Month: June 2012

Government to issue fishing subsidy upon Majilis approval

Fishermen will start receiving the 100 million Rufiyaa (US$6.4 million) fuel subsidy allocated to them in the 2012 state budget as soon as Parliament approves revisions proposed by the Fisheries Ministry, the government has said.

Speaking at a press conference on Wednesday, Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture Ahmed Shafeeu said subsidising fuel for fishing vessels would “incentivise” many fishermen who are currently 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 by more than half from approximately 185,000 tonnes of fish caught in 2006 to about 70,000 in 2011.

“It is very important to assist the fishermen as it affects the livelihood of many people. Also, this needs to be done in order to sustain the industry and increase fish exports as there is a risk of losing some markets,” he explained.

This year’s subsidies, unlike previously, will be given based on the horsepower (hp) of the fishing vessel instead of the size of the vessel. Registrations are open until June 7 for fishing boats to apply for subsidies, according to the ministry.

The former administration withheld releasing the subsidy citing insufficient funds in the state budget for the fishing subsidy. Former Minister of Finance Ahmed Inaz told the Parliament in October 2011 that the state would have to reduce other subsidies to issue Rf100 million as oil subsidies for fishermen.

Governor of the country’s central bank Fazeel Najeeb last month said the Maldives was facing its worst economic crisis in recent history. Parliament’s Finance Committee revealed in May that expected revenue for 2012 had plunged 23 percent – a shortfall of US$168.6 million, leaving the country with a budget deficit of 27 percent.

Fisheries Minister Shafeeu said although the state is in debt, the 100 million must be released to fishermen since  Parliament had allocated the money for fishing subsidies in the state budget.

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

“Subsidising is wrong,” Saleem said, arguing that it did not address the core problems in the industry and is “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 the fishermen are currently in “desperate need” of assistance due to the low prices they get for the fish, and said the subsidies should be released to them as a short-term measure.

“An election is what we really need,” Saleem said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Are we getting bogged down in the process?: Dr Hassan Saeed

“The political process affects us all and can make a real difference to people’s lives. Politics should be about real things that matter to people. But do politicians and the public talk about the same things, even when both are focused on the issues?,” asks Dr Hassan Saeed in his latest comment piece for local newspaper Haveeru.

Dr Hassan, leader of the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) and Special Advisor to President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan,  gives his opinion on the need to put political processes into a wider perspective.

“I say that when we are heading into a period when matters other than politics are likely to be at the forefront of ordinary citizens minds. I’m talking about the Euro Football Championship and of course Ramazan.

This natural break presents an opportunity for politicians to review how they operate.

Let me give an example of the different priorities for the public and politicians. I posed myself the question “What was the most important event in the Maldives last week”?

•    Was it progress on the Commission of Inquiry?
•    Was it the All Party Talks?
•    Was it the vote of confidence in the Majlis in the Speaker?
•    Was it MPs swapping parties?
•    Was it the drama on Usfasgandu?

No, it was the fatal stabbing of 16 year-old Mohamed Arham.”

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Revenues grow, but not enough for budget deficit to shrink

The Maldives’ Inland Revenue Authority (MIRA) has released its figures for May, showing an increase of 9.5 percent in government revenue compared with the corresponding month in 2011.

The total revenue collected in the month of May is reported to have been Rf389.6 million (US$25.3million).

The report states that 35.6 percent of income came from the T-GST, a levy charged on all goods and services sold in the tourism sector, which itself has risen more than 119 percent compared with the corresponding period in 2011.

The yearly revenue collected by MIRA is now reported to be 74.2 percent more than at the same point in 2011.

The MIRA statistics do not, however, account for the loss of government revenue from import duties after amendments were made to the import-export act in November 2011. Import duties did not appear on MIRA’s books, even before these changes.

The changes to import duties were anticipated to reduce government import fees by Rf491.7million (US$31.9million) in 2012, according to the Maldives Monetary Authorities (MMA) projected figures.

This shortfall was expected to be more than matched by the introduction of the newly introduced Goods and Service Tax (GST) and an increase in T-GST to 6 percent starting from January 2012.

The MIRA figures show that the loss of the Rf491.7million in import duties has indeed been more than compensated for by an increased revenue of Rf418 million (US$27million) from new GST, and Rf429.1million (US$27.8million) from the raised T-GST.

While the MIRA figures show its own revenue growing exponentially, the wider budgetary picture shows the government is failing drastically to offset its budgetary commitments.

Governor of the MMA Dr Fazeel Najeeb was recently reported as saying that the Maldives was “now in a dangerous economic situation never before seen in recent history.”

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has expressed its concern over the country’s dire balance of payments situation which has been estimated by the Majlis’s Financial Committee to be 27 percent of GDP this year.

The 2012 budget was initially estimated to be around 9.7 percent of GDP, but in May was revealed to be much larger after significantly reduced expenditure and increased expenditure was taken into account.

The deficit is now predicted to be Rf9.1 billion (US$590 million)this year. An extrapolation of MIRA’s figures for the whole year suggest that the increased revenue from the changes to the point at which goods are taxed could amount to just over Rf850 million in additional government revenue.

The IMF has suggested the government further raise T-GST from 6 to 12 percent as part of its efforts to plug the financial gap.

The Financial Committee have said added that the government’s deficit may get worse before it gets better with additional spending commitments yet to be made.

Head of the Financial Committee Ahmed Nazim has listed these expenses as including food subsidies worth Rf270 million (US$17.5 million), electricity subsidies worth Rf250 million (US$16.2 million), capital expenditure by government institutions Rf735 million (US$47.6 million) and an allocation of Rf200 million (US$12.9) to the Aasandha Health Insurance scheme’s budget.

President’s Office Spokesman Abbas Adil Riza has claimed that the previous administration left Rf3-4 billion in expenses hidden from the public accounts.

The policies of the current government have also resulted in losses, including  around Rf123.2 million a quarter (US$8 million) a quarter in airport concession fees due to a Civil Court ruling blocking the levying of an airport development charge as well as up to Rf2 billion (US$135 million) in land lease payments due to policy reinterpretation.

MIRA’s figures are starting to give a better indication of the revenue being lost through this change in the land lease arrangements as this month’s figures show a 25.9 percent reduction in this area when compared with the same period last year, amounting to Rf59million (US$3.8million).

Current government spending for the year has meanwhile increased by almost 24 percent, to a total of US$1.13 billion. Spending unaccounted for in the 2012 budget following the controversial change of government of February 7 has included the promotion of a third of the police force, lump sum payments to military personnel, Rf100 million (US$6.5 million) in fishing subsidies, reimbursement of Rf443 million (US$28.8 million) in civil servant salaries following cuts by the previous administration, the creation of two new ministries, and the hiring of international PR firms to counter negative publicity.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President Waheed attends Commonwealth Diamond Jubilee lunch

President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan yesterday attended a special Diamond Jubilee lunch at Marlborough House in London, as Commonwealth members gathered to celebrates 60 years of Queen Elizabeth II’s reign as head of the Commonwealth. Dr Waheed was accompanied by the First Lady Madam Ilham Hussein.

The lunch, hosted by Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma, came after Dr Waheed and Madam Ilham had attended a national service of thanksgiving, during which the President met with the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge, and the British Prime Minister David Cameron.

“Two billion citizens of the Commonwealth are represented here today. This gathering is testimony to the profound sense of gratitude, respect and affection felt towards Your Majesty,” Sharma told those gathered.

“The Commonwealth remains vibrant as it renews its role. Never before, and surely never again, has so diverse a group of nations, representing a third of the world’s peoples, been joined in free and voluntary association,” he continued.

The leaders presented Her Majesty with a commemorative plaque, to be embedded in the gardens of Marlborough House, which reads:

“Offered with profound admiration and abiding appreciation for the manner in which Her Majesty has diligently and faithfully served the Commonwealth and advanced its values of democracy, development and respect for diversity through six decades, as both the Head and heart of the Commonwealth family, evoking deep respect and affection from Commonwealth citizens around the globe.”

President Waheed will use the rest of his time in the UK to further discuss the current political situation in the Maldives with senior officials, to liaise with the local media, and to meet with the local Maldivian community. He will return to the Maldives on Friday.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police recover Randheli Resort safe containing US$50000 and Rf100,000

Police have recovered the safe of Randheli Island Resort along with the money inside, 19 hours after it was reported missing.

The safe contained US$50,000 and Rf100,000 (US$6500) when it was stolen.

The safe was reported missing yesterday morning at 9:00am and 10 minutes later a team of police officers consisting of forensic officers and investigative officers were dispatched to the island, police said.

According to police the safe was found hidden inside some woods on the island at 4:30am early this morning.

Police said crimes of this type had increased lately, and said the Police Public Affairs Department had been having meetings with businessman to advise them on strengthening security of their businesses.

Police are trying to find those involved in the case as the investigation continues.

Randheli Resort is a resort under construction located in Noonu Atoll – a resort developed by the French company LVMH Moët Hennessy, according to local newspapers.

Police Spokesperson Sub-Inspector Hassan Haneef today said that one man had been arrested in connection with the case.

‘’Police have figured out three others involved in the case and are currently trying to arrest them,’’ Haneef said.

Haneef said police could not disclose further information at the time as the investigation was not yet concluded.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Mohamed Arham was killed in revenge attack over gang argument: police

Deputy Head of Police Serious and Organised Crime, Dhaudh Mohamed, has said that 16 year-old Mohamed Arham was killed in a revenge attack in an argument that night between two gangs.

Speaking to the press at Iskandhar Koshi, Dhaudh said that the police investigation had  found out that Arham had a close relationship with the gang, who were based in the park in which he was found dead. The victim had no previous criminal record, although he used to visit the park frequently, police stated.

Police also appealed to the public to share any information they had regarding the death of Mohamed Arham.

Arham’s body was discovered on Wednesday morning at around 6:00am by police inside the park locally known as ‘Lorenzo Park’, behind the Kulliyathul Dhirasathul Islamiyya building.

Four men were arrested in connection with the murder, however police have not revealed their names saying it might interrupt the investigation.

The Education Ministry, Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) and police have condemned the attack on the boy.

Friends of Arham have meanwhile confirmed that he was in the park at night after all his friends left because he was too tired to go home, as he had just finished attending a camp that day.

Arham did not leave the park with his friends and may have fallen asleep in the park alone, and been attacked while he was asleep, according to some of Arham’s friends.

Mohamed Arham was a student at grade 9 in Dharmavantha School when he died.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Sixty resort islands in limbo after political turmoil strikes CSR programme

The government has refuted local media reports that it is considering halting the lease of 60 islands award for resort development by the former administration.

The islands in question were to be leased under a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) tourism programme initiated by the former government. The programme faced heavy criticism from the start, especially from opposition figures now senior officials in the current government.

Critics alleged that the CSR programme was against the law as the islands were awarded in the absence of an open bidding system, and had favored Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) members.

The National Planning Council (NPC) – formed by the previous government and currently “under review” – leased islands for resort development to interested individuals, with the condition they undertook a development project on an inhabited island, such as building water and sewerage systems.

The development project had to be completed to an “acceptable level” on an island of the government’s choice within an allocated time frame, before the resort would be leased for development. In addition, the resort would be owned by a joint-venture company formed between the state and the resort developer,  with the government holding a five percent share of the company.

The NPC had awarded contracts to at least 10 parties to develop 10 different islands. The fate of these contracts are still unclear as the potential resort developers await a decision by the government. The government, in turn, claim to be waiting for the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) to make a decision.

“The issue is not in our hands now. There are some legal issues to be addressed. Even the 10 islands with contracts might be cancelled. We will decide on it once the ACC gives its recommendations,” said the Minister of Tourism, Ahmed Adheeb.

Meanwhile,  local newspaper Haveeru on Monday reported a “prominent” tourism ministry official stating that the government had decided not to lease the islands awarded “without bids”, in line with the ACC’s recommendations on the issue. Around 60 of the awarded islands will no longer to be leased, according to Haveeru.

“We have decided to cancel the proposals of the islands without agreements. In addition, a decision pertaining to the islands where agreements have been made will be taken after the ongoing discussions with the ACC,” the official told Haveeru.

President of the ACC, Hassan Luthfy denied reports that the commission had specifically ordered the NPC to discontinue the CSR programme.

“During the former administration, we recommended the NPC award all projects within an open bidding system. It did apply to the CSR programme but we did not specifically ask for the CSR projects to be stopped,” Luthfy told Minivan News.

The ACC began investigating the CSR programme in May 2012 and a decision is yet to be made.

Speaking to Minivan News, member of the NPC and former Economic Minister Mahmoud Razee defended the CSR-programme.

“The  programme did not break the law. The tourism law allows two options by which resort islands can be leased: either through the bidding system or by the government holding a share of the company owning the leased resort,” said Razee.

He further claimed the CSR programme was more egalitarian and would enable more people to be involved in the tourism industry, rather than just those with access to large upfront capital.

“The programme was completely open for anyone to apply. It was conducted in a very transparent manner. It was also more efficient than the bidding system where people would just put down huge amounts of money and then later be unable to develop the resort. Even now there are about 60 islands awarded through bids that are still not developed,” he said.

“The CSR programme cuts down the initial costs for developers and gives more people the opportunity to own resorts,” Razee explained.

‘Sim’ Ibrahim Mohamed, one of the individuals awarded an island and under the CSR programme, agreed.

“According to tourism law there is no need for an open bid if the government has a share in the resort. The whole motivation behind the theme of the CSR programme was very noble. It was a very sound, well thought-out policy by the previous government,” said Ibrahim.

In contrast to the bidding system which “always favored people who already had money”, the CSR programme “made everyone equal in terms of the ability to enter the tourism industry as an owner,” he explained.

The CSR programme also opened a doorway for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) to enter the tourism industry, said Ibrahim.

In addition, he said that leasing islands to resort developers in exchange for providing basic facilities on inhabited islands, such as water and sewerage system,s was “a very good way of doing it”, taking the country’s economic situation into consideration.

Asked  how the current limbo state of the CSR programme would affect investor confidence in the country, Ibrahim noted “well, in this instance, the investors ran away.”

“This government has been in power for over 100 days and still nothing has happened. We don’t know. We are waiting, the investors are waiting. So it is just money lost, it is opportunity lost. It’s not only investors’ confidence but also financial institutions such as banks that lend you money.”

Although the government has not reached a decision yet, it still remains skeptical about the CSR programme.

“I don’t think the people who got the resorts have the financial capacity to conduct the projects in the islands,” said tourism minister Adheeb. “There are no documents with any evidence of their funds.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Former Commission of National Inquiry panel releases timeline “for public opinion”

The former three-member panel of the Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) has released a ‘timeline’ of events it claims took place from the period of January 16 to February 7, for the stated purpose of “finding public opinion”.

The composition of the panel has since been revised to include a representative of former President Mohamed Nasheed and a retired Singaporean judge, as well as international monitors from both the Commonwealth and UN.

The 282-point Dhivehi document does not feature any input from the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), who contested the panel’s impartiality prior to the re-composition. The report begins its findings on the day police attempted to summon Chief Judge of the Criminal Court, to the day the controversial transfer of power took place. The panel conducted interviews with assorted non-MDP participants, however the report does not source its findings.

The night of February 6

The timeline suggests the initial ‘turning point’ of the unrest began on the night of February 6, after the supporters of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) arrived at the artificial beach in Male’ where supporters of the coalition of then-opposition parties had already been protesting, calling for the release of Judge Abdulla and for the constitution to be upheld.

The timeline states that the Specialist Operation (SO) officers of the police had stationed themselves in Heniveru Stadium, in preparation to prevent any violence that may have taken place if supporters from both sides clashed.

The report stated that police intervened after they received information that the situation was deteriorating from two police officers who were there to assess the situation.

It states that police intervention calmed the situation and cordoned a security line between the two protesting parties, after forcing them further behind the sides of the area they had been protesting.

The three member panel alleged that Minister of Home Affairs Hassan Afeef ordered Commissioner of Police Ahmed Faseeh to withdraw police officers who had been stationed on the site. The Commissioner sent two officers to assess the situation, who reported back stating that the situation had deteriorated, which the Commissioner relayed to the Minister.

The Minister repeated the order but the Commissioner of Police refused to comply, stating that the situation could get worse if the police withdrew their forces.

According to the report, after the commissioner refused, President Nasheed himself called the commissioner and ordered him to withdraw police from the scene.

Faseeh then reportedly sent the Deputy Commissioner of Police to assess the situation, and he too relayed the situation was worsening.

The report claimed that the president called the commissioner a second time and ordered him to withdraw police from the area, stating that he “could not trust the police”.

After this order, the report said that the commissioner personally took the decision to contact the Male’ Area Commander of the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF), asking that the MNDF intervene as the police were withdrawing.

The statement read that the tactical officer of the SO opposed the idea of withdrawing police from the area, stating that both the protesting parties had weapons that could be used for violence, including wooden sticks and metal rods.

The SO police present in the area refused to withdraw without the MNDF arriving to take over their position, the timeline claimed.

The panel also claimed that a resignation letter was drafted by the police commissioner and was left on his table, as “the commissioner did not believe that the withdrawal of the police was the right decision.”

After the MNDF took over the area, the panel claimed that President Nasheed called the Male’ area commander and ordered him to withdraw MNDF officers from the area, giving him assurances that the MDP supporters would not resort to any kind of violence.

However, the statement read that when MNDF withdrew their officers from the area, violent confrontations began and there “bottles and objects” thrown by both protesting parties, which led the MNDF to intervene again.

February 7

The statement claimed that some of the SO police officers who had been in the Artifical Beach area then went to the MDP protest camp and vandalised the premises, and attacked some of the MDP supporters inside.

An MNDF SWAT team arrived after the SO police officers left premises, “to guard the area”, the panel stated.

The statement read that, as the usual routine of the police is to fall in at the Republican Square after protests ended; the police officers retreated and convened to the area.

The panel said that initially the MNDF attempted to arrest the police officers who by then had begun to gather in Republic Square, adjacent to police and military headquarters. However the MNDF reportedly decided to negotiate with the police officers as the military was outnumbered and police had similar equipment to the MNDF officers.

According to the report, police told the MNDF officers who were sent to negotiate with them that would begin following orders again after they were given assurances that they would not be ordered to carry out any unlawful orders, and that no action be taken against any of the officers regarding their involvement.

“The MNDF officers assured them that the MNDF would not confront police officers in the area,” the panel claimed.

During the negotiations, the panel claimed that police requested to meet the commissioner of police. The MNDF officials proposed officers go into the MNDF headquarters to to meet the commissioner, but police said they wanted to meet the commissioner inside police headquarters.

It was decided that the commissioner would meet meet in Iskandhar Koshi, an MNDF barracks on the other side of Male’, to the police officers initially agreed. However, police rejected the idea after the MNDF insisted the police go without their weapons and riot gear.

President’s arrival to Republic Square and his resignation

The panel claimed that in the early morning of February 7, between 5:00am to 6:00am, President Nasheed informed the commissioner that he wanted to meet the police officers who were at Republican Square.

It further claimed that the President also ordered the commissioner to meet the police officers in Republic Square, however the commissioner left military headquarters and entered police headquarters without meeting police gathered outside the building.

Before meeting the police, Nasheed asked one of the MNDF commanders whether he had any reservations over arresting the protesting police officers, to which the commander reportedly replied that he did.

The President then reportedly told the commander that it would be better if he stayed at home for the time being, however two other commanders also told the President that they had reservations and left.

The panel claimed that Nasheed then told the police officers that they had “done something wrong” and requested they hand themselves over to the MNDF. Police refused the order.

According the panel, Nasheed then returned to military headquarters and ordered the MNDF officers inside the barracks to go outside and arrest the officers who had disobeyed him.

At this point, some of the MNDF officers left the barracks and joined the police officers protesting.

While Nasheed was inside the MNDF base, the panel claimed that the President’s secretariat informed cabinet members that there would be a cabinet meeting, but failed to inform Vice President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan as two key staff of the VP’s secretariat had not reported to work.

The panel also claimed that the then-President of the MDP, Dr Ibrahim Didi, called Nasheed and discussed how to resolve the ongoing unrest. Nasheed reportedly asked for Didi’s help in releasing a joint statement by the president and leaders of the opposition parties.

It said that Didi had then contacted opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) Parliamentary Group Leader, Abdulla Yameen, however both of them declined to help unless Nasheed personally requested they do so.

Dr Didi then informed Nasheed of this response, who told him to make a decision after discussing the matter with MDP Parliamentary Group Leader MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih and former Chairperson of the Party, MP Mariya Ahmed Didi.

The panel alleged that Dr Didi tried contacting MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, who did not respond, and then contacted MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, who said he would get back to Dr Didi after consulting on the issue with Nasheed.

After the reply from MP Solih was delayed, Didi reportedly called Nasheed back, and was told that the High Commissioner of India, Dnyaneshwar M Mulay, would contact him.

According to the panel, Mulay contacted Dr Didi and asked him to come to the High Commission. When Dr Didi arrived to the High Commission, the opposition Progressive Party of the Maldives (PPM) Parliamentary Group leader Yameen was already there.

According to the panel, as Dr Didi, Mulay and Yameen were discussing how to resolve the crisis, MP Solih called Yameen and informed him that Nasheed was going to resign.

Didi then reportedly contacted Nasheed and asked to him to give the phone to Yameen.

According to the panel, Nasheed informed Yameen that he was going to resign and asked him to ensure the safety of his family, to which Yameen replied that he would do everything to ensure the safety of Nasheed’s family.

The meeting adjourned after the president informed them that he would resign.

New MNDF commander

Meanwhile, according to the panel, two civilians: resigned police officer Abdulla Riyaz (the new Police Commissioner) and dismissed MNDF officer Ahmed Nazim (now the Defence Minister), entered the MNDF headquarters reportedly on the invitation of the Minister of Defence and National Security, Tholath Ibrahim.

After discussions with Nasheed in the MNDF barracks, Nazim came out to the crowd and revealed that he had asked Nasheed to resign unconditionally before 1:30pm that afternoon, along with the commissioner of police and his deputies.

According to the panel, Nazim told the crowd that his demands were “non-negotiable”.

The protesters were then informed that Nasheed would resign, and would announce this in the President’s Office.

According to the panel, Nasheed wrote the resignation letter inside the President’s Office, and then announced it on state television – which by this stage had been stormed by a second group of police and protesters.

CNI statement “lacks legitimacy

The MDP – now in opposition – said it would not formally comment on the statement prior to the release of an official statement.

However, an MDP official told Minivan News that the party did not consider the timeline “substantial”, and said it “lacked legitimacy”.

The party was “not even interested” in the timeline because the investigation would start from scratch under the new composition.

”The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) has asked the government to change the composition of the commission and the government has agreed to it. I think the current co-chair of the commission thinks that his work is over,” the party official said.

The premature release of the timeline “for public comment” was “not a good thing”, he added.

The CNI claimed that if anyone wished to propose amendments to the timeline, they should submit amendments before June 21.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MP Rasheed committed to MDP despite support for Majlis speaker

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Rasheed said he remains committed to the party even if he is “punished” by its Parliamentary Group for not supporting a no-confidence motion forwarded against Majlis Speaker Abdulla Shahid.

Rasheed told Minivan News today that he expected to remain an elected member of the party, which he continued to support, despite standing by his position to back the parliamentary speaker against a reported three-line whip enforced by the MDP.

During a vote of no confidence taken against Shahid yesterday, 45 out of the 74 parliament members present in the sitting voted in favour of the speaker and 25 voted against him. Two members abstained. MDP MPs Hassan Adil and Ahmed Rasheed were said to have voted against their party line. MDP MPs Mohamed ‘Colonel’ Nasheed and MP Ali Riza abstained.

MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said that the MPs who voted against the no confidence motion would now be required to explain themselves to the party’s Parliamentary Group Leader, MP Ibrahim Mohamed Solih.

Hamid added that the MDP had not yet decided on what course of action may be taken to deal with the MPs who voted against the whip at a time when the party trails in parliamentary support to a coalition of government-aligned parties.  The MDP currently stands alone as an opposition party against the coalition government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan, which it alleges was brought to power in a “coup d’etat”.

“I wouldn’t go as far as to say that we will do anything rash. Under these stressful circumstances we have to be disciplined as a party,” Ghafoor explained in regards to the possible measures that could be taken against MPs who had not supported the vote.

While the exact nature of action to be taken by the party against members who voted against the bill is presently unknown, MP Rasheed said he would not be looking to switch his political allegiance even when potentially facing being reprimanded or expelled.

“I believe in the MDP manifesto. There is no question to me that it is the only party that actually has a manifesto,” he claimed. “In my mind, there is also no one trying to force me out of the party.”

Last month, the MDP’s former President Dr Ibrahim Didi and former Vice President Alhan Fahmy switched allegiances to the Jumhoree Party (JP). The decision was taken after the MDP’s National Congress passed a majority vote to remove both men from their respective leadership posts after they stood accused of making statements contradictory to the party’s official line.

Despite pledging his allegiance to the party today, Rasheed maintained his support for Shahid in the no confidence motion, claiming that the present speaker, out of 77 parliamentary members, was the “only person right now” who should have the Majlis chair.

Despite Shahid representing the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), Rasheed contend that the speaker – due to a perceived lack of power in the position of his party – would not directly support former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom and his Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM).  The PPM was formed last year after an increasingly bitter war of words between current DRP Leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali and Gayoom, who had originally founded the party. The war of words saw the party split between supporters loyal to Gayoom and those in favour of Thasmeen’s tenure.

“Discipline”

Questioned as to whether the MDP, through its Parliamentary Group, would be looking to discipline the MPs who failed to back the party line, Ghafoor would not be drawn into the possible repercussions until an internal review was complete.

“The issue is that these MPs went against the whipline. This has been noted by the Parliamentary group Leader.  He now wants to find out why,” he said. “If they go against the party line they must have a good explanation for doing so.”

Ghafoor claimed that as a party, the MDP had generally been “disciplined” in ensuring solidarity among its members during parliamentary voting – a decision he said had afforded it the best record among fellow parties.

“There have of course been mishaps from time to time where people have gone against the party line,” he said.

Ghafoor took the example of former Party President Dr Ibrahim Didi and Vice President Alhan Fahmy as a notable example of where its members had been reprimanded.

“At this delicate time, [voting against the party line] does serve to reduce confidence in the party,” he said.

“Major principles” were at stake in yesterday’s high-profile no-confidence motion, Ghafoor said, adding that there was particular pressure from grassroots supporters to ensure the no-confidence vote succeeded.

“This is nothing personal, but the party supporters are in no mood to tolerate such actions from their MPs,” he said.

Ghafoor claimed that whatever action the party may decide to take against MPs voting against the official MDP line, it would not act in a “rash” manner.

The MDP Parliamentary Group has maintained that it has held “serious reservations” for some time about the Parliamentary Speaker’s ability to pass policies into legislation – despite his capabilities and understanding of national politics.

Speaker support

Speaking during yesterday’s debate, DRP Leader Thasmeen stated that the no-confidence motion had been forwarded amid baseless accusations.  He defended his fellow party member, saying that he had been executing the responsibilities of the speaker in accordance with the parliament rules and procedures.

Thasmeen further claimed that the motion was an attempt by MDP to “break” the coalition after the party leadership’s recent “political failures.”

“Such a motion will not impact the ‘unity’ between the parties in the coalition supporting the government of President Waheed. So therefore I must say, yet again this is another wrong step taken by the MDP leadership,” Thasmeen added.

PPM spokesperson MP Ahmed Mahloof stated that despite his being an outspoken critic of Shahid who made several statements in the media and the parliament floor, he would stand by the speaker’s side today.

“Yesterday, the PPM Parliamentary Group (PG) came to a conclusion that this motion is a ‘trap’ set up by the MDP to ‘finish off’ the people and the ruling coalition,” he said.

“Today at a time where Abdulha Shahid is facing a grave matter at hand, I will stand by him. Abdulla Shahid will get all the votes from PPM. What we ask is that he act justly and equally,” he added.

MDP MP Ali Waheed during the debate alleged that the motion would reveal those MPs who spoke “in two mouths”, referring to the PPM MPs allegations of that Shahid and Thasmeen had cut deals with GMR and the government of former President Mohamed Nasheed to support the privatisation of Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA).

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)