I’ve kept my opinions about religion to myself for a long time now. Even when I was verbally tortured in school all those years ago because of the mere reason that I did not wear the head scarf, at the most I’d say to the abusers to let me be a Muslim in my own right and to keep their version of Islam to themselves.
Discussions about Islam would mostly take place between my close friends and my family and that’s just about it, because I knew if I were to protect my right and my practices I’d be unjustifiably compared to a Kafir.
Women like me shouldn’t have to tell people like them how many times a day we pray and how many good deeds we do in a day! We shouldn’t have to tell them that we actually do not resort to narcotics, alcohol, violence and premarital sex!
So I always kept my good deeds and my belief in my Allah who is my sole guardian, who protected me through bad times and gave me much luck, to myself.
But I can see clearly now that I’m amongst the minority. So it’s high time I came out of my shell and spoke out. I’m not even in the Maldives right now and yet I feel like I’m going to be an outcast when I go back.
I’m here in a far off country studying to pursue a career in a field that would allow me to actively involve in helping my fellow Maldivians whom I’ve loved every single day since the beginning. I’ve always heard of Maldivian hospitality and our broadmindedness and how highly appreciated all these attributes are (were?) worldwide.
But then I came to know about these threats again non-buruga-wearers and how hard the Muslims that are higher on the extreme scale are trying to implement their islam into people’s hearts and minds. And then this whole Nazim vs Dr Zakir Naik plus the rest of the extremists thing came up and now everything is in a stir up!
Is it safe for me to go back to my home country at the end of my course? Will I be forced to take refuge somewhere else?
I thought I came from a religion which encourages people to ask questions about their doubts so that the people who know the answers can answer them and then everyone will be at peace! And I also thought my religion was one which had its foundation on peace and harmony with no bloodshed and violence.
Well, and I also supported Dr Zakir Naik and his logic, science and other various beliefs which I thought were more moderate than some other people who were, like I said, higher on the extreme scale. I supported him until he lost his cool [during his Friday lecture in the Maldives].
I expected to see something miraculous when Nazim asked his question; something remarkable where a Muslim ‘scholar’ peacefully instills belief in Allah and Islam into a non believer merely by his words, logic and science.
And then it ended rather abruptly without any satisfaction on my part, on Nazim’s part and I highly think neither on Dr Zakir Naik’s part.
Islam is a religion of peace (oh yes! I sill believe so) and I wanted something beautiful to happen! There could have been, I think, various efforts that Dr Zakir Naik could have made on his part to answer all the questions asked, that could have brought out an incredible result, rather than to ask the non-believer questions to deliberately humiliate him and create an unstable atmosphere.
Or, even when Dr Zakir Naik couldn’t satisfactorily answer the question, the rest of the “knowledgeable” people, also higher on the extreme scale, could have more peacefully taken the non-believers circumstances into their hands and attempted to also instill some belief into him.
All these could have been done more gently rather than build and uproar, threaten to kill and then actually attempt to do this eventually!
Where is the peace in all this that has happened? Isn’t Islam a religion of peace? Where is the beauty in all this? Where is the possibility of something remarkable happening? Oh wait a minute! Did those people who claim to know their religion better actually lose their footing and resort to something non-Muslim? Who are the non-Muslims now? I didn’t certainly go and threatened to behead a non-believer and run after him, so certainly I cannot be a “Kafir” now, can I?
I hope there are more people like me, who are more knowledgeable in this area willing to come out and prove their points in the face of all this injustice! Our beautiful paradise on Earth is in bloodshed and sinking in its own blood.
I say, we need to come out of this shell, prepare for anything that can possibly happen and attempt to bring an end to all this nonsense and violence happening in the name of Islam. What on Earth is President Nasheed doing?
First published on http://rehendhi.wordpress.com. Reprinted with permission.
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]
The Maldives government intends to pardon seven Filipino nationals who were arrested in 2008 for credit card fraud and sentenced to 25 years in prison.
The seven workers, identified by the Philippine Daily Inquirer as Kenneth Navarro, Lito Lago, Dario Agao, Christian Ryan Pineda, Jeffrey Jenkins, Gilbert Bendana and Joey Omawas, were employed at the Dome Cafe at the Maldives International Airport until they were arrested in 2008.
The Inquirer reported that the seven were initially jailed for a one and a half months after they were charged with theft and fraud for stealing a customer’s credit card and receiving items bought with the card in May 2008.
They were conditionally freed while their case was heard, but on February 17, 2009 were sentenced to 25 years in prison and ordered to pay Rf100,000 (US$77,800) in damages after the court found their statements were “conflicting”, and ruled that all of them were guilty.
“The Phillipines government has made a formal requet for clemency to be granted, and the President has given instructions for the request to be accomodated,” confirmed the President’s Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair.
The request had not yet been granted and the process was “ongoing”, Zuhair said, suggesting that should the prisoners be released, the government of the Phillipines “should underwrite the damages, or the government should request it. The issue of compensation is a legal matter,” he noted.
The Philippines government has meanwhile published a statement crediting the release of the seven waiters to a ‘farewell gift’ from President Mohamed Nasheed to outgoing Phillipines Ambassador to the Maldives and Sri Lanka, Zenaida Tacorda Rabago.
“Several avenues were sought for the release/deportation of the seven Filipinos” under the authority of pardon granted to President Nasheed through the recently approved Clemency Law, the release stated.
“In turn, President Nasheed requested that the Philippines support an Asian Summit on climate change,” and “intimated to the Ambassador the hiring of Filipino professionals from the medical, entertainment, and educational fields,” the statement read.
Rabago has also worked to free two Filipinos who have served seven months in jail while awaiting formal charges from the Sri Lankan Government.
State Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmed Naseem said the Ministry had not been given “any specific instructions” on the matter, but approved in principle.
“We need to send these people away because the jail system here is not conducive to holding foreigners,” he said, noting that the matter had been handed to the Clemency Board.
The Maldivian government is meanwhile working on repatriating Maldivian citizens imprisoned overseas. Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed, speaking in a meeting at the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) headquaters, last week, announced that government would seek to return Maldivian detainees from Syria.
Dr Shaheed said that he would soon travel to Syria with the main purpose of releasing the Maldivian detainees from Syrian jails.
”The main reason of scheduled trip to Syria is to release the Maldivian detainees from prison,” Dr Shaheed said. ”Hopefully, we can release these prisoners and bring them back to the Maldives.”
Andrew Cox is the newly-appointed UN Resident Coordinator and UNDP Resident Representative for the Maldives. Before arriving in the Maldives, Cox was based in New York as the Chief of Staff for the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in New York.
Prior to this he held several positions in Sudan where he worked on comprehensive peace agreements between warring factions, and in Afghanistan. Before his UN career Cox worked as Field Director for Concern Universal in Sierra Leone and had assignments with various companies and NGOs in the UK, Democratic Republic of Congo and Côte d’Ivoire.
JJ Robinson: How does your experience in development and within the UN system benefit your new role in the Maldives?
Andrew Cox: I’ve worked for the UN since 1999 and NGOs before that. I come from a development background, but I just seem to have ended up in a lot of conflict, post-conflict and post disaster-places.
During my three years in Sudan I spent a lot of time working on a comprehensive peace agreement, and I spent time in Afghanistan in 2002 just as the situation there was changing – I was very sorry to leave, actually. I have also spent some working in Sierra Leone, which oscillated between conflict and post-conflict.
I think the process of transition in [such places] is very interesting – it’s about how people behave when their basic assumptions are changing and the bedrock is shifting under them. People act in extreme ways and sometimes it’s very difficult to get institutions in these countries to change.
What is especially difficult [about countries in transition] is the need for urgency. You don’t have luxury of 10 years to see if something might work. You just have to try things at high speed and discard them if they don’t.
One of the interesting things about coming to Maldives is that I find this transition happening. There is a tremendous amount of dialogue, although sometimes a little above the level of dialogue in terms of intensity and rhetoric.
What the Maldives is going through is not unusual and is to be expected in such circumstances. What I hope I can bring from my past is help and advice, and assistance from the UN system in managing this transition.
JJ: The Maldives has made a major transition to democracy, and the next major transition is the transition from less developed country (LDC) status to middle income. What does this mean and what are the key challenges for the country?
AC: On the surface there are some things the Maldives will lose along with its LDC status, such as access to concessional credit, which is probably one of the more important things. It will also lose a certain amount of grant income from donors.
But the point is to look at it as an opportunity; OK it may hurt in certain areas at the beginning, but in the end the Maldives has got itself where it needs to be and now has more to offer the world than it might have had before – it’s not just about offering beaches to tourists coming in.
When I saw the President I asked him if he had thought about having the Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF) serve in UN peacekeeping operations – it’s one way in which Maldivian experience can be sent out there to benefit the rest of the world, and of course it’s a learning experience for those who participate.
Similarly, the Maldives was a victim of a major natural disaster in the tsunami, and in my view it would make a lot of sense for the country to join the UN Disaster Assessment and Coordination (UNDAC), which sends in disaster coordination experts to a country whenever there a natural disaster. The Maldives should be able to contribute to that.
I also think, and the President said this and I fully agree with him, that the Maldives should not be about dependency on aid. It should be about development, trade, and punching greater and greater weight in the region.
What everyone seems to be doing at the moment is focusing on the future. The loss of income from donors, if things go well, will be replaced by greater trade and economic growth. But there are some structural issues making that difficult, no doubt about it.
JJ: What kind of structural issues?
AC: The budget deficit is the major one. I’m not completely up-to-date with the figures, but last time I looked it the deficit was 33 percent of GDP, which everyone – the government as well as international institutions – has said the Maldives has got to address.
The deficit in Greece is 12 percent of GDP. Obviously Greece is a very different place [to the Maldives], but everybody needs to be serious about the problem. It’s a huge challenge and until it is solved it is going to be difficult to change other things.
The UN’s position is to help the government find ways dealing with this. There’s various things you can do but in the end the gap between income and expenditure has to change, because it is simply not sustainable at the moment.
JJ: How does the UN navigate the polarised politics here? How do you find the middle-path and involve the opposition?
AC: There have been many changes here over the last few years, and the UN has been here throughout that entire period. I think we played quite a positive role – although you can’t get everything right. But by sticking to its principles, the UN tries navigate its way through. For example, during the change to democracy the UN worked closely with then-president and his party, as well as the opposition.
What we tried to do was help them manage the process [of transition]. It’s very clear what the UN stands for – our principles are out there. There’s no hidden agenda and the approach is consistent across the UN. There are many different levels of support the UN can bring.
I’m not trying to be naive or idealistic – but it’s [an approach] that works just as well if you’re dealing with rebels in the middle of a conflict or if you’re dealing with development challenges – you help those who are there to make the right choices, and sometimes provide an enabling environment for that to happen.
The UN is also here to try and improve the lot of ordinary Maldivians. One of our principles is that we work with all parts of society and we do that in an open way, and that can sometimes be difficult to explain. But in the end it is our job to work with everybody who can be a positive force for change, and to try and advise those who are less convinced for the need to change to change their approach. That’s consistent across all the countries we work in.
JJ: What are some of your experiences from the programs you have worked on in the past that you think would also work in the Maldives?
AC: I worked on the last stages of the comprehensive peace agreement in Sudan, which is a mostly Muslim country. The key in Sudan was doing everything you could to get the parties to sit together. Obviously we don’t have the same kind of situation in the Maldives, but the principles are still the same.
A facilitating role sounds a little bit ‘wishy washy’, until you realise what happens when you don’t have that. It doesn’t have to be the UN – in Darfur the African Union had the lead on the political side, and the UN helped them to do their job.
As a newcomer to the Maldives, it is very obvious that there is a certain amount of heat in the political discourse, to say the least. A lot of this is a very natural outcome of the change everyone has gone through. I think the trick is to find areas where there can be cooperation, and not to allow bigger disagreements to pollute the water where consensus might be possible.
For example, I think the cross-party effort to deal with domestic violence is very interesting right now. Everyone agrees domestic violence is a problem, and although there may be disagreement over how that problem should be addressed, this is absolutely one of those areas for mature political dialogue. We will try and help that process along, but it needs to be the parties in parliament to figure out how they want to deal with domestic violence issues.
Civil society is weak in the Maldives, explains Cox
JJ: To what extent should be UN be a leader of civil society in a country, in terms of supporting NGOs and helping them work properly and efficiently?
AC: I don’t think leader is the right word. If we were, then if we withdrew our support the whole thing would collapse and that’s not the way it should be. The real strength of civil society in most countries, to use an overused phrase, is ‘grassroots.’
Civil society is only powerful if it comes into being organically. I think most people on either side of the political divide recognise that civil society is very weak in the Maldives, and that much more needs to be done to support its growth.
I think the UN can play a major enabling role. There are an awful lot of people around the world who have [grown civil society], and one thing we can do is to bring some of them in to explain how they did it. That process of sharing information and knowledge is very important.
JJ: What do you mean when you say civil society is weak in the Maldives? There are a great many NGOs and it does seem to be a sought-after profession.
AC: Yes exactly – I think across all parts of society, and obviously it varies area to area, from human rights to gender to drug prevention, there are a number of things you look for, such as sustainability of funding and resources. In the end civil society will only be strong if Maldivians embrace their own civil society and start paying for it.
Some of that is about government funding, but much more of it is local philanthropy and gift giving – and earning the organisation that you’re associated with.
The UN can give out a grant of US$20,000 [to an NGO], and what they’ll do is buy a computer, pay for some travel and training and so on, then it’s gone and that’s it. What happens then?
This is a very important question that a lot of civil society organisation managers are thinking about – or at least I hope they are. Because in the end, international funding can’t be assured for anybody over time.
I think the whole point is to use that external support as a way to building up a civil society organisation so it can have links with the community and an income stream, and a sufficiently strong volunteer network to get done what they think needs to get done.
How do we help them through that process? Definitely we have supported NGOs in the past, and there has been a proliferation in the last year or two, but now they need to move beyond that start up phase and become a bit more secure. You really need a strong civil society because it gives you a way to get important things done that is separated from politics.
JJ: The Maldives recently beat Iran to the UN Human Rights Council – what kind of an achievement does that represent?
AC: I think it’s a remarkable achievement. The Maldives ran a good election campaign on its own merit and got the support, which was a very big deal.
The Human Rights Council is in organisation in flux, and I think both [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki Moon and the High Commissioner of Human Rights [Navi Pillay] see it as a long term project – and many of its members see it in the same way.
For the Maldives it represents a tremendous opportunity to demonstrate it can be a world leader, as it already is in the area of climate change. For a country to progress so far on the human rights side allows it to go out there with a very honest position and say ‘we’re not perfect yet, but this is what we’ve done.’
Another part of the Human Rights Council is that you have support from your peers to deal with human rights issues, so when it works well is when there is an atmosphere of cooperation and people get down to business away from the heated rhetoric you also sometimes hear on human rights issues.
But I would also say that because the Maldives has a somewhat exalted position on this council, this is also a challenge. The Maldives can’t stop its progress on human rights, because the eyes of the world are on the Maldives as much as eyes of the Maldives are on the world in the human rights sense. I think it is very important that this election provokes a renewed investment in human rights in the Maldives, and if it doesn’t happen then the Maldives’ position on the Human Rights Council could invite unwelcome attention.
It just the way we seen these things work over the years. I sincerely hope – and everything I’ve heard suggests this will continue to happen – that the Maldives will continue to strengthen human rights in the country, especially now.
JJ: How would you describe the level of human rights in the Maldives, from the perspective of a newcomer?
AC: I would probably describe it again as a situation of change. There have been tremendous advances made, but obvious areas that need strengthening – areas like access to justice.
I think there are important bills pending on the judiciary, things like access to legal aid. The Maldives needs to invest in the judiciary and its ability to do its work, and there needs to be investment in corrections – I think the problems are self-evident. Then there’s right to information, and of course the police, who now have themselves been changing and adapting to new challenges. I think there’s a raft of institutional legal framework measures that are needed to strengthen human rights in the Maldives.
I think the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) needs to continue to be supported, for obvious reasons. It’s important to have a strong home-grown human rights commission to encourage the government to take the steps it needs to take, and I think it is absolutely important to have strong human rights organisations on the civil society side. This is a priority for UNDP, and we’ll be scaling up our support to human rights NGOs. If you get them right, there’s a knock on effect to other NGOs.
JJ: Human rights issues such as freedom of expression and gender equality appear to sometimes conflict with stricter interpretations of Islam. Is it possible for human rights to be fully realised in a 100% Islamic country?
AC: I think there is a very strong human rights tradition in Islam, and I think it’s absolutely possible. I know there are many different legal systems under the Islamic system, and what I think is quite important is to learn from other experiences around the world and shamelessly steal the best parts. I see absolutely no contradiction between Islam and human rights.
JJ: The Maldives has established itself as an international leader on climate change based on its vulnerability to rising sea levels, but at the same time it’s trying to attract long term business investment. Is there room for these to exist side by side?
AC: I think it’s an interesting dilemma, and if it’s going to get solved anywhere it be here. Obviously I’m not a climate change scientist, but speaking as the manager of UNDP I think there’s interesting opportunities in the Maldives over how to cope with climate change.
We still don’t know how bad it’s going be, so yes, risk inherent in every situation. But let’s not forget that the Maldives is not alone in this – the Maldives may have problem with rising sea levels, but there are many other countries with problems related to climate change – you just have to look at sub-Saharan Africa, and see how climate change is affecting water and food production there.
Certainly from the Maldives side, the country has to press on with mitigation and creating a low-carbon economy. There are thousands of different possibilities, and money to be made off successful models of technology that can be proven to reduce carbon. On the adaptation side there’s a lot we don’t know how about how reefs will react to changing water temperatures, and new technologies which can be looked at in terms of sea defenses. And things like if you’ve mangroves that you look after, you got a much greater change of withstanding rising sea levels and weather events than if you don’t have them. It’s a matter looking at these things and the impact of communities that live in these areas.
With all that in mind, the Maldives is a good place to invest in from the point of view of climate change-related industries. Businessmen and women are not stupid – they evaluate situations and make decisions accordingly. One of the things the government has committed to is loosening the trade environment and having clear regulatory frameworks, and I suspect if they successful pushing that through then that will also encourage investment.
So don’t think the two messages are contradictory. You have to do an awful lot because of climate change, but you can continue to build the economy as well.
I think adaptation is also very important – people need to be able to manage risk more than they can at the moment. Generally speaking we estimate that for every dollar spent on disaster risk mitigation you save $10 in losses when a natural disaster strikes – the economics are quite obvious.
We have quite some interest in the Maldives’ obvious vulnerabilities to climate change and major weather events, and it’s useful to use different communities around the Maldives to test ways of strengthening people’s ability to withstand natural disasters. If we get that right, then that is also something the Maldives can export – knowledge and know-how about how to deal with vulnerability in the face of climate change.
What we are going to be doing over the next year or two is looking along with the government at creating a global climate change centre in the Maldives. We are working on the details at the moment.
Another priority area is to look at governance programs and see how we can help. A major step forward of the last few months was the government getting together its strategic action plan – it’s a great document but it’s very thick, and it’s not much use unless it gets implemented. We all feel it is quite important to have a results framework, and if the government is able to do that, Maldives stock will go up in eyes of donors.
The Judges Association of Maldives (JAM) has condemned President Mohamed Nasheed’s criticism of the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) decision on determining guidelines for the reappointment of sitting judges as “disrespectful towards the honour and dignity of judges” and indicative of the “negative view he holds of the judiciary”.
A press release issued by the association last week accuses the president of attempting to cast undue influence over the Judicial Service Commission by calling for amendments to the eligibility criteria approved last month, an act which could “render separation of powers obsolete”.
Article 285(b) of the constitution stipulates that the JSC shall determine whether or not sitting judges possess the qualification of judges specified in article 149 before August 7 2010.
The article states that judges must possess “educational qualifications, experience and recognised competence to discharge the duties and responsibilities of a judge, and must be of high moral character.”
On May 9, the JSC voted to approve as minimum standards to determine “high moral character” that judges must not have been convicted in a court of law of an offence with a punishment prescribed in the Quran, criminal breach of trust or bribery.
Velezinie warned that the decision could effectively give tenure to 19 judges found guilty of various offences by state institutions such as the former Anti-Corruption Board.
Two days later, the commission approved guidelines for determining educational qualifications, experience and competence.
In his radio address on May 28, President Nasheed said he believed the JSC decision could hinder the commission’s mandate of ensuring public confidence in the judiciary.
The decision was “worrying” as records showed that judges found guilty by the relevant authorities under the old constitution, or who had faced criminal prosecution and allegations of gross misconduct, were currently on the bench.
“Grade seven standard”
President Nasheed criticised the criteria for educational qualifications as setting the bar too low.
“For the standard to determine educational qualification, they are saying [judges must possess] a certificate in either law or Shariah, and even if the certificate is not accredited by the Maldives Accreditation Board, it must be a certificate of at least level three or higher accepted by the government”, he said.
Hence, he added, the minimum educational qualification for judges approved by the JSC was essentially “grade seven”.
According to the guidelines approved by the commission, said Nasheed, sitting judges would be eligible for reappointment if they have not been convicted in court of 29 criminal offences decided upon by the JSC.
The JSC also decided that sitting judges would be deemed to possess the requisite experience.
Nasheed said the criteria to determine experience and educational qualification was “inappropriate” for contemporary Maldivian society.
Moreover, taking the lack of convictions as enough to determine high moral character was “not ideal.”
An official request has been made with the JSC to review and amend the guidelines, he said.
The JSC consists of the speaker of parliament, an MP and a member of the general public appointed by parliament; a judge each from the Supreme Court, High Court and the trial courts; a practicing lawyer elected by licensed lawyers; the Chair of the Civil Service Commission; a member appointed by the president and the Attorney General.
Justice Fahmy
A statement issued by the JSC before the president’s address defended the decision as both “within the bounds of article 149” and “very fair”.
The statement signed by Justice Mujthaz Fahmy, president of the JSC, notes that differences of opinion among members only emerged over the criteria for determining high moral character.
It adds that the reappointment of judges as stipulated by article 285 was very different from the normal process of appointing or dismissing judges and magistrates.
Moreover, the commission believes the decision will “draw criticism no matter how fair it was.”
The statement goes on to condemn “efforts by certain groups to dishonour the judiciary and strip judges of their honour and dignity.”
“The commission is extremely concerned as such actions could undermine the independence of the judiciary and adversely affect society,” it reads.
While the creation of the JSC was delayed until July 26, 2009 due to “various legal problems” and its members do not work full-time, the statement assures that the commission was working “sincerely, truthfully and in line with the constitution” to fulfil its responsibilities.
“Abuse of power”
However, writing in her personal blog, Velezinie claims the statement was issued “in violation of clause 4(d) of the commission’s rules of procedure and article 163 of the constitution” as it solely represented Fahmy’s personal views.
Justice Mujthaz Fahmy had refused to either allow further discussions on the guidelines or vote on amendments, she writes.
As Fahmy was among the 19 judges with prior convictions, Velezinie claims, he faces a conflict of interest on the issue of judges’ tenure and reappointment.
Moreover, while the Supreme Court Justice was also the chair of both standing committees of the commission, the complaints committee has not been convened as of May 1.
Fahmy replaced High Court Judge Abdul Gani Mohamed as President of the JSC on February 21 when the latter was removed by a ruling from three Judges of the High Court.
Velezinie reveals that although a committee consisting of the three judges on the commission was tasked in August 2009 with formulating a draft of the guidelines for reappointment, the full committee only met once as Fahmy did not attend the second meeting.
Meanwhile, the “285 Standards Committee” formed after Gani’s expulsion and chaired by Civil Service Commission President Dr Mohamed Latheef met on three days and drafted the final guidelines during meetings that each lasted half an hour.
The sub-committee, consisting of Judges Adam Mohamed Abdullah and Abdullah Didi from the JSC as well as Chief Judge of the Juvenile Court Shuaib Hussein Zakariya and Civil Court Judge Abdullah Ali, did not consider either the previous proposals or “the purpose and spirit of the constitution and the objective of article 285.”
She adds that Fahmy’s actions were “extremely worrying” as it could cast doubt over the independence of both the JSC and the judiciary.
Moreover, Velezinie continues, failure to provide agendas and minutes of meetings to members as required by law “facilitates corruption in the commission.”
“The Judicial Service Commission, and along with it the courthouse and judges, will only gain public trust when it proves to the people with words and deeds that it is an institution that is independent from the three powers,” she entreats. “Instead of hiding behind law certificates and making decisions based on self-interest and one’s own views, [the commission has to] put national interest and public welfare first.”
I would like to share some of my thoughts after reading Minivan News’ unusual report on Masodi Town.
If police are forced to resort to such desperate action, it can only mean one thing: Maldives’ society has reached a Point of No Return. At this ominous time, President Nasheed has to seriously get down to business – without himself getting drowned in the political game.
Almost all Maldives’ politicians are to blame for awakening not one but two Sleeping (and quite evil) Giants: Gangsterism and Religious Extremism. In order to score political points, they dared open Pandora’s box and unleashed the Twin Evils into the Maldivian Society.
Now the only way to tame these two (evil) Beasts are to immediately make it clear to the Maldivian public exactly what the government is doing — on the ground — to start seriously tackling the Original Twin Evils — Poverty and Ignorance — that created a “nursery” or breeding ground for Gangsterism and Religious Extremism.
It is high time that President Nasheed now publicly announce what Education and Employment opportunities his MDP-Exclusive-Club-Government has in the pipeline to tackle the ROOT CAUSE of all social circumstances that made Masodi Town – and all other youth groups in Male’ and other rural islands – into the Anti-Social Elements they are today.
It is too easy to sweep everything under the carpet to show a “mirage of a Paradise”, either to the international community or to us Maldivians.
Before anyone calls Maldivian youth “gangsters”, before anyone calls for violence against Maldives children, first take a look at your own Extreme-Capitalist selves and if, through that mirror that you hold, you fail to see any Social Contribution of yours to this country and its people, then simply remember these words, Gangsterism is a Creation of Society.
Peace.
Hilath Rasheed
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 an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]
Maldivian Democratic Party MDP parliamentary group’s leader MP Moosa ‘Reeko’ Manik has claimed that it was Vice president of the Maldives, Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan who agreed to resettle Guantanamo Bay detainees in the Maldives.
Moosa further claimed that the government of United States has agreed to assist the Maldives to reinstate the government’s money which was allegedly taken by the former government and stored in bank accounts abroad.
He criticised the way parliament’s national security committee was operating.
”The national security committee works in a different spirit,” Moosa said, ”DRP [Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party] MP Ali Waheed has declined to explain how he became the recipient of confidential documents stolen from the government.”
Moosa said that the case of DRP MP Ali Waheed being the recipient of the documents should also be investigated by police.
”The penalty for his crime should be given according to the law,” he said. ”MDP will also investigate this case.”
He added when parliament starts its session, the MDP parliamentary group will propose a bill to prevent assaults and gang wars in Male’.
Vice President of the Maldives Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan denied the claims made by MP Moosa Manik.
”I did not agree to resettle Guantanamo Bay detainees,” Dr Waheed said, ”But a [US official] I met during my visit to the States proposed the idea to me.”
Dr Waheed said that after he concluded his visit and returned to the Maldives, he had informed the Foreign Ministry of the issue.
”The Foreign Ministry did not respond to my request to give advice about how I would deal with the issue,” he said. ”I have no information on who agreed to bring in those detainees.’
Education Minister Dr Musthafa Luthfy, who recently joined the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) after resigning from the deputy leadership of coalition partner Gaumy Ihthihaadh Party (GIP), has described President Mohamed Nasheed as “a national hero.”
Dr Luthfy said he left GIP because he did not wanted to be a member of a party criticising President Mohamed Nasheed’s government.
”I would not want to criticise the government while I am a member of it,” Dr Luthfy said. ”In particular, I do not wish to remain in a gathering which criticises President Mohamed Nasheed.”
Dr Luthfy said that opposition parties were criticising the government because the current government was doing many things the former government could not do.
”Opposition parties are crititcising the current government because the current government is doing many things that the former government could not do to the people,” Dr Luthfy said, ”things like amendment of the national school curriculum, building harbors in many of the islands, providing ferry services and direct aid to the people through Madhana [a health scheme].”
Maldivian Democratic Party parliamentary group leader MP Moosa ‘Reeko’ Manik recently called on any ministers who applauded when the government was criticised “to resign immediately.”
This was targeted at ministers present at a rally led by GIP, a party of which Dr Luthfy was a member and reportedly one of the people applauding its criticism.
Today Reeko said that the government’s senior posts “should be filled only with people who support the MDP manifesto and accept the President’s thinking.”
Right after the coalition agreement between MDP and GIP was terminated by MDP’s national council last Saturday, Dr Luthfy and Deputy Trade Minister Ahmed Inaz left the GIP to join the ruling MDP.
Dr Luthfy recently said he joined MDP not because he had been influenced or under threat of losing his job, but because he felt that it was “the best way to continue serving the people.”
Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed, speaking in a meeting at the Maldvian Democratic Party (MDP) headquaters, has announced that the government will return Maldivian detainees from Syria.
Dr Shaheed said that he would soon travel to Syria with the main purpose of releasing the Maldivian detainees from Syrian jails.
”The main reason of scheduled trip to Syria is to release the Maldivian detainees from prison,” Dr Shaheed said. ”Hopefully, we can release these prisoners and bring them to the Maldives.”
He said the detainees had been kept there for a long time.
”We will bring them and hand over them to their parents,” he said.
He said the Foreign Ministry was a ministry which worked “in transparency making everything visible to the people”.
Speaking in the meeting, Dr Shaheed responded to claims made by the Peoples Alliances (PA) that the current government was trying “to please white people.”
”When the Maldives ran for a seat in the United Nations Human Rights Council, 185 countries voted for us. Are they all white people?” questioned Dr Shaheed.
”Last week the United Arab Emirates (UAE) asked us if they could establish a Maldivian Embassy. Are they also all white people?”
Dr Shaheed did not mention who the detainees were or what they had been arrested for.
Spokesperson for the Foreign ministry Irushadha Abdul Sattar said the ministry was trying to return two Maldivians detained in two different prisons in Syria.
Irushadha said that the two men were detained in Syria due to drug related charges.
”one of them has been detained since 2003 and the other since 2008,” She said.
Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom said if the detainees were Maldivians and innocent people, “the government should not wait a single minute without helping them.”
”If there are innocent Maldivians detained anywhere the government should help them,” Dr Mausoom said.
The Maldivian government has recently announced that it will resettle two detainees from Guantanamo Bay jail, creating public outcry. President Mohamed Nasheed dismissed concerns and claimed it was a “humanitarian” act.
Parliament’s National Security Committee is now investigating the case of the detainees the Maldivian government allegedly agreed to bring in to the country, which some MPs claimed might disrupt the peace and sovereignty of the country.
Dr Shaheed and State Foreign minister Ahmed Naseem was on an official trip and was unable to get a comment, while the President’s Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair is on leave.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has condemned “in strongest possible terms” Israel’s act of aggression against a flotilla of ships attempting to bring humanitarian aid into Gaza
Israeli soldiers raided the flotilla of six vessels carrying 663 activists from 37 countries, which was intending to break Israel’s blockade and deliver aid into Gaza.
Nine people were reported killed aboard the main vessel MV Mavi Marmara during the assault in international waters, while up to 60 activists and 10 Israeli soldiers were injured. Surviving passengers have been detained by Israel.
The Maldives Foreign Ministry said the incident was “a clear act of aggression against civilians, especially civilians engaged in humanitarian work”, and called for an “immediate independent international enquiry so that the facts may be ascertained, accountability established, and justice secured for those who have tragically died, as well as their family and friends.”
“There can be no excuse for such violence, which represents a violation of international humanitarian and human rights law and a step-back from universal humanist values,” the Ministry said, in a statement.
Yesterday the UN Security Council said it “deeply regrets” loss of life and injuries during the military operation, “and condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least ten civilians.”
The Security Council further stressed that “the situation in Gaza is not sustainable”, and Israel to provide “unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza.”
“The only viable solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an agreement negotiated between the parties,” it said, claiming “that only a two-State solution, with an independent and viable Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbors, can bring peace to the region.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the attack as “a clear case of self-defense”, reiterating that “Israel cannot allow the free flow of weapons, rockets and missiles to Hamas in Gaza.”
“We have no problems with the people of Gaza. We do have a conflict with the terrorist regime of Hamas, supported by Iran,” he said.
The Maldives Foreign Ministry denounced the blockade as “not only morally wrong as it inflicts unjustifiable harm on innocent civilians, but also short-sighted in that it breeds mistrust, animosity and hatred – exactly the emotions that led to this tragedy and to the perpetuation of the Middle East conflict.”
The Maldives joins many other international voices deploring Israel’s aggressive reaction, including Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia where President Mohamed Nasheed is currently visiting.
“The Australian government condemns any use of violence under the sorts of circumstances that we have seen,” Rudd said.
One Australian citizen was reportedly shot in the leg, while reknown Australian journalist Paul McGeough is among those currently detained by Israel.
(0)Dislikes
(0)