SECTOR 1 The head of a consumer protection NGO has always been vocal on a variety of issues, taking particular issue with the price-fixing behaviour of Government in setting the price of fuel every month. The reaction by Government to this criticism was to withdraw funding to the organisation, resulting in the crippling of the NGO. Funding was only resumed when the State was put under pressure by other organisations and members of the public. Some time ago, the Prime Minister himself publicly told organisations that Amnesty International could criticise government because it relied on donor funding, whereas many other organisations (i.e. those to whom he was directing his speech), were being subsidised by the State (implying that they therefore had no right to criticise Government). The government does not resort to physical threats or violence but tends to react to criticism by suspending officials working in the public sector, withdrawing funds and contracts from those in the private sector, or issuing interdicts. Indirectly, the consequences of speaking out are thereby inflicted on the individual and sometimes on his or her family members. Threats against citizens are not always immediate, and they often come in the form of subtle threats or intimations. Many young activists involved in political organisations have to consider their actions, as they face the threat of not securing a job in the future. They are kept under surveillance by the intelligence arm of the police, and their activities are recorded. When they eventually enter the labour market, their job prospects could be hampered by previous “anti-government” activities in which they may have engaged. The art of remaining silent has become institutionalised. This can be attributed to a memo originating in the Prime Minister’s office, directing all officials in ministries and parastatal bodies not to speak to the media or the public without official authorisation. Maintaining their job security has forced officials at these institutions to comply with this directive. Academics at the University of Mauritius who were issued with the same directive reacted differently. Acting on his own accord, the then Vice Chancellor of the university - known for his allegiance to the Prime Minister - circulated the memo to his academic staff. Outraged by the infringement on their academic freedom, members of the University of Mauritius Academic Staff Association (UMASA) put pressure on the authorities and the circular had to be withdrawn. It should be noted that like the Vice Chancellor noted above, many Mauritians will act in this ingratiating manner and undertake actions of their own accord, because they feel that such “acts” will undoubtedly please the Prime Minister and the Government at large. 12 AFRICAN MEDIA BAROMETER MAURITIUS 2010