Bernard Yen, actuary and member of the expert committee: "Not giving pensions to wealthy individuals is among the proposals"

Bernard Yen, an actuary and member of the expert committee, stated that one of the proposals is to stop giving pensions to wealthy individuals. The government has yet to confirm anything, but discussions about targeting pensions are resurfacing. Sources close to the expert committee indicate that the concept of not providing universal pensions to the wealthiest households will be part of the discussions. While this approach is seen as a way to ensure more fairness, it is already sparking heated debates in political, economic, and social circles.

In his speech on Wednesday, coinciding with International Day of Older Persons, Paul Bérenger revealed that he has not claimed his old-age pension despite being eligible since the age of 60. Now at 80 years old, he highlights the ongoing division over pension reform since the gradual increase of eligibility age to 65. Supporters of a more targeted approach argue that it is time to adapt the system to the country’s economic realities, while proponents of universality fear a social divide and a decline in national solidarity. So far, no decision has been made, but the government is clearly looking for ways to reduce the cost of a system that costs over Rs 50 billion annually, nearly one-fifth of the national budget.

Jean Claude de l’Estrac, a former minister and political observer, believes it is time to directly address this issue. He suggests that if targeting is considered, it should be the starting point. “Targeting will be a beginning of the solution, not only for pensions but for other benefits. This is the solution, we will see…,” he confides.

He warns that Mauritius cannot avoid this measure if it wants to prevent economic fragility. He also cautions how the reform will be communicated to the public: “This country has been living beyond its means for years with a social benefits policy of a wealthy nation when it is not. Mauritians have come to believe everything should be given to them for free: their children's education, their families' health, transportation, internet, and television. Even their priests should be funded... Transparency in communication is necessary. Communication is not just a press conference, but knowing how to talk to and explain to voters.”

For the former editor-in-chief and politician, the issue is not just budgetary but also moral: it is essential to restore trust between the government and citizens through clear pedagogy.

The expert committee takes a more measured but equally clear tone. Bernard Yen confirms that discussions are underway on various reform scenarios, including targeting. However, he reminds that nothing is finalized and everything will be done through consultation. “Targeting is an inevitable process if we want to find sustainability in the project. Not giving pensions to wealthy individuals is among the proposals, and before deciding on the course of action, we need to discuss the implications,” he explains.

He notes that consultations will take several months, but the urgency of finding a solution tailored to the economic situation is undeniable. Yen acknowledges that the task will be delicate: “Not every proposal will be welcomed. There will be discontent and grumbling. But the committee will adhere to the principles of equality, equity, and solidarity. It’s clear that we risk being unpopular, but we must find constructive solutions quickly.”

His remarks capture the fragile balance between financial responsibility and social acceptability that the government must achieve.

For Dev Ramano, a lawyer and committed activist, this reform, even if “juicy” as he describes it, will not quell the anger of an already frustrated population. He believes the gap between the people and the government has widened for a long time: “The government is trying desperately to save its reputation, but it is far too late. The pension reform was the final straw,” he laments.

Ramano also questions the composition of the expert committee: “How can you form a committee that consists solely of actuaries? There are no unions, NGOs, or sociologists. From the start, this was a serious misstep.” For him, the issue of targeting the wealthy is a smokescreen: “Not paying old-age pensions to the wealthy seems to be the solution, but they also need to be taxed. You cannot make their lives easier on one hand and penalize the middle and lower classes on the other. Claiming that in four years promises will be kept is an excuse. Pension reform wasn’t in their program, yet they had time to dismantle the welfare state.”

Through these divergent voices, the debate sharpens. On one hand, there’s the economic necessity to adapt a system that has become costly and sometimes inequitable; on the other, the fear of a reform that erodes national solidarity. For many observers, the issue goes beyond the simple question of the “rich”: it is about rethinking the very philosophy of Mauritian social protection, long founded on universality and the dignity of the elderly. If targeting becomes a reality, it would mark a historic turning point in the conception of the Mauritian model — a shift from a protective state to a selective one. Some view this evolution as necessary, while others dread it as a challenge to the social contract. Nothing has been decided yet. But one thing is certain: the debate surrounding pensions is far from over. And as the situation becomes more challenging, the question of “who should pay for whom” is likely to become the next significant test for the country.