Acting Finance Minister Mahmood Razee has said progress is being made within an ongoing multi-party evaluation of the 2011 State Budget, despite claims by Ahmed Nazim, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, that talks “have not gone well” due to a lack of details on planned state spending.
Opinion appears divided within the ongoing parliamentary joint committee evaluation, which is being overseen by members from both the country’s finance and economic committees, upon how near the budget is to being agreed upon by parliament before the deadline of the New Year.
Razee, who was allowed to present the budget this month despite ongoing battles in the Majlis over cabinet appointments, said he was confident the government could still meet its aims to cut the country’s budget deficit to about 16 per cent, despite allowing for concessions requested by opposition MPs.
The government is under considerable pressure from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to reduce the deficit, which President Mohamed Nasheed last month said was around 26.5 per cent.
Speaking to Minivan News today, Razee claimed that the parliamentary joint committee was generally “committed” to trying to find an agreement that would allow for reductions of the budget deficit. He therefore hoped to have the evaluation completed by Sunday, December 27.
“The basic principles [of the budget] remain the same, the budget deficit needs to be reduced and this is accepted by most parties,” said Razee. “We maybe will need to make some adjustments during the evaluation. A budget deficit of 16 per cent is what we are targeting given the current circumstances.”
Ahmed Nazim conceded that a need to meet a looming New Year deadline to approve the 2011 budget would require members within the parliamentary committee to put aside their political differences and “let bygones be bygones”.
However, the parliament Deputy Speaker claimed that the finance Ministry has “not been communicating” with the Majlis on the budget, a situation he said that was reflected within the evaluation process.
Nazim cadded that anticipated delays in providing information on the budget could make the discussions “go right to the wire” in terms of meeting an evaluation deadline of December 30.
“We are not looking for concessions, the government has a mandate to pursue its own economic policies,” he said. “But there are so many problems with the budget, which is lacking details regarding a number of projects and figures.”
As the evaluation process has continued, Nazim claimed that Information had been arriving “in bits and pieces” to help provide greater detail on budgetary spending, however he said expected that the evaluation process will ultimately take a “long time” to complete.
“We are looking for a reasonable budget,” said Nazim. “Reasonable, like for example, with housing funds, where the government is looking to sell land in Male’, but where is the land that can be sold? They have gone on to say it will actually be land in Huhlumale’ and other islands.”
Due to the levels of cost involved, the Deputy Speaker added that the evaluation committee has “asked for breakdowns” regarding individual expenditure – pointing to an apparent lack of funding in the budget for the Maldives National Broadcasting Corperation (MNBC), despite the government admitting it will be providing money.
“There is no budget [for MNBC], yet they have given Rf54 million [to the broadcaster],” claimed Nazim.
Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed, an independent MP who is not involved with the evaluation committee, said that despite holding some preliminary concerns over spending allocation, particularly in areas such as decentralisation, he believes the budget will be completed within its New Year deadline.
“I think it will be done, there is willingness,” he said.
However, Nasheed claimed that he had been concerned that the initial budget had failed to outline any finance plans for local councils once they are expected to be formed following February’s elections.
IMF concerns
Beyond trying to outline funding of the state for the year of the ahead, the passing of the annual budget within a constitutionally mandated deadline of the end of the calendar year is also being seen as vital to groups such as the IMF.
Back in November the IMF delayed its third disbursement to the country because of the government’s inaction on the matter of the budget deficit during 2010, pending the release of the 2011 budget.
While the IMF program itself is worth US$92.5 million, other foreign donors and investors consider the IMF’s opinion of a country’s fiscal policies when making decisions.
The Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Islamic Affairs has claimed that both himself and Minister Dr Abdul Majeed Abdul Bari have no “major issues” with the government despite today’s resignation of Islamic State Minister, Mohamed Sheikh Shaheem Ali Saeed.
The resignation, which has not yet been officially confirmed by the President’s Office, has been linked by figures within government to alleged differences of opinion between the State Minister for Islamic Affairs and President Mohamed Nasheed, particularly in relation to recent protests that have taken place in the country concerning the work of an Israeli NGO.
Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Mohamed Didi, said he had been taken by “surprise” this afternoon after being informed of the State Minister’s decision to resign by a colleague within the ministry.
“This is a complete surprise to me, I wasn’t aware of the decision until I saw some news reports and a member of staff here then told me,” he said.
Speaking to Minivan News this afternoon, Didi said that although he had yet to speak with Shaheem about his decision to resign, the Ministry of Islamic Affairs would continue to function as normal as Dr Bari remained in his position.
“I don’t see any differences as a result of the resignation while the Minister is still here,” he said. “As part of the Ministry’s policy, there is no difference of opinion between us and the government.”
Dr Bari is a member of the religious Adhaalath Party along with Shaheem.
In looking to at the long term status of the Adhaalath Party in the Islamic Ministry, Didi said it was “a bit early” to tell what sort of action, if any, might be taken as a result of the resignation.
While the President’s Office confirmed that it had received a letter from Shaheem today, it was unable to disclose the contents of the document until they had been seen by the President himself, who is currently away on a visit to the country’s northern atolls.
Press Secretary for the President, Mohamed Zuhair, told Minivan News that in light of a recent number of protests against government policy that had allegedly involved Shaheem, “it was possible that the State Minister may have decided his position was untenable”.
Zuhair claimed that there had perhaps been concern that as both a prominent member of the Islamic Ministry and the religious Adhaalath Party, Shaheem had appeared to “overstep boundaries” by allegedly using his Friday sermons to incite “political protest” and “demonstrations” against the government he worked for.
“Things came to a head this morning when a group of parents from Arabiyya School came to the President’s Office over concerns about funding, a political advisor then held a meeting with them about their concerns,” he said. “Protests then took place outside containing a number of individuals considered to be members of the Adhaalath Party.”
Zuhair claimed that “well wishers” to the government, said to include members of the Adalaath Party, had suggested that some of these protestors may have “met last night with Shaheem”. He claimed that if this was true, then this could have amounted to “provocation” against the government from one of its own state ministers, making Shaheem’s position difficult to maintain.
Both Dr Bari and Shaheem were unable to respond to calls from Minivan News at the time of going to press. However, Shaheem last week spoke at a mass protest meeting gathered against eye surgeries being conducted in the country by an Isreali medical NGO called Eye from Zion, which had met with the president during their visit.
According to Haveeru, the speech given by Shaheem “warned of ‘direct action’ if the government continues with its ‘anti-religious’ policies.”
“The President’s Office sent me a letter giving a warning to not to speak about Islamic studies,” the paper quoted him as saying during his speech. “Where is their shame? What is the meaning when they ask to keep quiet in response to the head of Islamic affairs in the Maldives?”
Correction: The article had originally incorrectly stated that Permanent Secretary Mohamed Didi was a member of the Adhaalath Party. Minivan News apologises for the error.
A spokesperson for the Maldives Police said the service shares “concern” about the impact to its reputation of delaying investigations of alleged sexual abuse by four officers, but claimed the force remains committed in working with its independent integrity body on the case.
Police Sub-Inspector Ahmed Shiyam said that despite reservations from the Police Integrity Commission (PIC) about delays in supplying information requested on the case, the Police Service was waiting on additional documents that had not currently been made available, even to itself.
“Actually, the investigation team had briefed the Commission [PIC] on its work,” he said. “The PIC have also requested information on our investigations, but we are still waiting on documents from other authorities, not just those within the police.”
Shiyam was unable to give details “as of yet” on the nature of the documents that the Maldives Police Service was waiting on, though he claimed the force was trying to get the information as soon as possible. Shiyam said he accepted that there “was concern about delaying the case” within the Maldives Police Force in relation to its reputation among the public.
A spokesperson for the PIC told Minivan News that growing “media interest” into allegations of sexual abuse being carried out from within the Police Force had led to growing “concern about when the case will be sent to the Prosecutor General”.
PIC Commissioner Shahinda Ismail yesterday told Haveeru that the independent body had requested investigation reports concerning the sexual abuse allegations from the Police Service, but had been unable to get the information so far.
According to Shahinda, the Police Service is required under the Police Act to provide any information that has been requested by the PIC.
The PIC was established in its current form back in 2008 under the Police Act to work to indentify and investigate any alleged offences committed by employees of the Maldives Police Force.
“Value for Money” will not be replacing “The Sunny Side of Life” as the slogan to entice holidaymakers from all over the world to come to the Maldives, with a final decision yet to be made on the future direction for promoting the nation’s central economic income source, the country’s Tourism Minister has said.
The Maldives National Broadcasting Corporation (MNBC) yesterday reported that the “Value for Money” slogan had been settled on in order to reflect a changing focus in enticing travellers to the Maldives by targeting a more middle-income audience.
However, while the new tourism slogan to replace “The Sunny Side of Life” is expected to focus on “value”, Minister for Tourism, Arts and Culture, Dr Mariyam Zulfa claimed that news of the slogan had been “reported incorrectly” during an address to 200 Italian journalists.
Speaking to the journalists at Male’ International Airport as part of a visit to celebrate ongoing support from the country’s travel market, Zulfa said that she believed her comments had been taken out of context.
“I said we will probably go towards a slogan reflecting a value for money product,” she added.
Zulfa said that she “didn’t think any final decision on a slogan had been made,” and that any eventual agreement would involve “lots of meetings” with stakeholders such as the Maldives Tourism Promotion Board (MTPB) before a final decision is announced.
When contacted by Minivan News, a spokesperson for MNBC claimed that the report had been based on comments made by the Tourism Minister to one of the company’s journalists.
In a statement, the Maldives Tourism Promotion Board (MTPB) said that the reports had been incorrect, but added it would be announcing a new slogan in the next few weeks.
“However, we can confirm today that the new slogan will not be ‘Value for Money’,” the promotion board stated.
Echoing the Tourism Minister’s statements, the MTPB added that it remained in discussions with as wide a group of tourism industry stakeholders as possible in attempts to better serve the market.
“The Minister has made it explicitly clear that the new slogan will be designed so that it appeals to a wide range of potential tourists; including those with high incomes as well as tourists seeking a more affordable holiday in the Maldives,” the MTPB added.
Anti-Zionist protests continued over the weekend reflecting the anger of some Maldivians about Israeli medical assistance being supplied to the country, leading to a rally held by the Tsunami Memorial on Friday with a host of high profile political figures speaking at the event.
Hundreds of people gathered at the protest with some carrying banners in both Dhivehi and English with messages ranging from “Say no to Israeli terrorism” and “Jews said Allah is poor” to “We are with anyone who fights Israel & USA” and “Bloody Zionists”.
The protests are said to be directly focused on deporting an Israeli NGO called Eye from Zion that is conducting eye surgery at a number of hospitals around the country. The religious NGO Islamic Foundation of the Maldives (IFM) said the protests were also targeted at rising concern over “President Mohamed Nasheed’s decision to have closer ties with Israel.”
A host of speakers including State Minister for Islamic Affairs, Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed and former Deputy Leader for the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP, Umar Naseer, addressed attendees, voicing their opposition to accepting any aid from Israel amidst anger at its foreign policy towards Palestine.
Miadhu reported that Sheikh Shaheem spoke during a sermon on the day of the protest claiming that “the history of Jews was deception, trickery, rebellion, oppression, evil and corruption.”
“So it is not it is not acceptable that one who would stab the ummah in the heart could heal the eyes?” he reportedly said. “This philosophy is not acceptable.”
Alongside these comments, Naseer claimed that no aid should be taken by an Islamic state such as the Maldives until Israel settles the issues of occupation in Palestine in solidarity with other Muslims. The IFM claimed that other similar protests were held in Addu Atoll and Fuamulaku over the weekend.
Some 739 people in Male’ and 879 in Addu and Fuvahmulah had registered for treatment at eye camps run by the NGO as of December 9.
Last week, the co-founders of the IFM said that although they were not directly involved in the protests, it would not discourage its members from joining so called anti-Zionist demonstrations such as flag burnings and peaceful protests that have taken place over the last month over concern about the visit of ‘Eye from Zion’.
IFM co-founders Ibrahim Nazim and Ibrahim Fauzee said that they did not wish to “prohibit its members” from taking part in the ongoing protests that it saw as a “spontaneous reaction” to concerns over Israel’s attitude towards Palestine.
Nazim said that the IFM did not favour violence as an organisation and claims by “other organisations in the country” that Jewish people were planning to take over the country were setting back legitimate concerns over the visit of Eye from Zion and Israeli foreign policy.
“What I feel is that some groups are trying to win publicity by making radical statements,” he said. “We do not believe this is good and in the long-term it is not be favourable [towards effectively opposing Israeli activities in the Maldives].”
Fauzee added that he believed the protests reflected the fact that “many people in the Maldives do not accept Israel as a state.”
In response to the anti-Zionist protests and criticism that the government was engaged in a pro-Israel agenda, Press Secretary for the President Mohamed Zuhair said that the government “holds friendly relations with Israel, as it does almost every other nation in the world.”
“We are not at loggerheads with any states, though we have some differences with Burma over the treatment of [formerly arrested dissident] Aung Sun Suu Kyi,” he said. “There is nothing special in terms of agreements with Israel.”
Though Zuhair claimed that the Maldives government has been “consistent on criticising Israel over Palestine and other foreign policy issues it did not agree on”, this was not a barrier to humanitarian cooperation, he said.
Zuhair added that by having bilateral relations with a large number of nations, the Maldives was able to benefit from cooperation based on technical assistance, education and humanitarian aid.
He claimed that the medical expertise offered by Eye from Zion was a strong example of this.
“We ourselves don’t have the means for this type of surgery, which has so far treated 140 patients in Male’ and 40 people across islands in the outer atolls,” Zuhair added. “In this case, the patients that thankful for the treatment they have received, which outweighs the protests against [the doctors].”
The Parliamentary oversight committee for Independent Commissions has once again cancelled a meeting scheduled with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), calling an hour before the meeting set for 11.15am this morning [Wednesday, December 15].
The JSC has remained dysfunctional for weeks, since in-fighting on Article 285 disrupted the Commission earlier this year. A serious concern, as the JSC is the only constitutional body to check judges’ misconduct and impunity. Over a 100 complaints remain unchecked.
The Parliament has failed to hold the JSC accountable despite repeated complaints and appeals by member Aishath Velezinee since February 25, 2010, when concerns were raised that JSC had unconstitutionally abolished Article 285 as symbolic.
The last appeal on the matter to Parliament was on August 4, 2010 requesting an injunction order to prevent the JSC from going ahead with the symbolic oath-taking before the Parliamentary oversight committee for Independent Commissions had looked into pending complaints.
Since then, member Velezinee has publicly accused the Speaker Abdulla Shahid and MP Dr. Afraasheem Ali, both ex-officio members of JSC, of unlawfully abolishing Article 285 of the Constitution and using the JSC as a tool in a covert coup attempt to derail constitutional democratic government through denying independence to judges, and preventing the establishment of an independent judiciary.
The Majlis, as well as media, has remained silent on JSC and Article 285, despite the very public declarations.
On December 1, 2010, the Secretary General of the Majlis sent a letter of invitation to JSC stating that the parliamentary oversight body, the Parliamentary oversight committee for Independent Commissions, requested a meeting with members of JSC on 6 December 2010.
Another letter arrived on December 5, 2010 informing that the said meeting was postponed to 9 December 2010.
Another letter arrived on December 9, 2010 informing the JSC that the Parliamentary oversight committee for Independent Commissions had decided to postpone the said meeting indefinitely, and that a date would be informed at a later date. No reason for the summons was specified in any of the letters sent by the Majlis, nor was a reason specified for the indefinite postponement.
Late afternoon on December 14, 2010 an urgent letter arrived from the Parliament Secretariat, informing that the Parliamentary oversight committee for Independent Commissions requested to meet with JSC members.
That is now cancelled, the cancellation letter informing once again that “a date for the said meeting would be informed at a later date”.
Earlier, the parliamentary oversight body failed to respond to a number of requests for intervention, first made in writing by Member Aishath Velezinee on 25 February 2010.
On Sunday, Dec 12, 2010, JSC member Velezinee sent a 34-page letter to the Parliament refusing to appear before any Parliamentary committee and explaining the reasons for her decision.
When the Parliamentary oversight committee for Independent Commissions met JSC on August 2, 2010, the first and only time it did to date, JSC members was informed halfway into the meeting that it was not in relation to complaints on Article 285. It was a “routine check”.
What the meeting was about, no one, neither members of the Parliamentary oversight committee for Independent Commissions nor JSC understood. It was mentioned that the matter of Article 285 was a serious issue and was being studied.
The matter of audio tapes on Article 285 having been edited at the request of certain members of JSC before they were submitted to Parliament was dismissed with the words, “We are not talking about audio tapes today”.
The matter of JSC members paying themselves despite a clear constitutional clause that specified no ex-officio member would be paid, was ignored.
The fact that JSC had not adopted Standard Operation Procedures and other regulations despite Article 40 of the JSC Act stating they be adopted within six months of appointment, a deadline which passed on January 26, 2010, went unnoticed.
The matter of JSC having censored its own Annual Report for 2009, removing information the JSC Act required to be included in the report, had not been noticed by any member of the Parliamentary oversight committee for Independent Commissions.
The question perhaps is, who can hold the Speaker accountable?
Aishath Velezinee is a member of the Judicial Service Commission of the Maldives (JSC). She holds a Diploma in Journalism (IIMC, India; 1988), BA in Government; and in Women’s Studies (University of Queensland, Australia; 2000) and a Masters’ in Development Studies (Institute for Social Studies, Netherlands; 2004).
http://www.velezinee.aishath.com/content/why
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].
One of the Maldives’ most successful female badminton players is battling the country’s Badminton Association in court claiming she was dismissed for unspecified disciplinary reasons.
Neela Ahmed Najeeb, formerly the only female badminton player on the national team, holds a string of championship medals and several international competitions to her credit. Najeeb said that her abilities meant she could play against men during training sessions “and even beat a few of the good players, enough to compete with them.”
She claims the Association has sought to obstruct her from playing the sport ever since it sent her home from a competition in Sri Lanka in 2006 for allegedly smoking a cigarette.
In May last year, the 25 year-old was suspended from the Association altogether after clashing with her Indonesian coach, whom she alleged attempted to make her run for four hours in punishment for missing a training session – half an hour short of the average marathon.
“I had just started training again and I was not even physically fit,” she says. “I missed practice one morning and the coach told me to run for two hours, but I couldn’t do it – I’ve been in the national team for eight years and we’ve never had to do anything like that before. I ran for 30-45 minutes but I could not run anymore.”
The coach, she said, “didn’t like it, and said I could not join the training unless I ran for another 1.5 hours. I didn’t make it a problem.”
However, Najeeb said that, “a few days later, I missed another training session because of my work, and the next day [the coach] asked me to run for two hours again. I could only do 30-40 minutes, and he said that because I had only run 30-40 minutes the last time, I now had to run three hours.”
Najeeb says she took the matter to the Badminton Association, explaining she did not feel she was capable of running the three hours and was afraid of injuring herself early in the training. But she claimed they sided with the coach, “reasoning that he had a degree in Physical Education.”
“The last time I went to training I said I would run 30-40 minutes, but he said no, now I had to run for four hours.”
“I couldn’t believe it. I told him that was impossible. He became angry and said I was useless, and some things that really hurt me. He asked me to leave the stadium, and made a complaint about my behaviour, and filed a disciplinary case,” Najeeb says.
The next day, according to Najeeb, the Badminton Association sent her a letter saying she was terminated from the national team.
“They didn’t even talk to me. If they are going to fire a player from the national team, they have to give me a chance to appeal. They didn’t do that. I don’t want to be against them, they should be advising me.”
Najeeb had been selected to travel to Greece on June 10 last year for a youth training session by the International Olympic Committee.
However, athletes attending the training required the backing of their local association – and Najeeb claims the national chairman “said he was not going to give it.”
Instead, Najeeb said she was informed her application was invalid following the disciplinary report filed by a coach four years ago for the alleged smoking of a cigarette while attending the Sri Lankan tournament in 2006. “Which,” she added, “was not true.”
“I think this must be personal – this is not what you do to an athlete. You don’t just terminate them,” Najeeb claimed.
“I think Maldivian players deserve better. If you have a problem with a coach, [sporting associations] are supposed to advise you – but the Badminton Association takes everything personally.”
President of the Badminton Association, Ali Amir, told Minivan News that he was unable to comment on Najeeb’s disciplinary action as the case was pending in court, but did confirm that the Association was defending the case.
A senior badminton player Minivan News spoke to, who requested anonymity, said he felt it was unfair that Najeeb had been obstructed from practising for 4-5 years.
“She was not supposed to smoke [while attending the Sri Lankan tournament in 2006], and she did smoke, and was sent back to Male’. We have to sign an agreement [with the Badminton Association], but there was nothing in it saying that if we smoke we are sent back to Male’.”
“After that she was unable to play on the national team for two years. Eventually she was allowed a new coach, but then she was suspended again in May last year.”
“It’s a big loss for her,” he added, speculating that “there is something going on between [Najeeb] and the Badminton Association. I have no idea what.”
“She can’t even play alone – if anyone from the Association sees her in the stadium, they call the guards to take her out. The Association is doing this, not the players.”
The new coach’s running regime was “very ruthless”, he claimed. “If we do not come to the morning session we have to run 1-2 hours that night and lose time training. It’s useless.”
Najeeb said she “will not quit playing a sport I love”, but confirmed that she has been escorted from the stadium “because I don’t have an association membership card. It is really frustrating.”
Najeeb and the lawyer representing her in the case, Mizna Shareef of Shah, Hussein & Co, allege that her suspension contradicts the termination procedure of the Constitution of the Badminton Association as she was not given a chance to defend herself.
“The Association unfairly and quite harshly terminated Neela without establishing adequate cause and without giving Neela the opportunity to defend herself,” Shareef told Minivan News. She added that outside the Association’s own regulations “there are no applicable laws covering this type of situation.”
The case was lodged in May this year but despite having three hearings, Shareef claimed “the Badminton Association has stalled the case by appearing in court without having prepared their statements.”
“The longer this case gets delayed, the longer Neela suffers without being served justice. At this point, there is no certainty as to when the case would end,” Shareef said.
“Neela,” she added, “has personally experienced gender discrimination where the Association has held a different set of disciplinary standards for its male players. If we are successful in getting a judgement in Neela’s favour, it would definitely encourage more woman players to play the sport at a professional level, without fear of discrimination and unfair treatment.”
Najeeb, for her part, describes the time she has been away from badminton as “one of the most difficult times in my life”, and that if she is allowed to continue playing on the national team, “I have faith I can achieve more for my country.”
“I resigned from my job to make the training sessions, but they just took their decision [to terminate me] without thinking. They are misusing their power. For me badminton is my life, and they’ve taken it away from me – twice.”
“There should be ‘modernisation’ of Shariah law to some extent,” claimed Shamrahayu A Aziz, a professor of criminal law and human rights from Malaysia’s International Islamic University, who visited the Maldives last weekend for a discussion on faith and legislature.
“However, Shariah cannot tolerate the denial of the basic teachings, especially when there is clear text in the Quran or sunnah,” she added.
Aziz made the claims to Minivan News this week after having been invited to speak in the country by the Justice Society of the Maldives for an academic discussion on the ‘Death Penalty in Law and Shariah’. The discussion was designed to provide a comparative approach between “traditional Islamic views” on corporal punishment and its contemporary use in certain jurisdictions, she added.
Under the Maldivian constitution, Shariah is turned to by the courts in areas where established law does not cover, though the number of people actually sentenced to sharia mandated punishments like the death penalty in the last few decades has been limited to three cases that have not been carried out to this date. The most recent call for the death penalty was issued just last month in relation to an alleged gang killing.
Aziz said that when considering the possible “modernisation” of Sharia concepts such as the death penalty, Islam has specific texts within the Quran relating to a “comprehensive system of life” that cannot be amended to better comply with external standards or humanitarian agreements.
“In analogy, [the] Islamic system is built in a chain or circle. There must not be any break in the chain. If a break happens, Islam therefore is not a complete chain and it cannot be a comprehensive system of life anymore,” she said. “In order to fit in the ‘modernisation’ process, the stringent requirement in [legal] proceedings and the conviction process is very helpful.”
According to Aziz, it remains a “misconception” to perceive Sharia solely as a form of justice built around corporal and capital punishment, particularly when Islam does not itself try to encourage violence.
However, Aziz claimed that particularly in consideration of international concepts and conventions on human rights, Sharia could play an important role in raising awareness “on the importance of protecting the general public.”
“No one can arbitrarily be killed by another without reason,” she said.
Taking the example of a hypothetical domestic violence case, Aziz asked that when a person is arbitrarily murdered, in order to respect the victim’s rights, should a murderer be liable for the arbitrary act that has been committed?
“I accept the fact that killing a person is cruel. But the Islamic punishment of death penalty is not something encouraged. As much as possible death penalty must be avoided,” she said. “That is the reason why the punishment can be imposed and the sentence may be carried out in some exceptional situations.”
Aziz claimed that these situations are outlined under stringent criminal law that requires specific procedural process, with only certain types of evidence being allowed to be used as a basis for proceeding with execution.
“The death penalty is not the first resort in the punishment list. It stands at the last, the bottom [of the list],” she said. “Islam encourages compassion and forgiveness. Islam does not teach Muslims to kill. There are various verses in the Quran which state the clear position on the prohibition of killing.”
In looking at how Sharia could and had been adapted in line with human rights, Aziz took the example of blood money as an indication of how Islamic law can be focused on benefitting victims.
In a case where a person in arbitrarily murdered and they may have a young family remaining, Sharia is said to call for provisions of financial support to ensure a more stable upbringing from the guilty party.
“At least, with the payment of the blood money the children can continue living. This is in line with human rights as the rights of the children for a living after the killing of a father and the only breadwinner of their family must also be taken care of,” Aziz said.
Aziz stressed that his lecture was not specifically meant to address the current situation and attitudes regarding the death penalty in the Maldives.
“I am not the right person to tell maldivians what is best for Maldives,’ she said. “It is left for Maldivians to address the issue and to tackle the sentiments of their [fellow countrymen].”
However, the issue of using the death penalty in Maldivian law was thrust back into public debate last month when the Criminal Court of the Maldives sentenced Mohamed Nabeel to death for the murder of Abdulla Faruhad, following a review of witnesses statements and finding him guilty of the crime.
The Judge said that article 88[d] of the penal code of the Maldives stated that murders should be dealt accordingly to the Islamic Shariah and that persons found guilty of murder ”shall be executed” if no inheritor of the victim denies the murderer to be executed, according to Islamic Shari’ah.
Correction: An earlier version of this article, sourced from an email interview, mistakenly referred to Aziz as a he. Minivan News regrets the error.
Indian infrastructure giant GMR and Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad (MAHB) have formally taken over the reins of Male’ International Airport, the beginning of an expansion project that includes the construction of a new airport terminal by 2014 and the refurbishment of the existing terminal in just 180 days.
Minivan News speaks to the CEO of GMR Male’ International Airport, Andrew Harrison, the man now in charge of making it happen.
JJ Robinson: What stage does the airport currently stand at following the official handover on November 25?
Andrew Harrison: The focus so far has been on engagement with employees, and bringing together various stakeholders. An airport is like a community, with customs, immigration, Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF), ground handling and all the other services involved. We want to ensure people work together as a community and recognise that each depends on the other to make sure the experience for the passenger best it can be.
The development aspect involves hard construction, but it is very important to look at development of the people – the greatest asset we have. If we develop our people they will look after our business.
JJ: How is the situation different now compared with when GMR first arrived?
AH: An initial challenge was that we had a ground handling company, MACL, and another company that did cleaning and inflight catering. We were not taking the catering but we were taking the cleaning. So you have three different companies with three different organisational cultures that now need to merge into one, and add the culture of GMR Airports.
People ask what apprehensions I had – I wondered how we were going to merge these organisational cultures together. That was the real challenge. Having said that, people responded very well. There were lots of issues where there were differences between those companies, so we had to work to iron out those differences,
JJ: What were an example of some of those differences?
AH: The amount of leave people received in the three companies was different, so we standardise that so one isn’t perceived as having more than another. There are obviously differences in pay scales as well, but that has to be addressed over a longer period of time.employees. to integrate and look at aspects skills, performance and reviews of 1513 employees takes a period of time.
JJ: You had a high success rate retaining employees to the new airport company?
Airport CEO Andrew Harrison at the handover ceremony (left)
AH: It was 100 percent. [Initially] we had a few people overseas on training and it took a bit longer to get the documentation to them. We had a process with the government of the Maldives and MACL. In the conditions for handover we had to demonstrate the implementation and success of the plan, and we had a daily report on how many people on the list passed to us accepted our offer and conditions. I’m pleased to say it was 100 percent.
In terms of people development we are now looking at training programmes. We are just about to send 25 fire and rescue staff to Malaysia for three and a half months of training.
I was interested in that training being not just an assignment, but something people will value and recognise and help to advance themselves. So I said we will invite the parents by surprise to go to the passing out parade of the two best students – best improvement and best overall student – so they can watch their sons be recognised for the distinction they have demonstrated in their learning. I think that is a way we are showing that we are going the extra mile.
In terms of development, the new terminal will be completed in late summer of 2014, and will be really designed to reflect the beauty of Maldives. The terminal will have large glass facades, and natural materials people are used to seeing in resorts, skylights to allow natural light in, and natural water bodies and water features surrounding terminal so you always have that feeling of being close to water. That’s one of the reasons people come to the Maldives.
As for the refurbishment of the existing terminal, we [have launched] a 180 day terminal improvement programme. In the concession agreement we are given one year to complete it, but we have decided to do it in six months.
In those six months we will look at improvements in processing capacity, such as baggage reclaim, capacity of the check-in counters, and centralised security screening – there are two at the moment. This will give passengers greater time in retail area and reduce queuing.
JJ: The GMR bid was particularly generous on the fuel revenue sharing with the government (27 percent from 2015), and less so with the sharing of airport revenue (10 percent from 2015). How will GMR justify such a low margin on fuel?
AH: Today in global airport development there is a balance between aeronautical revenue and non-aeronautical revenue. Aeronautical revenue includes typical revenue from aircraft landing and parking, direct charges to airlines and passenger fees.
But in these challenging times there is continuing pressure to reduce the burden of aeronautical charges. The development of the last few years has been an emphasis on non-aeronautical revenue, as the burden of fuel costs, and engineering costs has increased significantly.
We look at the non-aeronautical development as being part of the commercial arrangement, including the the utilisation adjacent land, conference facilities, hotels, things that actually compliment our services. Our strategy in the long term is a greater focus on these.
At same time, we will focus on the development of the economy as a whole. Because the airport is literally a gateway, an economic engine. It facilitates trade, travel and employment. Generations of Maldivians have worked at this airport and we see this as continuing.
We see ourselves as having a much wider remit – for example, today there is the resurgence of Sri Lanka. 10-12 years ago people booked a 14-day holiday, with 10 days in Sri Lanka, four days in Maldives. They would spend five days in Sri Lanka, come over to the Maldives for four days and go back for five.
When the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) problems arose in Sri Lanka, people came to the Maldives because of the perception of increased security and reduced risk.
Now Sri Lanka has put the LTTE difficulties behind them, we now have the difficulty of the resurgence of Sri Lanka. Now we run the risk people going back to Sri Lanka because it cheaper – and you can do many things there that you can do in the Maldives. In my opinion it’s not as beautiful, and it’s not as exclusive, but not everyone wants to pay that [higher] price in the Maldives.
We are also looking at developing much better traffic between the Maldives and the United States. Today it is the most under-represented nationality in terms of visitors to the Maldives. We have airlines like Qatar Airways and Emirates so we know we have flight connectivity which will allow seamless transfer.
JJ: How do you convince a country like the US to fly to the Maldives instead of closer and more developed destinations such as the Caribbean and Bahamas?
AH: They will be other destinations the Maldives competes with – Hawaii for the US and the Canary Islands for the UK. Fiji to a much lesser extent, which serves Australia and New Zealand.
There is competition with Mauritius to far lower extent, because even though it is a far bigger island it doesn’t attract the number of visitors that the Maldives does.
Curiously, one of the reasons I discovered for this is because the temperature of the water is cooler so divers have to spend less time diving compared to here where our average water temperature is 26 degrees.
JJ: The fuel trade has historically been a key component of the airport’s income, will that continue?
AH: With the fuel trade today we have means of procuring and supplying fuel to the airlines. The airlines also have some of their own arrangements, because they take advantage of global purchasing deals, and companies that supply them in other countries also supply them here.
What we are doing is looking at the existing contracts, and simply reviewing how we can enhance consumer gets. Some airlines like greater term of credit, other airlines a term of time – we have to match various needs and at the same time remain a competitor in the region.
JJ: There have been concerns that such a high fuel share with will compress your own fuel revenue, which could involve passing on the cost and potentially make it more expensive for the airline.
AH: No, I think the strategy we recognise is that we have experience introducing efficiencies. MAHB has 39 airports, GMR has three airports. Between two of us we can leverage what we know and bring that advantage here, and that will make us more efficient.
Because what drives the price of fuel is the cost. If we become more efficient providing fuel we can manage the implications going forward. We have studied that very carefully so that it represents a very good deal for the people of the Maldives and us as business, and also the consumer, be they a passenger or airline.
JJ: How big a part of the airport’s revenue do you expect the fuel trade to be?
AH: It’s not an issue for us, to be honest. We have so many advantages through being able to help the government to influence amount traffic coming in, and in the airport. That doesn’t just mean duty free but food and beverage, transfer services – there are so many needs passengers have here because of the uniqueness of the way people arrive and depart from the Maldives.
The seaplane operation, for example, is an example of how we collaborate. In our original design for the terminal the arrivals section sat on top of the seaplane operation. We are now adjusting that because we recognise how important the seaplane operation is to the Maldives – 60 percent of arrivals are transferring to seaplanes.
What I’d like is that once you come out of arrivals after clearing customs, you have three choices: seaplane transfer, boat transfers to resorts, and passenger transfer to Male’. It is very straightforward and more importantly it is very efficient.
We see many opportunities with the non-aeronautical developments once we complete the terminal development. We have proposals in terms of developing the land area [around the airport],and that is where we see the opportunities.
The concourse of the new terminal
JJ: What is your own background, and what do you bring to the operation?
AH: I have worked for GMR for five years and before that the TBI group in the UK, which ran 26 airports.I have worked 13 airports around the world.
I guess what I bring is an understanding of how an airport can be developed efficiently within a stakeholder environment, looking at needs of a country as a whole, where we are a facilitator of the economy while ensuring the development of leadership qualities in people so they can take over managing the airport.
In a period of five years, we would like this airport to be managed entirely by Maldivians. And some of those Maldivians will move onto our other projects. My real role is to mentor and lead our team here and develop them to go onto bigger and better things.
JJ: An airport is a complex operation – has it been hard to find skills such as qualified engineers?
AH: It has not been a challenge because Maldivians are very talent and very dynamic. They are very self-sufficient. I have guys here in engineering who are able to do virtually anything. It’s amazing, it’s a new skill, and I think to myself, ‘Wow, if we’d had people like this working in India those projects could have been done in half the time.’
We have a lot to learn from Maldivians here, but at the same time we have a lot to share with them.
We recognise that a lot of people have gained their skills through time spent in that department – that doesn’t mean they are in touch with current trends, products and processes that have changed over time to make things more efficient. We are also going to send people to other airports in our group, to give them exposure.
It’s not a matter of finding technological capacity – what we recognise is that we can enhance skills greatly with training and exposure to other airports.
JJ: What have been some of the key challenges here?
AH: There have been a few. I think one of the challenges has been perhaps the misunderstanding people have had – and that’s really changed – about what we are here to do.
There was an earlier misconception that we were going to put a thousand Indians on a boat and set sail for the Maldives and replace everybody here with Indians because it was cheaper labour and would be our preference. But clearly it is not. We are not doing that. Our manage structure at the leadership level is a combination of Maldivians and non-Maldivians. We will learn from them, and share what we have learned. Our challenge is to transfer knowledge to them and harness what they have learned so we can use them in our other airports.
Then the next time we bid for an island airport I’ll know exactly who to call on to take leadership roles in that airport, because I know guys who run a great island airport here.
The second misconception has been that we have come in here to increase all the rates.
JJ: Former Deputy Leader of the opposition Umar Naseer famously stated that the airport deal “will allow Israeli flights to stop over after bombing Arab countries.” How do you respond to such rhetoric?
AH: We look at it, and the information in the media at moment. I find here that people are intelligent and forward thinking, and they able to determine what is fact and fiction. We have full confidence in general public’s ability to discern that.
I think a challenge we faced was the notion that we were coming in and increasing charges. The CEO of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) has said their members prepared to pay increased charges, provided they see improvement in the airport in terms level or service and the development of airport. Clearly they will see that [in the Maldives].
Our mandate is to review the cost of providing services, determine what every stakeholder wants, and determine at what cost we can provide that.
We have airlines who have come to us and told us that the lounge is not what they expect, and that they would like to build their own lounge – three airlines have come forward to build their own lounge – but cant have everyone building their own lounge because we don’t have enough space for that. But what we can say is, ‘What do you require?’
For instance, only one airline currently has a first class service into Male’. All the rest have a business class and economy service, and sometimes premium economy. But the airlines are telling us that some of the passengers arriving on business class are in fact first class passengers, who have flown from London to their hub in first class, but then in business as a downgrade. To all intents they are a first class passenger with first class expectations, and as a result of that the kind of lounge the expect is not the kind they get.
We are working to determine that. But the person on the street may decide ‘You’ve come in here and built a new lounge and now you’re charging more money for it.’ But what they don’t see is the airlines requirement to actually have that facility, because the facility that is there does not meet the standards they expect it to.
These are some of the areas there are misconceptions that are not clear to the public and may be misconstrued.
Exterior of the new terminal, at night
JJ: On the subject of fact and fiction, I’m sure you’re following Maldivian politics with great interest – one of the current issues involves bribery allegations concerning GMR, denied by the Speaker of Parliament Abdulla Shahid and Leader of the Opposition Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, involving them travelling to Delhi on tickets purchased by GMR. Once and for all – has GMR had any contact with the Speaker of Parliament or the Leader of the Opposition?
AH: I think for the interests of clarity, we are extremely privileged to have this opportunity to manage the airport, and the GMR Group will at all times want to confine itself to that responsibility – and nothing else. Because that’s what we’re good at – we are no good at politics. And so we try to stay away from issues such as those.
What I can tell you is that any of the meetings and discussions that we have with anyone in government today have been open, well-known and available to the public. We go to public meetings, and we have other stakeholders present in these meetings. So for us, there is no question of anything occurring that would be shrouded in secrecy, or not known to the public.
Certainly I can tell you I have no knowledge of anything like that taking place. This seems to be something going on between people outside of GMR, although somehow we have appeared in the frame.
Those parties allegedly involved will be able to determine between themselves what is fact and what is fiction.
JJ: Former Deputy Opposition Leader Umar Naseer has claimed he has a letter from Sri Lankan Airlines confirming the authenticity of tickets purchased by a travel bookings company used by GMR, FCM Travel Solutions [shows ticket]. Has GMR flown these two individuals to Delhi?
AH: We don’t have a travel company, we use different travel service providers – we don’t use a defined company. I can’t comment on what Sri Lankan is saying because that information is privy to the airline that made the booking. Certainly anything we do is in the public domain. So if that were the case, it would be something publicly known and something people would be aware of.
This is something between the parties, the airline, and those who allegedly have been involved in purchasing whatever, and who are making the allegations. We honestly wouldn’t be able to comment on that. Because we have no knowledge of this, to be quite honest.
JJ: Have GMR made any efforts to determine the the source of the opposition to the airport, or the concerns of the coalition of parties opposed to it?
AH: No, because we have decided very clearly that our remit is to manage the airport, and we feel it is important to confine ourselves to this remit.
Otherwise it becomes very easy to confuse our mandate here and what people may perceive we are here to do. All of our attention is focused on the airport and demonstrating that we are an airport operator that will be responsible and respectful of the society and culture, and the laws of the Maldives.
As a result of that, I don’t think you would find us doing anything that goes beyond the boundaries of this airport, other than the relationships with those involved who have anything to do with the development of the airport.
JJ: This opposition coalition group have previously said they may take back the airport if elected, suggesting this could potentially become a campaign issue. Are you worried that a change of government could precede nationalisation spree?
AH: No, it’s not really a concern for us. Because quite frankly we are very pleased with the transparent process in which the bid was managed and assessed and awarded, and supervised by an independent body.
I think once people see the new airport, nobody is going to want to undo what has happened to it. We have staff who are motivated and engaged and telling us that this is an environment very different to the one in which they were working before, and they are very excited by these changes. And we have stakeholders who have welcomed the changes we have made until today.
Passengers coming through this airport haven’t been telling us that there is something they don’t like about how the airport is being managed. So our job is to manage the expectations of consumers and stakeholders to transform the airport into a much better experience. I think by doing that, we will address any concerns people outside the airport community have about us being suitable people to run the airport.
I would like to say that this airport belongs to the people of the Maldives, and nothing is going to change that. We may have financial responsibility for the airport, but physical ownership of the airport will always remain with the people of the Maldives.
What we are doing is continuing the evolution of the development off this airport from the volunteers who in the 1960s came to build it through sweat and toil into what it is today. This evolution continue, as will growth in tourism and trade. We are simply a guardian, a custodian of this national economic asset.
JJ: No concerns about sea level rise?
AH: No. When we became involved in the bid process we engaged three leading companies who are at the forefront of analysing geophysical activity, climate change and the impact rising sea levels.
What we can tell you today is that the risk of rising sea levels coming above the land is so low that it’s not even considered in the insurance premiums for the Maldives.
Insurers are notorious for considering even unimaginable risks, so I can tell you that if no insurance company considers this in any of their policies for the Maldives, we think that the risk is pretty low.
We are the largest single investor now in the history of the Maldives, and to make this kind of investment we would have had to had confidence that this investment would survive not just the term, but leave a lasting legacy. Beyond 25 years we want people to remember what happened while GMR was here. So it is not in our interest to invest in something that may not be here for the full term – and that term goes beyond the concession period.
(0)Dislikes
(0)
