Next Year’s State Budget Passed

The State budget for 2007 was passed by the People’s Majlis on Thursday.

In the sitting, which was the last this year, the budget was passed by a majority of 36 votes out of the 45 members that were present at voting.

The voting was preceded by a prolonged debate on the budget, which itself was followed by discussions. The budget was then sent to a 15 member ad-hoc committee as stipulated in Majlis regulations.

Not a single amendment was proposed by the committee in the report, although 21 recommendations were passed on to the government.

In the discussions that followed the committee report, however, members proposed numerous amendments on various areas of interest. But not one of these 47 amendments was passed when put to vote, which led some members to protest.

Some of the amendments included suggestions to: consolidate all social security allocations for various government offices under one ministry, to provide health insurance to all citizens and to avoid a budget deficit even if projected revenue is not achieved.

Other suggestions were to make provisions for providing school uniforms and books free, to reduce office administrative expenditure by 50 per cent and to make Majlis approval essential for budgetary reallocation.

In addition, amendments to allocate 12% of total budget each year for Health and Education and limiting the budgetary spending to 60% of GDP were also suggested.

Some of the members who protested after the amendments failed to pass expressed regret that proposals made in the public’s interest, such as those involving education and health, were being rejected.

All speakers at Thursday’s meeting stressed that the government needed to give more importance to the recommendations made in the report of the ad-hoc committee.

State Minister Abdullah Jihad attended the Majlis and finished the discussions.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Aid Objectives To Be Achieved In 2007

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has said that it expects to achieve its primary aid objectives in the Maldives by the end of next year.

In a recent report titled “Tsunami Recovery in the Maldives 2004-2006”, the UNDP writes that in 2007 its Shelter and Harbour projects, which work towards both recovery and reconstruction, will be completely phased out. As a result, this will make way for other programmes that will go beyond recovery and assist the Maldives in achieving international development targets.

According to the UNDP, the combined efforts of the Maldivian Government, development partners, and various humanitarian agencies have helped put the Maldives “back on the path” of regaining the development momentum that was lost due to the tsunami.

“In the case of the Maldives, the tsunami reversed whole decades of developmental success,” writes the report. “Looking at what we have accomplished,” it continues, “it seems fair to say that UNDP has honoured its dedication to help regain lost development momentum and to establish a system that respects and encourages the rights and aspirations of all Maldivians.”

UNDP also said that it supports the Maldivian Government in promoting good governance. And it went on to assure that the National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC), which was created by the government to assist with the tsunami, was a body “to be recognised as a model for how other governments can effectively coordinate response to major crises”.

But some critics expressed beliefs that more could have been done. They say that because NDMC eventually announced that only the government was allowed to distribute tsunami aid and assistance, further development of Maldivian civil society had been stifled.

These critics disagree with UNDP and say that the Maldivian Government is not promoting “good governance”, but rather oppression and dependency. According to them, Gayoom prevented NGOs from establishing themselves in the Maldives after the tsunami only so that the social services to be provided would not erode the Maldivian public’s dependence on the government. This, they say, was a great opportunity squandered.

Furthermore, just last week, the UK-based charity Maldives Aid, published a report that seriously criticised the state of the recovery effort made by international aid organisations and the government.

The charity, which coordinated a large chunk of aid from the UK after the tsunami said: “There are serious shortcomings in the reconstruction projects taking place in the Maldives at present. The international aid organisations and the Government of Maldives need to address these issues immediately.”

Former US President Bill Clinton, also recently published a report on lessons learned from the tsunami recovery and in it said: “Only 30 to 35% of the people have been put back into permanent housing, we have to do better than that.”

The international media has also launched a stinging attack on the charities’ overall work. The Guardian newspaper in the UK wrote on December 21: “Bureaucracy, poor planning and the cynical withholding of money by some governments and charities are believed to have caused the inordinate delays in the four countries most affected – Thailand, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and the Maldives.”

But despite the criticisms the UNDP is certain that overall, tsunami relief and development in the Maldives has been a success. It does, however, believe even more should be accomplished.

“Although much has been done,” writes the UNDP, “many challenges remain. More than 10,000 people are still internally displaced, and there is a shortage of funding in many sectors, including the critical areas of shelter, harbours, livelihoods, water and sanitation.”

It continues: “it is essential that development agencies and the wider international community continue to support the Maldives and other affected countries as they struggle to recover from this unprecedented natural disaster.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Journalists Petition Gayoom Over ‘Draconian’ Defamation Regulations

Journalists from across the political spectrum joined forces this week in an appeal to President Gayoom to scrap his plans to introduce draconian new defamation regulations, that reporters fear will severely limit press freedom in the Maldives.

Seventy four reporters signed a petition expressing concern that the proposed new laws will have a negative effect on the country’s nascent free media.

“The public is unaware of the implications of defamation regulations and there is no legal system to protect journalists. Therefore, we fear that execution of such a regulation at present will hinder the practice of journalism and wipe out freedom of reporting from the Maldives”, the petition stated.

The petition’s signatories included reporters from opposition newspapers, such as Minivan Daily, as well as from pro-government journals such as Haveeru and Aafathis. Employees from TV Maldives and radio station Voice of Maldives, both state-run enterprises, also signed the petition.

The proposed new regulations were drafted by Justice Minister Jameel but fall under the remit of Information Minister Mohamed Nasheed. The regulations have been severely criticised at home and abroad.

In a detailed report published in July, Article 19, a London-based freedom of expression pressure group with significant expertise in defamation laws, said there were “serious problems” with Nasheed’s proposed legislation.

“It is of particular concern that the definition of defamation is extremely broad,” Article 19 said.

Article 19 pointed to Articles 1(a) and 2(a) of the regulations, which states that defamation includes statements that damage a person’s “honour”:

“Under international standards, the only legitimate purpose of a defamation law is to protect reputations. Honour, however, is a subjective notion that goes well beyond the idea of reputation, which is the esteem in which other members of society hold a person. If restrictions on freedom of expression are based on subjective notions, they will inevitably fail.”

Article 19 is equally concerned that the regulations do not protect journalists from defamation even if the information they report is factually correct. According to the legislation, not only does a journalist’s article have to be truthful, it also has to contribute to “social harmony.”

The pressure group went on to condemn the regulations as “confusing”, “internally inconsistent”, and “poorly drafted.”

Journalists within the country fear that the regulations are a flagrant attempt by the government to silence its critics, who have become increasingly emboldened in the past eighteen months as political restrictions in the country have eased.

Under the proposed regulations, newspapers found guilty of defamation could be sued up to Rf. 1,000,000 ($78,000), ten times higher than the Rf.100,000 in blood money the law stipulates a murderer should pay to the family of their victim.

“These defamation laws will replace police batons as the regime’s favoured response to critical reporters,” said a representative of Minivan Daily, a newspaper that has seen dozens of its reporters jailed and intimidated by the government since it was granted a license to print in the Maldives in July 2005.

The Information Minister, however, insists that his new regulations, which change defamation from a criminal to a civil offence, are a vast improvement on existing laws that permit the imprisonment of journalists.

The government also says it hopes the new regulations will improve the quality of reporting in the country, which is often criticised for being slanderous and poorly researched.

But this argument is unlikely to hold much sway amongst the country’s press corp., particularly opposition journalists, who are routinely physically assaulted by the police, jailed by government-controlled judges and vilified in anonymous websites that are alleged to have close ties to the regime.

If the journalists’ appeal to President Gayoom goes unheard the defamation regulations will be implemented on January 1. The regulations are due to be imposed by presidential decree, thereby circumnavigating parliamentary scrutiny in the People’s Majlis.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)