Category: Society & Culture

OPEC loan for Hithadhoo hospital finalised

A delegation from the OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID) has concluded a visit to the Maldives after signing a US$8.4 million (MVR 129million) loan agreement to finance the Hithadhoo Regional Hospital Project in Addu Atoll.

OFID Director-General Suleiman J. Al-Herbish met with President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan to discuss the fund’s current operations in the Maldives as well as further avenues for cooperation.

Suleiman said the new hospital would deliver a wide range of specialized and emergency medical services, benefiting around 76,000 people.

Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Health Geela Ali said that the work on the 100-bed facility would upgrade the level of healthcare in the atoll to tertiary level.

Currently, this advanced level of healthcare is only provided in Male’s two hospitals – the privately operated ADK hospital and the state-run Indira Ghandi Memorial Hospital (IGMH).

Other than this, Maldivians can receive secondary of care in the country’s six regional hospitals. This includes Raa Atoll regional hospital which the ministry intends to begin renovating.

“This will be a huge project. We are currently seeking government funding for this,” explained Geela.

OFID is a finance institution established by the group of petroleum exporting states to channel aid to less-developed nations.

Previous loan support from the fund was given to upgrade Male’ international airport in 1999, and again in 2005 to extend Wataniya’s telecoms coverage.

A press release from the fund described the fund’s 35 year relationship with the Maldives during which time is has co-financed projects to strengthen the country’s agriculture, education, transportation a sanitation sectors.

“Under its Trade Finance Facility, OFID has participated under the International Islamic Finance Corporation’s syndication of US$25 million to assist the State Trading Organization, Maldives, in importing refined petroleum products. In addition, grant funding has provided emergency aid for tsunami victims and supported healthcare programs,” read the statement.

Chinese visit

As the OFID visit concluded, a high level Chinese delegation arrived as part of a three nation tour which will also take in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

The delegation is headed by Li Changchun who is China’s fifth highest-ranking leader and has been on the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee since 2002.

Chinese state media reported Li as lauding the exemplary nature of the Sino-Maldives relationship as a model for ties between larger and smaller nations.

“The development of relations between China and the Maldivians serves the fundamental interests of the two peoples as well as maintaining the regional peace, stability and prosperity,” Xinhua reported Li as saying upon his arrival at Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA).

Li has since met with President Waheed who thanked him for China’s continuing assistance with the Maldives’ development, whilst welcoming Chinese investors to explore opportunities in the country.

Waheed expressed similar sentiment when paying his first official state visit to China last month during which he finalised a deal for US$500 million in aid, with promises for further assistance in the future.

The President’s Office website has confirmed that the Ministry of Housing has exchanged letters agreeing to a feasibility study for developing a road in the Laamu Atoll Gan to Fonadhoo stretch of islands.

A memorandum of understanding was also signed between the Chinese Ambassador Yu Hongyao and the Ministry of Environment and Energy concerning the provision of goods for addressing climate change.

Chinese relationships with the Maldives was established 40 years ago but has expanded rapidly over the past decade.

China leapfrogged the United Kingdom in 2010 to become the number one source of arrivals for the country’s travel industry.

China opened an embassy in Male’ in time for the opening of the SAARC summit last November, reciprocating the opening of a Maldivian mission in Beijing in 2007.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Extremism affecting the daily lives of every Maldivian

This article originally appeared on DhivehiSitee. Republished with permission.

Islamic extremism is very real in the Maldives. It affects the daily lives of every Maldivian, and is gaining in scope, intensity and violence every day with the pseudo-democratic government that came to power on 7 February.

This is not to say that Islamic extremism did not exist during the three short years in which the Maldives was a democracy. On the contrary, it was during democratic rule that extremism gained its strongest foothold in Maldivian society.  It is a myth that democracy is an antidote to extremism, as is widely proposed in much of the existing anti-radicalisation literature. Democracy, with its many freedoms, provides a much more conducive environment for radicalisation than does an authoritarian regime, as has been seen in the Maldives.

When Islamic extremism began to be imported into the Maldives in the late 1990s with the advent of the so-called international ‘religious terrorism’; and when the export of extremist ideologies intensified globally with the War on Terror, the Maldives was under the dictatorial regime of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom.

Although in recent times Gayoom has aligned himself with the ideologies of the hardline Islamist Adhaalath Party, during his rule, he presented himself as a moderate Muslim who believed in freedom of religion and advocated religious pluralism in the Maldives.

What he did not tolerate was extremist ideologies spread in the name of Islam. His methods of suppressing such beliefs – imprisonment and torture – cannot be condoned, nor are they compatible with the values of democracy. It cannot be denied, however, that they held Islamic extremism in check in the Maldives for over a decade.

The transition to democracy in November 2008 opened the door for Maldivian Islamists to push their agenda forward.

A confluence of events had helped them consolidate support even under Gayoom’s repressive policies: the 2004 tsunami which literally put the fear of God into many a Maldivian living on remote islands, and which the Islamists exploited as a means of spreading their ideology by depicting it as punishment from God for man’s ungodliness; and the War on Terror, which was used by Islamist states and movements to intensify their efforts to fund and spread their ideology to Muslim populations across the world.

Despite a tourism industry worth billions of dollars, three decades of authoritarian rule in the Maldives left behind a population that was mostly on the poverty line, had extremely low levels of education, and contained tens of thousands of disaffected youth with few prospects for social mobility or economic success. All are factors that have been shown to facilitate the spread of extremist ideologies.

Added to this was the supposedly inescapable need for the newly democratic government to form a political alliance with the Islamists, and a democratic president who believed in freedom of expression in absolutist terms, and who failed to fully appreciate that such freedoms are not always exercised with responsibility by those who enjoy them.

While during the War on Terror most democratic governments everywhere sought to find a balance between freedom of expression and the need to curb incitement to violence in the name of religion, under Mohamed Nasheed’s government Maldivian extremists enjoyed absolute freedom of expression.

Bookshops came to be laden with publications that spread their teachings; their message was constantly transmitted in mosques, on air, and on the Internet. The success of their efforts are now there for all to see.

Of course, under Nasheed’s government it was not just the extremists who had the freedom to express their views. Those who disagreed with their ideology, too, enjoyed the same freedom. This was, in fact, Nasheed’s strategy and hope: that the civil society would counter extremism without requiring any intervention from the government.

It was a huge mistake. The civil society was not strong enough to take on the Islamists, especially in the face of the institutional support that the Islamists enjoyed under the MDP (Maldivian Democratic Party) government with its politically expedient alliance with the Islamist Adhaalath Party. Nasheed also underestimated the power of the label of ‘un-Islamic’ or anti-Islam as a tool for suppressing dissent.

The fight against extremists was thus left to individuals who worked alone or in very small groups. Their discourse was easily slapped down and condemned by the extremists using the ‘anti-Islam/un-Islamic/heretic’ label. As it turned out, this label was also the most powerful tool used against Nasheed himself to help facilitate the downfall of the MDP government, demonstrating just how much power such a designation wields in a rapidly radicalising society.

Despite the knowledge that Nasheed was a firm believer in freedom of expression, few dared to take on the extremists openly then, or now. When they did, the MDP government utterly failed to support them. The lack of any assistance or support for Mohamed Nazim, who in May 2010 dared to publicly declare his disbelief in Islam, and of Ismail Mohamed Didi in July 2010 who felt persecuted for his lack of belief and committed suicide at the age of 25, brought into sharp relief the absence of any serious commitment by the MDP government to fighting extremism.

Instead of tackling the oppression that the Islamists were imposing on Maldivians, the MDP – beleaguered by continuous authoritarian attempts at a reversal – often chose to ignore the problem, or worse, sided with the Islamists.

With the regime change of 7 February, the problem has grown acutely worse. Not only did the new caretaker President Dr Waheed enthusiastically demonstrate a previously unknown affinity with Islamists, his Coalition Government has, from the beginning, continued to deny extremism even exists in the country.

This deliberate denial, coupled with the appointment of Islamists to top positions in government and society, has resulted in the opportunity for extremism to grow unchecked. It now has deep roots within all state institutions including the executive, the parliament, the judiciary and most worryingly, within the security forces.

Recent events of extraordinary violence and their aftermath have gone a long way in demonstrating the truth of this claim.

The attempted murder of Hilath Rasheed

Hilath Rasheed is the only openly gay human rights activist in the Maldives. He, along with fellow blogger and writer Yameen Rasheed, were among the very few Maldivians who dared to voice their anti-extremist opinions publicly. Most bloggers and other writers used pseudonyms. Such caution was not without reason. Death threats against such writers were common.

On 4 June 2012 extremists carried out their threats and attempted to murder Hilath. I met Hilath a few weeks after the attack. There was a scar about 10 inches long  running across his throat horizontally. His voice was only just coming back, and his whole being appeared shaken.

Hilath told me that the last words he heard from the man who cut his throat were:

This is a present from Shaheem, Mutthalib and Imran.

The three men referred to are: Sheikh Shaheem Ali Saeed, the current Minister of Islamic Affairs; Ibrahim Muththalib, an MP who is the most ardent advocate of the death penalty in Parliament; and Imran Abdullah, president of the Adhaalath Party and one of the main actors in the Islamists’ contribution to the change of government on 7 February.

Hilath also made the allegations openly on his blog (banned in the Maldives since November 2011), and they were also reported in Minivan News, although the latter stopped short of identifying the politicians by name.

There has been no official response bar an attempt to mislead the international community by portraying Hilath as a violent criminal caught up in gang violence.

While it is a fact, related by Hilath, that the man who cut his throat named the said politicians, it is quite possible the attacker may have been lying about their involvement. It is also possible that the attackers (there were three altogether) decided to act on their own, motivated not by direct orders but by the ideologies perpetrated by the named politicians.

In the absence of a proper investigation by the Maldives Police Services (MPS), it is hard to know for sure.

In the four months since the attack, and despite existing evidence such as CCTV footage of the incident, the MPS has made no progress whatsoever in their investigations. Without police protection and fearing, instead, persecution by them, Hilath now lives in self-imposed exile. And the MPS has, for all intents and purposes, abandoned the investigation.

This failure by the Maldives Police Services to investigate the attempted murder of Hilath is not simply the incompetency one can expect from a heavily politicised police force. It also implies the existence of dangerous connections between law enforcement leaders and Islamists that go to the very heart of the increasing extremism in the country.

This is a proposition I make on the basis not of Hilath’s case alone – a similar failure has plagued the MPS in the most recent attack associated with Islamists: the murder of MP Dr Afrasheem Ali.

The murder of Dr Afrasheem

Dr Afrasheem Ali was among the increasing number of politicians in the Maldives who also act as religious scholars and pundits, blurring further the already thin line between politics and religion. He was a staunch Gayoom loyalist, an MP for Gayoom’s Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) who played a key role in the successful authoritarian attempts to hijack judicial independence in the Maldives.

Although some of Dr Afrasheem’s views on women and their role in society was far from liberal, he is reported to have spoken against forcing women to cover-up and also said that a believing Muslim cannot be declared an unbeliever simply for their failure to grow a beard or display other such ‘religious’ trappings – apparently daring statements for a religious scholar and what passes as ‘moderate’ (or ‘un-Islamic’) in the Maldives these days.

Dr Afrasheem’s killing was no random act of violence. It was a targeted assassination, carried out without mercy within the premises of his own home. He had been the victim of previous attacks, targeted for his beliefs that contradicted those of extremists. In conservative religious circles he was often referred to as Dr Iblis (Dr Satan).

The last major activity he participated in before his death was to appear on television, reportedly at his own behest, to “ask for forgiveness from citizens if he had created a misconception in their minds due to his inability to express himself in the right manner.”  The Islamic Ministry has denied reports that it pressured Dr Afrasheem into making the apology. And, Islamic Minister Shaheem has stated that, contrary to reports, there had been no disagreement between them.

And, just as with the attempted murder of Hilath, the government’s immediate response was to mislead the international media. This time it implicated Nasheed, with the President’s Office spokesperson sending an SMS to international news agencies reading:

Nasheed’s strongest critic Dr Afrasheem has been brutally murdered.

And again, just like with Hilath’s attempted murder, the investigation of Dr Afrasheem’s death appears to be going nowhere.

Not only has there been zero progress, the MPS has also been busy making political use of the murder—a trend which started with the murder of a policeman on 22 July 2012.

So far, a total of six people have been arrested in connection with Dr Afrasheem’s murder. Two weeks later, no charges have been brought against any of them, lending much credence to the allegation by MDP and other democrats that some of the arrests are intended more as a means of persecuting MDP/democracy activists rather than solving a murder. One of them, a young MDP activist, Mariyam Naifa, was released without charge, explanation or apology – but with many conditions – just yesterday, after 15 days in jail.

The MPS is not the only institution where murder is regarded as a political opportunity. Within days of Dr Afrasheem’s death, the Islamist-led push for the death penalty has received new vigor in parliament while the government has moved rapidly to revoke licenses for twenty-four hours shops and cafes citing ‘national security’.

The fact of the matter is that extremist ideologies have taken root within the national security apparatus as much as it has in political institutions. This is evident from the role that religion played in motivating the police and army personnel who refused to obey the ‘heretic’ Nasheed’s orders on 7 February.

It appears that crimes committed in the name of Islam are being pushed to the side by law enforcement personnel who are more interested in turning such atrocities into political battlegrounds, and/or see them as religious duties that do not deserve punishment.

If this continues to be the case, there is little doubt that the Maldivian people stand to suffer even more serious civil and political repression in the not too distant future as the Islamists continue to turn their extremist ideologies into government policy.

Is there a solution?

Islamism in the Maldives is a fact. It may not be the sort that blows people up and turn buildings into ash, but it is rapidly changing the Maldivian society into one of religious intolerance, xenophobia, and a place of violent punishments for those who refuse to follow its ideologies.

If extremism and its associated hatred and violence are to be stopped, or at least held in check, the MDP must start standing up to the politicians and ‘religious scholars’ who propagate such views, and it must stop giving into their demands for the sake of political expediency.

Nasheed has promised that MDP would refrain in the future from forming political alliances that require it to sacrifice its ideals. If he keeps his promise, this is indeed good news. Despite the corruption manifest among many members of its upper echelons, MDP is the only political party in the Maldives right now that has shown a strong commitment to reinstating democratic governance in the Maldives. And, Nasheed remains a beacon of hope for most Maldivian democrats who firmly believe in his commitment to democratic governance despite past mistakes.

The MDP is also the only such body in the country with the clout to push for anti-radicalisation measures without losing the support of a majority of its members. Many of MDP’s supporters are secularists and/or those committed to religious tolerance – values of democracy that are said to be universal.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee stated categorically in July 2012 that there should be no reason for the Maldives to cling on to its current reservation on Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Under the circumstances, it makes no sense for MDP officials to back down when confronted with militant beliefs as it has done in the past.

Even if the MDP does find the courage to stand up against extremism, however, the Maldives needs the support of the international community in fighting the phenomenon. It failed miserably in coming to the aid of the Maldivian democracy in its hours of need, choosing instead to support the pseudo-democratic government of Dr Waheed. But, it cannot afford to be so blasé about the growing extremism in the Maldives.  A failure to properly understand the current Maldivian malaise poses a danger not just to the people of the Maldives, but to its neighbours and the world at large.

Even the most realist of international actors should, therefore, pay close attention to the activities of Maldivian Islamists and refuse to take the new government’s word that ‘there is no extremism in the Maldives’ like it accepted the government’s declaration that ‘there was no coup on 7 February.’

Azra Naseem holds a doctorate in International Relations.

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)

Maldives “enslaving” migrant workers by withholding passports, warns Indian official

A senior Indian diplomatic official in the Maldives has expressed concern over the ongoing practice of confiscating passports of migrant workers arriving to the country from across South Asia – likening the practice to slavery.

The diplomatic source, who wished not to be identified, has told Minivan News that although several government ministries were critical of the practice of withholding the passports of foreign staff coming to work in the country, the state had taken no action.

Some Ministries – such as the Education Ministry – themselves routinely confiscate passports of migrant workers.

“I’ve not met a single government minister who says that such a system [withholding passports] is legal,” the source said, claiming that they had seen little “real progress” from authorities in trying to address these concerns over the last 10 months.

The Maldives has come under strong criticism internationally in recent years over its record in trying to prevent people trafficking, with the country appearing on the US State Department’s Tier Two Watch List for Human Trafficking three years in a row.

In the report, the Maldives is mainly flagged as a destination country for victims of labour exploitation, particularly from Bangladesh and to a lesser extent, India, but was also noted as a destination for sex trafficking.

“An unknown number of the 80,000 to 110,000 foreign workers that government officials estimate are currently working in Maldives – primarily in the construction and service sectors – face conditions indicative of forced labour: fraudulent recruitment, confiscation of identity and travel documents, withholding or nonpayment of wages, or debt bondage,” the 2012 report notes.

According to the source within the Indian High Commission, by impinging on a person’s right of movement – such as by taking their right to travel freely between different countries – migrant workers without passports were essentially being subjected to “slavery” in the Maldives.

“Slavery is of course not permitted under Islam, but this system also incurs cost for the Maldivian people,” the source claimed, pointing to the rising costs of trying to attract skilled workers such as teachers to the country, when compared to other countries like Sri Lanka.

According to the High Commission, Indian workers experienced similar treatment with regard to their passports being withheld when they first began migrating to nations within the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

“This was at a time when there was not much opportunity for work for skilled Indian workers,” he said. “However, now they have the choice of where to work and conditions have greatly improved.”

The diplomatic source said that countries such as Saudi Arabia had moved away from keeping the passports of migrant workers, as well as ensuring improved working conditions so they could attract the best staff for positions.

From the perspective of the Maldives, the high commission representative likened the attitude of many of the country’s employers towards hiring foreign staff as being synonymous with “ownership”, something he said did not reflect the critical need for foreign workers in the Maldives – both skilled and unskilled.

“If you are giving visas to these people then they are obviously needed. But if you need something you must also value it. Should you buy a expensive piece of electronic equipment, you would not go throwing it around and treating it badly,” the source suggested.

Contacted about the passport issue, Abdul Razak Ibrahim, Director General for the Ministry of Human Resources, Youth, and Sport, forwarded enquiries to the Department of Immigration and Emigration, which he said now dealt with employment issues.

Both Immigration Controller Dr Mohamed Ali and Deputy Controller Ibrahim Ashraf were not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Indian concerns

The issue of retaining passports is one of a number of concerns about the wider treatment of migrant workers from India and the South Asia region in the Maldives.

Earlier this year, the High Commissioner of Bangladesh in Male’, Rear Admiral Abu Saeed Mohamed Abdul Awal, questioned the treatment of workers from the country, who he said were regularly being brought to the Maldives to perform unskilled work, usually in the construction industry. Awal alleged that upon arriving, expatriates from Bangladesh were suffering from the practices of “bad employers”.

“This is a real problem that is happening here, there have been many raids over the last year on unskilled [expatriate] workers who are suffering because of the companies employing them. They are not being given proper salaries and are paying the price for some of these employers,” he said.

Rear Admiral Awar added that it was the responsibility of employers to ensure expatriate staff had the proper documentation and suitable living standards.

Concerns about the treatment of expatriates from across the South Asia region were also shared by Indian High Commissioner Dynaneshwar Mulay. Speaking to Minivan News, Mulay has previously raised concerns over the general treatment of Indian expatriates in the Maldives, particularly by the country’s police and judiciary.

Mulay claimed that alongside concerns about the treatment of some Indian expatriates in relation to the law, there were significant issues relating to “basic human rights” that needed to be addressed concerning expatriates from countries including Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Finance Committee approves guidelines for MVR 100 million in fuel subsidies for fishermen

Parliament’s Finance Committee yesterday approved guidelines for issuing MVR 100 million (US$6.4 million) worth of fuel subsidies for fishermen following consideration of revisions proposed by the fisheries ministry.

At a press briefing today, Finance Committee Chair MP Ahmed Nazim said that the guidelines were finalised in July but the committee had been unable to vote it through until now due to the reworking of committee composition and the suspension of parliament.

“Today we have informed the fisheries ministry of our decision,” Nazim said. “The sub-committee’s decision states that after deducting MVR 1 million for administrative costs, the remaining MVR 99 million should be used to subsidise the cost of fuel for each [fishing] trip based on engine horsepower.”

The People’s Alliance (PA) MP for Meemu Dhiggaru explained that the fuel subsidies would be released based on fuel consumption or engine horsepower (hp) instead of the size of the fishing vessel as was done previously.

Fishing boats would be divided into three categories based on engine horsepower, Nazim said, ranging from 2hp to 829hp and higher.

The rationale for the decision was to ensure that “as many fishermen as possible receives the subsidy,” he said.

Some 1,053 vessels eligible for the subsidy have been registered at the fisheries ministry, Nazim revealed.

Unlike the past two years, said Nazim, the Finance Committee has instructed the fisheries ministry to directly deposit the subsidy to the boat owner’s bank account and post details of the subsidy and recipient on a special website.

The new mechanism would allow crewmembers to calculate the portion of subsidy owed to them, he added.

Although only two months remained of 2012, Nazim suggested that the fisheries ministry could disburse the total amount before the end of the year.

The Finance Committee had calculated that the MVR 100 million annually would cover 20 percent of fuel costs for each fishing trip, Nazim explained, but the fisheries ministry could now provide a higher percentage of the cost.

The newly approved mechanism would have safeguards in place to avoid fraud, Nazim observed, as the subsidy would only be issued when the boat owner presents the fuel bill along with other documentation.

Asked if the state budget could bear the brunt of MVR 100 million as subsidies, Nazim conceded that the expenditure would strain the budget but argued that increased productivity in the fisheries sector would boost the flagging economy.

“I believe that if fishing improves through such a stimulus or incentive, the benefits to the economy would be felt broadly,” he said.

Concurring with the committee’s chair, Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Mohamed ‘Colonel’ Nasheed argued that the state should assist workers in the primary sector at a time of economic slowdown.

Noting that the MDP government pledged to make the Maldives carbon neutral in a decade, Nasheed said the previous administration had conducted research in collaboration with international universities into alternative sources of energy to replace marine diesel.

“I still believe that the permanent solution for this would be finding an alternative source of energy, for us to be able to use renewable energy for fishing,” the MP for Haa Dhaal Nolhivaram said.

“Incentivising”

Speaking at a press conference in June, Fisheries Minister Ahmed Shafeeu said the subsidy would “incentivise” many fishermen who were unable to fish due to high fuel prices.

“A lot of fishermen now use larger fishing boats which require more fuel. So they opt not to make trips if they can’t get a good catch after burning so much fuel. The fuel subsidy will encourage more people to go fishing,” said the minister.

Shafeeu said fishing in the Maldives has declined from approximately 185,000 tonnes of fish caught in 2006 to about 70,000 tonnes in 2011.

Meanwhile, in 2011, the MDP administration withheld releasing the subsidy citing insufficient funds in the state budget. Former Finance Minister Ahmed Inaz told parliament in October 2011 that the state would have to reduce other subsidies to release MVR100 million as oil subsidies for fishermen.

In the same month, the then-opposition Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) sued the finance and fisheries ministries for withholding the budget allocated for fuel subsidies.

Former CEO of the Maldives Industry of Fisheries Corporation (MIFCO) Adil Saleem, who also held the position of Transport Minister in the former government, told Minivan News in June this year that encouraging a subsidised industry “completely reverses” the former government’s policies, although he said it was important for fishermen “in the current situation.”

“Subsidising is wrong,” Saleem contended, arguing that it did not address the core problems in the industry and was “not the solution for a sustainable industry.”

“Coup financiers are shaping the industry so that the fishermen act as their staff, going fishing everyday on subsidised fuel,” said Saleem.

However, he noted that fishermen were currently in “desperate need” of assistance due to the low prices they get for the fish, and said the subsidies should be released as a short-term measure.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MDP MP Ibrahim Rasheed charged with assaulting police officer

The trial of Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ibrahim Rasheed ‘Bonda’, charged with assaulting a police officer, commenced at the Criminal Court on Wednesday.

According to local media reports, the prosecution claimed that MP Rasheed obstructed police duty during an MDP protest on July 30, 2012 when police officers stopped a group of activists on motorbikes.

The MP for Maafanu South allegedly attempted to push the police back and struck an officer on the chest.

Three police officers at the scene witnessed the assault, the prosecuting attorney said.

At yesterday’s hearing, MP Rasheed pleaded not guilty and contended that the charge was politically motivated.

The MP also criticised the criminal justice system as flawed and requested permission to hire a foreign lawyer.

The judge reportedly assented and informed Rasheed to be present at the next trial date in three days with his lawyer.

Once bitten

Following the incident on July 30, MP Rasheed was arrested and placed under house arrest for five days in early August.

According to a statement by the MDP at the time, MP Rasheed was taken into custody at 12.30am from a popular cafe in the capital Male’ by “20 militarised police.”

“MP Ibrahim Rasheed was arrested under a warrant obtained by the police relating to an incident two days back on 30 July when it was reported that the MP was ‘bitten’ on his back by a policeman in the process of being arrested while participating in a protest rally,” the statement explained.

“The MP was released within a few hours on that day with two other MPs who were also ‘picked up’ with Hon Rasheed.”

Video footage meanwhile emerged on social media showing MP Rasheed’s arrest. A riot police officer appears to bite the MP behind his shoulders during the arrest.

Police however released a statement on July 31 denying that any injuries were caused during the arrest of the three MPs.

The police statement insisted that MP Rasheed’s claim to MDP-aligned private broadcaster Raajje TV that he was bitten by a police officer was “a false allegation.”

Police further claimed that the three MDP MPs resisted arrest, used obscene language and caused varying degrees of injury to police officers. Aside from MP Rasheed, MDP MPs Ahmed Easa and Mohamed Gasam were also taken into custody on July 30.

The statement also accused MP Rasheed of attempting to mislead the public regarding his arrest to bring the Maldives Police Service into disrepute, condemning the MDP MP’s remarks to the media.

The MDP statement meanwhile noted that MP Rasheed was severely beaten by riot police officers on February 8 during a violent crackdown on an MDP march across Male’.

“Hon Rasheed is among 10 MPs who have been the subject of police brutality that have gone unaddressed for the last six months in spite of repeated appeals by the Inter Parliamentary Union to investigate the matter,” the MDP statement added.

While no charges have been brought against the Special Operations (SO) officers caught on camera beating MP Rasheed on February 8, the People’s Majlis secretariat sent a letter to the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) requesting the police watchdog body to “speed up its investigation into the cases of violence against MPs on 8 February 2012.”

Last week, former chair of the PIC, Shahinda Ismail, resigned from the commission citing failure to hold the police accountable for acts of brutality.

Shahindha’s resignation followed the release of the second of three reports looking into incidents of police misconduct that surrounded February’s transfer of presidential power.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

“Make them accountable”: young Maldivians talk democracy at documentary launch

Six local students – part of a nine person delegation that earlier this year visited key political institutions in the UK – were today invited to share their experiences and views of challenges facing the Maldives’ parliamentary system when compared to its counterparts around the world.

“In many other countries, if there is a hint of a scandal about an MP they will resign or find themselves pressured out,” said one of the female delegates. “Here, many take the attitude of ‘I don’t care’. We need to make [politicians] accountable.”

It was a response met with genial laughter during a discussion event held in the conference room of the Trader’s Hotel in Male’ this afternoon – a good natured meeting that at times seemed to belie the frank concerns raised by the young delegates.

Accountability was just one of the issues concerning democratic development noted by the six-person panel, who all spoke at the launch of a new documentary of their experiences at the ‘UK Youth Exchange’.

The project – run in conjunction with Democracy House and the British High Commission in Colombo – saw delegates travel to major UK cities to meet senior political figures and NGOs in order to better understand issues of democratic development across the Commonwealth.

The participants included Mohamed Axam Maumoon, Aishath Loona Moosa, Shahaadha Ahmed, Sharoona Adil, Shinah Saeed and Abdulla Shahid. The trip was also attended by Ibrahim Nawaf, Hassan Qassan and Muhaisina Hassan, who were not present at today’s launch.

The corresponding documentary titled ‘A study tour to London’, which is aimed to be aired and local television as well as across social media platforms at a later date, detailed a ten day visit to the UK cities of Bristol and London to experience UK and Commonwealth democratic institutions.

Participants also took part in workshops with the British Youth council, Young Muslims Advisory Group and the Commonwealth parliamentary association, as well as joining in “parliamentary-style” debates with UK school children.

Having since returned to the Maldives, the delegates raised concerns over the lack of a sense of ownership of the country, the limited educational opportunities outside of Male’, and gender inequality.

Another issue raised concerned civic education in areas such as privatisation, taxation, and public healthcare with the launch of Aasandha scheme earlier this year.

One of the participants highlighted problems with infrastructure development, bemoaning a seeming lack of public ownership among Maldivian people. He believed this had resulted from a lack of discussions and opportunities for the public to have their say in advocating how state developments were being decided.

“The youth here also have no dialogue with authorities,” he said. “No one feels the country belongs to us, be it land or infrastructure. There needs to be greater sense of ownership and responsibility.”

Other delegates raised fears over discrimination, particularly towards women working at the country’s resorts.

“There is a lot of discrimination here. It is seen as unacceptable for women to work at resorts. Why? Why should this be the case? There are lots of opportunities here,” she added.

Another delegate noted the need for reform of the country’s curriculum during the event, especially in order to take into account the changes the country had undergone since its first democratic elections were held back in 2008.

“All Maldivians should know about democracy. We need civic education,” he said.

The delegate queried how the entire country was being educated, criticising a lack of focus on critical thinking in areas such as privatisation, taxation and healthcare.

“Many people still don’t know what taxes are. What benefits there are from tax. What universal healthcare is. I could go on,” he added, to the amusement of the audience made up partly of dignitaries representing both the government and key civil society organisations including the UN and local media.

As part of the UK visit, two other participants talked of their experiences “shadowing” UK parliamentarians, claiming the country appeared to have a much stronger level of youth involvement within local governance.

“Here in the Maldives there is no youth involvement. The youth is seen as representing 18 to 35 year olds,” said one of the delegates.

“In other countries, youth are seen as representing the ages between 12 and 21, but here our parents require us to concentrate only on our studies, they do not see us as being mature enough [for politics],” they added.

The participants also spoke of the custom UK MPs had of visiting their constituencies to meet with the people they represent.

“I highly doubt MPs are visiting their constituencies here,” one of the delegates added.

“Different cultures and religions”

Among the dignitaries at the launch was Vice President Mohamed Waheed Deen, a resort owner and philanthropist, who thanked the British High Commission project for allowing the Maldivian delegates to “explore different cultures and religions in the cosmopolitan city of London.”

“You would be great teachers to our politicians,” he claimed in a speech addressing the concerns raised by the six delegates.

“These messages should go to our real politicians. I’m not a real politician. But I wish today that more MPs were here. I’m informed they were invited. It’s important to listen to people. The government are the servants of the people.”

Deen claimed that politicians in the country were failing to listen to the voting public, while he also bemoaned the attitudes in the country that blamed young people and gangs for crime and murder without considering factors leading them to commit such acts.

“The problem with leaders is we try too hard to stay in power, but we often forget about our successors,” he said. “We don’t create leaders for tomorrow.”

The vice president said he aimed to do his utmost to take each of the delegates’ concerns and address them in the cabinet, pointing especially to the need for political sciences, civic education programmes and an understanding of the country’s constitution.

“Otherwise, what are we teaching?” Deen asked, this time without laughter from the gathered audience.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Transport minister to be summoned to committee over Israeli jet

Parliament’s National Security Committee has decided to summon Transport Minister Dr Ahmed Shamheed and senior officials of the Addu International Airport Company (AIAC) over the landing of a private Israeli jet in Gan, Addu City in May this year.

Newspaper Haveeru reported the committee’s chair MP “Reeko” Moosa Manik, chairperson of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), as saying today that the officials were summoned in light of a resolution passed by parliament forbidding Israeli flights to land in the Maldives until the National Security Committee reached a decision on the issue.

Moosa added that the committee has not yet set a date to question the officials. The formerly ruling MDP presently has a voting majority in the National Security Committee.

Former Transport Minister Adil Saleem was questioned by the National Security Committee after the Deputy Leader of the Adhaalath Party, Dr Mauroof Hussain, alleged that the MDP government had decided to authorise Israeli national airline to fly to the Maldives and allow an Israeli military post to be established in the country.

Adil Saleem had denied the allegations when he was summoned to the committee.

Banning Israeli flights to the Maldives was among five demands made at a ‘mega-protest’ on December 23, organised by a coalition of eight parties and religious NGOs to ‘Defend Islam’ against the allegedly liberal policies of former President Mohamed Nasheed.

Following the change of government on February 7, the ruling coalition-dominated parliament passed a resolution on April 25 preventing Israeli national airline El Al from operating scheduled flights to the Maldives.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: Maldives’ judiciary unreformed and unrepentant

I have read with concern a number of articles and commentaries over recent weeks which appear to be based on two false premises: first, that the Maldives judiciary is independent and impartial; and second, that it is capable of delivering a fair trial to the democratically elected President of this country, Mr Mohamed Nasheed.

Neither premise holds-up to careful scrutiny.

The first false-premise, which is regularly put forward by members of the Government, especially Dr Hassan Saeed, as well as by the Maldives’ own ‘independent’ UN Resident Coordinator, Mr Andrew Cox, appears to be based on a misguided reading of the concept of ‘independence’. In essence, this misreading holds that if our Constitution says that the judiciary is ‘independent’ then it must be so, irrespective of what the on-the-ground reality tells us.

The 2008 Constitution does of course establish a separation of powers and makes clear, in article 142, that “judges are independent”. But just because the Constitution says this is so, does not, of course, magic the situation into existence.

What the Constitution also does therefore is set up mechanisms to ensure judicial independence, impartiality and integrity. It therefore makes clear that all judges will, under the new Constitution, be subject to a reappointment process (article 285) and that to be (re)appointed, judges (article 149) “must possess the educational qualifications, experience and recognized competence necessary to discharge the duties and responsibilities of a Judge, and must be of a high moral character”.

Central to this process is the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), which is responsible for both the (re)appointment process and for upholding the impartiality and integrity of judges including by listening to complaints and taking “disciplinary action” against them if necessary (article 159b).

The importance of these mechanisms is clear when one recalls that all judges at the time of the entry-into-force of the new Constitution had been appointed by, and owed their loyalties to, former President Gayoom during his 30-year rule.

However, as Aishath Velezinee, President Nasheed’s former member on the JSC, has demonstrated in her book “The Failed Silent Coup”, former President Gayoom succeeded, through securing a post-election de facto majority in the Majlis, in controlling the appointment of members to the JSC and thus of controlling the JSC’s reappointment and disciplinary procedures.

As a result, despite ample evidence of some judges possessing neither the competence, qualifications nor moral character to be reappointed, the JSC quickly moved to swear them all in, arguing that the criteria laid down by the Constitution to control reappointment were only “symbolic” .

When Velezinee objected she was manhandled out of the room.

In the years thereafter, the JSC compounded this failure by refusing to process any of the multiple public complaints it received against Gayoom-era justices. When, in 2011, it finally bowed to public pressure and recommended disciplinary action be taken against Judge Abdullah Mohamed, a man accused of serial wrongdoings over many years, the judge in question simply asked his friends in the Civil Court to annul the proceedings.

When the Civil Court did so, it removed the last pretense that the Maldives’ judiciary is independent, impartial or accountable. As of that date, the Maldives’ judiciary became a failed institution.

So what of the second premise: that such a judiciary is capable of delivering a fair trial to President Nasheed, who is ‘accused’ of arresting Judge Abdullah Mohamed after the judge used his friends in the Civil Court to circumvent the Constitution and then used his position in the Criminal Court to repeatedly free not just allies of former President Gayoom, but also a number of known criminals?

Here, it is perhaps worth turning to respected international experts, international organisations and NGOs which have studied the Maldives judiciary and the justice sector more broadly.

The systematic problems facing the judicial system have been widely documented and were perhaps best summed-up by legal expert Professor Paul Robinson who advised the Maldives on judicial reform.

In his 2005 report, he characterised the Maldives criminal justice system as “systematically failing to do justice and regularly doing injustice”.

One of Professor Robinson’s main recommendations – to conduct a complete overhaul of the country’s archaic Penal Code – remains unimplemented. As a consequence, the Prosecutor-General is insisting on prosecuting President Nasheed on the basis of a Code drafted in the 1960s and which is based on a document produced in India in the 19th century.

In February 2011, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) visited the Maldives and issued a report which echoed many of Professor Robinson’s earlier concerns and demonstrated that, irrespective of the new Constitution, little had changed.

In its report, the ICJ expressed concern at “the apparent failure of the JSC to fulfill its constitutional mandate of properly vetting and reappointing judges” as well as the “judicialisation of politics”.

“The JSC”, according to the ICJ, “was unable to carry out its functions in a sufficiently transparent, timely, and impartial manner”. The ICJ concluded that the complete lack of judicial accountability in the Maldives undermines public confidence and calls into question the institution’s independence.

In July 2012, the United Nations Human Rights Committee considered the state of the Maldives judiciary. In its concluding statement, the Committee said it was “deeply concerned about the state of the judiciary in the Maldives”.

“The State has admitted that this body’s independence is seriously compromised” noted the Committee, which called for serious reform of the Supreme Court, the judiciary more broadly and the Judicial Service Commission.

These findings were mirrored by both Amnesty International and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) in late 2012, following their visits to the Maldives. For example, FIDH in its report “From Sunrise to Sunset” on human rights in the Maldives, noted that despite important constitutional changes, “different sections of the judiciary have failed to become fully independent”, while pointing out that the JSC lacks transparency and its members are prone to “conflicts of interest”.

With the above in mind, it is difficult to understand how members of the government or some parts of the international community can claim with any degree of sincerity that our judiciary is either independent or capable of delivering a fair trial for President Nasheed or the hundreds of other Maldives Democratic Party (MDP) members currently facing prosecution for “terrorism” and other trumped-up charges.

If justice is indeed blind, then why are hundreds of MDP supporters awaiting trial, while not one police officer or member of the current government has been held accountable for the widely-documented brutality unleashed against protesters since February 7?

And if justice is indeed blind, then why are cases against MDP supporters being fast-tracked while there are over 2000 other cases pending with the Prosecutor-General? Why have all the serious corruption cases against Gayoom’s political allies been either sidelined or discontinued?

Perhaps the most damning indictment of the Maldives judiciary is that, at this time of political division, it is the one subject about which nearly everyone in the country can agree. Whether you are for President Nasheed or against him; whether you think February 7 was a legitimate change in government or a coup, nearly everyone – at least outside the President’s Office – agrees that our judicial sector are not fit for purpose.

And yet it is this deeply flawed institution, wielding a two hundred year old legal code that is supposedly able to deliver a fair trial for President Nasheed.

Over recent years, we have achieved much. We have amended our Constitution, embraced party politics, held our first free and fair elections, voted-out a 30 year old autocracy and voted-in our first democratically elected leader.

But the judiciary has failed to come even close to matching this pace of change and remains, by-and-large, the same institution as it was during the Gayoom era – unreformed and unrepentant.

Eva Abdulla is an MP in the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

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)

Maldives committed to carbon neutral aims despite political uncertainty

The government says it remains committed to pursuing the previous administration’s carbon neutral ambitions despite recent political tensions reportedly affecting investment potential for such schemes.

Environment Minister Dr Mariyam Shakeela contended that some of the programs presently being undertaken by her ministry had started seven years previously – before Former President Mohamed Nasheed came to power – and were being adhered to on the grounds they would benefit the nation.

“We are continuing with the carbon neutrality program,” she said. “ We are giving it our best shot.”

Nasheed, who alleges he was forced to resign under duress back in February of this year,  claimed that resulting political tensions from his ouster had all but ended hopes of achieving these aims.   The former president aimed to position himself globally as a high profile advocate for pursuing carbon neutral developments.

However, as the Maldives commits itself to a new US$138 million project that it has claimed within five years will generate 16 megawatts of renewable energy, one regional environmental organisation has called for greater collaboration between Indian Ocean nations to drive sustainability.

Mumbai-based NGO, the Centre for Environmental Research and Education (CERE) has told Minivan News that despite being a small island state, the Maldives stood as a good indicator of how other larger nations could scale up its programs to successfully undertake green initiatives.

“Maldives needs to assume a bigger role in the sustainability dialogue with India and a clear road map on how this will be achieved has to be stipulated,” CERE stated, pointing to the key commitments it hoped to see from the present government.

The comments were made as the Maldives Energy Authority yesterday told local media that once the US$138 million project became operational, ten islands within the country would be entirely powered with renewable energy. The ministry contended that a further 30 percent of the total energy demands of 30 islands would be “converted” to renewable energy.

Minister of State for Environment and Energy, Abdul Matheen Mohamed, said that a so-called Sustainable Renewable Energy Project (SREP) was also set to be conducted on 50 islands with assistance from organisations like the Climate Investment Fund as part of wider national sustainability commitments, according to Haveeru.

Environment Minister Dr Shakeela confirmed to Minivan News today that the SREP scheme was directly related to the the Scaling-Up Renewable Energy Program in Low Income Countries devised under the previous government of former President Nasheed.

Some of the key minds who helped devise the Scaling-Up Renewable Energy Program (SREP) for the former government said earlier this year that the project had fallen through after political instability following February’s controversial transfer of power had deterred potential investors in the scheme.

Dr Shakeela, who was in Hyderabad, India, for the 11th Convention on Biological Diversity confirmed that the project had been within the Economic Ministry before she retrieved and reviewed the plans.

“I worked on it with the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the IFC and it has now been finished,” she said.

“I think it is important [to understand] that our ministry does not categorise projects according to who has [initiated them]. Our plan is to continue them with all the policies and programs as long as they are not detrimental to the economy.”

The government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan has previously stressed that it was committed to “not completely” reversing the Nasheed administration’s zero carbon strategy: “What we are aiming to do is to elaborate more on individual sustainable issues and subject them to national debate.”

As well as committing to trying meet the carbon neutral goals of his predecessor, President Waheed has also announced plans to make the Maldives the world’s largest marine reserve within the next five years five.

Eco-challenges

Addressing the Maldives’ ongoing eco-commitments, CERE claimed that the main challenge for carbon reduction developments both in the country and around the world was to show sustainability projects could actually be synonymous with economic benefit.

CERE Co-Founder Kitayun (Katy) Rustom claimed that the organisation continued to try and advocate green strategies that defied traditional perceptions of sustainability being seen as ‘anti-development’ or ‘anti-growth’.

“It is necessary for all of countries to realise that our window of opportunity for carbon reduction is only till 2020 – after this it will be next to impossible to mitigate the disastrous and irreversible impacts of climate change,” she claimed.

“The key challenge is to see carbon reduction as a positive economic initiative.”

Rustom said that the Maldives’ ongoing attempts to become a carbon neutral economy were well publicised in India and reflected a “commonality of purpose” between the two nations.

“India is one of the most vulnerable to climate change especially with respect to sea level rise – just like the Maldives – since it has a 7,500 km long coastline and even a one metre rise in sea levels will submerge an estimated 5,700 square kilometres displacing millions of people,” she added.

“Of course, there are a host of other catastrophic impacts that climate change will have on our country. India does not see itself as any different from the island states in the Indian Ocean and it understands the need of working on a united platform.”

Rustom added that she ultimately hoped for much more defined collaborations between the authorities of Indian Ocean nations in future.

“A cross-sharing of carbon reduction strategies need to be encouraged and formalised in which quantitative targets need to be spelt out. The Maldives needs to assume a bigger role in the sustainability dialogue with India and a clear road map on how this will be achieved has to be stipulated,” she said.

“Perhaps the Ministry of Environments of both countries can set up a Indian-Maldivian Committee to work on this mission and lay down specific goals.”

Earlier this year, former President Nasheed’s Climate Change Advisor – UK-based author, journalist and environmental activist Mark Lynas – said that after the controversial nature of the transfer that bought the present government to power, he was sceptical of its ability to take stands on sustainable development.

Lynas claimed that the loss of “democratic legitimacy” in the Maldives had destroyed its ability to make a moral stand on climate change-related issues, and be taken seriously.

“I think that the Maldives is basically a has-been in international climate circles now,” said Lynas, who drew a monthly stipend of Rf10,000 (US$648) for expenses whilst serving in his position.

“The country is no longer a key player, and is no longer on the invite list to the meetings that matter. Partly this is a reflection of the political instability – other countries no longer have a negotiating partner that they know and understand,” he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)