Category: Politics

Comment: Maldives moving away from India, tilting towards China?

As 2012 draws to a close, the question uppermost in the minds of Maldives watchers is if the country was moving away from the strategic sphere of Indian influence, and has begun tilting towards China, as is often suspected in the case of other nations in the Indian Ocean neighbourhood, near and afar.

There are no ready answers that are convincing.  But there is nothing to suggest that a ministerial visit here or a bilateral issue of commercial consequences for India there has the potential to effect that change.

There are not as many Maldives watchers the world over as there are international tourists. And most tourists are apolitical holidayers who enjoy the quiet and the sun and sand for which they return year after year, when their pockets are full.

When the economy back-home economy is stifling for no fault of theirs, but that of their governments, holidaying in Maldives faces the axe. It is a terrible thing for the archipelago-nation’s economy, which found new sustenance in resort-tourism decades ago, and is unable to – or unwilling to – diversify. The scope and options are also limited.

Thus, the arrival of Chinese budget-tourists to Maldives also makes news in strategic circles. They have accounted for 25 percent of all arrivals these past years, but their spending-style does not encourage high-cost resort-tourism; yet, it keeps the sector going in troubled years.

But it is bilateral visits by political and military leaders from one country to the other that makes for greater news for the strategic community. How it could be different from any such visit between leaders of Maldives and other countries, barring the immediate Indian neighbour and Sri Lanka, too, is the unasked – and hence, unanswered – question.

India has had a relatively longer strategic and security ties with Maldives in the contemporary era, compared to China and other extra-territorial players, barring the UK.  As a British Protectorate, as different from a British colony that India and Sri Lanka were, Maldives prides itself at having the Royal Air Force (RAF) quit at their bidding in 1965.

Independence for Maldives was triggered, incidentally, by a row over extending the runway of the Male airport, connecting the national capital to the rest of the world, mostly through Colombo, Sri Lanka.  This was followed by the RAF exit from the Gan Airport in the southernmost extreme, where it had a refuelling base since the Second World War.

Until Indian armed forces intervened at the behest of President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom – and left promptly afterwards – to quell a coup-bid, there has not been any foreign military presence in the way it is understood.

Today, India has minimal IAF presence at Gan, training and helping its Maldivian counterpart in combing the seas for Somali pirates, and linking up their search and rescue facilities by networking the same with Indian bases. Other foreign forces on Maldivian territory are even fewer in numbers, often assigned to specific programmes to train personnel of the Maldivian National Defence Force (MNDF) or the Maldivian Police Service (MPS), through funding by their respective governments.

The fact that neither MNDF, nor the MPS is permitted by law to carry weapons other than a baton, without prior clearance by the Executive President, is not lost on the hosts.

There are fewer Indian tourists in Maldives than Chinese. But there are more Indians working in Maldives than Chinese at present.  However, there are fewer Indians than Bangladeshis, owing to cheaper wages and easy availability of unskilled personnel.

There are fewer still strategic observers of Maldives in India, though whenever there is a crisis, the whole of India rises as one man and in one voice, as if all had already been lost. The year 2012 marked such a turnaround in the Indian approach for the first time since 1988.

Thanks to a hyperactive media that had dried up for the day otherwise, Indians came to witness the power change-over in Maldives on February 7. President Mohammed Nasheed, the first elected head of state and government under the multi-party democracy scheme of 2008, resigned under mounting political pressure and street-protests, with last-hour participation by some in the security forces.

He was replaced by his Vice President, Mohammed Waheed Hassan Manik, under the US-model constitutional scheme, though it had all along been known that there was no love lost between the two almost from day one.

That was when the talk of a Maldivian tilt in foreign and security policy in favour China began doing the rounds. This was followed more recently by the “GMR row”, when the Government of India, according to some in the Maldivian government, was seen going all out to back the Indian infrastructure major, that too in an unprecedented way, in the concession contract for the Male airport, in what they saw only as a commercial deal unaffected by long-standing bilateral relations.

The Indian media that went out over the airport row, accusing the Chinese of instigating it, until GMR bowed out at the end of the Maldives-appointed seven-day deadline, upheld by the Singapore court, chosen as arbitrator under the contract.

They were relatively silent when Maldives Defence Minister Mohammed Nazim, a retired army colonel, visited China later, met with his counterpart in Beijing, visited military training institutions and signed an agreement for aid to build maritime ambulances for the thin populations dispersed over scattered islands back home.

Yet, there is nothing to show as yet that Maldives is moving away from the sphere of Indian strategic influence, concern and care. For the Maldivian policymaker, influenced as they are by public opinion, the timely Indian intervention during the 1988 coup-bid and the subsequent rush of aid and assistance at the height of the unprecedented Boxer Day tsunami of 2004 are a reflection on the reality of the regional situation and the limitations of extra-territorial sovereign partners in the nation’s growth and development.

In recognition of both, the two countries have continued with their post-coup, bi-annual ‘Dhosti’ series of Coast Guard exercises, in which they have since roped in Sri Lanka too in the eleventh edition of March 2012, thus creating an early regional footprint for what could ultimately emerge as a “South Asian security umbrella”, even if confined to the southern seas.

What is more, successive governments in Male in recent years have also reported to have willed away offers of military assistance, particularly Coast Guard boats, from countries of the West, too. Together, such promising decisions and perceptions should and would silence critics of Maldives, who see the nation forming yet another pearl in the highly imaginative Chinese string.

N Sathiya Moorthy is a Senior Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation.

All comment pieces are the sole view of the author and do not reflect the editorial policy of Minivan News. If you would like to write an opinion piece, please send proposals to [email protected]

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Political parties bill passed with 10,000 member prerequisite

Parliament today passed the long-awaited political parties bill with a clause requiring a minimum of 10,000 members for registration.

Upon ratification, the bill will provide a three month period for any political party with fewer than 10,000 members to reach the required amount or face being dissolved.

The legislation was passed with 64 votes in favour and four against.

Article 11 of the bill states that at least 10,000 signatures would be needed to register a party at the Elections Commission (EC), which would be mandated to ensure that membership does not fall below the figure.

Parties unable to sign 10,000 members would be dissolved.

An amendment proposed by MP Ibrahim Muttalib to lower the figure to 5,000 was defeated 59-6 at today’s sitting of parliament.

Of the 16 parties currently in existence, only three have more than 10,000 registered members, including the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) as well as the government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) and Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM).

According to the latest figures from the EC, the MDP currently has 47,192 members, DRP has 25,190 members and PPM has 17,900 members.

Business magnate MP Gasim Ibrahim’s Jumhooree Party (JP) has 8,931 members with 5,149 pending membership forms.

The religious conservative Adhaalath Party (AP) has 5,708 members, down from over 6,000 in February this year.

President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik’s Gaumee Ihthihaad Party (GIP) has 3,427 members while the Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) led by Dr Waheed’s Special Advisor Dr Hassan Saeed has 2,125 members.

Meanwhile, the legislation passed today also stipulates that the Male’ City Council (MCC) must provide a 1,000 square feet plot in the capital for parties with membership exceeding 20,000.  The plot would be used as an administrative office or meeting hall, for which the party would be required to pay rent.

Political parties were first authorised in the Maldives in May 2005 following an executive decree by then-President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. Prior to the passage of the landmark legislation today, political parties were governed by a regulation.

The regulation required 3,000 members for registration and did not stipulate that parties whose membership falls below the figure would be dissolved.

In March, EC Chair Fuad Thaufeeq told Minivan News that these regulations were “vague” as parties were not required to maintain 3,000 members.

The review of the political parties bill (Dhivehi) was meanwhile completed by the Independent Institutions Committee on December 10. Following a preliminary debate, it was sent to the committee on April 19, 2010.

Writing in his personal blog (Dhivehi) in October, the committee’s chair MP Nasheed revealed that “a clear majority” voted in favour of requiring parties to gain 5000 members before it can be officially registered, and 10,000 members before becoming eligible for state funds.

At the time, Nasheed expressed confidence that the committee’s decision would not be overturned on the Majlis floor when the bill was put up for a vote. He noted that the clauses for membership numbers were backed by the main political parties in parliament.

“When the law is passed, the current registered parties with less than 5,000 members would be given a six month period to reach the figure. If a party fails to reach that figure by the end of the period, the particular party would be dissolved,” Nasheed explained.

The minimum number of membership was later raised to 10,000 and the period shortened to three months before the draft legislation was presented to the Majlis floor for today’s vote.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament passes MVR 15.3 billion budget for 2013

Parliament today passed a MVR 15.3 billion (US$992 million) state budget for 2013, reduced by more than MVR 1 billion (US$64.8 million) from the MVR 16.9 billion (US$1 billion) proposal submitted by Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad last month.

The budget was passed with 41 votes in favour, 28 against and no abstentions. MPs of the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) voted against the budget.

In addition to changes imposed by the Budget Review Committee, the estimated budget was passed with eight amendments approved at today’s sitting.

Among the amendments voted through included the scrapping of plans to revise import duties on oil, fuel, diesel and staple foodstuffs, as well as any item with import duty presently at zero percent.

An amendment instructing the government to conduct performance audits of the Human Rights Commission and Police Integrity Commission and submit the findings to parliament was passed with 53 votes in favour, ten against and four abstentions.

Amendments proposed by MDP MP Ali Waheed to shift MVR 100 million (US$6.5 million) to be issued as fuel subsidies for fishermen and MVR 50 million (US$3.2 million) as agriculture subsidies from the Finance Ministry’s contingency budget was passed with 68 votes in favour.

A proposal by Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Dr Abdulla Maussom to add MVR 10 million (US$648,508) to the budget to be provided as financial assistance to civil society organisations was passed with 57 votes in favour and three against.

Budget review

Presenting the budget report (Dhivehi) at Tuesday’s sitting, Budget Review Committee Chair MP Gasim Ibrahim said the committee held 31 meetings, spent 45 hours studying the proposed budget and met senior officials from 27 ministries and state institutions.

The omissions approved by the committee to reduce the budget from MVR 16.9 billion to MVR 15.3 billion were largely made from recurrent expenditure, the Jumhooree Party (JP) Leader said.

While Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad had agreed to MVR 1 billion in cuts, the committee decided to trim the budget “by a little bit more than that,” according to Gasim.

The committee approved cuts amounting to a total of MVR 1.6 billion (US$103.7 million).

However, he added, the committee added MVR 389 million (US$25.2 million) for infrastructure projects such as harbours, sewerage and water for islands.

The budget items that the committee made cuts to included overtime pay (50 percent), travel expenses (50 percent), purchases for office use (30 percent), office expenditure (35 percent), purchases for service provision (30 percent), training costs (30 percent), construction, maintenance and repair work (50 percent) and purchase of assets (35 percent).

The committee estimated that the cuts to recurrent expenditure would amount to MVR 1 billion (US$64.8 million) in savings.

The committee also instructed the Finance Ministry to reduce an additional MVR 605.7 million (US$39.2 million) from office budgets.

On the measures proposed by the Finance Committee to raise revenue, the committee approved revising import duties, raising the Tourism Goods and Service Tax (T-GST) from eight percent to 12 percent in July 2013, increasing airport service charge from US$18 to US$25, leasing 14 islands for resort development and imposing GST on telecom services.

The Finance Ministry had however proposed hiking T-GST from 8 to 15 percent in July 2013 and raising airport service charge or departure tax from US$18 to US$30.

The committee also decided to limit loans obtained in 2013 to finance the budget to MVR 2 billion (US$129.7 million) and prohibit the government from taking loans for development projects with an interest rate higher than seven percent.

The government has meanwhile been asked to provide details of the loans and guarantees planned for 2013 for parliamentary approval as required by amendments brought to the Public Finance Act in 2010.

Professional opinion from MMA and Auditor General’s Office

According to the Budget Review Committee report, the Maldives Authority Authority (MMA) advised the committee to reduce total expenditure to MVR 15 billion and attempt to reduce public debt.

The central bank warned that the projected deficit in the 2013 budget was likely to adversely affect the foreign exchange market and foreign currency reserves.

The MMA also advised the committee to pass a budget that would “facilitate” the Maldives joining the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF’s) “Staff Monitoring Programme.”

The programme would provide access to loans from the international debt capital market, the MMA said.

Speaking to press at the conclusion of a visit by an IMF mission last month, head of the delegation Koshy Mathai explained that the requested “Staff Monitoring Programme” would not involve disbursement of funds from the IMF.

“We would basically see how the government is doing against its own targets – it would set targets for itself for performance of these different economic areas – and then if the track record is built up and things are going well, then maybe later we could discuss having a programme where money is disbursed,” Mathai said.

Meanwhile, in its professional opinion on the budget, the Auditor General’s Office expressed concern with the public sector investment programme (PSIP) being formulated without either a national development plan or population consolidation policy.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament’s National Security Committee to summon police commissoner, defence minister

Parliament’s National Security Committee has decided to summon Police Commissioner Abdulla Riyaz and Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim in order to clarify details of their actions during the controversial transfer of power on February 7.

The committee has decided to summon Nazim and Riyaz on January 15, 2013.

According to local media, both men are to be questioned over in what capacity they had decided to enter the President’s Office and the headquarters of the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF) on February 7.

The events of February 7, which led to a dramatic change in government, have been labelled as a “coup d’etat” by the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) – despite a Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) concluding the transfer was constitutional.

The committee is also expected to query why Riyaz and Nazim had assigned themselves the responsibility to push former President Mohamed Nasheed to write his resignation letter that was then sent to Parliamentary Speaker Abdulla Shahid.

The committee is chaired by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Chairperson and MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik, who was not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Moosa told local media that the decision of the committee to summon the heads of the country’s police and military was part of wider work to research the CNI’s report on the controversial transfer of power.

Moosa has alleged that Nazim and Riyaz entered the President’s Office and MNDF HQ without having any authority and against correct protocol.  Their actions, he claimed, therefore required an investigation.

On February 7, the military and police forces joined then opposition-aligned protesters, defying the orders of former President Nasheed and calling for his resignation.

Nasheed later gave a speech claiming that should he remain as head of state any for longer, it could harm the citizens of the nation.  He therefore announced his resignation on the grounds it was the only option he had to avoid bloodshed at the time.

Both Riyaz and Nazim were witnessed at the time following Nasheed to the President’s Office, where he was forced to write a resignation letter to be sent to the Speaker of Parliament.

Earlier this week, former Human Rights Minister Fathimath Dhiyana Saeed alleged certain figures behind protests leading to the controversial transfer of power on February 7 had also planned to assassinate former President Mohamed Nasheed.

The allegations from Saeed, who was recently dismissed as the current government’s Human Rights Minister, were raised in a personal memoir entitled “Silent inquiry: A Personal Memoir on the issue of the Transfer of Powers on the 7th of February 2012”.

Saeed also used the memoirs to accuse president Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik’s government of attempting to manipulate the outcome of the Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) report.  The government has dismissed the accusations as baseless.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

State Minister for Finance Abbas Adil Riza labels parliament as “terrorist organization”

State Minister for Finance and steering committee member of the self-titled “National Movement” Abbas Adil Riza has labelled parliament as a “terrorist organization”, claiming the Maldives’ legislature has failed to work in the best interest of country.

Speaking to Minivan News today, Riza claimed that parliament was continuously failing to respect the sentiments of the public and that the “National Movement” sought to hold a referendum on the institution.

“The Maldives constitution clearly states that the power of the state is derived from the people and would remain with the people, so the National Movement representing the people are using our right to express our concerns over the parliament,” he said.

The National Movement announced earlier this week that a planned public referendum on parliament would be used to assess the public view towards the country’s legislature. During a press conference held Tuesday (December 25), senior figures of the movement claimed that they planned to hold the public ballot on January 25, 2013.

Riza clarified today that the vote would be carried out by the members of the National Movement, confirming that it would not be a public referendum taken by the government or any other state institution.

“Our members will conduct the ballot. We are formulating committees that would coordinate the vote in the islands. This referendum has no connection with the government or any other state institution,” he explained.

Riza added that the National Movement, led by the religious conservative Adhaalath Party (AP) and senior government officials, did not wish to dissolve parliament, but instead try to show the world a true reflection of the public’s attitude towards parliament.

“After voting, if the vote shows that people do not have confidence in the parliament someone may take the issue to the Supreme Court. But we are not planning to do that. We only want the world to know the truth,” he said.

According to fellow “National Movement” member Sobah Rasheed, a decision was yet to be taken on how the proposed referendum would be conducted, with further announcements expected at a later date.

The vote would help reveal whether the public had the confidence in their parliamentarians or not, Sobah claimed at the time.

“We are trying to conduct the vote in the most cost efficient, but yet transparent manner that would increase the public confidence on the fairness of the vote,” he told the press.

“National Movement” Vice President and State Minister for Home Affairs Abdulla Mohamed has previously claimed that its campaign to “reform Majlis (Parliament)” was not targeted at the entire 77 sitting MPs.  He also dismissed accusations that President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan Manik was behind the movement.

According to Abdulla, the campaign was carried out to urge the authorities to take actions against MPs found not to pay tax, as well as those who have committed several criminal offences.

“The movement is run for the benefit of this country. While this movement is in the best interest of the nation, it may perhaps be detrimental to the president. But if the damage incurred by the president is lesser than the benefit that the country gets, then our purpose is served. Similarly if this movement benefits the whole nation more than the damage to parliament, our purpose is served,” Abdulla said.

Criticism

The “National Movement” has continued of late to criticise parliament, claiming it was not working in the best interest of the people.

Earlier in November, Abbas Adil Riza – then serving as a President’s Office spokesperson – warned that the “National Movement” would “break up” the parliament, should it go forward with no-confidence motion against President Waheed and his Defense Minister Mohamed Nazim.  The Supreme Court had at the time issued an injunction against parliament holding such votes.

Riza also directed harsh criticism towards Parliament Speaker Abdulla Shahid, dismissing his decision to “challenge” the Supreme Court’s ruling as a “cowardly act”.

“Unless Shahid immediately ceases his efforts to violate the constitution while holding the post of Speaker of Parliament, the National Movement will ensure that this comes to a stop,” he said at the time.

Parliament officials had earlier stated that Defence Minister Nazim had been given the required 14-day notice by Speaker Abdulla Shahid.

Responding to Riza’s comments at the time, Majlis Deputy Speaker and People’s Alliance (PA) MP Ahmed Nazim rejected claims parliament had challenged the Supreme Court’s injunction.  Nazim noted that parliament had given all those facing no confidence votes a full 14 days notice as stated by the law.

“We believe there is still time for Supreme Court to lift the temporary injunction, and I believe they will not see this as the parliament challenging the court. After 14 days, the motion will be put up on the agenda for discussion by party leaders. If the injunction remains then there is a possibility for party leaders to challenge the court,” Nazim told Minivan News at the time.

“A rather irrelevant group” – MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor

Responding to Riza’s remarks, opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor said that he did not believe that the “National Movement” was a force of the people, but rather an irrelevant group craving media attention.

“I don’t think any MP would wish to even comment on the remarks made by these people. We are ashamed of them. These people do not represent the people. Look at the number of people attending their rallies,” he said.

Ghafoor claimed that even though parliament did not generally take into account the remarks made during the rallies held by the movement, they may consider action at a later date on the grounds of national security.

“If they are planning to attack the parliament or threaten the national security, then perhaps the parliament may look into it, but other than that they are not much of a force. I believe if there happens to be a time where they attempt to attack parliament, then the police and military would obviously not let that happen,” he added.

Ghafoor also accused the “National Movement” of not being a registered organization, alleging a possible conflict of interest in the Registrar of Clubs and Societies Abdulla Mohamed speaking as one of its members..

“The whole outfit is void ab initio,” he said

PPM discontinues its support

Meanwhile, the government-aligned former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), a key supporter of the movement, has decided to part ways with the National Movement claiming that it was “moving in another direction”.

“I question today whether this campaign under the name of national movement is sincere or not,” PPM MP Ahmed Mahloof said in parliament.

“I’m saying this because during the GMR issue, we said repeatedly that after that we should raise the issue of Nexbis [border control project]. But after that we saw them raise the issue of the People’s Majlis.”

Mahloof added that a speaker at a national movement rally on Sunday night “used obscene language” to attack PPM Parliamentary Group Leader MP Abdulla Yameen.

The speaker in question accused MP Yameen of “threatening” the Adhaalath Party, during a rally held Sunday (December 23) to celebrate the first anniversary of the December 23 “mega-protest.”

Local media reported that the remarks led to heated exchanges between the speaker and PPM supporters, a number of whom left the area in protest.

In his speech following the incident, Islamic Minister Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed, a senior leader of the Adhaalath Party, spoke in defence of MP Yameen and urged speakers to respect political leaders.

The National Movement was formed by several government aligned political parties and a coalition of NGOs to oppose the Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA) development being run by GMR.

The movement initially began as 23 December alliance, which held an enmasse demonstration to oppose certain policies of the President Mohamed Nasheed.  The protest was held just months before Nasheed resigned from office, later alleging he had been made to do so under “duress”.

The movement is headed by the religiously conservative Adhaalath Party (AP). AP Leader Sheikh Imran Abdulla is portrayed as the figure head of the movement.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Maldives tourism contemplates Beckham effect after “hard days” of 2012

Senior tourism figures have welcomed unconfirmed reports that football superstar David Beckham is currently on vacation in the Maldives, claiming such a high profile figure creates significant publicity for the destination following well publicised unrest earlier this year.

UK-based newspaper “the Sun” reported that Beckham arrived in the Maldives earlier this week with his wife and children for a £250,000 (MVR 6.2 million) vacation at the One and Only Reethi Rah resort as part of an eleven day festive holiday.

“The hotel boasts 130 private villas, 12 beaches, 40 pools and its own SEAPLANE,” the newspaper reported. “The Beckhams’ suite is the priciest available, costing £8,600 (MVR 213,892) a night — or £6 (MVR 149) a minute. But they have booked three more, each costing £3,700 (MVR 92,015) a night, taking the room bill alone to £217,000 (MVR 5.3 million).”

When contacted by Minivan News this week, a spokesperson for One and Only Resorts told Minivan News that no guest under the name David Beckham was presently staying at the property, adding the company could not speculate on potential customers.

Very Very Important Persons

Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture Ahmed Adheeb Ghafoor also refused to confirm news reports of the Beckhams’ holiday plans, but claimed that if they were true, such a visit would have a very strong impact on the Maldives’ international reputation as a luxury destination.

Amidst ongoing work to outline a fourth official tourism master plan detailing industry developments over the next few years, Adheeb stressed that it was important to remember that the Maldives was already considered something of a “celebrity destination”.

Following February’s controversial transfer of power, the incoming government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan sought to utilise public relations groups and advertising to try and offset the perceived impact of negative news headlines following the transfer of power.

This focus has included agreeing a US$250,000 (MVR 3.8million) advertising deal to promote the country’s tourism industry on the BBC through sponsorship of its weather services, as well as signing a £93,000 per month (US$150,000) contract with public relations group Ruder Finn to try and improve the country’s image internationally.

Tourism Minister Adheeb explained to Minivan News that along with the signing of high-profile marketing contracts to advertise the destination, the arrival of major sporting and entertainment figures was an important means of garnering the world’s attention.

Contemplating the wider potential for boosting the Maldives’ reputation for secluded exclusivity at its island resorts, the tourism minister claimed that his ministry has been working with exclusive tour operators that worked with high-profile clients by supplying information on the destination.

“We have been briefing them with information about how exclusive and private the Maldives is, it is also free of paparazi,” he said, adding that a large number of high-profile guests had travelled to the Maldives over the last few year; from actors and screen stars, to the world’s biggest sporting names. “We want them to know how unique is it here. The exclusivity we give is unique, it cannot be matched.”

Adheeb claimed that efforts were also presently being undertaken to try and bring big name and ultimately lucrative Very Very Important Persons (VVIPs) to the country through efforts such as establishing exclusive lounges and other related services at the country’s airports.

“Right now we are formulating policies to encourage more VVIPs to the Maldives. They can add a lot of value to a destination solely on the grounds that so many people follow them,” the tourism minister claimed.

Adheeb added that the Maldives government had not sent invites or packages to high-profile guests directly as part of this focus, mainly owing to present budget limitations.  However, the minister stressed that efforts were being undertaken by his ministry to provide crucial information about the Maldives to exclusive travel groups.

“There is a lot of information out there on the Maldives. We have seen new reports this year about whether the Maldives is unsafe,” he said.  “We want to let the world know how unique a destination it is.  How safe it is.  How can we then give mores exclusivity to VVIPs? We offer privacy, the islands are free of paparazzi, that’s how we have made the Maldives unique. It is a celebrity destination.”

Adbeeb did not comment on whether the government had made any direct approach to try and bring superstars such as David Beckham to holiday to the Maldives, but he added that authorities were always willing to accommodate the needs of high-profile guests wishing to come to the country.

Minivan News has been informed by confidential sources that the Maldives Police Service had worked to asses safety for a member of the Saudi royal family ahead of a visit to the country this month along with an entourage to stay at a private island residence.

Police Spokesperson Sub-Inspector Haneef was not responding to calls at the time of press.

“Positive message”

From the perspective of the tourism industry, the general manager of one of Male’ Atolls larger resorts said that media coverage of David Beckham’s reported visit to the Maldives gave a very “positive message” to both key markets in the UK as well as the wider world.

“Here is someone who can go anywhere in the world, but has chosen to stay [in the Maldives]. It serves to highlight this is a premier place,” the manager said.

While the Maldives’ secluded tourism resort properties were sheltered from local political upheavals following February’s transfer of power, resulting media reports were perceived as having a negative impact on arrival numbers.

Considering this media coverage, the resort general manager said that coverage of a visit by someone as renowned globally as David Beckham “was a start” in shifting attention to the country’s potential strengths as a tourist getaway rather than on domestic strife.

“It is great publicity and helps brings attention for the right sort of reasons,” the GM added.

Similar sentiments were shared by Secretary General of the Maldives Association of Tourism Industry (MATI), ‘Sim’ Mohamed Ibrahim, who claimed that the combining the Beckham brand with the Maldives was a positive development needing to be built up by those marketing the destination.

“Beckham belongs to the world and not only to soccer (football). Anything to do with him is absolutely high value PR. We can only hope the marketing people will handle this important event for the best interest of Maldives tourism,” he told Minivan News.

Sim added that it was also vital to the industry to ensure that such a high-profile potential visit was not used to politicise recent troubles and challenges affecting the industry.

“Hijacking the event for political mileage would be destructive. There is more than one side to any story and the online media can be used by almost anybody, for what purpose. Interesting times.”

“Interesting times”

Since the industry’s foundation 40 years ago, the vast majority of tourists coming to the Maldives have stayed at its secluded island resorts that are classed as uninhabited. This distinction makes the resorts exempt from local laws that outlaw the sale and consumption of alcohol and pork products, as well as openly practising any faith other than Sunni Islam.

This resort model also keeps most tourists away from the partisan politics of the country, as well as the  unrest that occurred in the capital of Male’ and other islands earlier this year.

Former President Mohamed Nasheed has previously called for a tourism boycott of the Maldives, as both himself and his supporters continue to question the legitimacy of the government of President Dr Mohamed Waheeed Hassan – his former vice president.

However, these calls were soon dropped by Nasheed and supporters of the now opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).  The party is still pressing for early elections despite a Commonwealth-backed Commission of National Inquiry (CNI) concluding the transfer of power in February was constitutional.

Despite wider fears about the impact of political uncertainty, Deputy Tourism Minister Mohamed Maleeh Jamal claimed back in September that “the hard days” were over for the Maldives tourism industry following the release of the CNI’s findings.

In terms of visitor numbers for the year so far, arrivals were found to have risen 2.4 percent between January and November when compared to the same period in 2011.
Official figures from the Tourism Ministry indicated that as of November 2012, 866,310 tourists have arrived in the country over the last 11 months. By contrast, 845,732 arrivals were recorded visiting the Maldives between January and November in 2011.

Earlier this year, the Maldives Marketing and Public Relations Corporation (MMPRC) had set a target of attracting one million visitors to the country by the end of 2012.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament passes bill redefining limitations on freedom of assembly

Parliament on Tuesday (December 25) passed the bill on “Freedom of Peaceful Assembly” despite unanimous opposition from the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP). The legislation was first submitted by independent MP Mohamed Nasheed on 5 April 2012.

The bill, which was initially called ‘Freedom of Assembly Bill’ was passed on the parliament floor with 44 votes in favour, and 30 votes against.

Among the key features of the bill is the outlawing of demonstrations outside private residences and government buildings, limitations on media not accredited with the state and defining gatherings as a group with more than a single person.

One of the main stated objectives of the legislation is to try and minimize restrictions on peaceful gatherings, which it claims remain a fundamental right.

The legislation continues that any restrictions enforced by police or other state institutions on participants at a gathering must be proportionate actions as outlined under specific circumstances defined in the bill.

The bill also provides a definition for ‘Gathering’ in Article 7(a), stating it refers to more than one person, with the same objective, purposefully attending a public or private place temporarily and peacefully expressing their views there.

Article 9(a), meanwhile, defines ‘Peaceful’ in relation to a gathering as being one where the organizers have notified [authorities] that this is a gathering to achieve a peaceful purpose, and provided no acts of violence occur, nor are there any chants, writing or drawings encouraging violence used in the gathering. Additionally, in such a gathering, no acts violating any laws must be committed, nor encouraged. Nor should participants have any items on them which can potentially be used to commit acts of violence.

Section (b) of Article 9 rejects defining a gathering as ‘not peaceful’ on the basis of words or behaviour of certain participants during a protest that may be considered hateful or unacceptable by other persons.

Under the new bill, citizens are not allowed to hold gatherings within a certain distance of the headquarters of police and the Maldives National Defence Force (MNDF).

Demonstrations would also be outlawed within a certain distance of the residences of the president and the vice president, the offices of the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA), tourist resorts, harbours utilized for economic purposes, airports, the President’s Office, the courts of law, the Parliament, mosques, schools, hospitals and buildings housing diplomatic missions.

The bill also states that demonstrators wishing to protest against a specific individual, may not use megaphones, stand outside, or have a sit-down outside that person’s residence.

The regulation also states that although demonstrators do not need to seek authorization ahead of a gathering, police must be then notified of any pre-planned demonstrations before they commence.

Among the actions prohibited under the bill include an article stating that participants in a demonstration are not to have on them swords, knives, other sharp objects, wood, metal rods, batons, bleach, petrol, kerosene, any form of chilli (including dried or powdered), acid, explosives, any other items that can potentially be used as a weapon or any gear used by police for riot-controlling and peacekeeping.

Article 21 stipulates that participants will also not be allowed to cover their faces with masks, balaclavas or any other material which would prevent them from being identifiable.

The bill does guarantee organizers and participants of a gathering the right to decide where to hold a demonstration as well as choosing its objectives and the persons who are given the opportunity to speak during the protest.

The bill will not be applicable to activities, gatherings or meetings organized by state institutions, or those organized under any other law and to sports, games, business or cultural events.

According to the bill, if participants in a gathering have to face material or physical loss due to the negligence of police who must provide protection, then the police institution must provide compensation. It further adds that in such instances, the affected individual cannot be penalized for having taken part in the gathering.

The regulations also impose restrictions on police officers, preventing them from partaking in activities such as joining a gathering, displaying agreement or disagreement to messages or themes of a protest and ordering where or when to hold demonstrations.  Police officers are also prohibited from intervening in a gathering unless they are in uniform and states officers must not cover their faces unless as part of their riot gear under the bill.

Right to assemble

The bill also states that the right to assemble can be narrowed in the instances of a perceived threat to national security, or in order to maintain public safety as well as to establish societal peace in accordance with existing laws, to protect public health, to maintain levels of public discipline or to protect the rights and freedoms guaranteed to other individuals.

With regard to the media’s right to cover demonstrations, the bill adds that the Maldives Broadcasting Commission (MBC) must draft a regulation on accrediting journalists within three months of the ratification of the Bill on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly. It is only those journalists who are accredited by the MBC who will be granted access to cover and report on gatherings and police activities in the vicinity.

If an accredited journalist is believed to partaking in the gathering’s activities, treating these journalists as equal to those assembled is left at the discretion of the police. The bill, however, does not define what could be considered such an act.

The Maldives Media Council and the Maldives Journalists Association have expressed concern over these stipulations on Wednesday.

The limitations defined in the bill will bring positive changes: Home Minister

Minister of Home Affairs Mohamed Jameel Ahmed has stated that the Freedom of Peaceful Assembly Bill would bring positive changes to the country’s political environment and that it would provide guidance to politicians.

“It’s been established today that every right comes with accompanying responsibilities. I believe even the constitution reflects these principles. However, these principles need to be broken down into a law that would bring convenience to the people. Some among us thought when the constitution came that these are limitless freedoms that we’ve got. These past days we have seen people acting under that belief,” Jameel was quoted as telling the Sun Online news service.

“Under the name of this freedom, they were violating the personal and individual rights and protections of citizens. They were going at people’s residences, gathering outside and yelling vulgarities at parents and families, depriving children and families of sleep. All under the excuse of freedom of assembly.”

The Home Minister said that this bill would bring necessary limits at a time when many undesirable activities were being carried out under the guise of freedoms. He noted that the freedom of assembly was granted within limits in all other developed countries.

Not an ideal time to tamper with fundamental rights: MDP

Responding to the claims, MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor expressed concern that the fundamental right to assemble was being limited through the bill at “a time like this.”

“It is not wise to tamper with constitutionally provided fundamental rights at a time like this, when we are in times of a coup. But even that can be understood only by persons who can at first understand democratic principles, of course,” Ghafoor said.

“We need time for the Maldivian psyche to be able to grasp the concepts of fundamental rights first.”

“Home Minister Jameel is a prescriptive, Salafiyya-educated, uncivilized man. He has never yet been able to partake in and win any elected posts, his statements hold no weight in the eyes of the people. He is a man who obviously does not even understand this very basic, fundamental concept,” Hamid said in response to Jameel’s statements in media about the freedom of assembly bill.

Maldivian Democracy Network (MDN), which is cited in the parliamentary committee report as an entity that provided written feedback on the bill was unable to comment on the bill at the time of press.

MDN said that the NGO had today received the final bill which had been passed by the parliament, and that they were currently reviewing it to establish how much of their recommendations had been featured in the final bill.

Minivan News tried to contact MP Mohamed Nasheed, who was not responding to calls at the time of press.

Chair of the committee MP Riyaz Rasheed and Vice Chair MP Ahmed Amir were also not responding to calls this evening.

Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) Vice President Ahmed Tholal’s phone was switched off at the time of press.

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

Maldivian politics not ready for presidential primaries: DRP Deputy Leader Mausoom

Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) Deputy Leader Dr Abdulla Mausoom has claimed that the Maldives’ young democracy remains too partisan for the use of US-style primary elections to decide on presidential candidates.

Dr Mausoom’s remarks were made as key figures within former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) have this month begun campaigning for its upcoming presidential primaries.

“Maldivians are not ready to accept defeats in internal primary elections. Even at presidential level, parliamentary level and council level, we are seeing that if [a person] loses in a primary, they contest the national election as an independent to prove the party members were wrong in deciding party candidate,” he said.

Mausoom took the example of the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP’s) presidential primaries in 2007, where he claimed some unsuccessful candidates left the party due to perceived dissatisfaction at not winning.

He claimed there was too much partisan thinking among candidates during previous primary votes since the country’s first democratic presidential elections in 2008.

Mausoom contended that there was a pattern of behaviour among candidates defeated in both parliamentary and council elections to contest independently – at times proving detrimental to their one-time party’s success through the possibility of a split in votes.

Mausoom accused Maldivian political figures of generally treating defeats in primaries as a “humiliation” due to the nature of the young democracy.

“In the 2008 United States presidential primaries, we saw Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama fiercely contesting for the Democratic Party’s presidential ticket. At the end, Obama won and Clinton backed him. That spirit of partisanship has not been seen here in Maldives,” he claimed.

Mausoom said that once the DRP believed that the people were prepared to face primaries, the party would begin advocating for such a vote, maintaining that every party had its own internal policies for picking a presidential candidate.

He also stated that the country’s political culture was significantly dependent on personality politics rather than party politics. However, Mausoom said that the trend would begin to change in the years to come and the upcoming 2013 presidential election would be a test to determine how local political culture had developed.

“The Maldives is a very small country. So we do not have many diverse issues like religion, identity and other issues which are common in large democracies. So the policies and principles that political parties follow are very similar. Each party would have a very strong view towards religion, economy and other major issues. So the real test is how the promises are delivered,” he explained.

However, Mausoom maintained that the DRP was set to implement a plan that he claimed would allow voters to realise his party was the solution after the release of its manifesto for the 2013 presidential elections.

Asked about the much speculated presidential primaries ofthe PPM, Mausoom said that he did not wish to comment on the primaries but his party was looking forward to the outcome of PPM’s congress scheduled to be held in next January.

“We are looking forward to [PPM Congress]. The congress would really define who would really lead their presidential campaign in 2013 elections. It will give us a very clear picture,” he reckoned.

Party Primaries, a fundamental aspect of democracy: MDP

MDP Spokesperson MP Hamid Abdul Ghafoor disagreed with Mausoom’s views on presidential primaries, dismissing the notion that the people were not “prepared” for internal elections.

“We believe that party primaries are an essential and fundamental aspect of democracy. The MDP has shaped up a good model in holding party primaries where all the elected officials generally should face a party primary before seeking re-election. Even I would have to face primaries before I could run for re-election to parliament,” he claimed.

According to Ghafoor, it was the MDP that introduced the mechanism of primaries into local party politics, a decision he believed had forced its rivals to reluctantly follow.

Responding to Mausoom’s claims that there were divisions following the party’s first presidential primaries in 2007, Ghafoor said that he believed it was a positive sign and that in all democracies, primaries would at times result in rifts.

“But that is what we see as refreshing the whole party. To work in a democracy, one must embrace change. You cannot work in a democracy if you fear change and change is inevitable because democracy does not stand still, it is a system where change is always taking place. Only a dictatorship will remain unchanged,” he said.

He further added that the sentiments expressed by DRP parliamentary group leader reflected the party’s founding by former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s, who oversaw thirty years of autocratic rule that ended following the elections in 2008.

Ghafoor claimed that the DRP was still trying to cope with the changes bought about four years ago.

“I believe he and others who talk like that are talking for self-interest. They built their party on shaky grounds, and for them it is very difficult to keep up with us in terms of internal democracy within the party. We can understand that,” Ghafoor added.

Former President Gayoom later formed the PPM following a public war of words with Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, his successor as head of the DRP.

PPM Presidential Primaries

Although the PPM is yet to officially confirm a date for its primaries, two senior party figures – Interim Vice President of PPM Umar Naseer and its Parliamentary Group Leader Abdulla Yameen– have announced their intention to compete for the party’s ticket for presidential elections.

Yameen, half brother of former President Gayoom, told Minivan News earlier this week that “youth” and the “economy” were to be the key focuses of his campaign to stand as presidential candidate for his party in general elections scheduled for next year.

Meanwhile, Umar Naseer has been quoted in the local media claiming that some 250 volunteers signed up for his campaign.

“Last night, I actually didn’t inform my full support base. Last night we only carried out the process of recruiting volunteers, identifying what they can do, signing and filling of cards,” he was quoted as saying.

Local media also reported Umar as opting to use a “palm logo” previously adopted by former President Gayoom – interim PPM President – for his campaigning.

“Even if the palm did not win back then, Insha Allah this time it will,” he was reported to have told Haveeru.

Despite MP Yameen and Umar Naseer being the only two candidates who have publicly announced their interest, other key figures have yet to rule themselves out of the running.  notable amongst these figures is former president Gayoom himself, who told Indian newspaper The Hindu on December 11 that he may consider contesting in a presidential election presently expected to be held in August or September next year.

“Things change very frequently. So I am keeping my options open,” Gayoom was quoted as saying. “[If I run] it won’t be out of my choice, if ever, it will be out of compulsion. Because I feel I have served the country for 30 years and I feel it is up to other people [now].”

Speaking to local media at the time, Umar Naseer said that Gayoom had the right to contest for re-election in the next presidential elections – a decision he believed would make the country’s former autocratic ruler the “obvious top candidate” to finish the race.

“I would definitely back Gayoom if he is to contest the elections. He is our ‘ace of spades’. You cannot say that the ace of spades is not the ace of spades,” he said.

Umar Naseer was not responding to calls at time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Nexbis to challenge termination of Border Control System project

Additional reporting by Ahmed Naish.

Nexbis has said it will challenge parliament’s decision instructing the government terminate a Border Control System (BCS) project signed under the previous administration.

The Malaysia-based IT group has said it will seek a court injunction preventing any attempts to cancel the agreement whilst court hearings over the contract were still ongoing.

Speaking to local media on Tuesday (December 25), Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed claimed the government would respect parliament’s unanimous decision to halt the BCS project agreement with Nexbis.

Dr Jameel told local newspaper Haveeru that it was “difficult to come up with an exact figure at present” for the level of compensation the government would potentially have to pay Nexbis after prematurely terminating a contract with the company.

The home minister was not responding to Minivan News at the time of press.

Yesterday’s vote on the deal was taken after Parliament’s Finance Committee claimed there had been foul play in the agreement signed between Nexis and the Maldives immigration department.

Prior to the parliamentary vote, an official spokesperson for Nexbis told Minivan News on December 23 that the company would “challenge” any decision by the Majlis to halt the BCS contract while court hearings were continuing in the country.

“We are asking the Supreme Court to intervene with the decision as we have come to be aware that the contract cannot be legally terminated if there is an ongoing legal case. Presently we have legal cases in the Civil Court, the High Court and the Supreme Court,” the Nexbis source added.

Meanwhile, Director of the Department of Judicial Administration Ahmed Maajid today (December 26) confirmed that to his knowledge, Nexbis was currently involved in ongoing cases within the Maldives’ judicial system.

Maajid added that on a legal basis, the contract between Nexbis and the government could not be terminated until all proceedings involving the company were concluded.

“There is a provision in the Judicature Act under Law 22, 2010 that basically states no public body can terminate a contract with a company that is involved in judicial proceedings in the courts,” he said,

“The government has made their decision based on the the Majlis’ vote. But the legality of that decision can be challenged at the Civil Court if Nexbis submit a case. They have a constitutional right to do so.”

The MVR 500 million (US$39 million) BCS project moved ahead this year after a series of high-profile court battles and delays that led Nexbis to last year threaten legal action against the Maldivian government should it incur losses for the work already done on the project.

The Malaysia-based mobile security provider has come under scrutiny by political parties who claim that the project is detrimental to the state, while the Anti-Corruption Committee (ACC) has alleged corruption in the bidding process.

Nexbis has denied any allegations of wrong doing within its contract.

Unanimous vote

Amidst these concerns, parliament voted unanimously yesterday (December 25) to instruct the government to terminate the border control project agreement with Nexbis.

All 74 MPs in attendance voted in favour of a Finance Committee recommendation following a probe into the potential financial burden placed on the state as a result of the deal.

Presenting the Finance Committee report to the floor, Chair MP Ahmed Nazim explained that the “main problem” flagged by the ACC was that the tender had not been made in accordance with the documents by the National Planning Council authorising the project.

The documents were changed to favour the chosen party and facilitate the deal, Nazim said, which the ACC considered an act of corruption.

Regarding allegations of corruption within the contract, the Nexbis source told Minivan News that the company is “systematically denying” any allegations of corruption, adding that if there was any foul play within the contract “we were unaware of it”.

Nazim stressed that the Finance Committee inquiry focused on the financial burden on the state and had discovered that the government would have to pay US$166 million to Nexbis over the course of the agreement.

Conversely, he claimed that the Maldivian government would only earn US$8 million as royalties during the agreement period.

Nazim noted that the Finance Ministry informed the committee that it was yet to receive a copy of the agreement two years after it was signed.

The Finance Ministry has also not included any funds in either the 2012 or 2013 budgets to pay for the project.

Nazim also accused the then-attorney general of “negligence” in the deal as he had not provided an official legal opinion to the Immigration Department in writing.

Recommendations by the former attorney general to amend the agreement could not be found in the documentation, he added.

Nazim said the Finance Committee concluded therefore that the best course of action would be to terminate the Nexbis agreement and install a different border control system at the earliest date.

Following the Finance Committee decision, the budget review committee has included a recommendation compelling the government to terminate the Nexbis agreement.

The Finance Committee also recommended terminating the agreement over concerns it contained clauses to waive taxes to the company, Nazim said. He noted that imposing or waiving taxes was a prerogative of parliament under article 97(d) of the constitution.

During the ensuing debate, MPs from both the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and government-aligned parties spoke in favour of terminating the agreement.

Along with the decision to terminate the Nexbis deal, the government of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hasaan Manik late last month also opted to void an airport development agreement with India-based infrastructure group GMR.

The GMR contract, a 25-year agreement to develop and manage an entire new terminal at Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA), was the single largest foreign investment project in the country’s history.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)