Category: Politics

Comment: Clearly rejected

Among the wheeling and dealings we’ve seen in the Majlis, the issue of Cabinet Ministers has been one of the most convoluted and silly arguments we’ve seen.

Can the Cabinet Ministers be questioned? Can’t they be accepted or rejected together? Are they just nominated or actually appointed? And therefore once chosen by the President, are they Ministers or Ministers-in-waiting? And in what capacity are they beholden to the Majlis?

Within two days the Supreme Court will decide on these questions. In two days, hopefully the drama will end, rather than begin anew.

Why are they going to court?

The Majlis has rejected seven Cabinet Ministers. MDP does not like this and would like all of their Ministers to keep their portfolios. Was approval necessary? Yes. Can the Majlis reject a Cabinet member without a vote of no confidence? Yes, but only when the President asks for their approval and acceptance of that appointment.

Nowhere is it written in the constitution that there is only one way to remove a Cabinet Minister, as Reeko Moosa suggests.

Article 101 of the Constitution states that a vote of no confidence is possible, but it does not say that a vote of no confidence is the only way to remove a Minister. There are in fact two ways: 1) A vote of no confidence; or 2) A rejection when appointed.

Once appointed, s/he is a Minister

The opposition claims that individuals were nominated rather than appointed. They claim that the President can choose people, and that those people would only become Ministers once they have approval. This is false.

The President does not nominate, he appoints. The moment those individuals take their oath by either the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or his representative, those individuals become Ministers of the Cabinet of the Republic of the Maldives as per Article 131 of the Constitution.

Article 131 states: ‘A member of the cabinet shall assume office upon taking and subscribing, before the Chief Justice or his Designate, the oath of office.’

The only thing that might be left up to debate is whether the Chief Justice could choose to simply not provide himself or his representative to swear the appointees in, and refuse to do so until each individual had parliamentary approval.

But in this case, Abdullah Saeed (Chief Justice at the time) did not do so. If you think back, though, you will remember that the cabinet was re-sworn at the same time that the MNDF had locked up the Supreme/High Courts and taken away the key. Not surprisingly, after Abdullah Saeed had sent his representative to swear in the cabinet he was given back the key to his office.

Nonetheless, once these individuals were sworn in, they were fully fledged Ministers, with every power, right, authority, and responsibility afforded them. All talk claiming they were just acting as ministers is just silliness. But if these people are already Ministers, do they still need approval? Isn’t it just a formality?

Approval or rejection necessary

Article 129C and D of the Constitution state:

C. Except for the Vice President, the President must receive the approval of the People’s Majlis for all appointments to the cabinet.

D. The President shall submit to the People’s Majlis, within seven days of making appointments to the Cabinet, the names of the appointees to the Cabinet for approval to the People’s Majlis.

Article 129C clearly states that the President “must receive approval” of the Majlis. Therefore, if any Cabinet Minister is rejected, then they are no longer Ministers of the cabinet. The only way they can continue is if the President swears them in again, where they will then have seven days before the President is required to send their names to the Majlis for a second time.

I do not believe there is any impediment to repeating this as many times as the President wants. Though I’m sure rejection after rejection by the Majlis would appear a complete farce in the eyes of the public.

Together or one by one

As to the issue of whether the cabinet should be approved together or individually, that is completely up to the preference of the Majlis Members. It is a tiny insignificant point that the constitution makes no reference to.

MDP thought there would be a bigger chance to get everyone approved if they are lumped together, because then DRP could be made to look stubborn and completely against all betterment of the nation if all of the cabinet members were wholly rejected.

One usually expects the entire cabinet to come to approval only once in a presidential term. It was assumed that after the approval of the entire cabinet, if a minister was dismissed, it would be done on a case by case basis.

But alas, that was not how things went down in this scenario. In this case, there is another instance which was particularly odd as well in the issue around whether Minister’s couldn’t be questioned.

Questioning Ministers

So, can a Minister be questioned? Of course, but only about the job at hand.

The opposition wanted to evaluate and judge each Minister before giving their approval. They claimed that a summons for this purpose required Ministers to come.

This is false. Ministers are only required to attend the Majlis for questions regarding their duties and responsibilities – not their qualification. In fact, under Article 98 of the Constitution, they can question any head of any government office if they so chose to. To answer falsely, or withhold information would directly violate the constitution.

The Supreme Court agreed with this evaluation in stating at the article in the Majlis rules of procedure that required their presence to judge their qualifications was outside of the constitution.

The bottom line and 2011 budget

The seven Ministers who were rejected by parliament remain rejected. However, until that rejection was decided by a vote of parliament, they were proper Ministers.

They were therefore required to answer summons that related to their job, but not to summons to simply scrutinize them on their qualifications.

The only way for the President to have Ali Hashim, former Finance Minister, present the budget is to reappoint him and swear him in. I believe Ali Hashim is one of our most capable Ministers, and if not for being caught in the crosshairs of political maneuvering, his position would not be in question.

It is a shame and a travesty that this issue is dominating so much of the public’s time and that these Ministers are losing their livelihoods over it. It is a shame that so many other bills that need passing, like those on drugs, evidence, and the penal code are left on the sidelines while we quibble about Ministerial portfolios.

While I have my own claim and object to GIP (Gaumee Itthihaad Party) not receiving its three cabinet portfolios in Economic Development, Education, and Fisheries as was understood in the MDP Itthihaad Coalition agreement, I still do not condone spending time on this issue when so many more desperate issues are waiting to be addressed.

There are procedures for cabinet appointments that should have been followed. There once was a clear understanding of how to go about all of this. But instead of it being a simple and day long matter, it has led our nation to constitutional crisis. Instead of following procedure we all now look at the constitution from a thousand different angles and wrest every type of meaning we can from every line before proceeding in the way most beneficial to us.

I am not a government apologist trying to hide constitutional violations, nor an opposition sympathizer trying to topple the government. I’m just trying to make sense of a now convoluted issue.

I pray that the Supreme Court protects the constitution and laws it was created to uphold and that their life time tenures ensures justice free of political sway and maneuvering.

I pray that we can move forward from this upcoming Supreme Court decision and find a way to create a whole government dedicated to the MDP Itthihaad manifesto confirmed two years ago.

I pray our conscience prevails and sanity finally reigns.

Note: Article 87 states:

A. Unless otherwise provided in this Constitution; all decisions made by the People’s Majlis shall be decided by a majority of the votes of members present and voting (Approval or rejection of Cabinet Ministers is done this way as it is not mentioned anywhere else.

http://jswaheed.com

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Website leaks ticket reservation for Speaker and DRP Leader’s alleged trip to Delhi

The Dhivehi Post website has leaked a document it claims is the ticket reservation for leader of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, and Speaker of the Parliament Abdulla Shahid, to fly to India for “secret talks” with GMR.

The website last week alleged that Thasmeen and Shahid had received US$1 million from Indian infrastructure giant GMR to cease opposition to the firm’s take over of  Male’ International Airport.

The booking, apparently made in the name of the two DRP MPs, appears to have been reserved by ‘FCM Travel Solutions India Ltd GMR’ and was issued on October 26 for travel on October 30 to Delhi, via Colombo on Sri Lankan Airlines. The cost of each ticket was 42,749 Indian rupees (US$934).

Minivan News can confirm that air travel arranged by GMR for Maldivian journalists visiting the opening of Delhi Terminal 5 in July was booked by the Indian corporate travel firm ‘FCM Travel Solutions(India)Ltd’, and is seeking to clarify the legitimacy of the tickets.

Last week Managing Director of GMR Male International Airport Limited, P Sripathy, told Minivan News the allegations were “totally false and baseless, and very disappointing and damaging to our reputation. We have never met any members of the opposition to date.”

Thasmeen and Shahid likewise dismissed the allegations as ”baseless and false”.

”Out of all the articles published by the Dhivehi Post so far, most of them are untrue,” Thasmeen told Minivan News. ”Like I said before, I did not go to India and I have never met anyone from GMR.”

Thasmeen said that the website was operated by “political figures” and their intentions was to split the DRP leadership and “smear its respect.”

”They are doing this for political gain. If you look at the articles very carefully and try to understand who runs it, it becomes very clear,” he said. ”I do not want to tell the media yet.”

Shahid n”I have not even been to India lately, they are all lies and false accusations,” Shahid said. ”It is a website that publishes false allegations very often, it is operated by some persons who stay hidden.”

Shahid said the aim of the website was to split the DRP and ferment aggression inside parliament.

The Dhivehi Post claimed that it was possible Shahid and Thasmeen would not have an Indian immigration stamp in their passports if they waited at the airport as a transit passenger, “and therefore could be considered as they did not go to India”.

Showing a rather detailed understanding of protocols attached to diplomatic passports, the website speculated that “as all the MPs have the red diplomatic passport, and any diplomat waiting as a transit passenger will be provided services from the VIP lounge, it would be very easy for anyone waiting in the lounge airport to meet senior officials of the company [without passing through immigration].”

The website threatened that “more proof awaits”, should Thasmeen and Shahid continue to deny the allegations.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Umar Naseer vows to take legal action against “government and opposition figures who took bribes from GMR”

Opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Deputy Leader Umar Naseer vowed to take legal action against “government officials and opposition figures who accepted bribes from [Indian infrastructure giant] GMR”, following allegations that surfaced on the Dhivehi Post website last week.

Speaking at a joint opposition rally on Thursday night at artificial beach, Naseer told opposition supporters that “those in the government and those among us who took bribes” would receive “just punishment” we will give just punishment.”

That morning the GMR-Malaysia Airports Holding Berhad (MAHB) consortium took over management of Male’ International Airport.

Naseer’s claims comes a week after local media republished allegations that surfaced in an anti-government tabloid website claiming that DRP Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid each accepted a bribe of US$1 million from GMR.

Both Thasmeen and Shahid, neither of whom attended Thursday night’s rally, have strongly denied the allegations.

“These allegations originated in an internet site called the Dhivehi Post,” Thasmeen told Minivan News last week. “If you go through it you can make a reasonable guess as to who they support.”

The website today published what it claims to be copies of ticket reservations Shahid and Thasmeen made to travel to India via Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Dhivehi Post claims that the two spent 55 minutes in transit at the Delhi airport on October 30 and returned to the Maldives the same day after meeting GMR officials at the VIP lounge.

Meanwhile, at a party rally in Kaafu Atoll Maafushi last night, DRP Deputy Leaders Ali Waheed and Ibrahim “Mavota” Shareef moved to defend the party leaders, condemning efforts by senior members to “divide the party”.

In an apparent rebuke to the party’s other Deputy Leaders Umar Naseer and Ilham Ahmed, Ali Waheed said that disagreements within the leadership did not mean DRP members should “hold rallies with other presidential candidates”.

“Given the state of the country today, the biggest betrayal to the nation and the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party would be to split up this party,” he said.

Defending the DRP Leader from the bribery allegations, Shareef pointed out that “if Thasmeen wanted US$1 million, he would not have had to take an indebted party onto his shoulders.”

In July, four opposition parties in parliament – DRP, People’s Alliance (PA), Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) and Jumhooree Party – signed an agreement to form a united opposition front against the airport privatisation deal.

Speaking to Minivan News last week, Managing Director of GMR Male International Airport Limited P Sripathy described the allegations of bribery as “totally false and baseless, and very disappointing and damaging to our reputation. We have never met any members of the opposition to date.”

“The GMR Group is in Male’ on serious business – to build a world class, benchmark airport that people of Male’ and the Group will be very proud of,” he added.

“Economic enslavement”

Addressing supporters at the sparsely attended rally on Thursday night, PA Leader Abdulla Yameen asserted that “auctioning off the airport below price” would bring no economic benefits to citizens.

Referring to the November 3 coup attempt in 1988, Yameen said that the Maldivian people were now experiencing “a second enslavement” in the month of November as handing over airport management to GMR amounted to “economic enslavement”.

Yameen contended that foreign parties were not needed to develop the airport as it made annual profits exceeding Rf200 million (US$15.5 million) and that it did not make “economic sense” to lease a state asset during difficult economic times.

“We built the airport at a time when we spent less than Rf50 million a year from our budget,” he said. “We should be ashamed today.”

He added that local businesses “could easily develop” new duty free shops, and that “it won’t take more than Rf2 or Rf3 million” to build a new terminal.

While building a new runway and alternative landing strip would have been “challenging”, he conceded, “replacing concrete walls of the terminal with glass” does not amount to modernising the airport.

Yameen pledged to take back the airport by moving legislation through parliament to declare “legal status” for the airport.

Other opposition figures who spoke at the rally launched vitriolic attacks on the government, lamenting the loss of “an airport built with the blood and sweat of the Maldivian people”.

Most speakers at the rally alleged corruption in the airport and accused the government of “selling off state assets one by one”.

While DRP MP Ali Arif said that President Mohamed Nasheed “deserves every obscene word in the Dhivehi language,” MP Ahmed Mahlouf alleged that “GMR gave large amounts of money in bribes to the MDP campaign” to secure the deal.

The government has meanwhile flatly denied accusations of any wrongdoing, pointing out that the transaction was overseen by the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the financial arm of the World Bank.

Moreover, the government has alleged that opposition to the airport deal stems from the “vested interests” of certain MPs, several of whom it arrested following the resignation of cabinet on June 29 in protest against the “scorched earth politics” of the opposition-majority parliament.

The fuel trade is the most immediately lucrative part of the airport deal, Minivan News understands, and is a key reason behind both GMR’s interest and the government’s decision to award the contract to the Indian infrastructure giant. GMR has told Minivan News it will amalgamate the trade under one umbrella, a decision that will likely affect current third party suppliers.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Supreme Court has “no authority to dismiss ministers”, claims Reeko Moosa

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) parliamentary group leader and MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik has claimed that the Supreme Court has no authority to dismiss ministers from their positions.

“MPs have the power to dismiss Supreme Court judges, and the Supreme Court will understand that the panel consists of judges we appointed,” Moosa said. ”Parliament does not know how to remove ministers from their position,” he claimed.

The matter saw parliament proceedings derailed for three weeks on points of order. Eventually the MDP boycotted the endorsement process during the vote last Monday, and seven ministers were ‘disapproved’.

The government meanwhile contends that the only way to remove a minister from their position is through a no-confidence motion.

However, the opposition believes that the procedure of cabinet appointments remains incomplete without the consent of parliament, and that ministers should not remain in office after the parliament disapproves them.

After disputes last week, the opposition filed the case in the Supreme Court.

Referring to the opposition’s refusal on Finance minister presenting the budget, Moosa said that if the opposition MPs obstructed Finance Minister Ali Hashim from entering the parliament ”he will enter the parliament with the citizens of the nation.”

Moosa also alleged that DRP MPs planned “to attack” Hashim if he entered the parliament to present the budget.

”If DRP committed any such actions, no ministers will remain silent. I – Moosa Manik – and MDP activists will go to their houses.”

However, DRP MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom said that Hashim was a ‘former’ minister and former ministers cannot present the state’s budget in parliament.

”A person becomes a minister only after the person successfully passes the three procedures: presidential appointment, parliamentary consent and taking the oath,” Mausoom said. ”[Moosa] Hecannot say that the courts have no authority – courts have full authority to make the best decision to resolve every issue.”

Mausoom said Moosa’s remarks reveals how much the government disregards the constitution and laws.

”This issue should have long been resolved if some people did not have these issues of stubbornness,” he said.

He also said that parliament speaks the citizen’s words and ”participation of citizens is required in sincere good governance.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Letter on lack of veterinary surgeons

Dear editor,

As a member of the facebook group ‘Maldivian Cataholics’, which aims to improve the living conditions of cats in Malé, both homeless and privately owned, I am trying to help as much as possible by being the group’s remote veterinary surgeon.

Via e-mail, facebook, telephone and Skype(video) am I trying to diagnose and prescribe and suggest treatments of individual cats presented to me. All this from my home in Denmark, as I am told,that there is no resident veterinary surgeon available in the Republic of Maldives, and therefore no alternative to my services.

This situation is not optimal and sometimes very frustrating for the cat owner as well as the person, who is trying to help a homeless cat and also for me.

I am therefore planning to establish an emergency veterinary clinic in Malé or perhaps on Hulhule near the quarantine department.

For that reason I will apply to be registered as a veterinary surgeon in the Republic of Maldives and obtain a licence to be allowed to import the necessary veterinary medicine.

A number of Danish veterinary surgeons have shown interest in supporting the project by spending working holidays in The Maldives and assist in such a clinic.

The aim of the emergency clinic is planned to treat sick and injured cats and to neuter as many as possible to reduce the now uncontrolled reproduction, which eventually will reduce the problem with unwanted cats.
The clinic will be a non profit enterprise based on sponsors and private means.

This leads to the cause of this letter:

I am sure that information of this project to the Maldivian public is very important. If I succeed to establish the planned clinic, Maldivians should be made aware that veterinary services now are available and that donations and sponsorships will be welcomed.

One owner of a cat I have treated remotely, stated – and I quote:

“The idea of having a pet in Maldives itself should not be encouraged, what good is it to have a pet, when we don’t have the necessary facilities to treat the pet if the necessity arises.”

My access to the Maldives is due to our two sons having lived there for a number of years, one was a diving instructor on various resorts for 12 years, and the other is a pilot and Flight Operation Manager at Maldivian Air Taxi. My wife and I have visited them several times and have very positive feelings about your country

I hope this letter will be met with some interest by you editors, and that Minivan will treat it accordingly and promote the plans of a veterinary clinic.

Sincerely yours

Søren Nielsen
Veterinary surgeon
[email protected]

All letters are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write a letter, please submit it to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Letter in response to advertorial story

Dear Editor,

This is in response to your article of November 25, 2010, entitled “Advertorial ‘media pirates’ set sail for Maldives.” I’m sure you are aware that calling us pirates is in essence calling us thieves, which as you well know is slander. I would like to set the record straight about Star Communications’ presence and activity in Maldives and provide accurate facts about our company and ask that you provide an honest solution to the problem you have created for our company.

As a credible news source or journalist it is your responsibility first and foremost to gather all information and hear all sides to any story. I am surprised that Star Communications was never contacted before you published this article. With all the information that you “provide” on our behalf, not once did you have the consideration to speak to us directly, why is that?

We would have been more than receptive to discuss any questions/concerns you might have had regarding our promotional report we are preparing on the Maldives. It is misleading readers to quote only one unnamed source and refer only to an undated article that has nothing to do with our agency. Furthermore our employee who is currently in the Maldives would have also been open to speak with you. We have never been contacted nor solicited for information. As you can imagine the article you published is not only damaging to our companies’ reputation but to our clients who understand that international exposure is highly beneficial for their respective companies.

We are unaware of the problems that you or the Government may have had with other companies or publications and find it unfair and misleading to compare or align us with any other company. We are a specialized media agency that was started in 2002 and we work with leading publications worldwide, including international reputable media such as NEWSWEEK, FOREIGN POLICY and CNBC MAGAZINE to name a few.

We take pride in our work and our ability to help companies and institutions communicate globally and understand the lack of information that exists about many developing countries, which are benefited through positive promotional international coverage. Our experience is that this industry creates opportunities rather than pirating as you misleadingly suggest.

Our project in the Maldives arose as the result of a meeting with the Head of Political and Commonwealth Affairs and Political Affairs officer from the High Commission in London on 15th September 2010, where we discussed our intention to produce a promotional feature on the country for CNBC Business which will be published in the January/February special double issue of CNBC.

This special edition has extra distribution at the World Economic Forum in Davos plus the ITB Fair in Berlin. You are correct in stating that the normal readership of CNBC is 670,000 readers but this is for a single monthly edition and does not apply to this specific issue. The Golden envelope distribution which starts with the current December Edition of CNBC can also be confirmed at the CNBC website.

We went through the official and correct channels. We received the full support of High Commission and have subsequently held various meetings in Maldives with government officials. Hence, while there may have been a blacklist in operation last year, as you allege, which affected other companies, we have been granted official approval to market our product in Maldives in 2010.

At no time, however, have we attempted to sell advertising to government officials in Maldives and have only offered the opportunity to purchase space to public and private-owned companies. Their choice on whether or not to do so is entirely at their discretion, and we have no leverage whatsoever on their decisions.

Whilst in the Maldives we have carried out our work with the utmost rigorous professionalism, we feel confident that our past reports in countries across the globe such as Canada, Mexico, Malta, Turkey, Turks & Caicos, Egypt, Spain and Ghana have been highly regarded. Please find attached some recommendation letters from Highly Ranked Officials and CEO’s who have highly praised our work over the years.

We have always clearly stated that we are Star Communications creating a special promotional feature to be published in CNBC. We even provide a letter from the media that proves our association. (This is the letter you refer to in your article, and it is clear our relationship to the media). To complete the information let me state that Star Communications is, as you acknowledge, an authorised representative of CNBC Business magazine, as the referral letter from its Commercial Director, Kevin Rolfe, clearly reads.

As such, we do sell advertising space with the express permission of the publication, and do produce a promotional product – which we variously refer to as special reports, special sections, or special features – which comprises advertising and editorial elements. We do not, however, purport to be journalists; we are journalists with a track record of interviewing Presidents, Ministers and CEO’s over the 5 continents.

Your reference to a team in the Maldives and some very derogative and sexist selling techniques is out of line and clearly doesn’t apply to our sole representative who works under the title of “Project Director” and carries an impeccable record of over 5 years in this industry. As you imply by association we want to clarify that we don’t have any relationship whatsoever with NOA (AFA), nor any of the media titles mentioned in your article.

Regarding our pricing we would be more than happy to meet with you and show you our rate card and discuss the different pricing alternatives and justify our prices. I can confirm that no single entity has been offered a single page for 70k USD.

Clearly, the extension of our coverage depends on the amount of advertising space sold, just as it does with any other kind of promotional publication. The more space purchased, the longer our special feature will be. The tone, however, is not dependent on the amount of space sold, but, rather, on our editorial criteria. And at a later stage the media’s criteria, as the final product has to be approved by the editorial team of CNBC.

In your article you also question the possibility of finding us in google, which is strange as it clearly appears within the first 8 hits if you type Star Communications. As well you infer a sense of illegality to the fact that the company is based out of Ireland, which is a reputable European Union member that you try to portray as an offshore tax evasion destination.

Your article has already raised concerns for some of our clients who have copied and pasted the article to us. We ask you to have the decency to contact us directly and get the facts and report on these. This would be the honest and fair path forward. We URGE you to publish a retraction. We thank you in advance for your consideration and appeal to your sense of journalistic integrity to present the facts to your readers instead of a “fast sell” by slandering our agency as pirates. It is unfair and unjust, and completely without disregard to not have picked up the phone and spoken to us prior to publishing this. We await your comments.

Yours sincerely,

Christina Hays
Managing Director
Star Communications

All letters are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write a letter, please submit it to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Opposition parties seek Supreme Court order to remove ministers

Opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party-People’s Alliance (DRP-PA) coalition has filed a case in the Supreme Court seeking a court order to declare that ministers who did not receive parliamentary consent should be removed their posts.

The case was filed at the Supreme Court by DRP Deputy Leader MP Ali Waheed and PA Deputy Leader Moosa Zameer.

Former Attorney General and DRP Council Member Azima Shukoor will argue the opposition’s case in court.

PA Secretary General Ahmed Shareef told Minivan News today that the constitution was very clear on the matter: ”Parliament’s consent is required for cabinet ministers to remain in their position. It is the spirit of the constitution.”

He added that the minutes of the Special Majlis debates on the issue adds weight to the opposition’s position.

”It is unlawful for those in the cabinet who did not get consent of parliament to remain in their positions,” he added.

Following weeks of political stalemate, parliament voted this week voted to approve five out of 12 cabinet ministers reappointed by President Mohamed Nasheed in July.

After MPs of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) boycotted the sitting before voting began, the remaining MPs voted against the nominees Finance Minister Ali Hashim, Education Minister Dr Musthafa Luthfy, Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed, Fisheries Minister Dr Ibrahim Didi, Home Minister Mohamed Shihab, Defence Minister Ameen Faisal and Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad.

The government however insists that as none of the ministerial appointees received 39 votes against – the majority required to pass a no-confidence motion – all cabinet members shall remain in their posts.

Meanwhile, Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed, Legal Reform Minister under the former government, told Minivan News yesterday that the dispute over cabinet endorsement highlighted “defects” in the process.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Advertorial ‘media pirates’ set sale for Maldives

Business and government bodies in the Maldives are being targeted by ‘media pirates’, or ‘supplement hustlers’, who arrive in the country posing as journalists and then sell (‘sublet’) advertising space in a well-regarded overseas publication for a significantly inflated premium over the publication’s actual ad-tariff.

The ‘journalists’ approach senior members of government and key businesspeople, usually in an emerging country desperate to expand its appeal to foreign investors, and leverage one personality against another over several weeks to sell the ‘advertorial’ at a premium.

A circulated report on the ethically-dubious but not illegal practice, produced by the Financial Times newspaper and obtained by Minivan News, observes that “appointments are made with the inference that the team, usually a young man purporting to be a journalist and an attractive sales lady, represent whatever title they are selling when in fact they are purely acting for themselves.

“The pitch may start with a highly scripted, enthusiastic and rehearsed ‘interview’ conducted by the journalist and then switching to the soft sales approach of the sales lady. This combined ‘interview’ is intended to flatter and to act as a ‘hook’ and at this point space sizes or rates are produced followed by a contract of dubious legality for a signature.”

Minivan News understands that the problem became so drastic in the Maldives last year that the government instituted a policy of black-listing the representatives of any international media organisation found to be peddling advertorial.

“We’ve had some bad experiences,” admitted a source in the President’s Office. “We’ve had journalists claiming to be from the Japan Times, Business Week in China and a couple from the [UK] Observer. They target governments in emerging countries and tenaciously pursue the President, Prime Minister, King, Sultan or whatever for an endorsement, or even just a photo together, which they then use to hard-sell to businesses or parastatal (government-owned) organisations.”

“It’s not illegal, it’s just a rip off and a con,” he added, noting that the prolificacy of the practice was leading to frosty receptions for bona fide journalists and ‘legitimate’ media salespeople.

The money at stake can be considerable, especially for an emerging country with a foreign exchange imbalance as great as the Maldives; Minivan News has learned that a third-party organisation currently active in the Maldives is seeking up to US$70,000 a page for an advertorial ‘feature’ in CNBC Business magazine.

A government official who recently agreed to a meeting with a representative from ‘Star Communications’ said alarm bells rang when the representative claimed to be producing an investigative editorial ‘feature’, but then suggested the extent and tone of the coverage would depend on the degree of “support” provided.

“There was a lot about how strong the title [CNBC Business] was editorially, but really it was a request for paid editorial coverage,” he said.

The accompanying prospectus identified the individual as an ‘authorised representative’ for CNBC Business magazine, while an accompanying letter from the publication’s Commerical Director, Kevin Rolfe, while acknowledging the product was “promotional”, requested “all the support you could provide the members of Star Communications News on the development of this effort.”

The heavily CNBC-branded prospectus promised that “our editorial will be written by specific industry experts [and] at your request we will submit your editorial coverage for approval. We work in full coordination with your to ensure the most accurate editorial in the market.”

The prospectus additionally claimed that the CNBC Business magazine had “1 million” readers, and would be “personally delivered inside a golden envelope” to the CEO of the world’s top 1000 companies.

The CNBC Business magazine’s website claims the publication has 670,000 readers. Later communication with the representative clarified the circulation as 200,000.

Minivan News attempted to contact Rolfe to verify the publication’s relationship with Star Communications and obtain a rate card for comparative purposes, but he had not responded at time of press.

Minivan News traced the address for Star Communications given on the prospectus to a corporate tax accountancy firm called Lacey Consultancy based in Dublin, Ireland. On its website, the firm boasts that “we advise on devising the best structures to mitigate/eliminate withholding taxes on international payments.”

The website for Star Communications, while not readily searchable on Google with the unusual .us domain, lists an address for the company in Madrid, Spain and shows it has produced reports for emerging countries including Libya, Dominica, Tunisia and Pakistan.

Star Communications’ Managing Director Christina Hays, who contacted Minivan News regarding the story, claimed that “no single entity has been offered a single page for 70k USD. ”

“Clearly, the extension of our coverage depends on the amount of advertising space sold, just as it does with any other kind of promotional publication. The more space purchased, the longer our special feature will be. The tone, however, is not dependent on the amount of space sold, but, rather, on our editorial criteria. And at a later stage the media’s criteria, as the final product has to be approved by the editorial team of CNBC,” she said.

Star Communications, she stated, “received the full support [of the Maldives] High Commission and have subsequently held various meetings in Maldives with government officials. Hence, while there may have been a blacklist in operation last year, as you allege, which affected other companies, we have been granted official approval to market our product in Maldives in 2010.

Minivan News contacted the High Commission of Maldives in London seeking clarification as to the nature of its approval.

The commission confirmed it had met with Star Communications and referred the company to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as a matter of policy, “as we do not have the resources and the expertise to judge how good or bad the company [is].”

“As a matter of policy, the High Commission of Maldives will try to accommodate meetings with all commercial ventures that request meetings with us, as much as time and resources permit. We would normally then put them in touch with the relevant authorities in Maldives through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It is entirely up to the relevant authorities in the Maldives to decide whether they choose to meet the company or not or indeed whether their proposal is worth considering,” the High Commission stated.

“This should not be construed as support by the High Commission of Maldives to market their product in the Maldives and at no time is this indicated to the company.”

In a response to Minivan News, Hays stated that “at no time have we attempted to sell advertising to government officials in Maldives and have only offered the opportunity to purchase space to public and private-owned companies. Their choice on whether or not to do so is entirely at their discretion, and we have no leverage whatsoever on their decisions.”

She acknowledged that while the company’s reports “comprises advertising and editorial elements. We do not, however, purport to be journalists; we are journalists with a track record of interviewing Presidents, Ministers and CEO’s over the 5 continents.”

The Financial Times report on ‘supplement hustling’ claims that as of 2000, “the most prolific example of this activity was from an organisation called NOA based in Madrid with off-shoots in London, New York, Paris and Hamburg, who operated affiliate companies from PO Box numbers.”

NOA, the report stated, “came into existence around 1985 when an ex-Time employee, an Argentinian national of Syrian extraction called Juan Alberto Llaryora, set up AFA (which became NOA) to sell country supplements in contracted publications. His concept was once described as ‘a team approach comprising fake journalist and Latin sales girl using a tits on desk routine’,” the report read. “Because of its success the business spawned a number of spin-offs set up by disaffected NOA staff.”

Hays said Star Communications had “no relationship whatsoever with NOA (AFA), nor any of the media titles mentioned in your article.”

The FT report concluded by stating that while many publications were happy to accept the revenue generated by such companies, they “are sometimes unaware of how significant a misrepresentation they have become a part of, and how much damage such activities have on the reputation of the international media.”

Addendum: This article has been updated to reflect comments subsequently received from Star Communications and the High Commission of the Maldives to the UK. The full response from the company is available here.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Velezinee proposes motion to ‘confirm sanity’ of JSC Chairman

President Mohamed Nasheed’s member on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), Aishath Velezinee, proposed a motion without notice at today’s JSC meeting “to determine if Supreme Court Justice Adam Mohamed Abdulla, current Chairman of the commission, meets the criteria of possessing a sound mind as required by article 139(c) clause three of the constitution.”

The meeting was cancelled when quorum was lost after Velezinee walked out in protest of the Chair’s alleged refusal to acknowledge the motion.

Velezinee’s motion states that Justice Adam Mohamed was exhibiting “symptoms of a person who has lost his mind” and proposed suspending him from the duties of a judge “until a psychiatric evaluation is conducted under state supervision.”

Attached to the motion was a document titled ‘The Serial Bully‘, drawn from the UK-based workplace bullying website detailing the symptoms of “sociopaths and psychopaths”.

Qualities on the list included “self-opinionated, emotionally retarded, deceptive, superior sense of entitlement and untouchability, financially untrustworthy, overbearing belief in their qualities of leadership, is spiritually dead although may loudly profess some religious belief or affiliation” and “may pursue a vindictive vendetta against anyone who dares to held them accountable.”

Velezinee claimed that the Chair was “systematically evading” the matter of appointing an interview panel to approve judges to the High Court bench, almost two months after the deadline for applications elapsed.

Moreover, as the JSC was yet to adopt a standard operating procedure – the deadline for which passed on January 26 – commission meetings were “under the will and whim of the Chair who refuses to permit the Secretary General to perform independently and exercise absolute control over the working of the Commission.

“As it is JSC can only discuss and decide what the Chair permits, and that, it has become increasingly evident, is nothing,” she said.

While the High Court bench currently has four judges, a three-judge bench is needed to conduct hearings.

Sincerity

Following the cancelled meeting, Ahmed Rasheed, representative of the law community on the JSC, expressed concern with the slow pace of the commission’s functioning.

Rasheed said that the growing backlog of pending tasks “raises questions about the sincerity of some members.”

On November 9, Rasheed joined Velezinee, General Public Member Shuaib Abdul Rahman and Attorney General Dr Ahmed Sawad to lodge letters of protest with the JSC after the Chair did not attend a meeting he had called.

Other members of the commission, Parliament Speaker Abdulla Shahid, MP Afrashim Ali, Civil Service Commission President Mohamed Fahmy Hassan and Judge Abdulla Didi, did not attend the meeting as well.

Velezinee also walked out of the meeting last Sunday, the first one after the 10-day public holiday, claiming the Chair refused to let her speak on the High Court appointments as it was not on the agenda.

Responding to the criticism of his handling of JSC meetings, Justice Adam Mohamed told Minivan News today that he did not refuse to table Velezinee’s motion.

“I saw the motion when I came to the meeting,” he said. “But when I started the meeting and tried to read out the agenda, she interrupted me, got angry and walked off.”

Justice Adam Mohamed also dismissed accusations that he was holding up JSC tasks, explaining that he has called for a number of meetings in past weeks in excess of the legal requirement of one meeting per month.

On the delay to the standard operating procedure and High Court appointments, the Supreme Court Justice said that the deadlines had elapsed when he assumed the chair in late August.

“If they are so concerned about it, they could have passed it since they have been on the commission for all that time,” he said.

Following the end of the interim period in early August, a new Supreme Court bench was hastily instituted by parliament, resulting in a hiatus for the commission until new members along with a new Chair could be appointed.

Justice Adam Mohamed revealed that the current agenda for JSC meetings was “two-pages long”, stressing that while he has authority to order items, “members have the discretion to prioritize an item if everyone wished.”

Opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Dr Afrashim Ali meanwhile arrived at today’s meeting 20 minutes after it began and left shortly afterward.

Asked for a comment on the issues, Dr Afrashim explained that he only grants interview “if it is going to be shown live on TV”.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)