ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: IT IS HIGH TIME TO IMPLEMENT THE UNITED NATION CONVENTIONAL RIGHTS FOR DISABLED IN MAURITIUS
> BREACH OF FUNDAMENTAL DISABILITY RIGHTS FOR PROTECTION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES: As shown in my open letter to the Prime Minister as available at http://mervynanthonyopenletter2primeminister.blogspot.com/
and my legal notice (Mise en demeure) which was completely ignored by the Mauritius Sugar Authority (MSA) because the MSA Management is fully aware that there are no protection against discrimination on the ground of equal opportunities (Not even the constitution)
> MISLEADING PARLIAMENT TO JUSTIFY THE BREACH OF DISABILITY RIGHTS: The silence of the Prime Minister in relation to my open letter talks a thousand words. It is now very clear that the injustices and discrimination I was subject are just political. In another words, this means that those who have taken these discriminatory measures towards me enjoy political protections from all sides. The MSA management misled everybody malevolently in my case including THE MAURITIUS NATIONAL ASSEMBLY (PARLIAMENT). THE STATE OF MAURITIUS HAS SUPPOSEDLY IMPLEMENTED A NATIONAL POLICY PAPER AND AN ACTION PLAN ON DISABILITY TO PROTECT MY RIGHTS BUT WE CAN ALL SEE WHAT IS HAPPENING. As illustrated in the parliamentary questions and answers below which confirms that I have been victim of injustices by the measures of those who are politically protected. The MSA Management misled parliament in the answers given by the minister on the fact that my Master of Business Administration which is one of the best qualifications available and is rated just below doctorate award in the National Qualification Framework as being irrelevant to my job. This is shown in the minister’s answer below: Mr Mohamed: I am informed that, when Mr M. A. started his 3-year MBA course, he applied for sponsorship from the MSA. Being given that the course was not relevant to his job, according to the information, the management disallowed the demand. This is the stand, according to the version of the MSA. However…………see below. So far the injustices and discriminations are increasing no promotion and reform is scheduled to take place soon. At this stage if I opt for VRS there will be tremendous injustice relating to compensation due.to the denial of my promotion that is long overdue. In the absence of Conventional Disability rights and in the light of all the injustices highlighted above, instead of applying the national policy paper and the action plan on disability to protect my rights, the Ministry of Social Security wrote to the Mauritius Sugar Authority and asked for a report on me. Even a primary school child knows very well what to expect from the report when the MSA has itself misled parliament to try to justify the injustice towards me. So far the Ministry of social security and the prime minister who is also responsible for internal affairs issues are failing in their responsibility to protect my rights. Thereby justifying that Conventional Disability Rights should be implemented in Mauritius and ahead of all Mauritius should ratify the optional protocole of the convention so as to allow mauritians disabled to file a case before the United Nation in regard to the breach of their rights. God alone knows why he has given me the courage and stamina to fight for my rights and he also knows what is the exact number of disabled persons who are subject to injustices behind me.
> MISLEADING THE UNITED NATIONS IN REGARD TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF CONVENTIONAL OBJECTIVES: According to Le Mauricien Newspaper of 12th September 2011 (Page 9), the Minister of Social Security highlighted the continuous and successful Implementation of the National Policy Paper and National Action Plan for enhancing the implementation on conventional rights of disabled persons in Mauritius. I am the proof ttha these measures are nolthing but a real failure without the complete implementation of conventional disability rights.
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OF TUESDAY 16th November 2010
MAURITIUS SUGAR AUTHORITY – MR M. A. – MEDIATION MEETINGS
(No. B/612) Mrs F. Labelle (Third Member for Vacoas & Floreal) asked the Minister of Labour, Industrial Relations and Employment whether in regard to the case of Mr M. A., and the Mauritius Sugar Authority, he will, for the benefit of the House, obtain information as to the outcome of the three mediation meetings held in relation thereto, indicating if recommendations
were made and, if so, if they have been implemented, and if not, why not.
Mr Mohamed: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr M. A. registered a complaint against his employer, the Mauritius Sugar Authority (MSA), at my Ministry regarding –
(i) sponsorship for his MBA studies;
(ii) non-payment of incremental credit since December 2005;
(iii) non-payment of cash in lieu of vacation leave not taken since 2006, and
(iv) right of promotion.
Subsequent to the complaints registered, three conciliation meetings were held by my Ministry with the management of MSA and Mr M. A. Following these meetings, payment of an incremental credit since December 2005 has been agreed upon and according to my information has already been paid on 27 July 2010.
As regards the other points in dispute, of which I have made a list earlier on, they have been and are continuing to be subject of lengthy discussions at the level of the conciliation meetings at the MSA and the MSA is considering them.
There is another meeting which has been scheduled for Friday 19 November 2010 for the management of MSA to communicate its stand as regards those other issues that have been brought about apart from the issue of
Mrs Labelle: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I ask the hon. Minister whether he is aware that the MSA was agreeable to sponsor the study of Mr M. A. according to a letter that was sent, and that up to now this has not been done? He was to be paid for the study, but this has not been the case. Is there any particular reason to that?
Mr Mohamed: I am informed that, when Mr M. A. started his 3-year MBA course, he applied for sponsorship from the MSA. Being given that the course was not relevant to his job, according to the information, the management disallowed the demand. This is the stand, according to the version of the MSA. However, on humanitarian ground, the MSA sponsored only 50% of the cost of the course for the first year. As for the remaining second and third year,
no financial support was given. He is, therefore, claiming the 50% on the first year fees, and the cost of the second and third year. Actually, in two subsequent meetings, this matter was taken up, and the management has then asked, following the intervention of my Ministry, for some time, to take a stand on this particular issue of sponsorship. This is what is going to happen when they will have to communicate a stand at the meeting scheduled for the 19th.
Mrs Labelle: With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I table a letter, where it is being stated that sponsorship for year two and year three will be reviewed on progress and the results of these two years? So, Mr M. A. did receive a letter, stating that he would get payment of 50% for the first year, and for the second and third years, it is stated that, based on his results, of course, this would be done. This letter is dated 2006, a copy of which I am going
Mr Mohamed: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the hon. Member for intervening and trying to sort out a case of injustice. I may reassure the hon. Member that we are on the same wave length, and we want to find a solution. Most probably we already have that letter, but I would like to have a look at it, to see to it that we can make use of it to bring back conciliation closer.
16 November 2010