The Jalal show

The call by members of the ruling party for  resignation of the leader of opposition may well have a boomerang effect. The accusations of swearing false affidavit and failing to provide proper disclosure of wealth, levelled by the Jugnauth led government does call for a debate on the effectiveness of the current procedure.

The whole issue which has been casually triggered as one of those flares by the MSM, meant to divert  attention from ongoing scandals, should be subject to public scrutiny.  Observations have been made on numerous discrepancies in declaration of wealth  by none other than MPs from the ruling alliance.

One of them, Sanjit Kumar Nuckcheddy who swore  an affidavit on 18th December 2019 wherein he claims owning only 21  shares in Building & Civil Engineering Co Ltd. Whereas records at the Registrar of Companies indicate  the MSM MP elected from Flacq – and Bon Accueil  holds 8,308 shares in BCE Co Ltd. Will the Jalal brigade hold a press conference to seek resignation of their  MP?

But our interest should go much further into the current masquerade of disclosure of wealth. The loopholes are as big as any volcanic crater on the island.  The use of Trusts as a façade to shield wealth is far too obvious. For example, the current procedure would simply require the Prime Minister or any other MP to disclose shares in a particular trust housed locally or abroad. But no mention is made as to the wealth owned or managed by that particular trust.

A trust may be housed in London, own million euros worth of property  across Europe and even have billions stashed in bank accounts in Hong Kong or elsewhere. At the end of every term, the Prime Minister or any MP may provide a document showing an unchanged percentage of  shares in the trust , while the wealth of the trust could have grown a thousand fold, worth hundreds of millions in USD.  These trusts are perfect recipients for proceeds of crime ranging from kickbacks, extortion money, political donation and commission. They can also be used for laundering purposes or as investment vehicles.

Scenarios which bring us to the complacency  of the Independent Commission Against Corruption ( ICAC) in dealing with such potential crimes. Every move by the Director General of ICAC only strengthens the general belief that he is a vassal of the ruling family. Moreso if we compare the zeal & show off displayed when treating any common citizen suspected of money laundering. Source of funds used to acquire dogs have to be explained, whereas politicians who mutually accuse each other  of bribery & theft, are merely  requested to  disclose in a gratuitous manner their wealth.

No wonder  an increasing number of countrymen are asking  ……  who needs Netflix ?


Read Previous

Upheaval at Google signals pushback against biased algorithms and unaccountable AI

Read Next

Why shielding businesses from coronavirus liability is a bad idea