Minivan News – Archive

Revised regulations on the use and import of liquor, pork and pork products have been sent to a parliamentary committee to seek its advice, Economic Development Minister Mohamed Rasheed said today.

Following pressure from the public, NGOs and the Islamic ministry, the regulations that were to come into effect today and authorise the sale of alcohol at tourist hotels on inhabited islands were withdrawn by the ministry last week.

At a press conference today, Rasheed said he did not believe alcohol should be sold in an Islamic country, but liquor permits were given to expatriates and diplomats as required by the Vienna Convention.

“When I took over this ministry, I was not at all happy with the way our ministry was doing it,” he said. “So we started revising it. When we started revising it, the attorney general’s office, police, customs and the tourism ministry participated. The most important thing we considered in revising it was how common this had become in the country, especially in Male’.”

Under the existing regulations, he added, 826 liquor permits were issued to expatriates, which led to difficulties in controlling its illegal use.

“We plotted [a graph] to see the [distribution of] liquor permits in Male’,” he said. “When we looked, we saw that the whole of Male’ was red.”

He did not support such a “loose” policy without a monitoring mechanism, said Rasheed, and in the revision process, the ministry received complaints from police that it was difficult to control the illegal sale of alcohol and the black market created due to the permits.

Further, the ministry was told by Maldives Customs that liquor was taken from bonded warehouses without any control.

“So we were studying ways to control it. But in controlling it, we have to consider that our economy is based on the tourism sector and how we could control it in a way that does not weaken the tourism industry,” he said.

Following the publication of the revised regulations on the ministry’s website on 9 November, he added, the ministry received a number of comments and complaints.

Since the issue was tied to the public interest, he said, the ministry sent the regulations for advice from the parliamentary rules committee.

“If the people don’t want it, I won’t include [sale of alcohol in inhabited islands],” he said.

Yesterday, the main opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party announced that it would hold “a large demonstration” on Tuesday night to protest the decision sell alcohol.

Further, the Tourism Employees Association of Maldives (TEAM) said it would join a number of NGOs in a nationwide protest if the regulations were implemented.
Mauroof Zakir, vice-president of TEAM, told Minivan News yesterday that although he supported the decision to revoke liquor permits, he believed alcohol should not be sold at all on inhabited islands.

“I think that is a very good idea if they take the licenses from them because many have prepared their own bars and have a black market so that will help a lot,” he said.

Adhil Saleem, state minister of economic development, said today that alcohol had become common in Male’ as a result of the existing regulations.

“We made the regulations to change the situation. Let’s talk about the situation,” he said. “We are trying to find a solution because alcohol has become common in an Islamic society, gang violence has increased and our children are intoxicated.”
The issue of selling alcohol on inhabited islands came to public attention last month when Adhil Saleem confirmed that the new Holiday Inn in the capital Male’ had applied for a liquor licence.
The law obligates the ministry to make regulations for the import and use of alcohol, he said.

Adhil said the revised regulations were complete and did not have any loopholes. Hotels with over 100 beds would be allowed to have a bar that is not visible from outside and would only serve foreigners.

Further, it will be illegal to keep alcohol in mini-bars at the hotels on inhabited islands or sell it anywhere apart from the hotel’s main bar.

Maldivians cannot be employed at the bar and all employees of the bar must be registered with the economic development ministry after a police clearance; the bar must further not be easily accessible to people who enter the hotel or visible from outside.

An inventory of the alcohol in storage and daily sales must be maintained and made available to police on their request, while CCTV cameras must be mounted at the storage room at hotel.

Rasheed said police told the ministry the new regulations would make it easier for police to target the illegal sale of alcohol in Male’.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

350.org has posted an online petition on its site to support President Mohamed Nasheed’s survival pact, announced at the Vulnerable Climate Forum, last week.

At a congregation of 11 of the world’s most climate vulnerable countries, the president invited participants to choose survival over suicide and commit to drastic cuts in emission at the landmark UN climate change conference in Copenhagen this December.

“At the moment every country arrives at the negotiations seeking to keep their own emissions as high as possible. They never make commitments, unless someone else does first.

“This is the logic of the madhouse, a recipe for collection suicide. We don’t want a global suicide pact…So today, I invite some of the most vulnerable nations in the world, to join a global survival pact instead.”

In an email to Minivan News today, Bill McKibben, the man behind the 350 campaign, which is calling for reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide to 350ppm, said they had received tens of thousands of signatures in support of the pact.

On the speech, McKibben said, “I thought it was the best speech by a head of state about climate change in the 20 years I’ve been working on the issue. Finally someone dropped the language of political convenience and replaced it with the language of scientific necessity.”

Over on Nasheed’s Facebook page, readers have praised his speech.

“Thank you President Nasheed for having the courage to tell it like it is,” said Laura Lamond, while Susan Blayney from Canada said the speech moved her to write to her MP.

Bruce William Oswell Haynes wrote that the speech was the “most powerful use of the spoken word I have heard for a long time.”

On the V-11 summit, McKibben said it showed that most vulnerable nations would “not go quietly to the gallows”.

“It set them up to be the moral leaders at Copenhagen and beyond. Far more than the big global environmental groups, these nations now represent the cutting edge of the debate.”

Although the climate change talks are less than a month away, negotiations have virtually reached a standstill.

At the last round of negotiations in Barcelona, Spain, earlier this month, the divide between rich and poor countries remained more pronounced than ever.

While the developing world are demanding broad cuts in emissions from the developed world, the latter are reluctant to commit. Another issue of contention is how much aid rich countries should given poorer ones to help them adapt to climate change.

In the declaration signed at the V-11, participants agreed to show moral leadership and begin the process of greening their economies but stopped short of committing to going carbon neutral.

In March, Nasheed announced his intention to make the Maldives the first carbon-neutral country in the world and at the summit, called on other countries to join him.

Other countries at the summit included Bangladesh, Nepal, Vietnam, Kiribati, Barbados, Bhutan, Ghana, Rwanda and Kenya.

Although they are among the lowest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, they share between them the worst impacts of climate change including desertification, drought, floods, storm surges and vulnerability to sea level rise.

The declaration further called for cuts in emissions that would ensure global temperatures remained below 2.5 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels and that atmospheric carbon dioxide was returned to the safe threshold of 350 ppm.

On 24 October, 350.org led a world-wide protest for this reduction in carbon dioxide levels. People in 181 countries participated by holding over 5,200 events.

McKibben told Minivan News the campaign would now help organise a series of candlelight vigils around the world on 12 December, especially targeted at US embassies and consulates.

“It has become clear that even in the age of Obama, the United States still represents the fundamental roadblock to change,” he said.

To sign the Survival Pact click here.

{http://action.350.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1711}

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dear Editor,
Ahlul-athar.net expresses their utter disgust at any acts of extremism and terrorism committed by the Khawaarij and the likes, those that of Al-Qaedah and their ilk. Such unjustified outbursts of wanton violence are against Islam and Islam does not ever justify kidnappings, suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism. It is rather disheartening that some of the Maldvian youth are getting deluded into believing that these acts are Jihaad and from Islam. We call the youth to return back to the original state of affairs, and to know that knowledge precedes action, and it is not the other way around!
We call those who are known as “Dots” and their ilk to not be beguiled by the beautified speech of simpeltons who have no knowledge of this beautiful Deen, and who are misguided and far astray from the Creed of the righeous salaf. And the recent video footage of the pseudo “Mujaahid” Ali Jaleel, then we say he has lot to learn of this beautiful Deen. It is not for him to call the scholars to go to him, but it is for him and his likes to go to the scholars themselves! It is a shame that this man does not know the great priniciple of Islam, that knowledge precedes statements and actions!
And in this regard we also call the so called Liberalists and Modernists to not judge Islam with the acts of the Khawaarij! Rather it is upon you too to return back to the original of affairs! And we say, do not accuse us of your own iniquities!
We, the Ahlus-Sunnah, the Salafis, the Ahlul-Athar, are free from the extremist and terrorist acts of America, the Jewish State and also those of Al-Qaeda and their ilk! We are clear from them and they are clear from us!
We also refer readers to the following websites, which has the writings of our scholars and our students of knowledge who clearly and totally refutes vigilante behaviour enacted by individuals and also who unequivocally denounce extremism, terrorism and violence:
The Salafee Position on Terrorism, Suicide Bombings and Hijackings
Click here for –> The Correct Islamic Position on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings
Click here for –> The Wahhabi Myth – Dispelling Prevalent Fallacies and the Fictitious Link with Bin Laden
Click here for –> Sacred Freedom: Western Liberalist Ideologies In The Light Of Islam
Useful Website in English –> http://www.islamAgainstExtremism.com
Useful Website in English –> http://www.Answering-Extremism.com
Regards,
Hussain

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dear Editor,
Allowing to sell alcohol on inhabited islands or in the fish market is nothing to get excited about or worried about. But it’s the people you got to be worried about. People who have been brought up in their whole life thinking that alcohol and pork are something special and something to be feared. Something thrilling to do just because it’s forbidden or because it helps them to forget the cruelty around them.
While I’m all for the freedom of selling or consuming anything anyone wishes, I do to a certain level agree with people who oppose to this. I think Maldivian society is not informed enough or capable enough to handle this. These are like beasts we are talking about. Deprived of sex, entertainment, fun, a goal in life, basic needs and a good education. So yes, it’s a wrong move in this society.
Regards,
Anonymous

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dear Editor,
The latest brouhaha on the government considering the sale of alcohol in inhabited islands is reflection of the deplorable state the whole country has descended into. We are seeing the typical self-righteousness that pervades everyone in the country. Why are we hell bent on enforcing our own personal beliefs and values on every one else?
Why cannot we let everyone be granted the privilege of deciding what is good for him or her? After all everyone is responsible for their own sins, and only their sins. Why is everything categorized stricty in terms of either halaal or haraam? It is not unusual to hear that this is halaal or that is haraam from some self-appointed preacher proxying as God’s voice.
Why is everyone so desperate in enforcing each one’s set of halaal and haraam on every one else? Why is each one’s opinions portrayed with absolute certainty as the only Islamic truth? It makes me wonder where in Islam it is allowed for liquor to be sold in resorts and nowhere else?
As long as we are not willing to let each one decide on his choice of beliefs we will descend further. There is so much chatter and noise in our society nothing useful can ever be achieved. Medina University is exporting a curse to the world at large. Every one is a preacher on good conduct and on religion. Everyone knows everything, but can do nothing.
Those who choose to drink alcoholic beverages will drink it either in resorts or abroad. The burden of deciding to drink or not to drink lies with each single person. After all, it is that person that faces a sentence in this world and punishment in the next. No one else has to share in his sins. The responsibility does not fall on Adhaalath party, and certainly not on TEAM.
Regards,
Naseem

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Dear Editor,
Nihan and Ali Waheed seem to be a bit naive. I suspect that the “rat” is not Alhan. Alhan seems to be a member of DRP who would do anything for his party leaders. He was the guy who proposed the unfair bill on benefits for former Presidents.
In an interview after the vote Alhan declared his undying affection for his party leader and deputy leader. At the last DRP rally we saw the deputy party leader pleading with members not to blame Alhan, claiming that any divisions within the party will be a win for MDP.
We should also remember that at a recent MDP rally President Nasheed offered to delay the corruption cases and investigations if the opposition would help him on the no-confidence motion. We have also heard that the deputy leader DRP and two of his family members were taken to the police for questioning. We have also heard that MDP has threatened to make life difficult for MPs who supported the no-confidence motion and to reward those who vote against it.
It is only logical that MDP would have made similar threats and offers to the deputy leader of DRP.
So putting two and two together I feel the real rat is not Alhan.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

MPs from the main opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) lambasted Alhan Fahmy, an MP from their party, at a rally last night, after he voted against party lines in a no-confidence motion against the foreign minister.

At the rally, DRP MPs spoke out against Alhan calling him a “rat”.

Speaking to Minivan News today, MP Ahmed Nihan said Alhan’s decision to vote against the party was the “biggest surprise” of the day. “I didn’t expect him to do that,” he said.

Last month, the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party-People’s Alliance (DRP-PA) coalition submitted a motion of no-confidence against Dr Ahmed Shaheed over the government’s decision establish ties with Israel.

Shaheed narrowly survived yesterday’s vote; out of 73 MPs in attendance, 37 MPs voted in favour of the motion. 39 votes were needed for the motion to pass.

But in a surprise move, DRP MP Alhan Fahmy went against his party, arguing he had met with Shaheed and found the DRP’s allegations to be baseless.

Nihan said Alhan had told the DRP parliamentary group about his meeting with Shaheed the day before the vote.

He added he had tried to persuade Alhan to vote along party lines, arguing that many of the documents offered up by Shaheed were probably fabricated.

After the opposition submitted the no-confidence motion, Shaheed made public copies of agreements for diplomatic ties and other documents, proving the former government had decided to normalise relations with Israel in June 1994.
An angry crowd of DRP supporters protested outside Alhan’s residence from 12pm onwards today.

At the rally, Nihan and Thohdhoo MP Ali Waheed called on the DRP to take action against Alhan.

“He defied the party rules, the three-line whip so obviously there has to be some kind of action…he won’t be removed from the party without being given the chance to defend himself,” said Nihan.

He added that Alhan had betrayed the party and it would have been better to abstain from voting.

“I don’t believe it’s a big blow politically to the party because Shaheed was made to explain in front of the whole Majlis yesterday about establishing ties with Israel. It was DRP who won yesterday, not MDP,” he said.

But, said Eva Abdulla, an MP from the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), parliament’s rules of procedure had clear guidelines on questioning ministers during question time.

“Surely that would’ve been a good starting point and much less resource-consuming?” she said.

Alhan told Minivan News today that he was still a member of the DRP and had no plans to defect to MDP. He further said the opposition should not submit no-confidence motions for political reasons.

On the DRP rally, he said he had spoken to Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, the party’s deputy leader, and asked him to try and stop other MPs from speaking out against him with such “hatred” and “emotion”.

“They can take action against me. The council has a due process and has the authority even to expel me from the party after they study the case,” he said.

At the rally, MPs also said that two independent MPs, Mohamed Nasheed and Ibrahim Muttalib, had also reneged on their decision to support the vote.

Nihan said although the motion was initiated by DRP, it was “tremendously” supported by Nasheed.

“He was there to help us beyond the formal talks and gave us support…we are quite shocked. It’s immature behaviour,” he said. “I thought he was totally engaged, even Muttalib.”

Nasheed told Minivan News he did not wish to comment.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

The opposition Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) alleged yesterday the ruling party threatened two of their MPs to ensure they voted against the no-confidence motion against Foreign Minister Dr Ahmed Shaheed yesterday.

The DQP said it regretted the decision made by Riyaz Rasheed and Hassan Adhil to vote against the party line.

“They told the party leaders that senior MDP leaders from the president himself threatened them with unimaginable restrictions on their businesses if they participated in the vote and told them they would get benefits for their businesses if they did not participate in the vote of no-confidence against Dr Ahmed Shaheed,” said a statement from the party.

The statement said the party regretted such “wicked and dictatorial” behaviour from a government that came to power promising democratic, good governance.

“The party believes that if today’s vote of no-confidence against Dr Ahmed Shaheed was successful there is no doubt that the ‘brutal rule’ of President Nasheed that is unprincipled and outside of legal bounds could have been brought within the bounds and the path would have been paved to hold the government accountable,” it concludes.

Last month, the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party-People’s Alliance (DRP-PA) coalition submitted a motion of no-confidence against Shaheed for allegedly misleading the public over the government’s decision to renew diplomatic ties with Israel.

Shaheed narrowly survived yesterday’s vote; out of 73 MPs in attendance, 37 MPs voted in favour of the motion. 39 votes were needed for the motion to pass.
In a text message to Minivan News today, MDP MP Eva Abdullah said the DQP needed to do some “soul-searching” if their own MPs had decided to vote against them.

“Also Adhil and Riyaz were clearly not going to be manipulated into entertaining an obviously flawed judgement in tabling this motion in the first place and this is precisely what Riyaz expressed yesterday on the floor,” said Eva.

During yesterday’s sitting, Riyaz said he suggested parliament looked into the details of diplomatic relations with Israel when a motion without notice on the issue was debated last month.

“I said then that as the People’s Majlis we have the power and authority to find out to what extent these ties had been established,” he said.

He called on the government to issue a statement to clear the issue up as it was a serious concern and he did not want to waste parliament’s time.

Riyaz said it was questionable whether the vote of no-confidence against Shaheed was justified, adding there were other cabinet ministers who were more deserving of removal from office.

He added he was among the MPs that campaigned to hold the government accountable and in this case parliament should have studied the matter before the vote.

“I know Dr Shaheed very well. I can’t believe that he would do something that would lead to Islam being wiped out from among us,” he said.

Addressing members at the 64th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Nasheed said the Maldives would make use of diplomatic ties to assert its support for an “independent and sovereign” Palestinian homeland.

“We believe dialogue and constructive engagement serve the cause of peace better than ostracism and isolation,” he said.

At the sidelines of the Assembly, the Maldives signed three Memorandums of Understanding with Israel to collaborate in health, education and tourism.

The announcement sparked outrage among opposition and religious groups. Speaking to MPs yesterday, Shaheed denied full diplomatic ties had been established with Israel.

He further offered copies of agreements for diplomatic ties and other documents proving the former government decided to normalise relations with Israel in June 1994 under three phases.

Shaheed argued the no-confidence motion could only be justified in cases where a minister had committed a serious crime or grossly neglected his duties and the opposition’s motion did not cite specific examples to back up their claims.

Shaheed said MPs could have either questioned him at parliament, summoned him to committee or sent him a letter to clear up their questions on the issue before resorting to a vote of no-confidence.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)