices in their hideous act.  What with the police who are looking for proof where they are not likely to find any. If proof there is of all the stolen seafood, it would by now be in the hands of the Wastewater Management Authority. And don’t forget the issue of our old bones which are being donated to the cause of science without our prior consent.

Devoting the PNQ to this? No, oh no, sir! That won’t do. Let’s just put a flippant question about a girl who sought asylum in the UK on ‘bogus’ grounds and had her application rejected. Ouch! And since we are at it, how many more Mauritians have been deported from the UK? Three every week! Our leader of the opposition needs many more PNQs to ask the prime minister every week to justify why the British authorities are doing their job and ensuring that there is law and order in their country! 

As if this were not embarrassing enough for us, Paul Bérenger goes even further and asks if “the Mauritian government, in spite of the way she [Yashika Bageerathi] has behaved, is prepared to help her?” – help her appeal the decision of the British authorities! 

The reply to the question at least has the merit of being straightforward: “As far as helping on another appeal against the decision is concerned, that’s not on the cards... She has already appealed five times and no evidence was found of her allegations.”

After the leader of the opposition had given the prime minister the opportunity to thump his chest about everything our high commission in the UK has done and all the help they extended – which naturally was rejected by the alleged victim because that may lead to the truth about her allegations – they both agreed with each other that the girl had been “badly advised” and they both justified their salaries.

If the British authorities ever read our Hansard, it might be an embarrassing moment for us as a country. Perhaps even more embarrassing than the statement made by our Foreign Affairs minister who – in his wisdom – publicly stated on our behalf that the British should have allowed the illegitimate asylum seeker to spend more time in the UK [ illegally, that is] until she had taken her exams! Exams, by the way, which are sent to us by Cambridge and which thousands of our pupils sit every year without asking for any special privileges. 

It is time we realised one thing: either there are laws and they are applied or there aren’t any laws. And perhaps because of our half-measure attitude – which could easily be mistaken for humanitarianism – we have laws but we have no order.

Next question, please! 

weekly@lasentinelle.mu