Port Louis — There must be some part of the debate that I am just misunderstanding. What is the point of MP Deerpalsing? Is it that we can't get anyone out of poverty because it would help one section of the population more than the others? And so what? Whoever this particular section could be, I can't honestly see where the problem lies if those people are the ones who truly need help

Nita Deerpalsing is dead against the targeting system because she thinks that it would lead to "communal fights". Although she has not been that explicit, the argument is obviously far-fetched. One may be against this system because one may think that it would be hard to draw a line between the one who is really poor and the one who isn't for instance. This type of argument would be a serious one that would enable a real debate over the highly important issue of ways and means of eradicating poverty. But this is not the type of arguments chosen by the MP. Instead of that she appears to be resorting to popular speeches that would only enable her to win the liking of her voters of 2005.

But, worst of all, she is said to be basing herself on false information to attack the system. According to statistics obtained by the minister of Finance, the poor people are not all from the same community. Either Nita Deerpalsing is living miles away from Mauritian realities or she is doing it on purpose to try and achieve more popularity with some people?

So who is jeopardizing the social harmony in this country? Isn't it even more dangerous to make the people believe that the government is catering only for some people of the country than to target aids to the ones who really need it?

The point here is not to defend tooth and nail the targeting policy. There might be disadvantages to that method as well and the government must be cautious to implement any formula so that no one with quite low income is wronged.

But while members of government are fighting one another, the fight against poverty is not being tackled. The workshop on the reduction of poverty was postponed because there are too many tensions within the government. Obviously such a serious issue can't be altered by controversies between people supposed to share the same vision.

Confusion is more than ever present within the government and the true losers of this tense situation will undeniably be the poor people themselves. No one will have the time and energy to take care of them if their mind is full of negative vibes.

The country is again missing a great opportunity of taking care of those who truly need some help. The government is missing the chance of showing that it is a caring government that holds the most vulnerable people close to its heart