Author: Maryam Omidi

Here comes the biographical information

One minute to midnight for Maldives’ corals

From the air, the Maldives is a breath-taking vision to behold. White sand islands encircled by cerulean lagoons lie scattered in the navy sea. Delve beneath its turquoise waters and it is equally spectacular. A panoply of psychedelic fish, honeycomb moray eels, violet soldierfish and orange-striped triggerfish to name a few, flit among a treasure trove of coral.

But while the Maldives has grabbed headlines world over for being one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change, fated to disappear beneath the waves if sea levels continue to rise, its underwater Shangri-La has received little press.

If the experts are right, however, the Maldives’ coral reefs are in terminal decline. A UN report entitled The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity released last week in Berlin, stated the world’s coral infrastructure and accompanying biodiversity would be the first ecosystem to go due to climbing greenhouse gases.

Bedrock

The message is critical; the reality is grim. “Corals are the foundation of the whole ecosystem, the building blocks of the reef itself,” said Guy Stevens, a British marine biologist at Four Seasons resort. “If the reef went, the Maldives would cease to exist, the islands themselves would be eroded and washed away. Without them, there’s nothing.”

Anke Hofmeister, a German marine biologist at Soneva Fushi resort is similarly pessimistic. “We can always argue that the coral reefs are recovering… but there’s definitely reason to think the reefs will disappear…this is the tipping point.”

Their fear is not unfounded. Anthropogenic carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases continue to drive global warming. Add into the mix, the local hazards of overfishing, an inadequate waste management system and population expansion, and corals have little chance of survival.

The vast colonies of coral, the bedrock of the Indian Ocean archipelago, are formed by the calcium carbonate secretions of tiny creatures called polyps. Living within the polyps, microscopic algae, zooxanthellae, take carbon dioxide for photosynthesise in return for food. As corals die, their calcium exoskeletons turn to limestone providing the perfect foundation for new generations of polyps to settle.

Yet while it has taken nature millennia to create the chain of 1,192 coral islands, it has taken humankind just over a hundred years to virtually wipe it out. The country’s fragile ecosystem lies on a knife-edge as concentrations of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere already exceed the safe threshold of 350 ppm.

Humanitarian catastrophe

Failure to curb emissions will condemn reefs to extinction, leading to dire economic, social and humanitarian consequences. In the Maldives, both tourism and fishing, which provides 71% of national employment and 49% of public revenue, will be hard hit. “Our whole existence, our livelihoods depends on reefs. It is a human rights issue because it will affect our right to life,” says Hussein Zahir, a senior reef ecologist at the country’s Marine Research Centre.

The loss of the Maldives’ coral ramparts will cripple the country’s ability to protect itself against extreme weather events caused by global warming. A government report estimates reefs absorb up to 90% of a wave’s force. As one of the lowest lying countries in the world, the Maldives is particularly vulnerable to waves, storm surges, cyclones and rises in sea level.

El Nino, the mass bleaching event of 1998, was the single most cataclysmic event in the history of coral degeneration in the Maldives. Up to 90% of the nation’s corals in some parts of the country were killed following the three-degree rise in ocean temperatures. Stressed out polyps evicted their colourful tenants – zooxanthellae – and were left a ghostly shade of white. For Stevens, the threat of one-off catastrophes such as El Nino pose one of the biggest threats to coral reefs.

Accelerating

Although a natural phenomenon, scientists predict that as sea temperatures rise, such incidents of large-scale bleaching will increase. “The frequency and magnitude are linked with global warming,” says Stevens. “As we warm up the earth, we are playing with the natural cycles, upsetting the equilibrium. Before a drought in one area of the world might result in a flood somewhere else. It was a see-sawing effect, but now there’s no balance.”

Hard on the heels of the tribulations faced by corals is another more critical threat. In June, the national science academies of 70 countries signed a statement warning that rising acidity in the world’s oceans would lead to a global catastrophe. The scientists said the oceans were more acidic than they had been for the past 800,000 years and urged ocean acidification to be put on the agenda at the Copenhagen climate change conference in December.

Oceans have absorbed around half of all carbon dioxide produced by humans since the industrial revolution, slowing global warming. But an overabundance of the greenhouse gas has tipped the balance. The resulting high levels of acidity impair the ability of some organisms to secrete calcium carbonate. This applies not only to polyps but a host of marine creatures, among them, phytoplankton – microscopic algae at the bottom of the food chain, responsible for producing half of the world’s oxygen. “It’s quite alarming if we think that it’s the base of the food chain,” says Verena Wiesbauer, a marine biologist at Water Solutions, an environmental consultancy firm in the Maldives.

A minute to midnight

Despite the doomsday scenario predicted by many scientists, marine biologists at the country’s luxury resorts are hard at work in search of stop-gap measures to buffer reefs from further climatic hardship. Coral propagation is one such technique. Fragments of coral are attached to a variety of structures from cement discs to electrified steel frames designed to encourage the birth of new colonies. The results so far have proved promising.

But while coral gardening may be an important conservation tool, most marine biologists agree it is not a large-scale solution. “There may be localised benefits from coral transplanting projects but in the long-term we need to concentrate on how to preserve what nature has given us,” says Hofmeister. “Ecosystems have been established over so many millions of years and you can’t just rebuild that.”

For now, the consensus is that coral reefs are teetering on the precipice of extinction. “It is one minute to 12,” says Wiesbauer. “The problem is that economy will always win and ecology will always lose.”

The climate change talks offer a glimmer of hope. If world leaders are able to put national interests aside and thrash out a successor to the Kyoto protocol then coral reefs may have a chance at survival.

Failure to commit to drastic cuts in greenhouse gases emissions will sound the death knell for coral reefs and spell the beginning of the end for other ecosystems. As a microcosm of the world, the plight of the Maldives and its fragile reef should be heeded, says Hofmeister. “We see the effects much much earlier here than other countries,” she says. “But it is only a matter of time before what happens here, happens to the rest of the world.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Amnesty calls for moratorium on flogging

Amnesty International has urged the government of the Maldives to impose a moratorium on flogging as a matter of urgency.

In an email to Minivan News today, Abbas Faiz, senior researcher for South Asia, said the international human rights organisation believed the government should act immediately to abolish “this cruel, inhumane and degrading” punishment altogether.

“It is the responsibility of the government of Maldives to ensure that no one is sentenced to flogging, and no one is subjected to flogging,” said Faiz.

He added the Maldives was a signatory to the United Nations Convention against Torture as well as the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.

Faiz’s comments come in response to a Minivan News article published last week about an 18-year-old woman who was publicly flogged last week for pre-marital sex.

The woman was sentenced to 100 lashes and a year of house arrest after confessing to having sex with two men on separate occasions.

While the whereabouts of one of the men is unknown, the other has denied his involvement and both have consequently escaped conviction.

Statistics from the department of judicial administration’s website revealed that in 2006, out of 184 people sentenced to lashing, 146 were women.

“The law is specifically discriminatory against women,” said Faiz. “Official figures suggest the vast majority of people who are flogged are women. This shows that the law is specifically targeting women.”

Speaking in her personal capacity, Dr Farahnaz Faisal, high commissioner to the UK, said she was concerned about women bearing the brunt of the punishment.

“In this day and age we have DNA testing,” she said. “If there’s a case of a child being born out of wedlock, there’s no reason why a woman should be punished and a man should get off scot-free.”

On Amnesty’s call for a moratorium, Farahnaz said there was a moratorium on other punishments such as the death penalty.

“Sharia has never been applied to its fullest in the Maldives,” she said.

Flogging is one of the sentences under hudud, the class of crimes that have fixed punishments under Sharia law. They include theft, sex before or outside of marriage, the consumption of alcohol and apostasy.

The application of hudud varies from country to country. “Many Muslim countries have abolished flogging,” said Faiz. “This punishment can also be abolished in the Maldives.”

Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed said Sharia had only been enforced in the Maldives in the last 30 to 40 years. “The traditions we follow have been very very moderate,” he said.

In the past, he continued, Maldivians were too “squeamish” to enforce the punishments stipulated under Sharia.

Recalling the Moroccan scholar and explorer, Ibn Battuta, who worked as a judge in the Maldives in the 14th century, Shaheed said a number of Maldivians fainted when Battuta ordered a thief’s hand to be amputated.

While amputation was introduced in 1953, he added, it was discontinued seven months later after the fall of the First Republic and subsequent Penal Codes did not contain either amputation or stoning.

However, said Shaheed, flogging survived from a local tradition of punishing political opponents.

Shaheed urged MPs to adopt the new Penal Code as soon as possible. While flogging still exists under the revised Penal Code, it is reduced to a symbolic act, he said, clearly defining how much force to use.

“That should go hand in hand with a moratorium,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Opposition leader questioned by police

An opposition party leader was taken into police custody for questioning today after failing to respond to a summons from a controversial presidential commission investigating corruption.

People’s Alliance leader Abdulla Yamin was questioned by police for more than three hours over why he ignored the summons.

Addressing press this evening, Yamin said he did not exercise his right to remain silent: “I said I am not a criminal, I came here to give information, I do not want to remain silent.”

The six-member commission was launched by the President Mohamed Nasheed in May to investigate a series of damning audit reports revealing widespread corruption under the former government, including a report on the State Trading Organisation (STO) when Yamin was chairman of the board.

Members of the opposition have denounced the commission’s activities as a “witch-hunt”.

Legal concerns

Yamin told press he first received a letter from the commission on Thursday calling him in for questioning.

After failing to respond, police sent him a summons yesterday. He said he met with police officers at 2am today at the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party headquarters and discussed his legal concerns about the commission.

The PA leader said he told police the letter from the commission did not explain why they wished to question him as required by the law.

“I hoped genuinely that they would call me and give me the details. If they did, I could have gone,” he said.

He added his lawyer, Azima Shukoor, advised that he was under no legal obligation to comply with the summons. “I told police, the presidential commission hasn’t made any announcement that says if they summon someone that person is legally bound to obey,” he said.

STO audit report

Abdulla Haseen, a member of the commission, confirmed to Minivan News today that Yamin had been summoned for questioning over the 2008 STO audit report.

The 17-page report, covering 2006 and 2007, alleged widespread corruption. In the report, the auditor general wrote that STO’s main business transactions were made with a company affiliated to the management instead of through a transparent bidding process.

In another revelation, the report noted that US$5.5 million was pocketed by a family member of the ex-managing director of the company.

Further, the company made a loss of millions of dollars after selling off a luxury resort and a tea plantation for significantly less than its retail value.

The report also revealed the names of companies awarded interest-free credit and loans as well as a bogus purchase of US$467,000 worth of construction materials.

“He [Yamin] has a moral obligation to clear his name and his refusal to do so, raises serious questions about his decency and honour,” President’s Office Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair told Minivan News today.

Implicated

At the press conference, Yamin said he was summoned for questioning again today, but for a police, rather than a presidential commission investigation.

He said he obliged and gave a detailed statement on his reason for disobeying the summons from the commission.

On the STO audit report, Yamin said while he welcomed the commission’s investigation into his involvement as both the chairman of the company and a government minister at the time, a due process had to be followed.

“[If summoned about STO] I’d say we’d have to look through the company’s files. I’d say we’d have to get the managing director and question him,” he said.

“I am not someone who has the company’s archive at home. I am not someone who recollects everything that happened at the board.”

He added as chairman, he was not involved in the day-to-day running of the company.

Haseen, however, alleged that the commission’s investigations implicated Yamin in corrupt practices.

Responsibility

Yamin has now filed a case with civil court over whether the commission was empowered to issue a writ.

The commission has been criticised for its controversial mandate, which includes the right to interrogate any person, instruct police to confiscate a suspect’s passport, freeze relevant bank accounts and demand documents from any government ministry or institution.

Last month, PA Deputy Leader Ahmed Nazim’s office was raided by police and a court warrant was issued to prevent MP Ahmed “Redwave” Saleem from leaving the country.

While inquiry commissions could be set up, said Yamin, corruption cases came under the remit of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC).

Haseen said Yamin’s decision to file a case at court was unsurprising.

“We will defend the commission. Even if Mr Yamin is challenging publicly against the commission we will do our investigation according to our agenda which is very clear: our responsibility is to investigate the corruption cases and follow up on the audit reports,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment & Analysis: Democracy by undemocratic means

At the DRP press conference last night, a Minivan News journalist asked whether the DRP believed the former government was completely free of corruption. Ibrahim “Mavota” Shareef did not deny the existence of corruption but instead, swiftly shifted the focus onto the presidential commission.

“I’m not saying that,” said Shareef in answer to the question. “If there is any corruption whatsoever, this government can investigate through proper channels and through legal means.”

But shifting the focus was not a shrewd piece of political manoeuvring by Shareef. In fact, no manoeuvring was required because the government has handed the opposition all the ammunition it could possibly need on a silver platter.

The creation of a presidential commission with controversial powers has unsurprisingly made more than a few people question the government’s intentions.

Instead of its six members appearing as the caped conquerors of corruption as perhaps they imagined, the government has succeeded in giving opposition members the opportunity to play the victim in a radical role reversal. A journalist last night even light-heartedly suggested DRP and PA consider contacting the Maldivian Detainee Network as MDP activists had done under the previous government.

By creating the commission without any apparent legal consultation, on what appears to be a presidential whim, the government has further opened the door for the opposition to appropriate the language of democracy and invoke democratic ideals to elicit sympathy for their “plight”.

A DRP statement distributed at the press conference wrote that a reversal of the democratisation process was taking place as President Nasheed resorted to “unconstitutional and heavy-handed tactics to cling on to power and crush the popular opposition”. Worryingly, their words carry an inkling of truth.

The government has averted the spotlight from the previous regime’s misdeeds and onto its own. It has succeeded in obfuscating its indisputably lofty objective – reparations for embezzlement of state funds – by choosing a not so lofty manner in which to attain its goal.

But, the presidential commission is symptomatic of a far greater MDP malady – a utilitarian attitude towards members of the opposition, which allows party members to rationalise wrongdoing for the greater good: to recompense both for past injustices and to pave way for a democratic future.

Unfairly transferring an island chief before the parliamentary elections as a campaign strategy is justified in the MDP mind, if the island chief is notoriously corrupt.

But undemocratic means cannot serve democratic ends, just as antagonism will not lead to peace. Perhaps it is time to ask why the government does not have faith in the existing independent institutions, such as the police and the Anti-Corruption Commission, and how these institutions can be strengthened.

If the government wishes to settle past injustices unilaterally, a strategy in line with more conventional methods of transitional justice should to be devised so that democracy is not derailed before it is even allowed to take root.

All comment and opinion pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial news policy. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

Political parties scramble for independents

As the opposition takes the lead in the Maldives’ first-ever multi-party parliamentary election, the fight for the independent candidates has become more crucial than ever in determining where the balance of power will lie.

Persuading as many independent candidates to join its party may be the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party’s only hope of fending off its greatest fear: an opposition majority that will thwart the government’s every move.

Speaking to Minivan News today, independent candidate Mohamed Nasheed, who is winning in Kulhudufushi constituency, said money might be one of the factors in swaying candidates to join parties.

“There will definitely be a lot of lobbying and persuasion and understandably so,” he said. “I think the fight has already begun…there’s a lot of persuasion going on to take the platform of a party or at least work with them.”

Although the final results are yet to be announced, provisional results from the Elections Commission show opposition parties, the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) and the People’s Alliance (PA), have a total of 36 seats while the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has 25 seats.

So far, independent candidates are winning in 13 constituencies.

Battle

Addressing press on Sunday, DRP Vice President Ahmed Thasmeen Ali said the results revealed the combined victories of DRP and PA as well as the party’s endorsed independent candidates would amount to a majority.

Fisheries Minister Dr Ibrahim Didi said on Sunday the MDP was in discussions with “three or four” independent candidates.

“They will play a very important role,” he said. “Even now PA and DRP have an alliance so if we don’t get enough independent candidates we might not get a majority and it will be difficult to get bills through.”

Didi added he did not believe any of the candidates were truly independent and would have affiliations with one of the two main parties.

“Most likely they will join MDP because most of them have made promises to their constituents and they will need government support to fulfil them,” he said.

Similar views have been echoed by other party members including Mohamed Zuhair, press secretary at the president’s office, who said: “One or two hardcore independents may remain, but the rest will definitely get absorbed.”

DRP Secretary General Dr Abdulla Mausoom said the elections results showed the public preferred candidates who were aligned to a political party.

Mausoon said before the election many were sceptical about whether candidates would remain independent but he declined to comment on whether his party was in the process of negotiating with independent candidates.

Independent

In disagreement was PA leader Abdulla Yamin who said he believed candidates would retain their independence. “That is what they convinced the public and that is how they campaigned. For me to find out that they have joined a party, I would be very disappointed.”

Yamin said he would accept either MPs or members of the public who wanted to join his party, but added, “I think the MDP needs them more.”

Although technically still a member of the DRP, Nasheed said he would not be joining a political party and his ties with the party had been “severed” over the past few months.

“I’m definitely going to remain independent, but I will come to the assistance of the MDP for political reasons only if the opposition was to reject genuine bills or try to pass a vote of no confidence,” he said.

Members of the MDP have expressed concern that an opposition parliamentary majority will submit a no-confidence motion against the president.

Under the constitution, a vote of no-confidence can be taken if the president violates a tenet of Islam; behaves in a manner unsuited to the office of the president; or is unable to perform his duties.

“I don’t want this government to fall and I don’t want an opposition parliament to take advantage because of an MDP minority. I will only take the national interest at heart,” said Nasheed.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Titans of politics go head to head

Tensions are fraught in the capital Male’ as voters head to the polling booths to cast their ballots today in the country’s first ever multi-party parliamentary election.

Campaigning ended yesterday at 6pm, but before the deadline, cavalcades of pick-up trucks and motorbikes used the remaining hours to whiz around the congested concrete capital, garlanded in party colours and blaring out Hindi music for their candidate of choice.

Rallies over the past month have become progressively more heated, as the two titans of Maldivian politics, the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and the main opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), go head to head, each vying to win a majority in an election that will determine the legislative landscape of the next five years.

The outcome will create the country’s first democratically-elected and proportionally representative parliament, responsible for plugging the numerous gaps in the country’s legislation, and serving as a check and balance on the government.

Parliamentary majority

President Mohamed Nasheed’s fighting talk was more spirited than ever in his final campaign speech on Thursday night when he spoke with confidence of his party’s ability to win a landslide majority.

“When the results are announced, it will become clear we have won 50 seats,” he said. “We will have to use the power of those 50 seats humbly. We must make use of these seats for the benefit of the people.”

Nasheed said he voted for the first time last year when he ran for presidency; in previous years, he had been arrested ahead of any elections.

“As it turns out,” quipped the 41-year-old, “the only time I was allowed to vote, I won.”

Members of the MDP, which heads the coalition government, fear an opposition majority consisting of DRP and their allies, the People’s Alliance, could result in their political ambitions being blocked at every turn.

Moreover, whispers of an opposition majority passing a vote of no-confidence against the president have been rife.

Showdown

The election is the second showdown between the heads of both parties in less than a year. In October 2008, the country held its first-ever democratic presidential election, which saw Nasheed, backed by a coalition, snatch victory from the 30-year ruler, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Although Gayoom was defeated in the second round of the election, he won the first round with 40.3 per cent of the vote against Nasheed’s 24.9 per cent. The former president continues to have a strong support base.

Speaking to Minivan News today, Mohamed Nasheed, parliamentary candidate and former information minister, said the elections were more of a battle between two personalities rather than “two competing ideologies”.

Although still a member of DRP, Nasheed echoed the belief held by many that neither party should win a majority in parliament.

“There’s a genuine palpable reason if you give the majority to MDP that you will be giving them too much power and compromise the scope of parliamentary independence,” he said.

“In the same way, there is a palpable risk that if DRP wins a majority they may make government difficult and even at some point try and bring it down.”

Corruption allegations

Looming over the historic elections are widespread allegations of bribery and the abuse of power by political appointees. Reports of foul play from NGOs and the country’s various independent institutions have mounted over the past month.

The Elections Commission (EC) has received close to 800 complaints, out of which, 65 were related to allegations of bribery and intimidation.

The Human Rights Commission Maldives and Attorney General Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed have echoed similar concerns.

In Male’ today, most of the voters who spoke to Minivan News said they too had heard rumours of bribery.

49-year-old Adheel Jaleel, who was up early to vote for his party, said that while he had heard rumours, nobody had “been caught red-handed.”

At Arabiyya School, where voting was in full swing by midday, Elections Monitor Mohamed Ibrahim said relatives of one of the candidates had turned up to the polling station to strong-arm voters in the queue.

“I told them you cannot force people. Give them the freedom to vote for who they want,” he said.

NGO Transparency Maldives is the latest organisation to voice concern.

A statement issued yesterday highlighted three main problem areas: allegations of bribery (vote buying and vote selling), allegations of abuse of power (threats, intimidation, hindering campaigns), and compromising voter secrecy.

The EC has estimated at least 3,000 people voting locally and abroad could have their right to a secret vote compromised in situations where a single voter uses a ballot box outside his or her constituency.

Voter turnout

Although a low voter turnout was expected by many today, in Male’ certainly, most of those strolling around bore purple-stained index fingers.

Of those interviewed by Minivan News, only one, Abdullah Moosa, a vendor at Male’s vegetable market, said he would not be voting today.

“The candidates are contesting for their Rf66,000,” said the 70-year-old, shrugging his shoulders dismissively. “The elections won’t be independent as the candidates will be deceiving the public.”

Moosa, who voted for Gayoom in the presidential elections, described the experience as “the worst” of his life.

“Parliamentarians in the Maldives are backbiting. They don’t use their time to make the laws,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former government “used Islam as a tool”

Minivan News brings you the final instalment in a three-part interview with Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed. A founding member of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) and later, the New Maldives, a faction within the party which aimed to make the Maldives a liberal democracy, Shaheed has served under two successive administrations. In the 2008 presidential elections, he was independent candidate Dr Hassan Saeed’s running mate. In January, the pair formed the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), which is part of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) led coalition government.
Why don’t you tell me a little bit about this award that you have recently won?
I’m very happy to be named Muslim Democrat of the year. They’ve been looking at the work that I do. I’ve been very much in the limelight since the tsunami. I was the government spokesperson, trying to defend a reform agenda but I was putting it together as well. I am recognised as very strong on human rights and advocacy.
We had a government here which was very adamant on cultural human rights. I changed that round to put it into the international perspective, but in the end I also left them because you can take a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
The work I did in the previous government trying to move towards democracy and the work I did after being in the government, to pressure them and to build a coalition and currently in trying to sustain the government.
I sent a paper to the conference. The paper looked at what we were doing in the Maldives to bring democracy, but in particular how the former government had used Islam as a tool for control and how we thought we could dismantle that and make Islam a positive force for democracy in the Maldives.
How did the previous government use Islam as a tool?
The point is before the last regime came to power, we had a very relaxed regime towards Islam with almost Sufi traditions being practised here. But I think they almost Salafised it. Gayoom is perhaps a moderate in many ways but his language is that of a Salafist. Islamic brotherhood in Egypt is very Salafist in many ways.
So they used Islam for everything in the country, they used something Islamic as the benchmark to look at. So Islam came into every aspect in modern politics, it came into every ritual, in every political event and anyone who opposed the regime faced the danger of being labelled un-Islamic.
What was the impact on this?
The negative effects of this are it obfuscates rational thinking. Islam strikes a very emotive chord in people here and it doesn’t necessarily bring out the most rational thinking. It also presents in some ways an official version of Islam sanctioned by the government. What I mean to say is that Islam is in any case very diverse.
So you have a problem with an official version of Islam sanctioned by the government?
Imposed.
In an ideal world how should it be?
Well Islam has a lot to do with the individual and God. We don’t have to have an intercessory in between the two. But when you have secular authorities pronouncing on these issues, they mix the two. And one very unfortunate development is that when they drafted the last constitution in 1977, the Islamists argued that in a Muslim country you can’t have a separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive.
So the president assumed powers as the head of judiciary as something Islamic, which is not the case. Then again when it came to denying representation, they used Islam as the justification. They misused Islam for political gain, the primary one being the role of the president as head of the judiciary.
For now I’m very happy to be in a 100 per cent Muslim country having achieved homegrown democracy. It’s not something that was imposed on us. The movement for democracy grew in the country…we’re still trying to complete the revolution here.
(…)
We don’t think Islam and democracy are incompatible. We are also showing that an Islamic country can be pro-West. In fact, an argument you don’t hear from us but they quote throughout the Islamic world is that the West is to blame for a lot of things. Now you don’t hear that argument from us. We don’t blame the West for anything.
But we think there are things the Islamic world ought to be doing and can do to build bridges with Western countries. The point is we as Muslim countries must recognise certain things, like international law for example and the fact that we’re living in a globalised society and that there is the United Nations.
These basic things we recognise, the Islamists don’t do that. We are a country that recognises the universality of human rights. We recognise that Islam can co-exist with other values.

Minivan News brings you the final instalment in a three-part interview with Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed. A founding member of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) and later, the New Maldives, a faction within the party which aimed to make the Maldives a liberal democracy, Shaheed has served under two successive administrations. In the 2008 presidential elections, he was independent candidate Dr Hassan Saeed’s running mate. In January, the pair formed the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), which is part of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) led coalition government.

Why don’t you tell me a little bit about this award that you have recently won?

I’m very happy to be named Muslim Democrat of the year. They’ve been looking at the work that I do. I’ve been very much in the limelight since the tsunami. I was the government spokesperson, trying to defend a reform agenda but I was putting it together as well. I am recognised as very strong on human rights and advocacy.

We had a government here which was very adamant on cultural human rights. I changed that round to put it into the international perspective, but in the end I also left them because you can take a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

The work I did in the previous government trying to move towards democracy and the work I did after being in the government, to pressure them and to build a coalition and currently in trying to sustain the government.

I sent a paper to the conference. The paper looked at what we were doing in the Maldives to bring democracy, but in particular how the former government had used Islam as a tool for control and how we thought we could dismantle that and make Islam a positive force for democracy in the Maldives.

How did the previous government use Islam as a tool?

The point is before the last regime came to power, we had a very relaxed regime towards Islam with almost Sufi traditions being practised here. But I think they almost Salafised it. Gayoom is perhaps a moderate in many ways but his language is that of a Salafist. Islamic brotherhood in Egypt is very Salafist in many ways.

So they used Islam for everything in the country, they used something Islamic as the benchmark to look at. So Islam came into every aspect in modern politics, it came into every ritual, in every political event and anyone who opposed the regime faced the danger of being labelled un-Islamic.

What was the impact on this?

The negative effects of this are it obfuscates rational thinking. Islam strikes a very emotive chord in people here and it doesn’t necessarily bring out the most rational thinking. It also presents in some ways an official version of Islam sanctioned by the government. What I mean to say is that Islam is in any case very diverse.

So you have a problem with an official version of Islam sanctioned by the government?

Imposed.

In an ideal world how should it be?

Well Islam has a lot to do with the individual and God. We don’t have to have an intercessory in between the two. But when you have secular authorities pronouncing on these issues, they mix the two. And one very unfortunate development is that when they drafted the last constitution in 1977, the Islamists argued that in a Muslim country you can’t have a separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive.

So the president assumed powers as the head of judiciary as something Islamic, which is not the case. Then again when it came to denying representation, they used Islam as the justification. They misused Islam for political gain, the primary one being the role of the president as head of the judiciary.

For now I’m very happy to be in a 100 per cent Muslim country having achieved homegrown democracy. It’s not something that was imposed on us. The movement for democracy grew in the country…we’re still trying to complete the revolution here.

(…)

We don’t think Islam and democracy are incompatible. We are also showing that an Islamic country can be pro-West. In fact, an argument you don’t hear from us but they quote throughout the Islamic world is that the West is to blame for a lot of things. Now you don’t hear that argument from us. We don’t blame the West for anything.

But we think there are things the Islamic world ought to be doing and can do to build bridges with Western countries. The point is we as Muslim countries must recognise certain things, like international law for example and the fact that we’re living in a globalised society and that there is the United Nations.

These basic things we recognise, the Islamists don’t do that. We are a country that recognises the universality of human rights. We recognise that Islam can co-exist with other values.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DRP victory equals return to dictatorship, warns Shaheed

Minivan News brings you the first in a three-part interview with Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed. A founding member of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) and later, the New Maldives, a faction within the party which aimed to make the Maldives a liberal democracy, Shaheed has served under two successive administrations. In the 2008 presidential elections, he was independent candidate Dr Hassan Saeed’s running mate. In January, the pair formed the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), which is part of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) led coalition government.
Can you tell me a bit about your party, the DQP?
Our main goal was to usher in democracy to the Maldives and that still remains our main goal; to support the government, to support President Nasheed in ensuring that his government succeeds and to build and sustain democracy here.
But we were formed after the election period and we were born almost on the threshold of the next election so we don’t get caught in the cross-fire between the DRP and the MDP. We are a bit concerned about the resurgence of the DRP.
What kind of resurgence?
Four months back, we thought that there would be a parliamentary majority for the MDP in the elections but now it looks like that might not be the case and DRP is poised to take a fairly big chunk.
Do you think they will get a majority?
I hope not.
What would be the danger if they did?
Well DRP’s undemocratic. DRP doesn’t believe in democracy.
But you worked in the former government?
I was a founder member of DRP. I wrote the initial manifesto, which was torn up by some of my political rivals. So yes we were trying to build within DRP a pro-democratic coalition or force, the New Maldives, but the New Maldives had to leave the DRP and rump DRP doesn’t believe in democracy.
They must be held to account for their legacy of 30 years of misrule, they must be held to account for failing to democratise in time.
But you were in the government so doesn’t that include you?
Yes accountability doesn’t exclude anybody. I mean it. But I’m not saying everyone should be dragged to the courts and into prison. I’m talking about the rule of law here. We have to know what happened. The danger here is democracy is still a very new idea in this country.
For 30 years we have been brainwashed into Salafist thinking. And people don’t necessarily understand what various democratic doctrines mean. The separation of powers and rule of law are things not necessarily understood, even appreciated. I’m still not convinced by and large people will prefer democracy over autocracy if economic failure becomes part of democracy.
People still want a better life, but not necessarily a better way of getting to a better life. You choose democracy regardless of the government it produces but I don’t think we’ve got there yet. We’ve chosen democracy as a means to better governance. Not necessarily as an end in itself. So in that situation, the danger is, if an old guard comes back, they come back with the message that democracy has failed.
The J-Curve by Ian Bremmer speaks of countries which are autocratic and undemocratic and when they democratise, they go through a J-Curve and you go through a little dip. That dip is when things are unstable and things are a bit chaotic but then you eventually improve to become more stable.
So we are in an unstable period. The danger is in some countries, they move back towards the left and go straight back to autocracy. So if DRP comes back in we’ll go back towards the left of the curve. And we can forget about democracy for the next 30 years because they will tell us that democracy produced a government that didn’t work.
So my concern is regardless of who wins seats in parliament we must ensure that the people who get there respect democracy, respect the constitution, respect the rule of law, respect the people. We’ve heard signals, echoes, voices from the DRP rubbishing democracy.
They don’t dare make a big noise about it, but occasionally you hear these voices. When I was working with them, human rights were an expediency for them. It wasn’t an end in itself. It was a means to win accolades.
And left to their own devices, given a majority, they will want to retrench some of the democratic agenda, some of the human rights agenda as well. It’s like putting the Bolsheviks back into the Kremlin. No matter how bad it was post-Gorbachev, you wouldn’t put the Bolsheviks back in.
What are your thoughts on the current president?
First of all, I wish the president hadn’t said that [nulafaa – ruthless]. It wasn’t the most responsible thing to have said. But be that as it may, one reason everybody is so upset about that remark is not so much to do with Anni [President Mohamed Nasheed], it’s to do with the past president.
For 30 years we had government impunity, for 30 years, we had MPs locked up and opposition MPs have seen how nasty the government gets to the opponents so the problem for many of us is that President Nasheed’s comments echo those bad experiences. So the reason why it hit such a raw nerve is that for 30 years people have been locked up and had a very very torrid and tough time.
So that statement is insensitive to those experiences. I don’t think anybody today believes that with the separation of powers, with a hawkish press, that any president can act with impunity. Well the comments did seem rather Machiavellian to me but I find Nasheed’s bark is worse than his bite.
The first term of Gayoom when he wanted to be re-elected as president, he had to lock up several MPs and judges. And that’s how he won his re-election. And throughout his tenure, regularly MPs were locked up for dissent.
(…)
The thing about these comments the president made, his office could have responded better on this one. His office could have come up with a much clearer explanation of what he was saying and what he meant by that. I mean there’s a world of difference between a tyrant saying you’ll see how bad I can get to a democrat saying you’ll see how tough I could get.
It was the president talking tough trying to get people to vote for his party. I’m not defending him, I’m saying his office could have done a better job defending his remarks because he was speaking very candidly but not necessarily in a menacing manner. The audience reaction was a laugh. So it was a joke gone bad.
How much of what Gayoom was doing was known to the public at the time? Were people ignorant about what was going on or were they just too scared to speak out?
I think they were too scared to speak out. People didn’t have the means of expressing dissent.
Did people on the islands outside of Male’ know? How much information reached them?
With Gayoom, there was good and there was bad. There was Islamic and there was un-Islamic. And he painted things in a very black and white manner, so if you were in prison, you were a drug addict, an alcoholic and all that. It was never political. They were criminals, not political opponents.
In that sense, the picture people were told was that they had committed crimes. There was no alternative view and information wasn’t there. It still isn’t there. We’re still in a very fragile situation. I’m not happy with where we are. We’re in danger of sliding back either into a Gayoom-style autocracy by Gayoom himself or perhaps by some other person. We’re not out of the woods yet. That will happen when parliament is more accountable.

Minivan News brings you the first in a three-part interview with Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed. A founding member of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) and later, the New Maldives, a faction within the party which aimed to make the Maldives a liberal democracy, Shaheed has served under two successive administrations. In the 2008 presidential elections, he was independent candidate Dr Hassan Saeed’s running mate. In January, the pair formed the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), which is part of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) led coalition government.

Can you tell me a bit about your party, the DQP?

Our main goal was to usher in democracy to the Maldives and that still remains our main goal; to support the government, to support President Nasheed in ensuring that his government succeeds and to build and sustain democracy here.

But we were formed after the election period and we were born almost on the threshold of the next election so we don’t get caught in the cross-fire between the DRP and the MDP. We are a bit concerned about the resurgence of the DRP.

What kind of resurgence?

Four months back, we thought that there would be a parliamentary majority for the MDP in the elections but now it looks like that might not be the case and DRP is poised to take a fairly big chunk.

Do you think they will get a majority?

I hope not.

What would be the danger if they did?

Well DRP’s undemocratic. DRP doesn’t believe in democracy.

But you worked in the former government?

I was a founder member of DRP. I wrote the initial manifesto, which was torn up by some of my political rivals. So yes we were trying to build within DRP a pro-democratic coalition or force, the New Maldives, but the New Maldives had to leave the DRP and rump DRP doesn’t believe in democracy.

They must be held to account for their legacy of 30 years of misrule, they must be held to account for failing to democratise in time.

But you were in the government so doesn’t that include you?

Yes accountability doesn’t exclude anybody. I mean it. But I’m not saying everyone should be dragged to the courts and into prison. I’m talking about the rule of law here. We have to know what happened. The danger here is democracy is still a very new idea in this country.

For 30 years we have been brainwashed into Salafist thinking. And people don’t necessarily understand what various democratic doctrines mean. The separation of powers and rule of law are things not necessarily understood, even appreciated. I’m still not convinced by and large people will prefer democracy over autocracy if economic failure becomes part of democracy.

People still want a better life, but not necessarily a better way of getting to a better life. You choose democracy regardless of the government it produces but I don’t think we’ve got there yet. We’ve chosen democracy as a means to better governance. Not necessarily as an end in itself. So in that situation, the danger is, if an old guard comes back, they come back with the message that democracy has failed.

The J-Curve by Ian Bremmer speaks of countries which are autocratic and undemocratic and when they democratise, they go through a J-Curve and you go through a little dip. That dip is when things are unstable and things are a bit chaotic but then you eventually improve to become more stable.

So we are in an unstable period. The danger is in some countries, they move back towards the left and go straight back to autocracy. So if DRP comes back in we’ll go back towards the left of the curve. And we can forget about democracy for the next 30 years because they will tell us that democracy produced a government that didn’t work.

So my concern is regardless of who wins seats in parliament we must ensure that the people who get there respect democracy, respect the constitution, respect the rule of law, respect the people. We’ve heard signals, echoes, voices from the DRP rubbishing democracy.

They don’t dare make a big noise about it, but occasionally you hear these voices. When I was working with them, human rights were an expediency for them. It wasn’t an end in itself. It was a means to win accolades.

And left to their own devices, given a majority, they will want to retrench some of the democratic agenda, some of the human rights agenda as well. It’s like putting the Bolsheviks back into the Kremlin. No matter how bad it was post-Gorbachev, you wouldn’t put the Bolsheviks back in.

What are your thoughts on the current president?

First of all, I wish the president hadn’t said that [nulafaa – ruthless]. It wasn’t the most responsible thing to have said. But be that as it may, one reason everybody is so upset about that remark is not so much to do with Anni [President Mohamed Nasheed], it’s to do with the past president.

For 30 years we had government impunity, for 30 years, we had MPs locked up and opposition MPs have seen how nasty the government gets to the opponents so the problem for many of us is that President Nasheed’s comments echo those bad experiences. So the reason why it hit such a raw nerve is that for 30 years people have been locked up and had a very very torrid and tough time.

So that statement is insensitive to those experiences. I don’t think anybody today believes that with the separation of powers, with a hawkish press, that any president can act with impunity. Well the comments did seem rather Machiavellian to me but I find Nasheed’s bark is worse than his bite.

The first term of Gayoom when he wanted to be re-elected as president, he had to lock up several MPs and judges. And that’s how he won his re-election. And throughout his tenure, regularly MPs were locked up for dissent.

(…)

The thing about these comments the president made, his office could have responded better on this one. His office could have come up with a much clearer explanation of what he was saying and what he meant by that. I mean there’s a world of difference between a tyrant saying you’ll see how bad I can get to a democrat saying you’ll see how tough I could get.

It was the president talking tough trying to get people to vote for his party. I’m not defending him, I’m saying his office could have done a better job defending his remarks because he was speaking very candidly but not necessarily in a menacing manner. The audience reaction was a laugh. So it was a joke gone bad.

How much of what Gayoom was doing was known to the public at the time? Were people ignorant about what was going on or were they just too scared to speak out?

I think they were too scared to speak out. People didn’t have the means of expressing dissent.

Did people on the islands outside of Male’ know? How much information reached them?

With Gayoom, there was good and there was bad. There was Islamic and there was un-Islamic. And he painted things in a very black and white manner, so if you were in prison, you were a drug addict, an alcoholic and all that. It was never political. They were criminals, not political opponents.

In that sense, the picture people were told was that they had committed crimes. There was no alternative view and information wasn’t there. It still isn’t there. We’re still in a very fragile situation. I’m not happy with where we are. We’re in danger of sliding back either into a Gayoom-style autocracy by Gayoom himself or perhaps by some other person. We’re not out of the woods yet. That will happen when parliament is more accountable.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Gayoom should “step down from active politics”

As the first female MP and a stalwart of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), Aneesa Ahmed is a household name. Minivan News brings you the second in a two-part interview with the DRP parliamentary leader on the future of the party, whether she thinks Gayoom should step down as party leader and the auditor general’s report on Theemuge.
What do you think the failures of the current government are?
Very little consultation. This again as an outsider because I don’t know what goes on in the government. This is my perception. And president Nasheed says or does things as and when he fancies doing it.
He talks about cutting down on expenses at the same time I don’t see that happening especially considering the number of political appointees that he’s brought into this government during this period of five months.
He also said that if he was elected he would bring in people who were efficient, who are educated, into his government and try to administer properly. But I don’t see him doing that. I see a number of political activists who have had no experience, not only experience but also the education required.
What have the government’s successes been?
Pension for the elderly. Although it’s not administered in the best manner, he’s started doing it. There are a lot of grievances among those who are not actually benefiting.
I have personally met with people who have complained, saying because he or she belongs to DRP or because he or she was seen at DRP rallies, they are deprived of the social benefit. Just because they belong to DRP or are supporters of the former president. It’s wrong, that should never happen.
What President Nasheed is failing to realise is that he is the president now. He is not the MDP chairman anymore. Once he assumes the office of the president, he is the president of all Maldivians, so to him MDP member, DRP member, Social Liberal Party member should have no difference. As far as he’s concerned, all Maldivians should be equal to him but that again he’s failing to do.
And another thing I don’t like is that he is the president and he’s not holding the dignity of the president in MDP rallies. He becomes the activist he was. That again is wrong. People of the Maldives wouldn’t want to see their president coming to that level. He’s the president and he should hold that office with the dignity he’s expected of.
Not only the language but the way he speaks, his whole gestures. The worst happened in MDP campaign launch when he said all DRP candidates are corrupt. He should never have thought of that. Never have openly said that because he is the president. He’s the president of DRP members as well.
What does DRP stand for? What does it want to bring to people?
DRP would like to make sure that the government is accountable to the people. There’s a lot of people saying we want to bring down President Nasheed’s government. No, we don’t want that.
President Nasheed was elected by the people for a minimum period of five years. And we would like him to remain as president but we want his government to function properly.
And these promises that he’s making, I’m not saying that they are empty promises but they are promises that I am sure he knows he won’t be able to fulfil in such a short period of time.
Because first of all the whole world is in economic recession and we are a country that has very little natural resources. We have to depend a lot on external funding and it’s not forthcoming now so why would you want to go and promise to people things that you know you can’t do for a period of time?
And that he should stop doing and that’s what DRP should make sure his government stops doing.
What do you think DRP stands for now that it is in opposition and how do you think it is functioning as an opposition party?
Well DRP hasn’t been very strong as an opposition party. I think there are a number of reasons for it. Because we were defeated in the presidential elections and all members, DRP members just couldn’t take it. We’re more or less in apathy right now.
Also because we all know that this is an interim parliament so Majlis is not that active. And because of the eight presidential nominees in Majlis, things have been made pretty difficult because we lost the majority in parliament and the government members are very brazenly working to exercise the power of their majority in parliament.
All that combined, the DRP MPs don’t have the will or the motivation to fight. It’s a matter of time. So when the elections are complete we are hoping that we would have a greater majority.
I’m not saying an absolute majority, but we are hoping for a greater majority of the opposition parties in parliament after the elections and then I think the opposition will function as a proper opposition and hold the government accountable.
It seems as if the opposition feel as if it is their role to remain partisan at all times and take the opposite stance to the government no matter what the issue. What do you think?
That’s not how an opposition functions and we don’t believe in that either. Those of us in the parliament don’t feel as if we’re saying no or opposing whatever the government proposes. We weigh the pros and cons of it.
Do you think Gayoom should step down as party leader?
President Gayoom is the founder of DRP. And a large number of DRP grassroots members are members because Gayoom is there. They call it Maumoon’s party even. So to them if Maumoon is not there, DRP is no more.
So they will have no allegiance to DRP. So at least until elections are over, until things are a little bit stable, I think he should remain in DRP. But my personal view is that once this is over and things have stabilised, he should step down from active politics.
Who would make a good replacement?
That I can’t say.
What do you think about the auditor general’s report on Theemuge?
What I personally feel is if he has found discrepancies, he should not have come out in public immediately and get the Anti-Corruption Commission or the Prosecutor General to look into the matter and do it properly because President Gayoom, until he is proved to be guilty of the things, should be given the dignity he deserves as the former president.
Because there’s a provision in the constitution [Article 128 of the constitution states a person who has served as president without committing any offence shall be entitled to the highest honour, dignity, protection and financial privileges]. Because of that provision he should be given protection until he’s proven guilty.
I’m not saying that the government should not look into these matters. They should look into everybody, all of us, those who were in the government earlier. If they have any suspicions of wrongdoing by any of us, definitely the government should look into it. But these are allegations which are unsubstantiated.
So just because he has a report, I cannot say that he has really looked into all the areas he has to, which I think the Anti-Corruption Commission should do and then only if they find the former president and his government guilty of wrongdoing, guilty of misappropriation of government funds, then of course the matter will have to be taken care of by the courts.
How would you feel if the allegations turned out to be true?
I would be very disappointed. I would be sad. But whoever holds public office must take that responsibility. If that responsibility is not taken then he or she should be treated by law because it’s public money. You can’t abuse or misuse the authority that is given to you by being a public person.

As the first female MP and a stalwart of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), Aneesa Ahmed is a household name. Minivan News brings you the second in a two-part interview with the DRP parliamentary leader on the future of the party, whether she thinks Gayoom should step down as party leader and the auditor general’s report on Theemuge.

What do you think the failures of the current government are?

Very little consultation. This again as an outsider because I don’t know what goes on in the government. This is my perception. And president Nasheed says or does things as and when he fancies doing it.

He talks about cutting down on expenses at the same time I don’t see that happening especially considering the number of political appointees that he’s brought into this government during this period of five months.

He also said that if he was elected he would bring in people who were efficient, who are educated, into his government and try to administer properly. But I don’t see him doing that. I see a number of political activists who have had no experience, not only experience but also the education required.

What have the government’s successes been?

Pension for the elderly. Although it’s not administered in the best manner, he’s started doing it. There are a lot of grievances among those who are not actually benefiting.

I have personally met with people who have complained, saying because he or she belongs to DRP or because he or she was seen at DRP rallies, they are deprived of the social benefit. Just because they belong to DRP or are supporters of the former president. It’s wrong, that should never happen.

What President Nasheed is failing to realise is that he is the president now. He is not the MDP chairman anymore. Once he assumes the office of the president, he is the president of all Maldivians, so to him MDP member, DRP member, Social Liberal Party member should have no difference. As far as he’s concerned, all Maldivians should be equal to him but that again he’s failing to do.

And another thing I don’t like is that he is the president and he’s not holding the dignity of the president in MDP rallies. He becomes the activist he was. That again is wrong. People of the Maldives wouldn’t want to see their president coming to that level. He’s the president and he should hold that office with the dignity he’s expected of.

Not only the language but the way he speaks, his whole gestures. The worst happened in MDP campaign launch when he said all DRP candidates are corrupt. He should never have thought of that. Never have openly said that because he is the president. He’s the president of DRP members as well.

What does DRP stand for? What does it want to bring to people?

DRP would like to make sure that the government is accountable to the people. There’s a lot of people saying we want to bring down President Nasheed’s government. No, we don’t want that.

President Nasheed was elected by the people for a minimum period of five years. And we would like him to remain as president but we want his government to function properly.

And these promises that he’s making, I’m not saying that they are empty promises but they are promises that I am sure he knows he won’t be able to fulfil in such a short period of time.

Because first of all the whole world is in economic recession and we are a country that has very little natural resources. We have to depend a lot on external funding and it’s not forthcoming now so why would you want to go and promise to people things that you know you can’t do for a period of time?

And that he should stop doing and that’s what DRP should make sure his government stops doing.

What do you think DRP stands for now that it is in opposition and how do you think it is functioning as an opposition party?

Well DRP hasn’t been very strong as an opposition party. I think there are a number of reasons for it. Because we were defeated in the presidential elections and all members, DRP members just couldn’t take it. We’re more or less in apathy right now.

Also because we all know that this is an interim parliament so Majlis is not that active. And because of the eight presidential nominees in Majlis, things have been made pretty difficult because we lost the majority in parliament and the government members are very brazenly working to exercise the power of their majority in parliament.

All that combined, the DRP MPs don’t have the will or the motivation to fight. It’s a matter of time. So when the elections are complete we are hoping that we would have a greater majority.

I’m not saying an absolute majority, but we are hoping for a greater majority of the opposition parties in parliament after the elections and then I think the opposition will function as a proper opposition and hold the government accountable.

It seems as if the opposition feel as if it is their role to remain partisan at all times and take the opposite stance to the government no matter what the issue. What do you think?

That’s not how an opposition functions and we don’t believe in that either. Those of us in the parliament don’t feel as if we’re saying no or opposing whatever the government proposes. We weigh the pros and cons of it.

Do you think Gayoom should step down as party leader?

President Gayoom is the founder of DRP. And a large number of DRP grassroots members are members because Gayoom is there. They call it Maumoon’s party even. So to them if Maumoon is not there, DRP is no more.

So they will have no allegiance to DRP. So at least until elections are over, until things are a little bit stable, I think he should remain in DRP. But my personal view is that once this is over and things have stabilised, he should step down from active politics.

Who would make a good replacement?

That I can’t say.

What do you think about the auditor general’s report on Theemuge?

What I personally feel is if he has found discrepancies, he should not have come out in public immediately and get the Anti-Corruption Commission or the Prosecutor General to look into the matter and do it properly because President Gayoom, until he is proved to be guilty of the things, should be given the dignity he deserves as the former president.

Because there’s a provision in the constitution [Article 128 of the constitution states a person who has served as president without committing any offence shall be entitled to the highest honour, dignity, protection and financial privileges]. Because of that provision he should be given protection until he’s proven guilty.

I’m not saying that the government should not look into these matters. They should look into everybody, all of us, those who were in the government earlier. If they have any suspicions of wrongdoing by any of us, definitely the government should look into it. But these are allegations which are unsubstantiated.

So just because he has a report, I cannot say that he has really looked into all the areas he has to, which I think the Anti-Corruption Commission should do and then only if they find the former president and his government guilty of wrongdoing, guilty of misappropriation of government funds, then of course the matter will have to be taken care of by the courts.

How would you feel if the allegations turned out to be true?

I would be very disappointed. I would be sad. But whoever holds public office must take that responsibility. If that responsibility is not taken then he or she should be treated by law because it’s public money. You can’t abuse or misuse the authority that is given to you by being a public person.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)