The Maldives Police Service has issued a statement saying it will investigate “serious crimes” committed during the protest outside the president’s residence, Muleeage, and MNDF headquarters late on Thursday night.
The police statement also condemned comments made by opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Ali Waheed that police supported the protest, and accused him of “trying to take away the people’s trust in the police. Police will always be faithful to the government and fulfil their duty.”
The president’s press secretary, Mohamed Zuhair, said he believed Ali Waheed “may be right”.
“I believe the police force is largely composed of law abiding officers, but there is still a rogue element and this may be the element Ali Waheed is referring to,” Zuhair said.
“The [protest] coincided with the firing of several police including assistant commissioner Abdulla Riyaz,” he said.
“Not 24 hours after [the protest], police raided a premises (Marble apartments) where three state ministers were staying, after claims of a girl crying. They went through the apartments saying they were searching for forensic evidence that a girl had been raped. Three times they raided and the fourth time they came in plain clothes and were denied entry – I’m sure some of them were not comfortable with the recent changes in the Maldives and the fact that their former hero lost the election.”
Zuhair also claimed it “was within the resources of Riyaz to find out certain facts about the man who [allegedly] died in police custody, to try and rile up the crowd.”
“I suspect this was instigated [from within] the police. They were trying to make a similar situation to Evan Naseem.”
Riyaz was not responding to calls at time of press. Sub-inspector Ahmed Shiyam said police could not comment on the case during the investigation, but noted that the police operation to control the crowd had ultimately been successful “and police did not fail in any way.”
“People gathered at the artificial beach and proceeded to police headquarters,” Shiyam said. “Police tried to stop them but they broke police lines twice, before police reorganised and dispersed the crowd outside the president’s house.”
He noted that “senior parliament members broke police lines after police ordered them not to”, while in addition, “some people tried to enter the gate of MNDF headquarters, and MNDF has sent the case to the police. This is really serious to national security.”
DRP MP Ahmed Mahlouf, who acknowledged himself as one of the protest’s leaders, questioned police support for the government.
“We are sure that 90 per cent of the police and MNDF do not support the government’s policy or the president,” he said, adding that the police statement sounded “very pressured”.
“Statements on DhiFM that the protest was trying to overthrow the government were just not true,” he said. “We try to control our protests and ask people to not attack the police and be nice. I’ve watched MDP’s protests for almost five years, and they are very violent and they attack police.”
Despite accusations to the contrary, the protesters outside Muleeage did not throw stones into the compound, Mahlouf said, “as there were no rocks in the area”.
He acknowledged that some protesters had thrown sand in the faces of police officers – Zuhair accused “opposition” parties of “employing Indian and Bangladeshi expatriates” to throw the sand.
“I also saw that on the video,” Mahlouf said. “I do not support that, it was not something nice. But I believe that happened after police fired tear gas, while the crowd was very angry.”
He said claims that the protesters had tried to gain entry to the MNDF base and the president’s residence were “a joke”.
“Nobody would have gone inside, for sure. I was one of the people leading the protest and there was no plan to go inside the MNDF headquarters or the president’s residence,” he said.
“Saying that the DRP was trying to enter the MNDF headquarters is a joke. I am still mentally fit and would not walk into the MNDF base with guns [pointed at me].”
Mahlouf insisted that the protest “wasn’t organised by us” and it “never got out of hand. I was very happy with the way the police and MNDF treated us. We didn’t do anything against the law; we can protest where we want without informing the government. They can’t override the constitution.
“It is sad that Mohamed Nasheed’s government is investigating a protest when he is the president who gave Maldivians the right to protest,” he added.
Diva resort in the Maldives has been voted the third most romantic hotel in Asia by TripAdvisor, reportedly the world’s largest travel website.
The luxury Maldivian resort was placed behind of Cape Sienna Hotel & Villas in
Kamala, Thailand, and Samaya Bali in Seminyak, Indonesia.
The 2010 Travellers Choice award recipients were decided by tabulating the opinions of millions of real travellers from all over the world.
Travellers praised the South Ari atoll resort as “breathtaking”, “a heavenly paradise”, and “beyond comprehension.”
General manager of Diva John Mathis told Miadhu that the award was “good news” that will “further boost our position as a prime destination for romance and honeymoons”.
Despite only being open for two years the resort has already been named the ‘Best hotel in the Indian Ocean’ in Conde Nast Traveller’s Hot List 2009 and ‘Hideaway of the Year’ 2008 in German magazine Hideaway.
Privately-owned television station DhiTV is among six parties to have expressed interest in a joint venture arrangement with the ailing Maldives National Broadcasting Company (MNBC), which broadcasts rival channels including Television Maldives (TVM) and Voice of Maldives (VOM).
DhiTV CEO Yoosuf Nawaal said the station had approached MNBC and offered to buy TVM’s land for Rf100 million (US$7.78 million), “and they would pay us a monthly rent of Rf1 million (US$77,800).”
“We actually gave them quite a clean business offer; in terms of interest it was about 10 per cent,” Nawaal said, adding that DhiTV was only interested in the land not the property on it as “TVM’s equipment and staff are quite old.”
As for the broadcaster’s independence, “they would be running the show and we would not be involved.”
MNBC’s Managing Director Ibrahim Khaleel did not confirm that DhiTV was one of the interested parties but did state that one was “local” while the others were foreign interests.
“During last year six parties expressed interest, five foreign and one local company. But their interest was a commercial interest and not our interest,” Khaleel said. He added that the local company concerned was a “very established company”, and “if we do some business with them it may not be as a partner, but to share some services. That would be one way of doing it.”
He emphasised that media reports this morning suggesting that MNBC was selling its stations “are not true. We are not going to sell, and we are not looking to sell. We are looking for a partner for a joint venture [agreement].”
MNBC was currently trying to “reduce and restructure” TVM, he explained, “as at the moment it is an expensive operation.”
If the partner turned out to be another local media company, he noted, “I think we have to think about a lot of things.”
“Public service broadcasting is very important. We are trying to become a developed nation and that means developing not only buildings, but the intellectual community [as well],” he said.
“I think if someone was interested, the partner should agree that TVM and VOM would remain as public service broadcasting. We have to set standards and editorial guidelines, because it will be a problem if they are not there.”
MNBC’s other channels, including YouthTV and RaajjeFM, represented commercial opportunities for the right partner, Khaleel said.
“As well as commercialising YouthTV and RaajjeFM, they could create another channel or develop internet, mobile and cable [broadcasting],” he suggested. “If someone expresses interest we will sit down together and discuss how we can handle it.”
There were many successful models for running state media, he agreed, but Maldives was unique because of its small population.
“Everyone says the BBC model is great, but the population, technology and human resource situation is completely different here in the Maldives. We have 300,000 people, and the expenditure for a public broadcasting service is huge.”
The current program of “reducing and restructuring” would not affect the editorial quality of the state broadcaster because of the organisation’s investment in training, he insisted.
“We need to develop our staff. For 47 years of radio and broadcast there has not been a single human being with a diploma or a degree involved. We are funding 14 journalist diplomas and have sent 15 staff to study degree-level journalism abroad. Most important thing is not numbers [of staff], but quality and experience.”
President of the Maldives Journalist Association Ahmed ‘Hiriga’ Zahir said he was not in favour of foreign influence on local media, and that furthermore he felt “state TV should remain state TV, even if it was run with a much lower budget.”
“TVM’s budget is Rf100 million (US$7.78 million), they could cut that in half. I think the state would provide that,” he said.
.
Minivan News presents the first in a series of in-depth interviews with the heads of the independent commissions in the Maldives.
The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) would seem a vital institution to a government that was elected on a platform of human rights and accountability. Founded by former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom in 2003 it came to the fore following the death in custody of Evan Naseem.
More recently, HRCM has come under heavy criticism from parts of government for its unwillingness to investigate human rights abuses committed prior to 2000. President of HRCM Ahmed Saleem defends the commission, claiming it is misunderstood.
JJ Robinson: What do you see as the role of HRCM?
Ahmed Saleem: HRCM’s major role since 2003 has been teaching the population what human rights and democracy are all about. It’s extremely difficult – you know the pressure we have been under. We are a non-political body – we don’t take sides, and there is always friction with the government in power. That’s very natural. But while I don’t mind the opposition or members of parliament criticising HRCM, it becomes a problem when the sitting government criticises and slanders independent commissions. Independent commissions must be respected, because without these independent commissions, democracy cannot work. Our job is an extremely difficult one to do without taking sides, and I think we are doing our best.
JJ Robinson: What would be some specific incidents of criticism you consider to have been the most damaging?
Ahmed Saleem: It is not even in the interest of the government [to slander us]. HRCM doesn’t go on TV shows, and we don’t retaliate even if somebody attacks us – you’ve never seen us retaliate, because we want to respect even those who criticise us. When people like the press advisor to the president criticises the commission, that means the government doesn’t respect the commission and that’s a problem because this government came to being on platform human rights and democracy – the government can’t afford to criticise the commissions, least of all the human rights commission. There are times we criticise the government but that’s because we are obliged to do so by law.
The government should respect our criticism, find out what’s wrong and talk to us. We cannot demonstrate our independence if the government gives the impression it is trying to use HRCM to achieve its own objectives, like investigating abuses [under the former government]. For that we have suggested a way: a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
JJ Robinson: Groups such as the Torture Victims Association (TVA) and the Maldivian National Congress (MNC) have attacked the former president for human rights abuses committed during his administration. Do you think this is a productive way forward?
HRCM has been criticised for not investigating past abuses
Ahmed Saleem: [TVA founders] Moosa Ali Manik is my brother in law and and Ahmed Naseem is a friend of mine, so I know very closely exactly what happened. These are people who have suffered grievously, and I can’t blame them. I am not at liberty to criticise anybody. It it is the system – the system is wrong.
We must look into these abuses, we must investigate and find out who is responsible and who is not responsible. They have genuine grievances and I think it would be wrong for anybody to say nothing happened during the last 30 years. Abuses have taken place, and we must find out who did it, why it happened, and also find out how this can be prevented in the future. That is why we have suggested a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
JJ: Do you think the TVA was attempting undermine HRCM through its promises to bring in international lawyers to document and review human rights abuses?
Ahmed Saleem: We definitely support them doing that, but I don’t think it’s so easy. It doesn’t happen that way. They are saying they will take statements and submit them to international courts – it’s not that easy; there are procedures and ways of doing these things.
If they can do it we would welcome it, but I have my doubts as to how successful they will be without the support of the opposition. That why I always talk about a national effort – even if this TVA claim they are not political, the people involved in it make it extremely political.
There are people like my brother-and-law who are not political, but I know for sure what he went through. He was hurt really badly, and until recently he did not want to even talk about it. Abuses have taken place in the past, but only they know what they went through – we will never understand it. As a human rights commission we will support any NGO working to promote the protection of human rights as long as there are no politics.
JJ: A lot of people currently in power have gone through some terrible things. Do you think that at any stage those experiences can compromise some body’s ability to work effectively in a government with an opposition?
Ahmed Saleem: Yes, I think so. And I think it is worth making an effort. After all we are one people, we are all Muslims here and almost everyone is related, it’s like one big family. The Maldives is just not like any other country that has many cultures and communities – everything here is homogeneous.
That’s why I’m saying we must put the country first, otherwise we may create problems that affect the country and our very existence. But if they feel like [investigating the past] we should do it in the right way. We will play a major role if this Truth and Reconciliation Commission happens, but it will have to be initiated by the government.
JJ Robinson: You yourself were appointed by the former government, and as a result some of these groups have attacked your willingness to investigate past abuses. Has this position you’re in made your work more challenging?
Ahmed Saleem: Yes it has. But we are going to stick to our policy. If you have seen our law, we can’t investigate any issue before 2000.
For instance there is this case some MDP people are trying to pursue through us which took place in 1994. This particular issue has been up taken by my wife’s own family, the person in question is my wife’s brother-in-law, but it happened in 1994. It was very cruel the way he was handled, and we talking about an 80 year-old man. Putting him in jail and harassing him was completely wrong. They brought this case to HRCM and we had to say, ‘no we can’t investigate that’. Because if we did investigate, we’d have to investigate each and every case or I would be open to accusations of favouring family members.
If we take a case like this it has to really do with the sovereignty of the country – we can’t handle so many cases otherwise. Right now we are investigating the political abuse case of someone who is very close to the MDP, the high commissioner to Malaysia. He says he was abused, and we looking into it because that case occurred after 2000.
JJ Robinson: The Maldives is a very small country and you have many links here yourself. How has being president of HRCM affected you? Have you been subject to threats or intimidation?
Ahmed Saleem: We don’t have threats like we used to have. I was personally attacked, my car was attacked, I was attacked by people on the street in those days, when the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) was in the opposition. The previous government attacked me and my family, and MDP was very supportive of us. But this the life of a Human Rights Commission. That is what it was all about. HRCM is misunderstood so I don’t take anything personally. I do understand when people criticise on street, but talk to them and most people don’t understand what we trying to do. Creating awareness of human rights is the main objective of HRCM.
JJ: What kind of public support do you think there is for HRCM?
Ahmed Saleem: We don’t see anybody working against us, and understanding of HRCM and its work has increased. In 2003 when we came into being everybody felt HRCM was only about caring for inmates in jails. We visit jails because there is nobody else to care for [the inmates], but that’s only a fraction of what we do.
People who’ve never been to jail don’t understand what happens in there. We work very closely with government because if the government fails, we fail. We ensure the government does its job and respect article 18 of the constitution, but some in senior levels criticise us and I feel that’s not right. We have enormous support from UN Ambassador for Human Rights, and with this in mind it is very damaging for the government to criticise the human rights commission. Because HRCM could fail.
JJ: Is there a risk of HRCM failing?
Ahmed Saleem: Yes there is a risk. If we keep being attacked by the government on a daily basis we have an obligation to let our friends in human rights circles know this is happening, and they would not be happy about this. They expect a government that came into being on a platform of human rights and democracy to work with HRCM and other independent commissions; they don’t expect the government to criticise the commission all the time.
JJ: Why is the government criticising the commission, then?
Ahmed Saleem: Let’s be very clear. I don’t think the government as such has any policy on it – it’s individuals [in the government]. Sometimes we find it difficult to be mature politicians instead of activists. I think this is something we have to learn quickly – there are those in high positions in the government who must change themselves into mature politicians, because the things they say can have enormous effect.
As far as the president is concerned we work very closely and I have enormous faith in him. For instance, he has told me personally to ‘never ever give up on torture.’ ‘If you do that, the government itself will torture people,’ he said. He has gone through it himself.
The president keeps saying ‘If we never let go of the past we’ll never have a future.’ But then he might say HRCM’s work will never be complete until it has investigated past abuses, and the next day he says something different. I don’t think he himself wants to dig into the past.
JJ: Who are these individuals in the government who have a problem with HRCM?
Ahmed Saleem: There are a few in the government. I don’t think some of them even believe in the policies President Nasheed has issued. He is milder, compared to some of these people.
I’m talking about only a few people here; these are the same people who criticise HRCM and other independent commissions. You’ve never heard the president criticise HRCM or any other commission. He is more democratic than most of these people and he knows value of commissions. I have great confidence in the president, but he has a very challenging job.
JJ: What are some of the areas in which HRCM hasn’t achieved what it set out to do?
Parliament's two months of leave is "irresponsible", says Saleem
Ahmed Saleem: One thing I would say is the culture of torture. I remember a few years back, on human rights day, I said there was a culture of torture in the Maldives. During the previous government someone came up and said ‘you’re wrong, you’re making a very big mistake – there is no culture of torture in the Maldives.’ I stick to my word and stand by what I said.
You can still see it happening. But unlike before the police have changed; police tactics have changed, and they want accountability. We are working with police and the police integrity commission, and the police are giving us all the evidence we need because they feel we should be investigating [complaints].
But I can be 100% sure that the new government has no policy of torture. It’s been the system – it’s the system that’s been wrong, whether it was President Nasir, President Gayoom… under that system anybody could do anything and get away with it.
That’s not the case now, and that is why [the previous government] was a dictatorship – there was no separation of powers, there was no justice. But right now the nature of politics in this country is so divisive it is threatening the existence of this country. I think at some stage the opposition must acknowledge that violence took place in the past.
JJ: Let’s look at some specific issues around human rights in the Maldives. How important is gender equality to the country’s future?
Ahmed Saleem: I think it’s extremely important. I don’t think you’ll find any other Muslim country that has so little discrimination against women; even in the government there are more women than men. At the top levels there are fewer women because they started late – this used to be a very male dominated society.
We have extremely well-educated young ladies these days and I think we should be bringing more of them into the government. Women in Maldives had voting rights long before many other countries, and the only hitch we had as far as human rights were concerned was that women were barred from running for president – that’s gone from new constitution.
I don’t think any there’s effort being made against women being active in society except by conservatives – extremists I would say, who are a threat to the very existence of this country.
JJ: How has religious extremism affected the country? And how has this changed under the new administration?
Ahmed Saleem: I think there is more extremism [in the Maldives] now than then. I also think that unless we can bring it under control we are going to be in danger. In our 2006 report we predicted that there would be serious problems in society not because of politics but because of extremism, and that’s become very true – we see it happening now. People are misusing freedom of speech and expression.
We have had moderate Islam [for a long time] and most of us belong to moderate Islam, but there are a few – I would saw half-baked – religious scholars who are advocating something totally different. I think the Islamic Ministry has to take huge responsibility for this.
JJ: Do you think the Islamic Ministry is fulfilling this responsibility?
Ahmed Saleem: I don’t think so. They should be doing much, much more.
JJ: Where are these scholars coming from? Why has this suddenly surfaced?
Ahmed Saleem: We never thought of religious extremism as a problem, so nobody really thought of doing anything about it. Now I think the present government recognises the danger, and are even trying to restrict people going to certain countries and certain colleges.
I think that’s very good. This state is a democracy and anybody can go anywhere, but when it threatens the whole of society and the country I think it’s time the government takes action. I heard the other day [the government] is trying to restrict people from travelling to certain madrassas in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan.
JJ: How much of this happening because people are seeking higher education opportunities that the Maldives cannot provide?
Ahmed Saleem: This happening because the people advocating this kind of extremism don’t understand what Islam is. Islam is a very simple religion. I don’t think Islam advocates any violence – it doesn’t do that. But some of these extremists think any non-Muslim should be killed, for instance, which is wrong. They go on jihad to various countries – Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is highly against the religion.
I don’t know if this is anything to do with our education system. I think our own system should work on this, and try to [cater to] those who want to learn religion. I think the Islamic and education ministries should really think about how best they can handle this situation [internally], rather than have large numbers of people going outside the country and returning with different beliefs and only half an education. It’s a very serious problem that must be addressed.
JJ: Do you think human rights can be guaranteed under the current constitution?
Ahmed Saleem: Yes, I think so. We have never had a Constitution like this – it’s very democratic, but it’s not perfect; no constitution is perfect. I think it was done in a hurry in a way, and there are lots of changes that must come with practice. Our own legislation needs change – the Maldives is one of the few countries that has signed almost all human rights instruments, and there are so many laws that must be incorporated into Maldivian law.
This ought to be done by the Majlis (parliament). At a time like this, during a process of transition, there is so much to be done, and yet the members of parliament are going on leave for two months. I think that is very irresponsible – now is the time to do this, before people get fed up with democracy, before they start thinking that the former dictatorship was better because there was no quarrelling; there was stability under dictatorship. I don’t know why the Majlis has to take two months leave, and cannot take leave like we do. They are elected by the people why not take leave like we do? There are so many laws pending and so much work to be done.
JJ: Do you think the members of parliament are as informed about human rights as they need to be?
Ahmed Saleem: Democracy cannot function without rights. So much is missing because they are not in session. Some people are saying there is more peace in the country because the Majlis is not in session. It is going to take maybe 20 years to create the kind of parliament we are trying to imagine.
JJ: How much success has the media had in the last year in becoming independent, and what do you think of its current condition?
Ahmed Saleem: The media has developed a lot. But with media independence also comes responsibility – we need responsible journalism these days. I find there aren’t too many people who can investigate a report or analyse a situation and suggest recommendations for the government and independent bodies. People just go and report anything they want, and in most cases they want sensationalism. And they don’t follow up their reports – just one report and that’s it. The media needs to mature.
JJ: Until recently media in Maldives existed on government subsidies for quite some time. Do you think it is possible to have a fully independent media that receives subsidies from the government?
Ahmed Saleem: In order for the media to develop I think the government must provide some kind of media subsidies until they mature. The media is the fourth pillar of democracy, and unless there is a genuine and productive media I don’t think we can work as a democracy.
JJ: Has one of the failings of journalism in the Maldives been its political attachments?
Ahmed Saleem: The only problem is unfortunately we are still learning what democracy and human rights are all about. That people are misusing both is a matter of great concern – there is a limit to criticising the government and making the government responsible. I don’t think anywhere else in the world people call for the ousting of the government at every meeting of the opposition – you just don’t do that. I wish there was some kind of law to prevent that from happening.
JJ: Would that conflict with freedom of speech?
Ahmed Saleem: I don’t know, but at this time we must do what is right for the country. I’m not saying if the time is right the opposition shouldn’t call for a no confidence vote, it is the opposition’s mandate to do that. But not at every rally; you don’t do that without a reason.
It is a difficult situation for the government in power – extremely difficult after so many years without democratic rule. People are misusing freedom of speech and freedom of expression to a great extent, and that is a concern.
Police have denied asking DhiFM to cease broadcasting live coverage of a protest that took place outside the president’s official residence on Thursday night, instead claiming officers requested the station stop airing interviews featuring people calling for the government to be toppled.
A large mob of protesters marched on Muleeage just before midnight, after rumours of a police death in custody circulated around a DRP rally being held at the artificial beach.
“People were already angry about the civil servant salary issue,” said DRP MP Ali Waheed, who joined the protest outside the president’s gate and was later hospitalised after he was hit in the head by a stone.
“This was not a planned protest,” he emphasised. “DRP MPs (including Ahmed Nihan and Ahmed Mahlouf) joined the protest on the way to the president’s residence because we feel very strongly about the issue.”
Police eventually dispersed the crowd using tear gas. Three people were arrested but were later released.
“We don’t care who was leading it or what the point was,” said Inspector Ahmed Shiyam, adding that despite the large number of people clamouring at the gates of Muleeage “at no time was security threatened. Police were backed up by the MNDF and very senior police [were in command].”
Several police were injured, he added, including one who was hit in the face by an object thrown from the crowd.
Shiyam explained that during the incident officers approached DhiFM and asked them to stop airing live interviews with people calling for others to join the protest and overthrow the government through violence.
“We sent officers to tell them, ‘please don’t do that’,” Shiyam said. “They misunderstood, and I called a senior member of DhiFM and managed to convince him.”
DhiFM CEO Maassoodh Hilmy said plain clothes police arrived at the studio at 1:51 on Friday morning, showed their idenification and demanded the station cease broadcasting.
“I said we were not stopping,” he said. “We had two reporters at Muleeage and they were calling out [what they were seeing].”
Shiyam said today that police had sent a letter of complaint alleging that DhiFM had overstepped its status as an observer by broadcasting “calls for violence”.
“That statement from police is not good. They are lying, which is very wrong,” said Hilmy.
The Maldives Journalist Association (MJA) today issued a statement strongly condemning the police attempt to “shut down [DhiFM’s] transmission while it was carrying out the live coverage of the protest,” calling it “a flagrant violation of the independence of the media and the freedoms ascribed in the Constitution.”
“We note that police also forced other media personnel to stop covering the incident and leave the scene, which can only mean that this is a deliberate attempt by the government to influence media content and subsequently, public perception,” the MJA said, expressing further concern about the police comments regarding DhiFM’s conduct, “which seem to imply that DhiFM’s live coverage could amount to inciting more people to violence and that DhiFM carrying out its duty as a media could pose a national security risk.”
“We condemn such attacks on democracy and Constitutional freedoms and call on all authorities not to engage in such appalling action in the future.”
Legality
Independent MP and former Information Minister Mohamed Nasheed said neither police nor defence personnel were allowed to walk into a station and ask it to stop broadcasting.
“They were asked to either put the request in writing or say it live on radio. They refused and returned to the police station,” Nasheed said.
“The next day they sent a document with a police letterhead that was not signed [by the relevant authority], claiming that DhiFM took part in an unlawful gathering calling for the removal of the existing government – this is very strong language from the police.”
Nasheed said Maldives’ broadcasting legislation contained details for disciplinary action but was intentionally designed to include hurdles to make it difficult for the government to close a station.
“Broadcast licences are issued for a year and come with 100 points for every six months, much like a driving licence,” he explained.
“[In the event of a complaint] an independent content committee appointed by the information ministry will act like jury – if the majority agree a maximum of 10 points can be deducated for an offence, and to terminate a broadcast licence the committee must be unanimous.
“Only then can the information ministry ask police or defence to enforce the order on behalf of the committee.”
Nasheed noted that police appeared to be “now varying their story” by stating that their request was regarding certain interviews rather than the live broadcast itself.
Investigation
Police “strong denied” the rumour of a death in custody that triggered the protest, Shiyam said, identifying the subject as 32 year-old Mohamed Nooz of Gdh Thinadhoo.
Nooz was taken into police custody on Jan 15, Shiyam said, but was sent to hospital after he complained of “medical problems”.
“His family was informed and on the 26 Jan police heard his condition had become serious and that he had died that evening.”
Shiyam noted that no family members had filed a complaint about Nooz’s treatment by police, and that one family member had expressed concern that his death would “be used for political gain.”
Waheed said today that the DRP would be supporting an investigation into the matter after “the person who cleaned the body said he smelled something fishy about the case,” and expressed concern about what he claimed was police unwillingness to conduct an official autopsy. That person had gone to HRCM to make a complaint, he said. Waheed also noted the victim’s age as 24, differing from the police account.
He stressed he “was not saying people were killed in custody”, and added that the DRP “will never try to overthrow a legal government.”
“DRP MPs will only join reasonable protests,” he said, adding that he was not sure if similar incidents would occur.
“I wouldn’t know, that’s for the public to decide,” he said. “People are suffering from the reduced civil servant salaries and increased electricity prices, while President Nasheed is trying to take the tension out of these issues by focusing on global warming and the economic crisis.”
A group of Afghan MPs, “a government official” and seven people linked to the Taliban met in the Maldives last weekend for secret talks, according to a report by Al Jazeera in Afghanistan.
According to the report, the talks were part of an ambitious plan to bring peace to the war-torn country by offering cash, jobs and incentives to Taliban fighters in exchange for laying down their arms.
Afghan parliament member Ubaid Ullah Achackzat, one of the MPs who reportedly visited the Maldives last week, told Al Jazeera the meeting was an effort “to find a third way, a way for the foreigners to leave [Afghanistan], with the possibility of merging the Taliban with the government and the possibility of a cease fire – there are lots of issues.”
Seven of the men were reportedly part of an armed opposition group linked to the Taliban and held in high respect by the Taliban’s leadership, Achackzat said.
The Al Jazeera report claimed the Taliban selected the Maldives as the venue for the meeting “because it was the only place the fighters felt safe.”
“I believe that is a compliment to the Maldivian government and our pluralist policies,” said the president’s press secretary, Mohamed Zuhair, adding that he did not feel the comment would negatively affect international perception of the Maldives.
“Our government has a policy to include followers of all sects of Islam,” he said.
“For years other versions of Islam have been stifled [in the Maldives]. The president has said democracy is the best answer to keep fundamentalists at check.”
Assistant controller of Immigration Ibrahim Ashraf expressed a different opinion.
“If this so-called group of Afghans had a link to the Taliban, that is in no way safe for the Maldives,” he said.
“If people from internationally recognised groups such as the Taliban or other institutions keep coming to the Maldives, that is quite dangerous.”
Zuhair acknowledged that the government had received reports of sightings of “a group of people who look like the Taliban wandering around the streets of Male’.”
“Our stance is that the fact people happen to look like the Taliban doesn’t mean they should be labelled that way,” he said.
He admitted the government had noted the arrival of “a group of 20 people from Afghanistan” who were “quite quite closely monitored by the concerned authorities.”
“They apparently conducted a meeting amongst themselves,” he said, emphasising that the group had not associated with any group in the Maldives.
Ashraf confirmed the government had received some information about the group, but would not say whether this came from inside or outside the country.
“We do have a watch list and a very good system in place,” he said. “Those who are flagged would not be allowed into the country.”
He would not say whether the visitors were flagged.
“A lot of people come to Maldives and nobody needs a visa, whether they are Afghan or Israeli,” he said. “To my knowledge, they have now left [the country].”
State Minister for Defence Mohamed Muiz Adnan said he was not aware of the group’s arrival until he “saw it in the newspaper” and had no knowledge of the meeting that apparently took place.
Regarding the Taliban fighters considering the Maldives to be ‘safe’, Muiz commented that “irrespective of who says it, anywhere in the world a safe environment is good for everybody.”
An international conference on the Afghanisatan’s future is currently being held in London. Al Jazeera reports that Japan, the United States and Britain are rumoured to be spearheading a proposal to ‘bribe’ Taliban fighters to disarm and turn over to the government’s side.
Japan is said to be providing most of the money, thought to be between US$500 million and US$1 billion over the next five years, a far cheaper option than the annual $30 billion currently being spent by the US on its military ‘push’.
President Mohamed Nasheed has claimed the Maldives can learn from India’s economic success and the way the country has brought large segments of its population out of poverty.
Speaking at a dinner last night in honour of India’s Republic Day, the 60th anniversary of its freedom from British rule, Nasheed described India as “the world’s largest and most vibrant democracy, shining a beacon of freedom and hope around the world.”
The country was rising “peacefully” to take its place “as one of the 21st Century’s superpowers,” he said.
The founding of India’s news constitution had many parallels with the Maldives, Nasheed said.
“India took the bold decision to found a republic based on the principles of democracy and freedom. The new constitution enshrined democratic rights and fundamental freedoms, vesting power in the people.”
But he added that it would be “foolish to pretend that India’s transition was all plain sailing,” and suggested that the Maldives could learn from India’s experiences.
“I believe that the Maldives has much to learn from India. Just as India faced growing pains after Independence, so the Maldives has teething problems of its own.
“The new administration has inherited crippling levels of debt, stacked up in the last years of the former regime, our youth have been plagued by rampant drug abuse, and many in our society remain scarred by the torture and cruelty of the past thirty years.
“India overcame its growing pains by embracing its new democracy and respecting fundamental liberties,” he said. “Despite its faults, history shows us that democracy is the best guarantor of freedom, peace and prosperity.”
In particular, Nasheed said, “the Maldives can learn from India’s economic transformation.
“For too long, the Maldives’ economy has been centrally planned, heavily regulated and micro-managed by the government. This has prevented growth, repelled investment and thwarted people’s aspirations. By opening up our economy to the world, the Maldives can also enjoy economic success. ”
Indian High Commissioner to the Maldives Dnyaneshwar Mulay said India was “fortunate” to have a friend in the Maldives, “and I happy this partnership is now going into an economic, clultural and academic phase with the strengthening of health and education services.”
Mulay added that he saw “a huge large number of new things happening between India and Maldvies in next few years.
“We do feel India has a stake in the success and prosperity of the Maldives,” he said.
The Human Rights Commission to the Maldives (HRCM) has requested the government change Fishermen’s Day from 10 December to avoid it clashing with International Human Rights Day.
“Due national importance is not given to any one of these two days when both days are commemorated on the same day,” a statement from HRCM read, adding that while International Human Rights Day was designated by the United Nations in 1948 and has been celebrated as one of the most important days marked all over the world,” fishing was also the country’s second most important industry after tourism.
HRCM said it was making the request for the date to be changed after a group representing Maldivian fishermen raised the issue with the organisation.
“HRCM to do whatever it can to convince the government about the importance of this change as fishermen themselves feel they would be more comfortable marking a day on their behalf if they are allowed to celebrate on a different day,” it said.
Leader of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) and former president of the Maldives, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, today announced his resignation from politics ahead of the party’s national congress in February.
Gayoom apologised to the DRP and its members but said it was time for the “younger generation” to take over the party’s helm.
“The Maldives is a young country, and only will progress if youth become involved in politics and leadership,” the 72 year-old said at a live press conference held in TVM studios.
“I am not young any more. I have spent many years in office, and I want to spend time with my family. I need to give the younger generation the opportunity [to lead the party] – they are capable.”
Gayoom said he had been urged to remain as the DRP’s leader because people felt if he left many members would follow, and the party might even disband.
“They felt that if I’m not there the DRP will not win the presidential election. [But] the party is more important than the individual; everyone must focus on the party, not on one person.
“I have thought long and hard, and I believe the DRP needs a new generation [of leadership] to progress and strength. Many apologies to DRP members, but I would like to say I will not be running for the DRP presidency.”
The former president said he would remain a member of the DRP “and do what I can for the party”, but would not no longer take part in politics.
“I won’t comment on any political issues, but I will support whoever runs for the presidency. It’s important for the DRP to win the next election, and God willing DRP will win.”
There were many reasons for the DRP’s loss of the last election, he said, “but I don’t have proof of why the outcome was the way it was.”
He pleaded with the party’s members to remain in the DRP, “and join together to make the DRP a party that serves the public.”
Gayoom endorsed DRP vice-president Ahmed Thasmeen Ali as his replacement ahead of his brother, Abdullah Yameen.
“Thasmeen was my running mate for the last presidential election and in my opinion, he is the best [candidate] for the job,” Gayoom said. “But this is just my opinion. The leader will be decided in the DRP national congress.”
Reaction
Speaking at a dinner organised by the Indian High Commission this evening, President of the Maldives Mohamed Nasheed praised his predecessor for his decision.
“Today, as we celebrate the eve of India’s Republic Day, I also would like to congratulate our former president, President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, who, after ruling this country for 30 long years, serving to the best of his ability and doing so much good for this country, decided to retire. I wish him all the best, and I wish his party all the best,” Nasheed said.
Senior members of the DRP reacted with shock at Gayoom’s decision to resign.
DRP spokesman Ibrahim Shareef said “many hardcore supporters were shocked and I’ve seen a lot of people crying over his sudden departure.”
There had been a lot of petitions within the party for Gayoom to remain as leader, “but despite all this, from what I can see, Gayoom is quite sincere. For the past 30 years I’ve watched him both at a distance and at close range, and he always does what he says.
“I think there was tremendous pressure applied on Gayoom to remain leader, but in the end the decision to hand over the reins to the younger generation was only ever going to be his own.”
Shareef said Gayoom’s departure “would have a very small impact” on the party, despite there being at present “no political leader of Gayoom’s stature in the country.”
“A lot of people feel very loyal to Gayoom. I think he will remain as the spiritual leader [of the DRP],” Shareef said.
“There will be a new leader when the dust settles – there’s lot of young people who are highly educated and very capable.”
The defection of key DRP supporters such as Dr Hassan Saeed prior to the presidential election was a blow the party, Shareef admitted, “and that helped the MDP candiate [Mohamed Nasheed] into the presidency.”
“A year on, many of those who left the DRP have found their decision was not a wise one. Many people now see that [Nasheed] is not a leader they thought he was.”
Shareef acknowledged that emerging factions within the DRP in the wake of Gayoom’s departure might “certainly create some problems somewhere.”
“But Thasmeen is a candidate who has the ability to hold the party together,” Shareef said. “He is not someone who will apply the letter of the law and not go witch-hunting. He will not take revenge on the opposition.
“Yameen is a very able man with great vision, but different political leaders have different strengths. Thasmeen’s strength is that he is able to work with the opposition, which is very important. The social fabric of the Maldives has been ripped apart by the party system and everyone is out trying to get revenge.”
Rumours of a deal
Gayoom denied rumours that he had met with president Nasheed last night and agreed to step down from the party leadership in exchange for the government ceasing to pursue him for alleged human rights abuses committed during his administration.
“There is no truth to the story. I have not met the president, nor do I have plans to meet him,” Gayoom said.
Shareef also said the reports were unlikely: “I don’t think so. No one pressured him, it was his decision alone.”
A return to politics?
MDP MP Mohamed Mustafa said he did not trust that Gayoom’s decision was final.
“I would like to believe he’s resigned but I dont trust him. I know he has a hidden agenda,” Mustafa said. “He has been sucking blood for 30 years and now he thinks he can wear white cloth.”
“If he has good intentions, that’s OK. But he knew the government would not provide financial assistance [due to former presidents] and let him open an office [while leader of the DRP]. He’ll just build his resources and come back to politics in three years.”
Mustafa described today’s news as “a victory for MDP – I can say that. The DRP are quarrelling internally and won’t be strong enough for the [forseeable] future. Thasmeen is not on good terms with Yaamyn, and Yaamyn not on good terms with his brother Gayoom. I think they are splitting to pieces inside and in many ways this is good for us. They had billions, but now they are beggars.”
However a highly-placed source inside the government said “there is no jubilation here. It was very hard on some people when Gayoom publicly denied he ever harmed anyone, and emotionally [Gayoom’s departure from public life] will be good for them. We can finally put this chapter behind us.”
(0)Dislikes
(0)
