“The pie isn’t growing, we’re just slicing it differently” 

On 17 June 2025, a roundtable discussion was held at Regus, Ebène, as part of a joint initiative by Bizweek, The Talent Factory and Regus, bringing together leading voices to assess the key measures of Mauritius’s National Budget 2025–2026. The panel featured Shahannah Abdoolakhan, Founder and CEO of Abler Group; Anthony Leung Shing, Country Senior Partner and Tax Partner at PwC Mauritius; and Yannick Applasamy, COO of Xtruline and former Chair of the Association of Mauritian Manufacturers. Moderated by Rudy Veeramundar, Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Bizweek, the discussion addressed fiscal pressures, public debt, investor confidence, and the trade-offs required to sustain both social programmes and economic growth.

Rudy Veeramundar (Moderator of the panel discussion) – How would you describe the budget?

Anthony Leung Shing (Country Senior Partner & Tax Partner, PwC Mauritius):
At first glance, my impression of the budget is that there is a desire for change — a desire to address economic challenges, public debt, and the fiscal deficit. The initial impression is one of economic recovery. But if we look more closely, I believe there is a lack of detail, a lack of precision, and it feels somewhat light in certain sectors and in terms of logistical measures.

In my view, the most courageous measure was the pension reform. Pensions currently cost the State MUR 68 billion and represent 30% of the government’s expenditure budget. I understand it is sparking quite a bit of debate across various financial agencies at the moment, but I believe it was something the country needed in the long term. Yes, I think there was a lack of communication and public engagement with civil society, which should have been addressed. But for me, that is one of the key points.

As for the other measures — we hear about the blue economy, AI, real estate — I feel these are ideas we’ve heard in the past. It seems like a recycling of previous proposals, with a lack of clarity and implementation detail.

Rudy Veeramundar – Yannick Applasamy, from the perspective of the manufacturing sector, how do you view this budget?

Yannick Applasamy (Former President of the Association of Mauritian Manufacturers):

I must admit I listened to the budget with great anticipation, hoping — as Anthony mentioned — to see some real change. I’ve been involved in the industrial sector in Mauritius for over 15 years, and I served as AMM President a few years ago. After an hour and a half of the budget speech, we were still looking for the measures that would justify a proper budget memorandum.

Let me take a moment to speak about the pre-budget process, which is an important part of the overall exercise. Normally, there are consultations with various sectoral associations. This year, however, somewhat unusually, there was a joint consultation — everyone in the same room. Imagine an industrial sector that contributes 12% to GDP being given only eight minutes to present its budget memorandum. I understand this is a government that has been in office only since last November and that there are many issues on the table — there’s urgency, as Anthony pointed out, around debt restructuring and other economic imperatives.

Unfortunately, from the perspective of manufacturers, this sense of urgency did not translate into meaningful change. We were left disappointed. And when an industrialist is left hungry, so to speak, it’s problematic. So, I would say there is a sense of impatience and expectation that still remains for the industrial sector, and I’ll touch on that further in relation to the budget’s vision.

Each year we see pre-budget consultations, with economic stakeholders meeting the Minister of Finance or even senior officers, and messages shared on social media and in photos. You submitted both written and verbal proposals — how much of what you proposed actually made it into the budget?

Yannick Applasamy: Let me return to the pre-budget phase. We weren’t the only ones involved. The Association of Mauritian Manufacturers submitted a detailed budget proposal — a highly valuable document that we also presented to the press. It included four strong measures with concrete details on what was needed for the industrial sector. I speak here on behalf of the industry, but there are many other sectors — through Business Mauritius, for example — that also submitted proposals.

Just yesterday, there was an interesting programme on the automotive sector, which also put forward proposals. I had the opportunity to speak with Jacqueline Sauzier last week, who had prepared a very comprehensive document on agriculture. I won’t venture to give a percentage, but if we do a VLOOKUP between the keywords in our memorandum and what appeared in the budget, we found just one sentence — and that, unfortunately, was only in the annex, not even in the speech itself.

So, yes, we were heard — I don’t want to say we weren’t. But I think the response time is key. We had the Industry Forum about two months ago, and perhaps that’s where the real outcomes for the industrial sector will emerge. That could be the defining moment.

We have a tendency to expect everything to be in the budget. Perhaps the government could have communicated upfront that the budget is primarily about the State’s expenditures, and that key sectoral measures — whether for industry, finance, etc. — will follow. After all, we’ve all participated in the Industry Forum, the Education Forum, and have seen the financial sector blueprint. I believe there are further measures coming, but it would have been helpful to say so beforehand. We were all expecting certain things to be announced — and that’s the context of my perspective on the pre-budget phase.

Anthony, you write budget highlights every year, and your interviews are followed with interest. I imagine you submitted your proposals again this year, whether through the press or other channels. Do you see your contributions reflected in this budget?

Anthony Leung Shing: Yes, we have taken part in many representations and consultations through various industry committees. But like Yannick said, it is difficult for me to see our proposals reflected in this budget. We conveyed a number of messages during the pre-budget period. Yet, several recovery-related measures for key sectors like tourism, financial services, and agriculture are missing. Hopefully, the roadmaps that have been commissioned will be released later. For now, there are few announcements and even fewer details.

Are you optimistic about the recovery?

Anthony Leung Shing: For me, continuity is crucial for a small country like ours. The risk is that each government wants to create its own budget and showcase its own identity. But the issue isn’t a lack of vision – we all have good ideas. The real difference lies in implementation, and that is where the government can truly stand out. Right now, there are announcements, but what matters is execution. Since the start of this mandate, we’ve seen delays in appointments within institutions. That’s not a good sign and doesn’t inspire much confidence.

Shahannah Abdoolakhan, as a financial services professional, how would you summarise this budget compared to your expectations?

Shahannah Abdoolakhan (Founder & CEO, Abler Group): To be honest, I only noticed one measure concerning private banking: the billion banking initiative. There was also a mention of the unified licensing framework for family offices and wealth management. That’s all we saw for the financial sector. We understand that a blueprint is forthcoming. After today’s post-budget debate, we expect new licensing measures to follow. But there’s a lot more that can be done for financial services. Mauritius is well positioned for investment flows into Africa and Asia, and we all want to see the country prosper. Financial services currently account for 14% of GDP, and the potential is greater. We have an office in Dubai, and the vibrancy of its economy is remarkable. Mauritius cannot be Dubai or Singapore, but we can reposition ourselves. Many still look to Mauritius for structuring and setting up operations. The potential remains, and we need to tap into it.

What will it take for Mauritius to be like Dubai or Singapore?

Shahannah Abdoolakhan: I recently incorporated a company at the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC). I received my licence in two days. The Central KYC system there knows everything about me – my ID, my directorships, my shareholding. Everything is centralised. There is real intergovernmental communication. Right now, I’m opening a bank account and already have pre-approval. I just need to submit my income certificate, and I’ll have the account in three days. In Mauritius, it takes much longer. If you hold an investment dealer licence, some banks won’t open an account because it’s considered high risk.

The FSC issues licences for virtual asset operators, but banks refuse to open accounts for such businesses. So, coordination is needed between regulators, banks, and the government. Everyone must be aligned. We cannot have ministries working in silos. Public-private partnerships are also critical. Mauritius Finance is making efforts, but dialogue must be continuous – not just crisis-driven. In Dubai, there are regular monthly meetings.

Do DIFC licence applications require physical presence?

Shahannah Abdoolakhan (laughs): Not at all! Once you’re known to the DIFC, the process is entirely online. Before submitting an application, the regulator meets you to understand your business model. Then you get access to a portal to upload all your documents. There’s online face verification, and approvals come quickly. There’s no need for certified true copies or lawyer-attested documents. Even proof of address can be uploaded without certification. Everything is simple.

We heard many blueprint announcements in this budget. Are we at a point where systemic change is required?

Anthony Leung Shing: Yes. Sectors like tourism, manufacturing, agriculture, and fintech all face major challenges. The goal is to move up the value chain – to create more value. That requires two things: a business-friendly ecosystem, as Shahana mentioned, and skilled expertise. Without talent, there is no value creation.

Whether we aim to transform traditional sectors or build new ones like AI, waste-to-energy, or the blue economy, we must focus on building ecosystems and developing expertise. The concept of “Innovative Mauritius” is interesting, but what does it mean in practice? From what I understood, the Ministry of ICT will lead digital transformation of the public sector. The Ministry of Education will oversee a National Research Institute. Other ministries will receive research budgets. A High-Powered Committee under the PMO will also be involved.

What’s missing is accountability. Who is responsible for following up? ICT? Education? There is no clear governance structure. That’s the problem.

Yannick, do you believe we are truly at a turning point?

Yannick Applasamy: If we are at a crossroads, we’ve been stuck there for a long time – we might as well build a bus stop. We hear a lot of messaging across sectors. From an industrial perspective, especially in medical devices, we do benefit from favourable fiscal conditions. But the reality on the ground is different.

For example, when relocating production sites, we had to go through multiple ministries. One permit here, another there – health and safety, fire department, etc. I’m a local and I understand the process. But imagine a foreign investor wanting to set up a factory in the technopole. If they have to navigate ten ministries to get operational, they’ll just catch a flight out.

This is not just frustrating; it’s damaging. We’ve lost contracts because we couldn’t scale fast enough. Our competitors in India or China get permits in days. When we tell clients it will take six to eight months, we lose business. The public sector needs to understand this. Yes, safety and compliance are essential, but the timeline must improve.

I was thrilled when the Budget Speech began with “research and development.” But then came the disappointment – the investment will go to public institutions only. In most countries, R&D is not driven solely by the public sector. We need public-private collaboration.

Is there any post-budget mechanism to share such concerns?

Yannick Applasamy: To be fair, we’ve always had access to our line ministry. AMM, MEXA, and other associations regularly meet with ministry officials. There are even direct meetings between industrialists and ministers. But these are informal mechanisms. We should structure these better – especially to evaluate past measures. We’ve had preferential margins, the “Made in Moris” initiative, and industrial financing schemes. But we haven’t assessed their impact. Were they effective? Who benefited? Did it reach the right sectors? We must take time to evaluate outcomes.

Anthony Leung Shing: Absolutely. Regular communication happens, and I’m involved in several platforms. But the real issue is whether public institutions are willing to transform. Do they have the technical knowledge and training? Often, we submit complex files – especially in finance. Do they have the capacity to understand and make sound decisions? If they don’t understand the subject matter, decision-making becomes very difficult.

How do you view the recent reorganisation of the Economic Development Board (EDB)?
Anthony Leung Shing – The EDB has undergone multiple reorganisations over time. Initially, it was the Board of Investment, before various agencies were merged to form a single institution. The original aim was to create a true one-stop-shop that would spare investors from having to navigate through different ministries such as Environment, Health, and so forth. However, this vision has never materialised in practice. The concept is sound, but the weakness lies in its implementation and execution.

There are growing concerns around foreign direct investment, especially following recent announcements on financial protectionism and fiscal tightening. Are these risks tangible given the high mobility of capital and Mauritius’s positioning?

Shahana Andoulakhan – I would say yes. One of the key things investors look for when selecting a jurisdiction is predictability. You cannot announce a tax rate of X% today and then suddenly change it to X plus Y% tomorrow. Investors seek stability, and the lack of it may prompt them to shift to jurisdictions perceived as more stable. We’ve seen similar patterns before – for example, in France, when they introduced the wealth tax, many high-net-worth individuals relocated. In the U.S., comparable dynamics have occurred. Portugal abruptly discontinued its Golden Visa scheme, leading to a property market downturn. These developments do have industry-wide implications. Whether the proposed fiscal measures are appropriate or not remains a point of concern – one that ratings agencies like Moody’s have flagged. We need to carefully assess the potential impact.

Anthony Leung Shing , you highlighted a Rs 22.7 billion gap in port-related investments depending on whether or not Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) are used. Why has the PPP framework not been more fully leveraged, and how might this approach redefine major infrastructure projects?

Anthony Leung Shing – Yes, the Rs 22.7 billion gap specifically refers to port investment. It’s important to understand where this added value comes from. First, in terms of financing: given fiscal constraints and public debt levels, the government has limited capacity to raise funds for infrastructure projects. A PPP structure allows the private sector to mobilise significantly more capital. Second, in execution: private sector involvement brings expertise and speed, which improves project efficiency. As noted in World Bank and IMF studies, involving the private sector creates a multiplier effect of around 3, compared to about 1.8 when a project is government-led. So we see a significant difference not only in starting value but also throughout implementation – and this effect compounds over time. PPPs have historically been a key growth driver for Mauritius. While public-private dialogue still exists, the translation of that dialogue into action has weakened. We must refocus and strengthen this partnership.

Do you share this view, Yannick Applasamy?

Yannick Applasamy – Absolutely. I’m fully aligned with Anthony. There is dialogue, but fewer and fewer projects are effectively collaborative. I understand the need for separation of powers, but other countries have shown how PPP models can generate stronger outcomes. In some instances, private sector representatives are even involved on strategic committees. Taking the EDB as an example – yes, private sector voices are present on the board. But despite this structure, there’s a clear disconnect. These representatives are meant to help define strategy based on sector-specific concerns, but when it comes to implementation, the link is broken.

In my view, a public-private partnership cannot be sequential – where private stakeholders contribute to strategy, the public body executes, and the private sector is only re-engaged for post-mortems. That stop-start model doesn’t work. Collaboration is complex – even private-to-private collaboration can be difficult. Public-private collaboration is like mixing oil and water. But what matters is shifting from a sequential to a parallel process – creating a kind of ‘bouncing wall’ where progress is checked regularly, jointly.

Whether it’s the property sector, financial services, or manufacturing, each has a representative at the EDB. Each sector can channel feedback. But again, the process is too linear. That’s the problem.

On the one hand, we observe a degree of fiscal austerity, with the looming threat of Moody’s and a stated intention to restore macroeconomic stability. On the other hand, there’s a strong ambition for growth, projected at 4%, or at best 4.5%, if we are fortunate. According to the IMF, a “do nothing” scenario would yield around 3% growth. If this 4% target is not achieved, there is a real risk that agencies like Moody’s may recommend further fiscal consolidation. Ultimately, it all hinges on implementation—whether policies and projects materialise to drive growth. Let’s say growth reaches only 3.5% next year; that could be a worrying signal. So, the question remains: is this a risky bet?

Yannick Applasamy: Rudy, I think you’ve put your finger on the key concern we all share about this budget. Structurally, the budget is built around three pillars: Economic Renewal, New Social Order, and Fiscal Consolidation. Now, on the fiscal consolidation front, I would say the government cannot be judged immediately—but it has taken some bold steps. These are indeed significant and perhaps politically difficult measures for this administration to have implemented.

However, the concern—as you’ve rightly pointed out—is that while fiscal austerity is being declared, the corresponding measures do not necessarily reflect it across sectors. Take real estate, for instance. In the context of austerity, what’s being done in this sector will likely not stimulate growth. In manufacturing, there’s very little to speak of—no major support for investment, no meaningful capital injection into industrial infrastructure. The sector is, in fact, receiving even less than before.

Tourism? Yes, there are restructuring efforts and a substantial budget allocation. The annexes confirm considerable funding earmarked for promotion. But even with such initiatives, if we begin promotional campaigns now, we’ll only see the effects next year. So yes, there’s legitimate concern about whether growth will materialise as expected. Especially as we don’t yet see a clearly identified driver of growth.

Infrastructure spending has also dropped compared to previous years, and most of it concerns existing tendered projects—apart from the now perennial Rivière des Anguilles Dam, which seems to reappear every year. In short, we’re seeing fiscal austerity without a clear vision of which sector is going to generate real, tangible growth. We’re seeing fiscal austerity without a clear growth engine to match.

Anthony Leung Shing, the budget speech itself lays out a two- to three-year roadmap. And again, we see this recurring ambition of 4% growth. Implementation is the key. But let me ask again: is this a risky wager?

Anthony Leung Shing: Yes, when we talk about fiscal consolidation, we must acknowledge that tax measures have been taken. The tax regime has shifted to a more progressive structure. If you look at government revenue from both individuals and corporations, it’s projected to increase by 30%. But when we analyse public expenditure, it’s also rising. So where’s the sacrifice? Who bears the burden of these public expenses?

It continues to fall on a narrow segment of the population. The government has stated that 80% of people pay no income tax. This means the tax burden is concentrated on just 20% of the population. At some point, this burden becomes so heavy that it begins to stifle entrepreneurship. That’s the danger we’re seeing now: that this concentration of fiscal pressure on the few is undermining innovation, enterprise, and investment. The pie isn’t growing, we’re just slicing it differently.

There’s another important sector we haven’t touched on yet: real estate. In 2024, this sector contributed MUR 24 billion in foreign direct investment. Of that, 70% came from property development. Now, the government has abruptly changed course, winding down the Smart City framework without a clearly defined transition period. This presents a real threat to both growth and investment. Real estate is a strategic sector—it brings in both capital and foreign exchange, which Mauritius urgently needs.

While it’s understandable that the government may wish to reconsider land use strategies in favour of national priorities like food security, the structural and economic transition cannot be rushed. It needs time. The real question is: what will land be used for instead? Will we grow vegetables? Yes, food self-sufficiency is important, but is it value-generating enough? That remains unclear.

In short, I believe the government is sacrificing competitiveness and investment attractiveness to satisfy Moody’s expectations and reduce public debt. But the success of this strategy depends not on the measures themselves, but on how the private sector and investors respond. At the end of the day, policies are only as effective as the response they elicit. Without investor confidence, the intended outcomes will not materialise.

You’ve just brought up real estate. The budget introduces a capital gains tax on property resales by non-citizens. Is this a prudent measure to better regulate foreign investment, or is it likely to deter future inflows?

Anthony Leung Shing: We’re currently in a difficult global environment marked by economic slowdown. Investors have fewer funds and are more cautious. Introducing a capital gains tax specifically targeting non-citizens creates a discriminatory regime. I understand that the government wants to curb speculative investment, but many of these buyers came in under existing legal frameworks.

Mauritius’s success as an investment destination has been rooted in predictability and stability. These investors bought into a regime where there was no capital gains tax, and where transfer duties were set at 5%. Now, that’s changing abruptly. This creates uncertainty: they ask themselves, “Can I trust that governments of Mauritius will respect their commitments?”

It’s also important to mention that Mauritius has signed bilateral investment treaties with several countries—many of which include non-discrimination clauses. Imposing a tax on foreigners that doesn’t apply to locals could breach these agreements. The implications go beyond the tax itself—it raises questions about legal certainty and trustworthiness.

So yes, there is a real risk of slowing down investment. And while the government may wish to transition from a consumption-driven model to a growth-oriented one, investment remains essential to achieving that goal.

What about the perspective of the financial services sector?

Shahana Abdoulakhan: We mainly deal with management companies, but let me say this: if there’s perceived discrimination in the system, people will simply relocate. Investors will say: Why stay in Mauritius if another jurisdiction offers lower taxes and greater predictability?

Take Dubai, for example. There’s 0% personal income tax—whether you’re a high-net-worth individual or a low-income earner. Corporate tax is fixed at 9%, applied universally. If they offer this combination of stability and efficiency, why would someone stay in a jurisdiction where policies shift unexpectedly?

And Anthony raised a key point: has anyone considered the consequences if these companies or individuals leave? How would that impact the fiscal deficit? That’s a risk we need to factor in.

Even among high-net-worth individuals, we’ve seen this trend in the UK and France—when the effective tax rate becomes too high, they move. Who will stay in Mauritius if they’re taxed at 39% once their income exceeds MUR 12 million? All these factors need to be part of the equation.

Question from the audience:  Good morning. I’m Salil Deena, an artificial intelligence researcher. I’ve spent many years working abroad and have recently returned to Mauritius. Since coming back, I’ve been observing how the economy is evolving.

My question relates to the State of the Economy Report. We’re currently seeing two divergent interpretations of the economic situation—one reflecting the position of the former administration, the other from the current government. What I’d like to know is: are these figures independently verified by organisations like PwC? And how should we interpret these contradictory readings of the economy?

Anthony Leung Shing: As with financial accounting, there are global standards—IFRS, for instance—but within those, there’s room for interpretation. The same holds true for public finance. For example, not everything is recorded in the official public debt figures. Some liabilities, such as those of parastatal organisations or infrastructure projects like Metro Express, are considered off-balance sheet and therefore excluded from the headline debt numbers.

So yes, even when international norms are applied, different accounting choices can be made. With the recent change in government, we’ve moved from one extreme—where several liabilities were excluded—to another where almost everything is now included. It’s a question of methodology. Some prefer a conservative approach, others a more expansive one. Personally, I think the reality lies somewhere in between.

That said, whether public debt is 80% or 90% of GDP, it remains high. That’s what matters. The fiscal challenge is undeniable. Even if we debate the specific method of calculation, the relative scale of debt is concerning—and that’s the core risk.

So the question becomes: what is the country doing to address this situation? Yes, pension reform has begun. Yes, tax measures are being introduced to increase revenue. But fundamentally: is the national pie growing?

This is crucial. If we’re not reviving existing sectors or developing new ones, we’re simply dividing up the same pie in different ways. And that is a dangerous scenario.

We’ve received a temporary boost through the Chagos agreement—approximately Rs 10 billion per year. But how is that money being used? Officially, it’s meant to repay debt. But is that really the case?

Take a look at the numbers. As of June 2025, public debt stands at Rs 642 billion. If the objective is to reduce debt, we should see that number fall. Instead, it’s projected to rise to Rs 680 billion by June 2026. So while the debt-to-GDP ratio may decline—thanks to nominal GDP growth—the actual level of debt is increasing.

If we didn’t have the Chagos funds, given that spending continues to grow by 4% to 5% annually, the government would need to borrow more. Yes, the compensation is being used to finance the budget and partially reduce borrowing, but public spending has not been significantly contained. Where is the sacrifice?

In fact, for the first three years, 70% of the Chagos funding will go directly to budget financing. Only 30% will be set aside in a transformation fund to invest in economic restructuring. The rest covers day-to-day expenditure.

And remember: Mauritius spends around Rs 26 billion annually just to service interest payments on debt. So the real question is: how do we intend to reduce the debt burden under these conditions?

The underlying issue is the absence of a meaningful reorganisation of public finances. Without rationalising state spending or undertaking structural reforms, we’re locked into a model that will keep producing the same results.

Moderator: The term “precarious” is often used to describe the current state of the economy. Would you agree?

Anthony Leung Shing: The numbers are clear: public debt nearing 90% of GDP, a budget deficit of close to 10%. The government’s fiscal space is extremely limited.

What’s striking is that fiscal consolidation efforts have largely been concentrated on the revenue side. Taxes have gone up, duties have increased, but public expenditure continues to rise at 4% to 5% annually.

So the question becomes again: where is the sacrifice? The population is being asked to contribute more through taxes, but there hasn’t been a parallel effort to curb government spending. That imbalance is unsustainable.

Moderator: Let’s move to closing remarks from our panellists, especially regarding the expectations around the upcoming Finance Bill.

Yannick Applasamy: To be frank, Rudy, the Finance Bill will likely go through, but not without pushback. There’s pressure from various ministries and industries with urgent demands. We’re already seeing it in the highly sensitive debate over pension reform.

What we’ll learn from the Finance Bill is how receptive this government is to sectoral feedback. Even if we don’t agree with everything in the final text, the way government responds to criticism and suggestions will be telling for the years ahead.

One major issue for us in the manufacturing sector is investor confidence. Whether the Finance Bill addresses it or not, we must put a stop to erratic policymaking.

Last year, after the Budget was presented, manufacturers were told at year-end to prepare for a 14th-month wage obligation. In a labour-intensive sector, that sort of last-minute policy shift is disruptive and costly.

We understand the urgency of reforming public finances and the tax regime. But sudden fiscal shocks won’t help Mauritius’s reputation as a reliable investment destination. What’s needed is stability, predictability, and a long-term approach.

Setting up a manufacturing operation is a multi-year endeavour. You don’t build a plant one day and walk away the next. We need steady, well-signalled policy environments. That’s the message we hope government hears.

Shahana Abdoulakhan: We also need greater ease of doing business. In the financial sector, everything hinges on the blueprint. But more importantly, we need accountability.

Let me give you an example. The Central KYC platform has been mentioned in several previous budgets. But has it been implemented? No. Now it’s back again in this year’s measures. It’s a great idea, but where’s the execution?

Each ministry should have clear KPIs. We should be asking: are policies being delivered? Are stakeholders—especially investors—seeing tangible improvements?

In the private sector, we evaluate performance through KPIs. Government ministries should be no different. There must be regular monitoring and reporting to ensure follow-through. It has to be a two-way process.

Anthony Leung Shing: For me, the real question is: how do we grow the national pie? As Yannick noted, this is about more than just the Finance Bill. It’s about whether the government has a compelling investment and competitiveness agenda—and whether that agenda is being clearly communicated.

At present, the vision is not yet fully defined. Hopefully, the sector-specific blueprints and roadmaps to be unveiled by various ministries will provide more clarity.

In terms of the Finance Bill, I expect it to aim for a balance—on one hand addressing social obligations like pensions and welfare, and on the other enabling private sector growth.

But that balance is increasingly difficult to strike. Social demands are mounting, but if the economy doesn’t expand, we simply won’t have the means to meet them.

My view is that we must prioritise economic activity. Without it, there’s no value creation, and thus no way to sustainably finance social programmes. Long-term fiscal stability will only come through productive economic growth.