The last budget was presented on 23rd March 2015 and, 15 months later, the stated objectives concerning job creation and enhanced socioeconomic growth still remain largely challenging. To realize the targeted performance for this important goal, not only the government, which is the major player, but all the stake-holders must play their role fully. In this context, I would like to make some modest proposals for possible consideration in the 2016 Budget.

I began my architectural career in Mauritius in 1963, upon my return from the U.K. At that period, my practice dealt predominantly with residential assignments. In 1967, my cousin Zulfi also returned from the U.K. (well before Brexit!) as a qualified architect with several years of professional experience in London and Copenhagen. Together, we formed our Architectural practice, ZAC Associates. As the Mauritian economy grew, so did our practice. We had a more diversified portfolio of work, but housing remained a sector of particular interest for me. In 1976, the then Mauritius Housing Corporation (MHC) approached us for the design of their proposed project consisting of 120 apartments at the lovely ‘Clos Verger’ site in the heart of Rose Hill, opposite the Plaza.

After lengthy but positive discussions we were appointed as their architects for the project. Having been familiar with the outstanding work done by the Housing and Development Board (HDB) of Singapore, I went to Singapore, all expenses for the trip were borne by our practice, to take cognizance of HDB’s mission, structure, achievements and future plans. What I witnessed was inspiring, impressive and mind-broadening. Upon my return, I submitted a detailed report with recommendations to the MHC and the ‘Clos Verger’ project was successfully completed, on schedule and within budget, and provides for good accommodation in a wonderful environment for its residents. I happen to know a few of the recipients and they have expressed their great satisfaction as owners and residents of their respective apartments.

By the mid 1970’s, Singapore had zero social housing backlog, every Singaporean either owned or rented a dwelling unit generally commensurate with her/his family’s needs and income. A record unmatched world-wide. Not even Sweden had fully met its social housing demand at that period.

In a survey on ‘Singapore National Identity’, a University of Singapore sociologist called it one of the ‘prideful symbols of National Development’. Other observers have suggested that the successful public housing programmes have measurably enhanced political stability and public support for the Government. This view is summarized by Yeh and Pang in a paper. According to them, the need for adequate housing is now universally recognized and its fulfilment has become a primary function of numerous socio-political systems. Housing is an important component of the socio-physical environment within which human energies are released, enriched and integrated.

Inadequate and poor housing can cause serious social, psychological and physiological consequences, notwithstanding the human being’s remarkable ability to adapt to various forms of deprivation.

International Human rights law recognizes the right to an adequate standard of living in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the 1966 International covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Several constitutions protect the right to adequate housing or outline the State’s general responsibility to ensure adequate housing for all.

Recognizing the above as one of the social priorities and factoring-in its substantial potential for relatively rapid, across the country implementation and leveraging the availability of suitable labour and materials, should make these ‘skeletal’ proposals valid for possible consideration in the context of the forthcoming Budget.

The measures proposed should be valid for a maximum period of 3 years or thereabouts as from their date of implementation. This would incentivize and motivate the potential applicants and give them sufficient time to prepare and take advantage of such a scheme. Also, very importantly, it would not represent a long-term fiscal burden but possibly achieve the goal of ‘kick-starting’ the much needed socio-economic recovery until it ‘merges’ with the planned sustainable rate of G.D.P. growth.

Waiving of VAT for a suggested maximum amount of Rs150,000/- (refer to notes) on all building and construction materials for any person/s building her/his first dwelling unit on a duly owned or leased plot of land, all subject to an established “means test”. The figures are an estimated average.

The waived VAT component of app. Rs150,000/- would permit the construction of a dwelling unit costing app. Rs1,640,000/- with an area of 117 M2 for a well-engineered structure with basic but reasonable quality finishes, which could be enhanced and added later at will. It is envisaged that applicants for such a facility would be recipients of a special card (similar to a ration card).

All qualified (by Ministry of Finance) lending institutions would be persuaded, or rather convinced! to lower the lending rate to ‘card’ holders to 5% per annum for a maximum period of 30 years, all the rest as per existing criteria. The required collaterals/guarantees would necessarily apply, but hopefully with softer gloves!

The above ‘solidarity’ measures in my opinion are pivotal for the successful realization of such a scheme. It is also suggested that the Government consider the utilization of suitable non-agricultural land at their disposal, transforming them into planned and serviced ‘community’ centred developments, with plots allocated to deserving citizens (based on a transparent “means test”), who would then qualify and bene- fit from the proposed VAT exempt scheme.

In keeping with the philosophy for the involvement of all stakeholders, the setting-up of a unique ‘Board’, consisting not of directors but ‘Ambassadors’ whose primary role would be to promote successfully such a project, be considered in the Budget proposals.

The important task amongst others for the Board ‘Ambassadors’ would be to lobby and hopefully convince land owners to donate or sell at very reasonable rates portions of unutilized, fallow land not suitable for agriculture, to the ‘Solidarity Land Bank’. Other issues which could possibly be considered by the ‘Board’, the urgent creation of a ‘task force’ whose function would be to provide clear guidelines for the proper engineering, design and construction methodology for the benefit of recipients of the proposed scheme.

Streamlining and rendering more efficient the obtention of building permits would be another essential component for the successful implementation of such a project.

Warren Buffett, to name one among many, donated several years ago USD 44 Billion to structured charitable Foundations. He remains today at the age of 86 years the largest donor worldwide, according to Forbes magazine.

Surely his example can be inspirational and sufficiently motivating for many of us. In the 80’s Singapore embarked on a very effective national campaign whose clear and simple theme was “Singapore is an excellent Nation State let’s make it better”. The above measures are, as mentioned previously, ‘skeletal’ and require in-depth analysis, consideration and definition before application, if at all.

Notes

It is important to note that my cost assumptions are based on the latest NHDC figures. For example: Cost of construction of a modest residential structure, excluding floor finish but inclusive of all other items app. Rs.14,000/- per M2 of which app. 70% represents material cost and 30% labour cost. The area of the dwelling unit (house) assumed in this case is 117 M2 . This would be a reasonable average area for this category of social housing.

I summarize below the advantages/benefits of the proposal put forward, not necessarily in order of priority: Besides contributing towards the realization of the goal ‘adequate housing for all’ as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Mauritius can certainly further enhance its good reputation as a model nation. The relative ease of actualization, availability of suitable labour, skills, ample support supply sectors and most of all, the great need and demand factor render the proposals put forward substantially appropriate.

Assuming 4,000 applicants qualify (1st calendar year), and are granted ‘cards’ to proceed with the construction of their dwelling units, the possible job creation, primarily in the informal sector could be about 4,000 x 6.5 persons for a 8 month construction period, ie : 26,000 jobs created, let us say for the 1st calendar year, post operation of scheme.

Additional to the above, the collateral, indirect job creation (quincailleries, camionneurs, electricians, plumbers, menuisiers, etc…) could amount on an estimated, annualized basis of about another 4,000 jobs. Assuming 4,000 applicants qualify and proceed with proposed scheme the VAT exemption would amount to Rs. 4,000 x 150,000 (as per assumption – Notes) = Rs 600 million, which represents app. The ‘manque a gagner’ to the exchequer.

Assuming that there is a lack of interest from the target public, the scheme will not require any capital or other expenditure of consequence to begin with. Should the scheme suscitate sufficient interest and achieve, in good measure its objectives for the much needed socio-economic performance we are all awaiting, it would result in more happiness for many and auger a better tomorrow for the majority of us.

Also, very importantly, ensuring the ‘active’ participation of the less privileged sections of our society in the development process, with visible tangible benefits and results, would be an excellent remedy for metamorphosing frustration and despair into optimism and hope.