Alleged Influence of Employers on the Government - Jocelyn Chan Low: "What is Subron doing in this government?"

Two ministers from the same government express diametrically opposed views on the influence of the private sector. Amidst admissions of blockage and denial, historians and civil society strive to separate truth from falsehood.

The contrast is striking. On one side, Labor Minister Reza Uteem claims that "the government is not held hostage by any capitalist lobby." On the other side, his colleague in Social Security, Ashok Subron, explains that "the seed sown cannot grow because we must listen to those in charge." Two members of the same cabinet, two radically different interpretations of reality.

This isn’t the first time Ashok Subron has made such statements. Back in April 2025, during the show "Au cœur de l’info" on Radio Plus, just weeks before the presentation of the 2025-2026 budget, he stated that "it is not a clique of capitalists that will take everything and hold the government hostage, as this group thinks the country belongs to them." He also spoke of wealth distribution and targeted economic players who "refuse to pay Corporate Tax." "These wealthy individuals are profiteers, and I believe that the most vulnerable class deserves its share in our economy," he asserted.

Historian and observer Jocelyn Chan Low believes Ashok Subron’s remarks contain a grain of truth. "I believe Ashok Subron is completely right," he states. According to him, the minister, a former unionist, "knows the issue very well," and there is "indeed a blockage at the level of employers." Jocelyn suggests that Ashok Subron must feel "very uncomfortable within the government," and his statement is "a logical continuation" of his previous positions. He has previously called for a more leftist orientation. "He is someone who is on the left and has ideas from that movement."

Conversely, Jocelyn Chan Low is critical of Reza Uteem. It is the Labor Minister who should be leading the issue of a 40-hour workweek, he reminds. "It’s an admission of failure and impotence when he says there is no consensus," emphasizes the historian. Claiming that the government is not held hostage by the capitalist lobby would, in his view, only be a "subterfuge" in the face of this reality.

Jocelyn Chan Low places this debate in a broader context. While all successive governments have relied on the private sector to boost growth, he believes that the current government's strategy has been entirely based on this same sector to revive the economy. "But it’s not working," he says. He points to revealing signs. "There are measures in the last budget that show the government is beholden to big capital." He specifically cites the moratorium granted to Smart Cities, whereas the delay in raising the old-age pension from 60 to 65 years was implemented swiftly.

However, the historian reminds us that a government can maintain its independence from the private sector. According to him, the introduction of the minimum wage is proof of this. Despite resistance from Business Mauritius, the government at the time stood firm.

"Consulting doesn’t mean yielding," he states.

The 40-hour workweek now crystallizes all these tensions. Jocelyn Chan Low recalls that the government was elected on this program, and that Rezistans ek Alternativ (ReA) made it one of its specific demands. For him, the introduction or non-introduction of this measure during the next budget presentation will constitute a "test" of the government's commitment to workers.

The stakes are high for ReA. "If this doesn’t pass, the party will have no choice but to withdraw from the government," the historian believes. In the meantime, the party "is losing credibility among the population." He also notes that during Labor Day on May 1, unionist Reaz Chuttoo of the Confederation of Public and Private Sector Workers stated that workers have lost confidence in Ashok Subron. This leads the historian to ask the question: "If the government is beholden to capitalism, what is Ashok Subron doing in the government?"

The Art of Balancing

Laura Jaymangal, director of Transparency Mauritius, approaches the issue from a more structural angle. For her, these statements reflect "a constant debate in any democracy: how far should a government listen to economic actors without being excessively influenced - and not just economic actors, but lobbies in general."

She is adamant about the principle. "Public policies must be developed transparently, based on balanced consultations, and not under the pressure of special interests. This applies as much to employers as to any other organized group." However, she acknowledges that consulting employers is normal and necessary in Mauritius, where the private sector plays a central role in employment and investment. "Consulting doesn’t mean yielding," she reiterates.

For Laura Jaymangal, governing ultimately involves a delicate balancing act. "It’s truly a tightrope walk where the government must engage in dialogue, consider stakeholders, and maintain its decision-making autonomy. It’s the art of governance," she states. The real challenge is to preserve this balance "in transparency, without favoritism, and above all without corruption."

We have unsuccessfully tried to obtain a response from a representative of Business Mauritius as well as from Minister Ashok Subron.