Category: Politics

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

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

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

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

What kind of resurgence?

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

Do you think they will get a majority?

I hope not.

What would be the danger if they did?

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

But you worked in the former government?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are your thoughts on the current president?

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

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

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

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

(…)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

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

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

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

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

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

What have the government’s successes been?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you think Gayoom should step down as party leader?

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

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

Who would make a good replacement?

That I can’t say.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

As the first female MP and a stalwart of the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), Aneesa Ahmed is a household name. Minivan News brings you the first in a two-part interview with the DRP parliamentary leader on her decision to quit politics and the upcoming parliamentary elections.

You’re not running for parliament. Did that come as a surprise to people?

Many people questioned me so I guess they were not expecting me to retire but I had decided to do this in 2005, to retire actually after the presidential term was over but then since I’m in parliament and the term is expiring I thought I’d wait until our term was over.

I’ve been in politics for quite some time now and I think it’s time that I take time off and do something which is more relaxing and more personally satisfying.

What are you going to be doing with your free time?

Right now I have many thoughts. I’ll probably do some charity work. Maybe work as an activist to make Majlis more accountable because of my experience. Just a thought.

Personally I am thinking of doing something more relaxing, to be truly away from politics, but there’s a lot of pressure on me from friends and peers not to give it up all together.

To be somehow or the other involved in politics in a different way. Away from mainstream politics. I may be doing that but I haven’t given it serious consideration.

How do you think the preparation for the parliamentary elections has been going so far?

Well, I am only hoping that it’s going to be free and fair elections this time like the presidential elections. So far it has been. Except for the fact that I’m not too happy with the president and his cabinet colleagues actively involved in campaigning for the government candidates. That is not right and it’s not fair.

What do you think about the parliamentary candidates, especially those who lack experience?

It is to some extent a concern. I am not undermining these candidates or their capacity because all of us when we first come into parliament didn’t have the experience. But there’s a difference between the way activists should function and how MPs should function.

I’m only hoping the voters will make the distinction to check between those who can, who do have the capacity to perform as MPs, as responsible MPs and those who are only activists.

I’m not saying all activists are not suitable, I’m not saying that at all. It’s just that there are people who can adapt themselves as MPs and there are others who in my view cannot. But please keep it in mind that I’m not undermining any of the candidates.

In terms of voting, what do you think people vote for? Personality or issues?

Voters have not been educated properly. Until now the constituents say every individual MP should be working for the welfare of an individual constituent rather than for the constituency.

They feel that it’s for their personal benefits, like supporting them for medical treatment rather than expressing their views in parliament and trying to legislate for their benefit. So in that way people have still not accepted that that is actually the role of an MP.

That’s going to take time I think, we have to educate voters. We have to change. We have brought in a liberal democracy to the country and we need to promote that and maintain that rather than function in the way we were doing earlier.

How do you think the party campaigns have been going so far? Do you think there is a lot of negative campaigning?

There is a lot of that happening. I am only hoping that this is very temporary and in the next elections, I am hoping we won’t see this. I think it’s because of the sudden change that we’ve brought in. People were not prepared for it. Those who are actually bringing change and those who are the beneficiaries of change. It’s just too sudden and too much all in one go.

I want to believe that is why things are in pretty bad shape right now. There’s a lot of money politicking, which I for one never believe in. In the two terms that I actually campaigned, I never spent money. In the sense that I have never given people any money.

I have helped them but never given them cash. That’s something I don’t believe in and I don’t think is right. And also these personal allegations, unfounded allegations. It’s very wrong. You’re not trying to assassinate the character of the opponent.

What do you think about the number of women contesting in the elections?

It’s not a good number when there are so many hundreds of people campaigning. As things are I still feel the status of women in the Maldives in the nineties and early 2000 actually did come up and you could see more women in public life, but we are regressing.

I feel it’s partly because of the extreme views of our religious people. Well I think the influence of fundamental Islam. People are afraid. When we were in school you never questioned religion. Maldivians generally are not quite certain of what Islam is all about.

What I’m trying to say is that they don’t know much about the religion but when it comes to certain religious views, you don’t question them. And these people, these religious scholars who are preaching in the country now also don’t have a very broad view of Islam, they know very little. They feel Islam is a religion of rituals only but it’s not. It’s much broader. It’s a very enlightened faith.

What do you think needs to be done to encourage women to take a more active role in politics and in public life?

There’s been a lot of rhetoric on it, but in actual fact there are many restrictions on women candidates. For instance financial support, especially these days when there’s so much of money politicking.

Women don’t have that the wealth so they need to be supported, financially supported and also their families will have to give them support. Unless they have an understanding and supportive husband, it’s going to be difficult.

And then again the whole attitude, the mindset of people will need to be changed. We still have the majority of the people with the mindset that women can’t perform in public in the same way as men and women don’t have the intelligence or the capacity to be members of parliament or public figures.

It’s not only among men, it’s also among women. And also that by coming into public life you’re not disgracing yourself, that is something again.

Like in my case, I have short hair, I’m called a man. Even now, practically everyday I’ll get one or two SMSs abusing me because I talk like a man in Majlis, I behave like a man because I’m out in public and because I have short hair. They don’t realise I have short hair for convenience. I don’t behave like a man, I don’t want to be a man and I don’t feel as if I’m masculine.

Check back on Minivan News for the second part of the interview when Aneesa discusses the future of the DRP and whether ex-President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom should step down as party leader.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Since the Employment Act was ratified in 2008, the issue of labour rights has been much-debated in the Maldives.

A series of strikes at the end of last year brought to the surface the many cracks in the legislation and highlighted the failure of many employers to implement the rights enshrined in the Act.

In a historic move, the government decided to seek membership of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) to ensure labour rights are upheld.

Tine Staermose, director of the Sri Lankan branch of the ILO, talks to Maryam Omidi about the future of employment rights in the Maldives.

How would you describe the current situation with regards to labour rights in the Maldives?

My feeling over the last three years is that concerned and relevant parties in both the past and current governments are very committed to come aboard the ILO. With the new constitution fundamental labour rights are enshrined.

What are missing are the institutions. We need to ensure the labour tribunal is equipped as soon as possible and the ILO needs to assist the country in creating trade unions.

The government is in full support of building up civil society and trade unions. But there’s no knowledge of how they function. There’s no law.

How will the ILO help?

What the ILO will do is send experts down as a matter of urgency. The experts will lay down the structure for a tripartite labour governance where workers and employers come together with the government.

In the ILO, strikes are the last resort. What is really important is social dialogue; a space or a platform which is ruled by certain regulations. The rules of the game have to be put in place.

Just becoming a member of the ILO is not the same as getting the rules and regulations, and our experts will help with this.

What’s extremely important is that the consultation includes all the relevant parties and it’s open, transparent and facilitated so that there’s genuine dialogue. We need to remove misperceptions about what others think or want.

The country needs to be assisted in fulfilling its economic potential. Having jobs in the ILO framework is not enough. We are talking about having decent jobs.

There are four pillars in the ILO: there are fundamental workers’ rights, social protection and employment promotion, and these are glued together with social dialogue.

The real issues at stake are, for example, working conditions, wages, working hours, occupational safety and health. All these things need to be legislated for and right now, they’re not.

We need to carry out a gaps analysis to find out what legislation is missing.

We also need to train the labour tribunal and provide guidance to the judiciary.

How will the ILO resolve complaints?

It’s a very efficient system where both employers and employees can file a complaint with the ILO.

And if the government fails to enforce the labour law, they will have to answer to an ILO board. We don’t have any sanction areas, we only have moral pressure, but I can tell you it’s very strong.

How will this affect the tourism industry?

We will work with resort owners. It may be that profit will shrink in the first period but over time, employers will realise the benefits of having a satisfied workforce.

One of the things we need to know more about is the capabilities of the workers.

Maybe the government will need to improve the competence of its own workforce so that it can compete for better jobs in the resorts.

How will this affect expatriate workers?

Migrant workers will have the same rights as locals but we can’t address them without putting the legislation in place first.

When will the first phase begin?

I have put a lot of urgency on this because the opportunity is here and there are expectations.

If it goes slowly, the expectations will sour and so I think it’s important to act pretty fast.

How long will the process take?

It will be a matter of time before we see good practices. But we have to be content that there’s a very committed president.

It doesn’t take a million dollars, just technical experts and time

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Since the Employment Act was amended to include the tourism industry in October, the sector has come under heavy scrutiny.
A series of strikes from workers protesting for their labour rights, which they claimed had not been implemented since the revision of the Act, has brought to light both the flaws in the legislation but also the dissatisfaction felt by many employees.
Most notably, a strike held on 28 November at the One and Only Resort by over 200 staff ended in violence after police clashed with workers.
On the fourth day of the strike, the government intervened to reach a settlement, which President Mohamed Nasheed described as a “breakthrough”.
Sim Ibrahim Mohamed from the Maldives Association of Tourism Industry (MATI) talks to Minivan News about the state of the tourism industry and how recent strikes have cost the industry millions of dollars.

What do you think about the strikes that have taken place?
It’s really sad because these people who are striking have now become activists. But there are people with vested interests who are working behind the scenes.
It’s people who want to bring down the government and also hurt the tourism industry. We know the people involved but we don’t want to engage with them. We want to resolve this issue amicably. We want to remove the ambiguities within the law. That’s all we are trying to do.
The entrepreneurs that are investing in tourism have rights too. Just in the same way workers have rights. This has been forgotten because it’s the workers who are making a lot of noise. They were not justified in what they did because there is a grievance procedure. If you study the situation then you will see the management also had some complaints but these were not heard.

Are you satisfied with the settlement brokered by the government?
We are not happy with the resolution reached because the government has been held hostage, the management has been held hostage and the entire tourism industry has been held hostage. If these people are party to the MoU, it gives too much recognition to these kinds of actions. It justifies this kind of action on private property. They have caused damage to the property.
We have heard from the management that they have thrown sand at mothers. They have also damaged property, breaking and entering into the living quarters of the general manager’s family home. They also threatened tourists and really frightened and intimidated them by going into the eating areas at meal times. So these are some issues that we have heard about but MATI can’t vouch for these because we were not there.

How have the strikes affected the tourism industry?
Several people have cancelled their holidays at One and Only Reethi Rah but also in the Maldives. The damage caused by this kind of act is very hard to estimate but it’s in the millions.
And it’s going to take more millions to put this right in terms of damage control and reputation. The Maldives is no longer a safe destination; this is how people will perceive it now. But we have had setbacks like this before such as the tsunami and we have come through them.

Do you think the Employment Act was flawed?
Strikes are good and they exist in all countries. But we need to have provisions within the Employment Act to regulate these things. We must also insure that we protect ownership rights and the rights of the employer. The Employment Act was flawed. The constitution of the Maldives is very ambiguous. It says people can go on strike but it doesn’t say how or where.

How do you think recent events will change employer-employee relations?
There will be a greater distinction between the two. Much greater than exists at the moment. Things are different now because there are many family-owned resorts and there’s a bond between some of the workers who have been there for a long time and their employers.
Once we go by the letter of the law then it will be a different situation. It will be more professional which is good, but there will be more of a distance than in the current employer-employee relationship.

How is the global financial crisis affecting the tourism industry?
The financial crisis is not affecting us much yet but it will affect tourism from April next year. This is because people have already paid for their holidays for this year. But people developing resorts have found it difficult to continue because there is a squeeze of credit. It’s become very hard to borrow money to invest.
There are around 40 resorts that have been leased to be developed and for obvious reasons they have had difficult in finding finance and so the industry has not expanded because of this. We have to create investor confidence in the Maldives especially in funding institutions.
They have to think it’s a good place for people to invest and make money. Obviously it’s a huge task. Confidence building is a huge task. It’s not like building something with bricks and mortar.

What do you think of the government proposal to increase resort leases to 50 years?
We want an increase of 15 years and this has been spun in many ways. This has been distorted by politicians who are claiming erroneously that we want 50 years. What we are asking for is an extension of 15 years because of circumstances outside our control, such as the current global financial market and the time it will take for us to recover from the crisis.
We think that if we can get these leases it will be an incentive for new businesses to come to the country. If we don’t get the leases most people will pack up and leave. People need to know there will be enough of a return on their investment.

Do you think bed rents should be standardised? [Beds at resort today are leased at a rate of up to US$16,000 whereas the first resorts that opened up pay about US$2000. Many argue that bed rents should be standardised.]

There are contracts that are in place and if we were to break these contracts it would be a disservice to those who have bid and won those beds and it’s very likely that some of them would sue the government. The best way for the government to enhance their income is to tax the industry on profits. We are happy to pay taxes.
In all business everywhere in the world, there’s something called prior rates for those who were there before everyone else because they took the risk of investing. They were the pioneers. This happens all over the world.
I think it’s very fair because they have taken huge risks to make their business grown from nothing. If they are to be penalised because they are successful now then it’s a disservice. The new government are cashing in on the success on the first investors and that’s not right.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

On 19 September 2003, prison guards beat to death 19-year-old prisoner Hassan Evan Naseem in Maafushi jail after he was suspected of creating a disturbance in the prison.
Evan was taken out of his cell to be savagely beaten by at least eight security officers with planks and batons. He died late that night in Malé’s Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital. His death would change the Maldives irreversibly.
In the prison, an uprising sparked shootings by prison guards that injured 17 and killed three inmates. Outside the prison, Evan’s mother, Mariyam Manike, refused to let her son leave this world quietly.
She uncovered his battered body, delayed his burial, and insisted the public should know of his brutal killing. Demonstrations and riots began in the capital, Malé. Maldivians had lost patience, and demanded reform from President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, then in power for 25 years.
Mariyam Manike, made instantly political by her son’s murder, became a key member of the reform movement, which built momentum in parliament and on the streets. Five years after Evan’s death, the country stands on the brink of its first ever multi-party presidential elections, the culmination of that process of change.
Mother of five and political activist Mariyam Manike, now 46, speaks to Minivan News about her memories of the past five years.
What is your recollection of Evan Naseem’s death?
On 20 September 2003, at 2am, a guard came and asked me to call Ismail Moosa, who was the head of the jail then. I didn’t realise how important it was. But I called and Ismail Moosa asked me to come to the hospital. I questioned him, and he said, “A sad thing happened last night. He died last night.” He swore he didn’t know how it had happened.
I went to the hospital, and at first, the police said I could not see my son’s body until a doctor had examined him. Dr Ahmed Razi came, he examined him, and then allowed me to go in.
I went into the room with his body. Only Evan’s head was uncovered. But I saw that both his eyes were soiled, and something was coming out of his nose. There was sand in his ears.
The nurse and the police were holding on to the cover. By force, I took it off up to his stomach. I saw that he had been tortured and beaten. I screamed, “They killed my son.”
The nurses came with stretchers and they tried to give me an injection, because I was screaming. My friend told me they were going to give me an injection, so I kept screaming, and they left.
How did the public come to know of his death?
I wanted the authorities to release the body, but no one would take responsibility and say the body could go. Eventually, a staff member at the hospital told me the report was done, and they were not holding onto the body any more.
They took Evan to the cemetery, Aa Sahara, and immediately they made preparations for burial. But I told them they couldn’t do it. “He’s my son. You can’t do this without my approval,” I said.
The man assigned to prepare the body told me Evan should be buried as soon as possible, because his body was going bad. I told them: “The body cannot go any worse than it is right now.”
Many people were in the cemetery. I did not let them bury him, or let the police come in. I wanted people to know.
President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom came. He lied on the “Siyaasath” programme last week [in which Gayoom said he had not been informed of the prison shooting that followed Evan’s death].
When he came to see me at the cemetery, I told Maumoon there was a shooting in the jail. I heard it on the phone – people had three or four mobile phones in the jail then. I received a call from someone in jail, who said, “Even now they are shooting.” I heard it. And I told Maumoon. He said he didn’t know – he was not aware of it.
I couldn’t sleep for two months afterwards. Even now when that day comes, it is as if he died yesterday. I hope and wish that no mother or father will have to see such a day.
Who do you believe was responsible for Evan’s death?
The President of Maldives and police commissioner Adam Zahir. Also Adam Mohamed, “Fusfaru” [National Security Service captain, who was tried for taking part in Evan’s murder, but sentenced to six months for “disobedience to order”].
The smallest chance I get, I will hold them responsible for it. If the law allows it, I will take legal action. We will never forgive anyone who is responsible for what happened to him. Even at the court, myself and his father wanted the death penalty. We did not want to accept blood money. It is God who should pardon them. Maumoon cannot pardon. [Eight security officers sentenced to death for Evan’s killing saw their sentences commuted to 25 years in jail.]
Torture in jail still continues – it may not be as it was then, but it still happens. A boy’s knee was broken because he prays too much. A boy’s shoulder was broken.
How did Evan end up in jail?
Evan was taken to jail not long after he started to use drugs. He was jailed at 17 for six years. My sister and I had given him up to the police, because we wanted him to have the chance of rehabilitation treatment.
He was on house arrest prior to rehabilitation, but then he got into a fight with the brother of a police officer. His sentence was immediately changed to jail, even though the law states the sentence can only be changed to jail after the second [drug] offence.
This area is all full of drugs: there is always a group that sells drugs here. They are sent to jail one day, and the next day we see them on the streets. We have to live in this tiny house, so the kids go out onto the streets. And the friends and neighbours are on drugs, so this is how it goes. It has not changed – there was a group sentenced recently but a new group came, and now it’s the same again.
You have spent time in jail yourself, is that right?
Yes, after August 12-13 [protests in 2004], I spent 57 days in jail. I was tortured a lot – no other woman would be tortured like this.
They came into this house to arrest me, and beat me. They took me in a bus, using foul language. They took me to Banderige [the treasury building]. They put me in a room and about 20 or 30 people came and beat me with their ankle boots, and kicked me everywhere. When I bent down, they took off my veil and hit me in the pelvic region. They blindfolded and handcuffed me, and tied my ankles.
They said, “We are taking you to the same place where Evan Naseem was killed. We will take your entire family. By coincidence you’re wearing the same handcuffs Evan Naseem wore.”
One of my sister’s friends, who was in charge of me, escorted me to the toilet. I thought I was bleeding but I was blindfolded and my hands were cuffed still. Someone came and hit me, I think with a stick, on my head. Then I blacked out.
That night they took me to Girifushi, the police training centre, still blindfolded. I told them I was injured and they took me to a gynaecologist. I was bleeding and the doctor gave me medication, and the bleeding worsened. I spent seven days in Girifushi, then in Dhoonidhoo detention centre in the small cells for 50 days. It was better there, with no torture.
Yes, I had participated in August 12-13 protests, but I didn’t do anything against the law. When Ibrahim Ismail (Ibra) was talking, I asked for the microphone and said two things: to let me into the court hearings, and for the death penalty for the people who killed my son. That’s all I said.
Later, I went to India twice for medical treatment for my internal injuries resulting from the beating. It was better after that, but I still have some problems.
Were you ever involved in politics before Evan’s death?
No – I was never a political person before that. Only afterwards. But from the hospital on, I knew I had to get people in the streets. I told everyone who came there to go on the streets and say someone has been killed in jail.
I believe the only political party is the Maldivian Democratic Party. They began this reform, and they are the only party who took action amid all the fear and intimidation. I have been with them ever since the party formed. Everything they do, I am involved with. MDP is very strong now.
Is it true that Evan’s killers are no longer in jail?
Yes, it is true. I attended all the court hearings. The men who killed him are on house arrest now. For possessing one gram of drugs, people are sentenced to 25 years. But child abusers and murderers are not jailed.
Do you believe others suffered the same fate as Evan? And have things changed?
Many, so many. And even though things have changed a little, torture in the jails is not finished.
I want to tell all parents not to let this pass by. If we allow it, it will continue to happen.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Immunity for gangsters is basically an obvious thing…After that news conference these gangs got immunity from being prosecuted. But are they loyal to the ministers who did that? No they are not.”

At a time of political uncertainty in the run-up to the country’s first multi-party presidential elections, as parties vie for influence , there is increasing concern that street violence – so often intertwined with politics in the past – will flare up again.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, a senior member of the government speaks openly about soaring crime levels, failures in the system, and how the relationship between politicians and gangs is only likely to worsen over the election period.

We are seeing a significant increase in recorded crime in Maldives, especially in Malé. What are the main reasons for the high levels of crime?

If you look at the structure of the population pyramid, there is a disproportionately larger number of young people. Some people call this a youth bulge. That’s part of the problem – it is an underlying cause.

Unfortunately, we as a society have not been very successful at bringing up our children as useful young adults. The whole system has not been working well. I think about 80 per cent of the children drop out of school; if they don’t drop out then they graduate with hardly any grades that will give them opportunities to a good job or education institution. So 80 per cent of the children end their school careers as failures.

Even out of the remaining 20 per cent, half of them also don’t get the opportunities they need even if they have the grades. So it is only about 10 per cent of the youth that really become something.

Overcrowding is also an issue. When they were divided on the islands they didn’t form street gangs. Gangs are an urban phenomenon. Around twenty years ago Malé only held 15 per cent of the population, but now it holds about a third of the overall population.

What is the answer? Criminalisation or a different approach?

It needs a combined approach. Criminalisation is only part of a spectrum of action that needs to be taken. There needs to be a range of activities starting from at home, school and the community level – and finally at the level of the police and the juvenile justice system.

All children are born innocent. The problem we have involves a failure of parents to teach the baby how to become a good child, because of a lack of parenting skills among young parents.

Later on, the school is the place the child learns these antisocial activities so once early symptoms show themselves, teachers should identify and remedy them. Once a child doesn’t do well in school, they get into minor difficulties with the teachers, and somehow it alienates them and they end up going out on the streets, smoking and then drugs – this is the usual route.

So the children that are likely to do this, if they can be identified, they could get counselling or alternative classes.

There are counsellors in schools at the moment, aren’t there?

There are counsellors, but it doesn’t seem to work very well because of a lack of cohesive programmes. The school doesn’t have a system to absorb them. The principal and the supervisors hardly have an idea what counselling is or what the counsellors should be doing.
So this counselling system – even though there are counsellors, it hasn’t really worked.

So ultimately, by the time they are 15 or 16 years of age, these children invariably get into criminal activities, like serious crimes – armed robbery and these things.

If all the preventative measures were there, very few children would end up like this. But unfortunately at the present time, a very large number of children end up as serious criminals.

Once a person has committed a serious crime it has to be criminalised and punished according to the age of the child. It cannot be condoned.

These children are sensitive to these deterrents. A lot of would-be criminals who are making nuisances of themselves – at that stage, a single warning can change their life forever.

If you have a proper system, out of possible offenders, 90 per cent of them can be kept away from the courts. What we need is a system of general justice that involves all these steps.

There is an overall big picture where everyone needs to play a role. It is a very complicated situation that has arisen out of an overall failure of all the systems including housing, education, including a lack of law enforcement system. If you consider this, nothing really works. So it can be very frustrating.

Why is there so much heroin on the streets?

There is a lot of demand. As long as there is demand there will be supply.

Is there enough drug rehabilitation?

At any given time, perhaps up to 400 people are on rehabilitation. The problem with the figures by the NNCB [National Narcotics Control Bureau] is that no one really knows how many addicts there are.

One reason why some people have very high estimates is because of a difference of opinion as to who is a drug addict. Anyone who has taken a drug, even alcohol, once in their lifetime they could be counted as a drug abuser by some groups. But a drug addict is somebody that is totally physically dependent on drugs, from one fix to another.

Do you think strict laws help or hinder the problem?

A large number of young kids [who get picked up by police] apart from their drug habits are just normal kids. They are not hardened drug addicts or anything like that. A life of crime is the last thing on their mind.

But this person is taken and sentenced for 6 years in jail. Even if he gets a rehabilitation chance, he is still in prison for some time. And that initiation is a very traumatizing experience. You are put with hardened criminals and that sort of labels that guy as a life-long criminal.

If he was taken straightway to a rehabilitation centre or if there were other alternatives routes, this child could recover but this is not the case. Everybody gets all the encouragement they need to become a criminal under this system.

Why haven’t the laws been changed already?

When the drug law was made, this was ten years back. At that time the drug situation was not so bad; a lot of people – especially the conservative elements in society – thought severe punishment would cure this problem. It was only later that the mistake was realised.

And now, a large number of laws need to be passed and the parliament is working overtime. Then they were working on this constitution – and somehow this went into the background.

If it had been changed earlier, do you think this would have saved some kids from a life of crime?

Sure. One hundred per cent.

I talk to a lot of young people in gangs who say politicians give them money to carry out different acts for them. Do you think there is a truth to this?

I think so. I think it cuts across the whole political spectrum. Perhaps apart from Adhaalath party – I have no reliable information that Adhaalath uses them. All other parties have been using gangsters for their purposes. It’s rather easy to use them. They’d be fools if they didn’t use them. For a small amount of money, they will disrupt rallies.

For example, I am holding a political rally. And you give some drug addicts some money to disrupt my rally. It is so tempting and cost-effective that you would be a fool not to. It’s not good, but it happens.

What kind of things do politicians pay these groups to do?

Basically intimidating their rivals and disrupting any sort of political rallies. I mean, even people who you would not suspect of using street gangs, they also use them.

Do you think they will do this over these elections?

Let me ask you this instead: is there any reason why they wouldn’t?

Are politicians involved in the drugs trade?

As far as I know, no minister is directly involved in any drug-related business. This is my belief. I don’t think there is any minister directly involved. I don’t even think a prominent parliament member is directly involved. But I don’t know more than that.

In terms of involvement with politicians, I’ve heard of cases of gang members getting immunity. Does this sort of thing happen?

I mean that is basically an obvious thing. These people would do this. But in my opinion it is debatable whether the politicians are controlling the street gangs or the street gangs are controlling the politicians.

The street gangs always co-operate with them when they need something to be done. For example, there was a famous gang leader who mutilated his girlfriend’s face and he needed some sort of protection from prosecution. Now he got it. But does that person remain loyal to the politician that got it?

The gangs go along with these politicians as long as their paths converge. But the moment their interests differ, they always go their own way. So I think the street gangs are controlling the politicians: this is my personal opinion.

The government is afraid a massive street demonstration could topple the government. In this situation, if any politician comes and says, “I control all the street gangs in Malé”, he becomes a hero for the government.

So a large number of ministers and senior politicians try to control the street gangs and show that to the government. Based on this they get a lot of favours from the government.

But is it really true that these politicians – can they really control their groups? It doesn’t happen. The moment their needs are fulfilled, they lose interest.

I mean like that particular press conference, after that news conference these gangs got immunity from being prosecuted. Are they loyal to the ministers who did that? No they are not. They continue to do what they want to do.

Part of the reason why the street gangs have been able to play this game is because their leadership is very experienced and very talented. They are basically natural born dealers.

Whereas the ministers or the politicians who try to control these gangs they are basically inexperienced people who have no idea what they are dealing with.

Will the gang violence get worse over elections?

With the presidential elections coming up, I don’t think it could get any better.

Will it be all political sides that use the gangs?

I’m sure it will.

Is there any solution?

I think in this particular election, where the rivalry between the opposing groups is so high, and people are willing to go to any lengths to win this election, I don’t think the political groups can really come up with any agreed code of conduct.

Theoretically it is possible. If they can come up with a code of conduct saying look here, none of us will use street gangs.

If they agree this, that would be very nice. But that’s not going to happen.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

In April 2007, a report on the Maldives Police Service (MPS) by Scottish consultant John Robertson caused a storm when it was leaked to Minivan News, who published it in full – including its portrait of the service as overstaffed, undertrained, and on occasions brutal.

Robertson described the MPS Special Operations Command as an “openly paramilitary organisation” and a “macho elite…most of whom lack basic police training.”

But in the ensuing correspondence with readers, Robertson himself leapt to the defence of the force, highlighting what he said was a “willing[ness] to…develop into a thoroughly modern and professional organisation…[and] to implement 95 per cent of my recommendations”.

A year after the visit that prompted Robertson’s original report, Judith Evans caught up with the policeman of thirty years’ experience, to see what he now makes of Maldivian policing.

Success?

“I am very happy with the way that things are going,” says Robertson. “There have been some hiccups” in the reforms, “but I fully expected that – some were quite radical changes.”

Robertson was brought in as an expert in “front line, operational” police work – what he describes as “coal-face policing,” an apt phrase from a man who policed the UK miners’ strikes in the 1980s.

One achievement, he says, is the recruitment of women officers for front-line duty, a recommendation implemented “within days” of his suggesting it. Of the current crop of new recruits, he says, 15% are female.

Statistics recording has improved, he adds; police are on the path to “proactive policing” rather than just responding to events; and an internal complaints department is in place, though still in its infancy.

Robertson also claims improvements in the relationship between police and the public. A new Malé keyholders’ register kept by police has had the advantage of bringing police into contact with local businesses, he says.

Plus a scheme to send “school liaison officers” to meet with children should help young people to realise police are “people that they can turn to”.

Violence

But for many, such moves are merely public relations, with trust in the police limited by a belief the MPS is guilty of continuing brutality.

I put it to Robertson that cases such as the death of Hussein Solah – who was found dead six days after being taken into police custody, shortly after Robertson’s report was leaked last year – do far more damage than school liaison officers can repair.

The case also exposed huge gaps in police procedures, which were acknowledged even as police denied responsibility for Solah’s death.

“I’m not going to get into the mechanism of that particular case,” says Robertson. “I don’t know enough about it.” Robertson has not been involved with police detention centres, and highlights that neither is he “privy to all the intelligence” that police receive.

But he believes “police are always an easy target, in any form of society… Bad news is endemic in the police service, because we deal with bad things and bad people.”

And he highlights the difficulty of judging how to react to situations on the street, especially for young officers.

Yet allegations of violence have recently emerged not from the streets, but from custody – with ex-detainees from the Dhoonidhoo detention centre telling Minivan News that beatings are once more on the rise.

Robertson concedes that with a focus on front line policing, he may not have the full picture.

“I’ve got no doubt that there are still areas where things are probably not what they should be, but I can’t speak at first hand about that… I’m quite sure that…there is violence that goes on.”

In any case, he believes, the entire running of Dhoonidhoo should change. “There shouldn’t be police staffing [the detention centre] anyway. It’s not a police role, it’s a prison service role. I’m hoping that over time, that will change.”

Star Force

One of the most contentious areas of Robertson’s leaked report, completed in 2006, dealt with the Special Operations Command (SOC) of the police, which includes the notorious Star Force.

Robertson acknowledges: “I still don’t like the idea of a semi-paramilitary organisation being aligned with a civil police service.

“[The SOC] doesn’t really have an [equivalent] in the UK, but I think that’s by necessity of the situation here…the political situation is a bit more in turmoil. They see a need here for having that kind of backup.”

And the SOC may be called for in “situations, shall we say, on the street which are likely to…arise in the leadup to an election.”

Yet opposition figures, many of whom have been arrested for political activity, argue it is only political change that can temper the traditional violence of the Star Force, which has been censured by the Human Rights Commission.

Photographic evidence of Star Force officers surrounding and punching then Maldivian Democratic Party Chairperson Mohamed Nasheed (Anni) emerged as recently as April 2007 – after Robertson’s first visit – making it hard to stomach the argument that political change has necessitated the Star Force, and not the other way round.

Things are changing here too, says Robertson, with a new “take your time” approach in place for tense situations, and negotiation training planned.

“But don’t get the idea that I’m taking the view that what [the Star Force] were doing was totally wrong,” he is keen to emphasise – because “they saw it as a necessity.”

Soldiers To Victims

Robertson reminds me: “You’re only talking about three years ago that this was a military dominated country.

“The police force was [originally] about 400 officers detached from the MNDF [Maldives National Defence Force]. They’re now approaching 3,000. You can imagine the difficulties that’s causing, just with lack of experience apart from anything else.”

Police may also be victims, he argues. From what he has heard in the Maldives, Robertson believes “disturbances… in the street” can be “manipulated by others to get the police involved,” so that “that peaceful demonstrations had in their background an element who were there to cause trouble.”

And on recent gang violence, “my understanding is that some of the street disturbances were … set up to lure police officers into the area, so… officers could be attacked.”

Good Stories

As I prepare to leave, Robertson issues a plea which echoes his response to the original leak of his report. “You need to tell the good stories as well as the bad stories,” he urges.

I tell him some changes in the police have been evident on the ground, with police officers knocking on doors to introduce themselves as part of a new community policing initiative in recent weeks.

It seems John Robertson has had more opportunity to see this friendly side of Maldivian policing than the side which produces allegations of beatings, torture, and arbitrary arrest.

But with the Solah case still resonating in the public consciousness, it remains to be seen whether a balance of “good” or “bad” stories will emerge from his revamped Maldives Police Force.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Mohamed Mustafa Hussein, former Ambassador to the United Nations and health minister during President Gayoom’s first term, returned to the political stage last month after a twenty-year break.

Now a representative of the National Unity Alliance, the man who was once considered a potential president tells Minivan News why he is unhappy with political activism and who he holds responsible for thirty years of Gayoom rule.

“Too radical”

So why did the self-proclaimed “servant of the people” not join the reform movement earlier?

“When the movement … got started,” Mustafa explains, its activities were “not the kind of things I would have wanted to be a part of” – they were simply “too radical”.

A Maldivian aristocrat and the founder of Malé’s English School, Mustafa has always operated through public institutions rather than fighting them.

Questioning whether politics as such even exists in the Maldives, he says “the closest you get to politics [here] is…being arrested for criticising the government.”

Whilst denying he has a problem with activism in itself, he believes opposition campaigners have in the past gone “to the extent of breaking certain laws and rules” – which as a “law-abiding citizen” he would not have considered doing.

The extent of opposition lawbreaking has long been a bone of contention between activists and government. Opposition leaders argue peaceful protests have been branded as riots – whilst the government and police say they have genuinely turned violent.

Mustafa identifies the opposition movement, pioneered by members of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) in the early years of the new century, as “the kind of thing that could have been only started by very young people – people young enough to be looked after by parents”.

Though older activists have repeatedly been jailed, he believes anyone who was “the provider to the family” would have found it difficult to take the “bold step” of becoming an activist.

“I blame the people”

But in a surprising sequel to his indictment of activism, Mustafa tells me, “I blame the people” for the length of time the president has ruled.

He believes around 75% of Maldivians would happily vote for the current government – a trend he attributes to poor education outside Malé, where citizens “don’t care whether the sun rises or the sun sets” and “can be bought”.

Payment for votes is a significant problem in the country, he believes.

And identifying a new “hypocrisy” in Maldivian culture, he says “about 80% of the people who are in very good positions in the government now … don’t like President Gayoom.”

Similarly, Mustafa says, ordinary citizens revere Gayoom’s position as the country’s leader, even as they complain about the direction the country is taking.

Yet whilst hypocrisy is not the way forward, neither is outspokenness.

“He will be more hurt,” Mustafa believes, “if you speak politely.”

Growing up

Sharing a platform with the younger generation is, it seems, a problematic area and some factions of the opposition may still be too much for Mustafa to stomach.

“We mustn’t be activists all the time,” he believes. “We can be babies when we are babies” – but “you have to grow up.”

He will not be drawn on which party’s policies attract him most, but says “there is not a single party in the Maldives which is showing maturity – this includes the president’s party”, though he does feel there are mature individuals in the political scene.

Some have argued Mustafa’s return to politics represents a new generation of elder statesmen adding gravitas to the opposition.

“I think I can offer a lending hand to the alliance who are going to unite as a political force,” he says.

Opposition parties have formed the National Unity Alliance to lobby for an interim government to implement the country’s new constitution ahead of next year’s multi-party elections.

“The next constitution can only take hold of its roots by a very fair electoral process,” Mustafa adds.

“I don’t know how a government that has been in power for so long can guarantee that to the people without stepping aside.”

Gayoom: Mr nice guy?

“Maumoon Abdul Gayoom…had been a very nice person, very honest, very concerned for people,” reflects Mustafa, recalling his past links with the president.

Like many Maldivians, he believes Gayoom’s character changed after he was “ushered” onto a “political pedestal,” and blames this change on “family members, in laws, who were not political people”.

Aware he was being sidelined, Mustafa eventually resigned. But he compares his fate wryly with that of recent defectors from government.

“Now you are a big shot when you resign – you are a star!” Mustafa observes – even if you were “very unpopular just before, and…really ridiculed” whilst in government.

The “New Maldives” group of former ministers, along with the president’s half-brother Abdullah Yameen, all left government in 2007 to join the opposition.

But leaving the government in the 1980s meant losing friends and becoming “a hostile enemy of the government”.

“Even my own friends were scared of me,” he recalls.

Yet it seems that despite his reservations, the politician who was “labelled a bad boy” by ministers in the Gayoom government is now prepared to campaign for the other side.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)