Category: Politics

MDP condemns DRP accusations that the party backed attacks on the media

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has refuted claims made by the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) last week accusing the ruling party of masterminding recent attacks on the media.

Four gang members stormed the studios of television station DhiTV last week, and hours later an employee of newspaper Haveeru was left in a critical condition after he was stabbed outside the building.

In an interview with DhiTV the following day, DRP vice president and spokesperson Ibrahim Shareef said he believed the MDP was behind the attacks on media, adding that he does “not believe the MDP is trying to bring press freedom to the country,.”

DRP vice president and MP Ahmed Ilham did not say he blamed the MDP for the attacks, but he critcised the government “for trying to kill the media in many [other] ways.”

The government had cut points from the broadcasting license of radio station DhiFM “to try and threaten them,” he said.

Police criticism of DhiFM for its coverage of a protest outside Muleaage in January led to the station having five points deducted. Together with police attempts at the time to stop the broadcast, the incident was treated as attack on press freedom by the station and the Maldives Journalists’ Association (MJA).

Three members of the MJA have meanwhile flown to Colombo with the intention of lobbying diplomats and journalists, “seeking international support for press freedom in the Maldives.”

MJA President Ahmed ‘Hiriga’ Zahir said that “President Nasheed’s words promoting press freedom are not being matched by action. Our goal is to seek international pressure so that the President will act on his promises.”

Under the Maldives’ current broadcasting legislation, points are deducted for any breaches of the broadcasting code of conduct, up to a maximum of 100, as decided by a committee appointed by the Department of Information.

Spokesperson for MDP Ahmed Haleem said the party had “sacrificed much” to bring press freedom to the Maldives and regretted DRP’s accusations that the party was somehow responsible for the attacks on the media.

”They don’t know what to talk about now, so they are spreading these untrue stories,” Haleem said.

Haleem claimed that Ilham was “very new to politics” and ”really does not know the way things go.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Democratic bargaining over religion

Although an Islamist party heads the Ministry of Islamic Affairs in the coalition government of President Mohamed Nasheed, he chose not to mention religion either of his two presidential addresses to the parliament so far. This is only the latest incident that has led to suspicions of ‘almaniyya’ pursued by President Nasheed.

On the other hand, the more liberal or ‘moderate’ Maldivians have lamented over the ‘leglessness’ of the government in the face of the steady growth of religious puritanism and conservatism in society.

It is no easy job for any president or government to carve out a religious public policy that will satisfy both these groups at the same time.

History’s lesson for us is that it is only through a painful process of democratic bargaining over the place of religion in government that we can consolidate liberal democracy.

Price of ignoring or thwarting religion

The history of several Muslim majority countries shows that governments cannot afford to have a top-down policy of ignoring or thwarting religion when religion is a significant part of social identity.

The Iran of Pahlavis, where religion was either ignored or thwarted by the government, only contributed to the rise of mullahs and a bloody Islamic revolution giving power to an elitist group of religious guardians who surpassed their secular predecessors in imposing their brand of Islam on the Iranian population.

Equally true is the case of Turkey where Mustafa Kemal Atatürk pursued a rigid French Republican style laïcité ignoring the religious sentiments of the population. This hard secularism had failed to provide a tolerant and fair democratic system for Turkey, where an Islamic party now heads the government (their second term), which was a slap on the face of the secular establishment.

Top-down secular modernisation programmes have failed in all post-colonial Muslim societies, which are instead mired in corruption, religious and political suppression and autocracy. As a consequence, in these societies, religious puritanism, Islamism, and re-Islamisation have steeply gained ground, and a home-grown, bottom-up, democratically-negotiated secularism has not materialised.

The calls for a so-called Islamic state have been the rallying cry in the wake of these crises.

But is an Islamic state the solution?

Men behind Sharia: the illusion of an Islamic state

A typology of religious views in the Maldives could show that there are at least three broad positionings on Sharia and its place in government. They include the more nuanced, eclectic and ijthihad-friendly version of Gayoom; the more conservative-Islamist yet religion-government-conflationary version of the Adhaalath; and, the more government-independent and insular versions which despise ‘democracy’ and similar concepts as bid’a and Western constructs.

The rule, rather than the exception, is that there are deep religious-political disagreements among these camps, as depicted by their different politico-religious groupings which compete and contest with one another, even when they are doing the same things!

Now, whose interpretation of Sharia would you like to implement?

Such disagreements are the inevitable outcome of the fact that both Sharia and fiqh are products of human interpretation of Qur’an and Hadith. There is no way one can delineate the anthropocentrism involved in this. Even the categorical injunctions like “cut off hand for theft” are bound to be differently interpreted, for instance, as to the exact meaning of the words ‘cut off’ or ‘theft’. Even more disagreements are bound to happen where their practical applications are concerned.

To take an example from among our own clerics, for instance, Sheikh Shaheem’s translation of verse 59 of Al-Nisa (in his book entitled ‘Islam and Democracy’, 2006, p. 15)[1] is literally very different from any of the translations (Yusuf Ali, Shakir, Mohsin Khan, Pickthal, or even the recent Dhivehi translation commissioned by President Gayoom) that I have read.

The religious reason for such disagreements is that even if there is a divine concept of Sharia that is eternal, there is no divine interpreter of Sharia amongst us. If so, whatever interpretation of Sharia you want to enforce as public policy, that is inevitably a human choice, not Allah’s. If so, such policy is strictly speaking always secular. And such policy can always be contested.

It is then not just too naïve to rally blindly behind an illusory ‘Islamic state’ as the final solution to all our problems. It is also dangerous. The only thing close to such a so-called Islamic state is utter political despotism.

The first step

As elsewhere in the Muslim countries, ‘secularism’ is a very negatively loaded term in the Maldives. Unfortunately, it is also a misunderstood concept – both in the Muslim world and in the West.

Dhivehi, like several other languages, including Arabic, do not have an equivalent term for the concept. We have seen in recent Divehi religious literature a term called almani – meaning ‘worldly’ – for ‘secular’. Originally in Muslim literature, the term dahr – roughly ‘atheist’ – was used for ‘secular’, which explains the pejorative view of the concept early on.

Influential Muslim intellectuals such as Jamaluddin Al-Afghani, Sayyid Qutb, Maulana Mawdudi, Ayottalah Khomeini, Yusuf Qardawi, Sayed Naquib al-Attas of Malaysia, who have voiced against ‘secularism’ referring to it as ladeeni, only added to our dislike towards ‘secularism’.

They, like Sheikh Farooq’s article on the 12th March 2010 issue of Hidhaayathuge Magu, assert religion will wither away or is relegated to private sphere in liberal democracy.

But the fact is, in the United States where there is a constitutional separation of religion and state, to this day religion is very much alive and active in the public sphere. Religion has been a strong voice in public policy and law making. Incidentally, Islam is also one of the fastest growing religions in the US.

On the other hand, how many of us remember that even in this 21st century, for instance, Scotland, England, Norway, Finland, Greece, Denmark, Iceland, and the Netherlands, could have officially recognised religions? Or why have Christian parties often ruled in several European countries?

What then is the ‘secularism’ proper for liberal democracies?

To be a liberal democracy, the minimum requirement from religion is that no religious institution must have the constitutional right to mandate a government to implement their views without a due democratic process or have the right to veto democratic legislation.

This minimum institutional separation of religion from state does not preclude religion from politics. If you want to implement amputation for robbery, you must go through the democratic process of convincing others through accessible reasons.

The right steps

Religion is an important part of our identity – even our political identity. As the historical lesson has shown in other places, it is therefore naïve, cruel and arrogant for a government to ignore or suppress religion.

Bringing on board religious people in public affairs or using religious language where appropriate does not make a head of state any less democratic or liberal. If President Obama, as in his Cairo speech, can quote from the Bible, Qur’an or Talmud, and speak about his policies towards religion, including Islam, and still be a liberal democrat, why cannot we be? President Nasheed therefore can show more of his religious side.

But, the Ministry of Islamic Affairs’ mandate must be overhauled so that they do not have an undemocratic, and unfair bargaining position to influence the national education curriculum and use public resources unchecked as a platform to promote their own interpretation of Sharia both within the government and society. This is unfair and religiously unjust because there are other religious groupings that do not have a similar advantage. Their mandate must be limited to undertaking training in Qur’an recitation, looking after mosques, regulating zakat, managing annual hajj, and similar non-interpretative religious matters.

This does not mean religious parties do not have a role in politics. On the contrary, religion can and should be part of the political process. It is unreasonable to ask from religious people to separate their religious identity and religion-based norms from politics whenever they step in the public sphere. A case in point is the recent protests on the liquor issue: religious individuals played a politically legitimate role to influence the government.

It is not toothless of the government to respond to those protests, given the profundity of religion in our social identity. Those who opposed the regulation – which itself was not democratically legitimised – might be a minority. Yet the alleged majority was simply democratically dead.

And, this brings us to the single most important arena where we ought to tackle religious issues: civil society.

Through the bloody wars of religion, it is with long, painful democratic bargaining of the role of religion in public affairs that we saw liberal democracy consolidated in Europe. It is only through difficult hermeneutical exegesis of religious texts and reformulation of religious views within the public sphere that we saw its tolerance in Europe.

This was not done by governments. The State, as a coercive apparatus, simply does not have the democratically appropriate resources to tackle and interpret normative issues.

In the face of growing conservative-Islamism and Puritanism in our society, what we need is a functioning civil society, bargaining for religious tolerance and promoting the universal goals of justice and equality envisioned in Qur’an.

What we need are our equivalents of the Sisters-in-Islam of Malaysia or our Sunni equivalents of Iran’s New Religious Thinkers, who will use the resources of religion to engage with the Islamist and puritan appropriations of religion.

We need to invite people like Khaled Abou El Fadl, who will help us ‘Rescue Islam from the Extremists’ who are committing a ‘Great Theft’ in daylight by sacrilising Mohamed Ibn Abdul Wahhab, who was even opposed by his own father and brother Sulaiman Ibn Abdul Wahhab.

We need an Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im who will help us ‘Negotiate the Future of Sharia’ and bring us ‘Towards an Islamic Reformation’ by teaching us the possibility of re-interpretation of religious texts through abrogation and teaching us more about the tolerant, pragmatic Mecca period of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).

We need a Mohamed Charfi to clarify the ‘The Historical Misunderstanding’ of Liberty in Islam and show us that our practice of Sharia is not fixed, as, for example, the dhimma system, slavery and concubines (all allowed and practised under traditional Sharia) have become untenable and officially banned in several Muslim majority countries.

We need a Nurcholish Madjid who will challenge those for whom “everything becomes transcendental and valued as ukhrawi” while the Prophet (PBUH) himself made a distinction between his religious rulings and his worldly opinions when he was wrong about the benefits of grafting of date-palms. Is Sheikh Shaheem fully certain that when the Prophet (PBUH) is believed to have said “those who appoint a woman as their leader will not be successful” whether or not he was making a personal opinion?

What we need is not another religious minister, but an Abdulla Saeed to teach at our schools what a more tolerant and just Islam will tell us about ‘Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam’, and engage with (Islamic NGO) Salaf to argue that Qur’an as in verse 4:137 assumes situations when an apostate (however we dislike it) continues to live among Muslims.

We also need a reformed former president Gayoom to lecture in the Faculty of Shari’a and Law to show that the ‘door of ijthihad is not closed’ as he argued in a lecture in Kuala Lumpur in 1985.

Last, but not least, the Richard Dawkins-style or Ayaan Hirsi Ali-style calls from fellow Maldivians for outright rejection of religion and exclusion of religion from politics can only hinder such ‘immanent critique’ of religious puritanism and Islamism.

It is through a religious discourse that is democratically promoted within civil society that we could negotiate with our fellow Islamists, puritans, and the rest that Islam’s permanent and ultimate goals are liberty, equality, justice, and peaceful co-existence – that is, constitutional democracy.

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)

Ministry of Finance asked to provide list of political appointees

Minister of Finance and Treasury Ali Hashim was asked today to provide the Parliament with details of the number of political appointees, their titles and salaries under the current government.

Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed requested the information from the minister.

He said there had been a “war on words” regarding the number of political appointees in both the former and current governments, with some people saying there were as many as 600 appointees while others claimed there were fewer than 300.

“There has always been a comparison between this government and the previous one,” Nasheed said, referring to one of the things the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) criticised most about the former government: that it was =‘top heavy.’

Nasheed said he did not ask Minister Hashim for a list of cabinet members or even for the VP’s salary, only for the number of appointees, but the minister “is providing more than I asked for.”

State Minister of Finance Ahmed Assad said the Ministry of Finance would provide Parliament with the list of appointees soon since “there is no reason to withhold it.”

Whether or not the list would become a matter of public knowledge, he said, was “for Parliament to decide.”

Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Visaam Ali said the DRP was “really concerned” about the number of political appointees under the current government.

She said she was not only concerned about the government being “top heavy” but was worried because “they advocated different views” during their election campaign in 2007.

“What they are doing is different to what they promised the people,” Visaam said. “They promised the people an MDP government would be different.”

She added that the number of political appointees is even “worse than under the previous government” and there are more political appointees now earning higher salaries that they were under Gayoom’s government.

MDP Spokesperson Ahmed Haleem said government appointees “are not an issue” for the party, but issues dealing with civil servants were a major priority.

Haleem said during the 2007 presidential campaign, MDP had told the people they wanted the government of Maldives to be smaller.

“The former government had over 1,000 political appointees,” claimed Haleem. “Now we have just over four hundred.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Voting at DRP congress was rigged at island-level, claims formative party member

Delegates travelling to Male’ to vote in the third congress of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) “were bought before they even got here”, claimed Dr Faathin Hameed, one of the DRP’s formative members and niece of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, the party’s Honorary Leader.

Faathin alleged the elections held during the party’s congress “were not free and fair”, because the island-level elections of delegates were compromised by vested interests.

“There were a lot of complaints from the islands lodged directly at the DRP office,” Faathin said. “I made a point of writing to the committee in charge of the congress, headed by the [Parliamentary] Speaker Abdulla Shahid, reporting the complaints I was receiving and requesting action in order to ensure a transparent, free and fair democratic process.”

Members complained they were deliberately excluded from participating in island-level meetings, that island-level meetings were not announced or held in secrecy, that agendas were not announced in advance and that candidates were not given the opportunity to put themselves forward. There were also disputes over vote counting.

“There is a procedure for electing delegates,” Faathin explained. “At least 48 hours notice must be given to all DRP members on the island; the date, venue and agenda have to be publicly announced, along with the number of delegates to be elected; and members have to be given fair and equal opportunity to submit their names. This procedure was not followed, and on some islands DRP members did not even know the meeting was being held.

“I was involved in the formative meeting of the party and in each of the three congresses, and in each one these the issue of delegate elections has been very problematic.”

Vote buying

In the absence of party procedure, Faathin claimed “there were delegations from Male’ who went to the islands to ‘assist’ in holding the elections – teams sent by people with vested interests.”

She claimed the DRP’s “failure to fund its grassroot groups” had made the party dependent on outside financial support at the island-level.

“It costs about Rf1000 just to hold a meeting [to elect] a delegate,” she explained. “Renting the hall, the speaker system, the chairs – it is usually funded by a well-to-do person on the island or externally (from Male’) by an ‘interested’ person.”

Furthermore the party did not adequately provide for the logistics of bringing so many delegates to Male for the three day congress, Faathin explained.

“It’s an expensive thing to come and stay in Male’ for three days,” she said, “and the party said it did not have funding. Congress participation was structured so that every delegate got Rf600, for three and a half days, which is not enough for accommodation and food. The transport cost was also supposed to be paid by the delegate, to be refunded by the party when they got to Male’, but again some people don’t have that sort of [upfront] money to buy an Island Aviation ticket or get on the boat.”

The delegates from the islands were thus “dependent on handouts”, Faathin explained.

“The party was considering limiting the number of delegates. But then it got ‘well-wishers’ who were willing to fund delegates travelling from certain atolls. That structure led to delegates depending on any handouts that were given.”

When delegates arrived at the congress, Faathin said, “they were met by certain candidates’ campaign groups, taken to their campaign headquarters and given tea and the handout. Almost all delegates got that.”

Guest houses were “also booked in advance by these campaign offices, and gifted to delegation leaders and key delegations. You’re looking at an influx 800 people, and no way can that number be easily accommodated – people who arrived in Male’ at the last minute were running around trying to find accommodation.”

Election rigged?

Faathin was one of eight candidates for the DRP’s four deputy leader positions. The new vice presidents were Ibrahim Shareef (642 votes), MP Ali Waheed (645 votes), MP Ahmed Ilham (593 votes) and Umar Naseer, former president of the Islamic Democratic Party (502 votes).

The other candidates were Abdullah Mausoom (383 votes), Afrashim Ali (288 votes), Mohamed Saleem (239 votes) and Faathin, with 210 votes.

Faathin acknowledged she would likely face accusations of being a ‘sore loser’, “but the issues I am raising are not related to my winning or losing. I raised these same issues in writing much earlier, at the beginning of February when we started getting complaints. I have no issue with the vote counting, I believe it was done in a very proper way.”

Of primary concern

More important than the alleged rigging of the election process, Faathin stated, “was the then-council trying to undemocratically influence delegate voting on amendments to party regulations, particularly around the issue of [holding] primaries for the election of the party’s presidential candidate.”

She criticised the DRP council’s decision to appoint a three member committee to review amendments and make official recommendations, noting that one of these members was a rival candidate for the deputy leadership.

“There was ample opportunity for sabotage and the council really scuttled my candidacy,” she claimed.

“I myself submitted six major amendments, all of which were targeted at making the party’s internal processes more democractic, more transparent and make the DRP more accountable to its members,” she said. “I also focused on reversing the neglect of the island wings by the party’s leadership.

“The official congress paper on amendments circulated to all delegates contained the council’s directive on each amendment proposed by an individual member. On each amendment to be voted on there was a paragraph on how the council felt about the amendment,” she said.

“This is what every delegate was looking at when voting. What do you think the delegate is going to be thinking? Vote against the party leader?”

“Each delegate got that council paper the night before the congress began. The next day a lot of us protested, and a motion was even put forward that this paper be discarded and reprinted without the council recommendations, so that fair chance might given to us to present our reasoning. But the chair (Abdullah Shahid) ruled this could not be done because there was no space for motions.

“The party’s regulations say any party member can put forward a motion at the congress. It was very upsetting – this type of thing is detrimental to the whole party.”

Need for internal democracy

Faathin said she felt the outcome of the congress was “very negative”, as beyond the elections “we lost the chance to fully democratise the party.”

“I believe [democratisation] is very important if we are going to be competitive in the upcoming presidential elections,” she said. “The leadership has to be elected through a democratic process. It is not democratic to have an automatic process [of selecting a presidential candidate]. That’s an autocratic way of looking at it and one that this country has outgrown.”

“The voter base for any party to win the elections is not only its members – the members can be very loyal to the party but they are only about 30,000 strong. To win, we need the support of sympathisers and people who believe in what the party stands for. Without showing internal democracy and strength in that respect, it will be very difficult to win any election.”

Faathin said she feared the lack of internal democracy and focus on parliament at the expense of the party’s wings would alienate the party’s professional support base and lead to “dissatisfaction at the grassroots level.”

“If you look at DRP’s beginning, when we began we had a very wide membership – a lot of educated and experienced people and a very solid front line, even at the island and youth level,” she explained. “A respectable membership of people working in business, government – there was competence within the party.

“But as we have progressed, this has evolved into something different, and now if you look at the party you do not see a party frontline that gives confidence that it can form an alternative government. What is difference between MDP and DRP now?”

The DRP risks running for election having lost the support and experience of those who worked in the previous government, and the promise of an alternative, she claimed, noting that ‘lack of experience’ was one of the main charges levelled at the MDP when it came into power.

“It was a new team,” she said. “It had a lot going for it when it came into power. 30 years is a long time – anywhere, in any country – especially for youth. It was a negative the DRP could not counter. But now MDP is in power, when we come to 2013, DRP will not have that working for it. Any government as time goes by will find its footing, will learn from its own mistakes, and I’m sure MDP will also do that.”

When the elections are called, “all the DRP [will have going for it] is the MDP will not have performed,” Faathin predicted. “What the DRP has to present is a viable alternative – more experience, better planning, a team – and build confidence that it can run a better government. Right now we’re coming up to midterm and DRP doesn’t have that. Why would people want to take a risk? Why would a normal citizen vote for just another new team?”

New thinking, old models

MDP was struggling to to change its image from that of “radical street activism” to a “respectable governing party”, Faathin observed.

“They are having a difficult time at it, when same faces are there. But I don’t think modelling DRP on pre-election MDP is the solution – that model worked for MDP because the MDP activists at the time had the fundamental commitment from their own self-grievances, and that gives a lot more commitment than someone who is just trying to overthrow the government because they don’t like the party who’s running it. It’s a massive difference in mental outlook.”

Faathin said she felt that with its parliamentary focus and preoccupation with the civil service salary issue and the provinces bill, the DRP had missed a lot of chances to capitalise on MDP’s mistakes and address people’s issues.

“[The salaries and the provinces] are the two things the DRP leadership has been talking about, but they are not key issues for people in the islands,” Faathin said. “Their issues are the revisions to education system and the social sectors, health insurance, what is happening to their pensions, medicines, cost of health services and the issue of utilities companies hijacking their property. They are tackling these issues on their own right now, and there’s quite a lot of dissatisfaction at the lack of party assistance and advice. DRP is losing very good opportunities to build its support base.”

Reaction

Speaker and DRP MP Abdulla Shahid dismissed Faathin’s claim that the delegates attending the DRP congress had relied on handouts from vested interests to make the journey.

“The party paid the transport and provided pocket money for the delegates while they were in Male’,” he said, but would not comment on whether he considered the Rf600 a reasonable amount for three days in Male’, only noting that “party finances are limited.”

On the subject of the complaints about the island-level elections he deferred to the DRP’s Secretary General Dr Abdulla Mausoom, but suggested that such complaints were common after an election: “The voting was very transparent.”

Shahid also said the DRP council’s practice of commenting on all amendments was appropriate because of their unique “view of the totality”.

“That is why DRP’s council has always reviewed amendments,” he said.

Regarding the party’s internal democracy and the subject of primaries, he noted that the same question had been put to him as chairman of the congress organising committee, “and I managed not to comment on it then.”

Mausoom, who like Faathin also ran unsuccessfully for the party’s deputy leadership, said no complaints regarding the party’s election procedures had been referred to him by the party’s internal election bureau.

“As a candidate I was 100 per cent happy with the whole election. I don’t think any party could have held them more perfectly,” he said.

As for Faathin’s claim that limited funding compelled delegates to accept handouts to attend the congress, Mausoom said that “all DRP members took part in the conference on their own initiative. Any financial support from DRP was a gesture of goodwill.”

Claims that grassroots support for the party was slipping were unfounded, he said, noting that in his own constituency of Kelaa Dhaairaa 27 people had recently joined the party in a single evening.

“The population at large is unhappy with the present government,” he observed.

Mausoom also dismissed Faathin’s concern that the council had influenced votes by publishing directives on the amendment papers, commenting that DRP members could think for themselves “as they are highly educated.”

Furthermore, he said, the correlation made between holding primaries and the party’s internal democracy was unsubstantiated.

“People attending the congress choose the leader who becomes the presidential candidate, not a nominee. All members can vote,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Amendments to Armed Forces Act dismissed by Speaker

Parliament has thrown out the proposed amendments to the Armed Forces Act, put forward last week.

The Majlis was stalled last Wednesday after two contradictory amendments to the Armed Forces Act were proposed.

The first amendment came from Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP for Manimaadhoo Amhed Mujthaz, proposing Parliament should ultimately have the power to approve or deny the president’s choice for army chief.

The second amendment came from Maldivian Democratic Party (MPD) MP Mariya Didi, which was meant to counteract DRP’s proposal.

MDP’s proposal sought the Act to remain unchanged, and for President Mohamed Nasheed to have sole discretion in appointing or dismissing the army chief.

DRP’s amendment was tied at 35 on each side and was settled by Speaker of the People’s Majlis Abdulla Shahid, who cast his tie-braking vote in favour of DRP.

However MDP’s subsequent amendment passed at 35-33 votes, causing both contradiction and chaos.

“The Constitution allows me to vote only if there is a tie,” Shahid said, adding that he should not comment on the issue since his role was an impartial one.

Shahid said he “consulted the two major parties [DRP and MDP] and the leaders advised me to throw out the amendments” and leave it open for the process to be started again.

He said he thought the amendments would be resubmitted in the future, but were currently no longer on the floor.

Mariya Didi said “now the bill is as it was before,” noting that “the Speaker has exercised his discretion” and decided the bill should not be considered at this time.

“You don’t make bills and pass legislation to cater only for that day, but for the situation to be better in the country,” Mariya said.

State Minister for Home Affairs Ahmed Adil said he personally thought giving the power to parliament was “a dangerous move” and the motives for the proposed amendments were “purely political”.

He said the fact that the amendments were thrown out showed “the country is moving in the right direction.”

Adil added the Parliament “should not put their hand in the judiciary or executive branches” and each branch should remain independent of the other.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Letter on threats

Salam Alakium,

It is no surprise that the secularist media is pushing the death threats against the liar, Hilath Rasheed.

Really, does anyone think that anonymous threats on the internet are deserving of such coverage?

I doubt that there are many people who have not been threatened in one way or the other online, but we don’t make a big fuss about it as we are not all publicity seeking people with agendas.

I would also question how biased this media outlet is as you never reported the many death threats which are published on Hilaths blog against others.

One particular idiot by the name of Shadowrunner repeatedly threatens to kill and exterminate others and Hilath has no issue with publishing these comments and seems to see nothing wrong with them. Oh how the hypocrisy becomes apparent.

Ibn Khattab, IslamMaldives

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

DhiTV and Haveeru staff attacked

Four men forcibly entered DhiTV studios and attacked five senior officials at the station this afternoon, shortly after the the station aired a report on its 2 o’clock news claiming that Ibrahim Nafiz, ‘Chika’, has been released to house arrest.

Nafiz was sentenced to five years imprisonment in July 2008 for possession of a sword. Although the state also prosecuted Nafiz for alleged drug trafficking, the charges could not be proven at court and were dismissed.

Sub-inspector Ahmed Shiyam confirmed that police had received a report of the incident this afternoon and could not divulge further information while the investigation was ongoing.

DhiTV CEO Yousuf Navaal said the station did not wish to provide any information regarding the incident as he feared it would aggravate the situation.

Haveeru employee stabbed

Three hours after the alleged gang attack on DhiTV, a Haveeru employee was stabbed in the back.

Abdul Razzag Adam, 39, who works at the printing department, was knifed outside the Haveeru office building while he was on his cycle.

According to a family member, Razzag is in a critical condition and is currently undergoing treatment at  Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital (IGMH).

Meanwhile, although police have sent four officers to DhiTV, Naval said the attack on a Haveeru employee had shown that individual employees cannot be protected at all times.

Navaal said DhiTV had decided not to run the story again in its news tonight.

‘Until we receive assurance [of our safety] that we can report this type of news, we will not cover it anymore,’ he said.

Sub-inspector Shiyam said it was “difficult to say” whether the two attacks were connected at this stage of the investigation.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Deputy Speaker of Parliament pleads not guilty to conspiracy to defraud

Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim has pleaded not guilty to charges of fraud and embezzlement at the criminal court yesterday.
At yesterday’s hearing, State Prosecutor Abdullah Rabiu said Nazim was managing director at Namira Engineering when the company’s equipment and staff were used to create fake letterheads and submit proposals on behalf of unregistered companies for a bid worth US110,000 to provide 15,000 national flags for the former atolls ministry.
If found guilty, the MP for Meemu Atoll Dhiggaru and vice-president of the opposition People’s Alliance will be ordered to pay Rf1.4 million to the state and sentenced to between one to six years imprisonment.
Under article 131 of the penal code, an extra month will be added to the sentence for every additional Rf1,000 if the fraudulent transaction exceeds Rf100,000.
According to article 73 of the constitution, an MP convicted for over one year in jail will lose his seat in parliament.
Responding to the charges, Nazim’s lawyer Mohamed Saleem requested time to study the evidence and prepare a defense.
Web of corruption
In August last year, police concluded an investigation into alleged web of corruption revealed in the audit report of the former atolls ministry.
At a press conference in August, police said they had uncovered evidence that implicated former Atolls Minister Abdullah Hameed, Eydhafushi MP Ahmed ‘Redwave’ Saleem, former director of finance at the ministry, and Nazim in fraudulent and corrupt practices worth over US$260,000 (Mrf 3,446,950).
Police exhibited numerous quotations, agreements, tender documents, receipts, bank statements and forged cheques proving that Nazim received over US400,000 in the scam.
A hard disk seized during a raid of Nazim’s office in May allegedly contained copies of forged documents and bogus letter heads.
Police maintain that money was channelled through the scam to Deputy Speaker Nazim who laundered cash through Namira Engineering and Trading Pvt Ltd and other unregistered companies.
Police further alleged that MP Saleem actively assisted the scam in his then-position as a director of finance within the ministry, while Nazim’s wife Zeenath Abdullah had abused her position as a manager of the Bank of Maldives’ Villingili branch to deposit proceeds of the fraudulent conspiracy.
Police said Hameed played a key role in the fraud by handing out bids without public announcements, making advance payments using cheques against the state asset and finance regulations, approving bid documents for unregistered companies and discriminatory treatment of bid applicants.

Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim has pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy to defraud the former ministry of atolls development.

At yesterday’s hearing, State Prosecutor Abdullah Rabiu said Nazim was managing Director of Namira Engineering and Trading Pvt Ltd when the company’s equipment and staff were used to create fake letterheads and submit proposals on behalf of unregistered companies.

One of the paper companies won a bid worth US$110,000 to provide 15,000 national flags for the former atolls ministry.

If found guilty, the MP for Meemu Atoll Dhiggaru and vice-president of the opposition People’s Alliance will be ordered to pay Rf1.4 million (US$108,900) to the state and sentenced to between one to six years of imprisonment.

Under provision 131 of the penal code, an extra month will be added to the jail sentence for every additional Rf1,000 if the fraudulent transaction exceeds Rf100,000.

According to article 73 of the constitution, an MP convicted for over one year in jail will lose his seat.

Responding to the charges, Nazim’s lawyer Mohamed Saleem requested time to study the evidence and prepare a defense.

Web of corruption

At a press conference in August last year, Chief Inspector Ismail Atheef said police had uncovered evidence that implicated former Atolls Minister Abdullah Hameed, Eydhafushi MP Ahmed “Redwave” Saleem, former director of finance at the ministry, and Nazim in fraudulent transactions worth over US$260,000 (Mrf 3,446,950).

Police exhibited numerous quotations, agreements, tender documents, receipts, bank statements and forged cheques proving that Nazim received over US$400,000 in the scam.

A hard disk seized during a raid of Nazim’s office in May allegedly contained copies of forged documents and bogus letter heads.

Police maintain that money was channelled through the scam to Nazim who laundered cash through Namira Engineering and other unregistered companies.

Police further alleged that MP Saleem actively assisted the scam in his then-position as director of finance at the ministry, while Nazim’s wife Zeenath Abdullah had abused her position as a manager of the Bank of Maldives’ Villingili branch to deposit proceeds of the fraudulent conspiracy.

Police said Hameed, brother of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, played a key role in the fraud by handing out bids without public announcements, making advance payments using cheques against the state asset and finance regulations, approving bid documents for unregistered companies and discriminatory treatment of bid applicants.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Haama editor fined Rf5000 for defaming Yameen

Editor of Haama News Saif Azhar was fined by civil court last Thursday for defaming the character of People’s Alliance (PA) leader Abdulla Yameen.

Civil Court Judge Maryam Nihayath ruled that an article published in June last year claiming that Yameen had US$32 million in his HSBC bank account was defamatory.

Saif was fined Rf5000 (US$385), currently the maximum penalty for defamation in the Maldives. Yameen also has lawsuits pending against Ibrahim Waheed, the journalist who wrote the article, the editor of Jazeera Daily Fayyaz Faisal, the owner of Haama Daily (Axis Maldives) and Ahmed Muhsin, the assistant editor of TVM.

Yameen had sought Rf2,570,000 million (US$192,000) for psychological damages and Rf21,775,305 (US$1.67 million) for material damages, claims which were dismissed by the judge.

Azhar said he was not in town when the article was published and had no knowledge of it, claiming that his journalist Ibrahim Waheed had written the piece.

”In the article we mentioned that the source [of the information] was online news website Manadhoolive,” he said, ”but the judge decided that we had not referred to any source.”

He said the same article published in Haama News was also published in the newspaper Haveeru.

President of the Maldives Journalism Association (MJA) Ahmed ‘Hiriga’ Zahir said the association did not support journalists defaming people’s character.

”We do not support journalists writing stories without any evidence or proof,” he said. ”It’s a practice everywhere to fine journalists.”

Secretary General of the PA Ahmed Shareef said the outcome of the case showed that the country was strengthening its judicial service.

”Journalists have to be more responsible and careful when publishing articles,” he said.

Yameen failed to response Minivan News at time of press.

The former editor of weekly magazine Sandhaanu was also recently ordered to pay Rf5000 (US$389) for defaming Mohamed Ghassan Maumoon, the former president’s son.

Ghassan took Abdulla ‘Fahala’ Saeed to the civil court seeking Rf3.375 million (US$262,600) over an article Fahala had written in the 118th edition of Sandhaanu magazine.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)