Tag: bill

Islamic Foundation condemns reports of “pre-emptive” anti-terrorism bill

Comments made by government officials to Indian magazine The Week, concerning the potential for homegrown terrorism in the Maldives, risk portraying the country as a safe haven for terrorists and creating problems for Maldivians overseas, the Islamic Foundation of the Maldives has said.

The cover feature of The Week quoted a “Maldivian intelligence official” as saying that the spread of an extremist belief system in the Maldives “is fueled by hate preachers like Sheikh Fareed and Sheikh Ilyas. Both are [under surveillance],” the magazine reported a “Maldivian intelligence official” as saying, adding that a large section of Maldivian youth were becoming “hooked” to ideas of “transnational jihad”.

“The signs are ominous as seven radicals chose to contest the Maldivian polls in 2008. Though all [of them] lost, we found that Islam is being increasingly used as a political tool in Maldivian affairs,” the magazine quoted the intelligence official as saying.

In response, the Islamic Foundation warned that the government was raising such concerns and allegations “at a time when there is a tremendous rise in religious awareness and people’s attempts to return to mainstream Islam.”

“Apart from the threat of being arrested and interrogated by authorities abroad and being kept under surveillance by foreign governments, the government’s action may create obstacles and insecurity for the Muslim religious scholars and the people of Maldives in travelling abroad,” the Islamic Foundation said in a statement.

“We also call the government to stop stereotyping the people of this country with the hope of getting financial benefits from the enemies of Islam. We also urge the individuals involved in such acts to get repent and return to the Path of Allah.”

In the statement, the Islamic Foundation expressed specific concern about the forthcoming counter-terrorism bill The Week revealed the government was drafting, reportedly in consultation with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and Interpol.

“If the proposed bill has been passed, the law enforcement authorities would get a free hand to crackdown on religious activities with the pretext to preserve national security. The law is likely to provide an ample opportunity for the authorities to arrest Muslim religious scholars and extradite them or send them abroad for investigation, and also ban preaching Islam in public or conduct sermons and lectures to a wider audience,” the Foundation warned.

In the article, Deputy Commissioner of Maldives Police Service Ahmed Muneer is quoted as claiming that the bill would “provide sufficient powers to act pre-emptively on national security matters.”

“Our radical preachers are enjoying street credibility and radicalisation is visible at the street level. It’s a problem for us, but things would aggravate if the radicals get integrated into Maldivian politics,” Muneer told the magazine.

Speaking to newspaper Haveeru yesterday, Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad confirmed work on bill and said it was an attempt by the government “to bring in a legislative framework due to our concerns.”

“We are not sure whether the laws and regulations currently in effect provide a complete solution to the issues that we face at present. Other nations of the world also deal with such issues through special legislations. So our security forces will also be able to deal with such issues through the necessary legislation,” Dr Sawad told Haveeru.

In response to reports of the bill, the Islamic Foundation said it “will not be intimidated by any threats from the Maldives government, the Zionist Israel and United States (the self proclaimed super-power) to abandon its work to propagate Islam in this country.”

The Islamic Foundation has also been highly critical of the Maldives’ government’s foreign policy following its decision to allow Israeli eye doctors to perform free surgery in the country during a visit in early December 2010.

The Foundation called on the government to “shun all medical aid from the Zionist regime” prior to the arrival of the seven eye surgeons, claiming that Isreali doctors “have become notorious for illegally harvesting organs from non-Jews around the world.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

President rejects controversial parliamentary privileges bill

President Mohamed Nasheed has declined to ratify the controversial MP Privileges Bill, and has returned it to parliament for amendment.

The President made the decision following legal council from the Attorney General Ahmed Ali Sawad, and consultation with the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM).

The bill, which was submitted by Vilufushi MP Riyaz Rasheed, was passed with 44 to 21 in favour, and 10 abstentions, and would have seen MPs earning thousands of dollars more in salary and allowances than MPs in countries such as France, India and Italy.

The matter has triggered lively demonstrations outside parliament, while a group of “concerned citizens” yesterday petitioned the President claiming that not only was the salary increase excessive, but that elements within it gave MPs extrajudicial and unconstitutional privileges. The Bill was about less about state-building and more about status, they claimed.

“It’s tough for the MPs to justify getting tax-free cars, in the middle of an economic crisis, for an island only two square kilometres in size. It’s not like they have to drive to their constituency offices,” observed a senior source in the President’s Office.

President Nasheed’s Press Secretary Mohamed Zuhair said the bill was returned to parliament because the President believed that elements in it conflicted with the constitution.

“For example,” he said, “in contains clauses conflicting with the right to freedom of expression – the bill does not clarify what is meant by the phrase ‘derogatory language’.”

Details such as the maligned tax-free status on MPs’ purchases of motor vehicles “I believe come under the broader heading of items against the spirit of the constitution.”

Furthermore, Zuhair said, the decision by the MPs to raise their own salaries at a time when the rest of the country was in financial crisis was inappropriate, “especially when this was passed before the Business Profit Tax – they neglected to pass laws allowing for state income before raising their own.”

MP salaries, he suggested, “should be in line with a broader pay scale and hierarchy. They should not be paying themselves more than ministers.”

The 12 cabinet ministers earn a base salary of Rf 42,500 (US$3300) and an additional Rf 15,000 (US$1170) ‘living allowance’. The 77 MPs earn a base salary of Rf 42,500 (US$3300) and a living allowance of Rf 20,000 (US$1550). The Privileges Bill includes additional financial benefits including health insurance for life, pensions after a single term of five years’ service, and concessions such as freedom from paying duty on imported cars.

The bill does not include benefits derived from the new pay structure formulated by parliament under Article 102, under which MPs would be entitled to up to an additional Rf 20,000 (US$1550) in ‘committee allowances’. This does not require the President to ratify it.

MPs have defended the salary increases as needed given that their incomes serve as a ‘welfare fund’ for their constituents.

Zuhair stated that the government “does not believe that MPs should spend their salary on welfare for their constituents – they are paid principally so they have a dependable source of income and are therefore less susceptible to corruption – but many instances of assistance being provided in this manner are in fact acts of corruption. Some MPs have not grasped that – they are not supposed to be giving charity.”

Despite the President’s concern over elements of the bill, Zuhair said that Nasheed still believed that serving and former MPs “should be entitled to certain privileges and protections, especially as in the 77 year history of the Majlis many MPs have faced incidences of torture and bankruptcy.”

President Nasheed also declined to ratify a bill to control thalassemia and a bill “giving high priority” to the Dhivehi language.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Comment: MP Privileges Bill about building status, not state

On December 28, 2010, the Peoples’ Majlis passed Bill No 29/2010, the ‘Imthiyaz Bill’ or parliamentary privileges bill, among a host of others as members prepared to take their two month annual holiday from the Majlis floor.

The bill, which was submitted by Vilufushi MP Riyaz Rasheed, was passed with 44 ‘yes’ votes, 21 ‘no’ votes and 10 abstentions.

This is a substantial level of agreement in a parliament fiercely divided by party lines and plagued by frequent public displays of discord and disagreement on the floor which ends in cancellation of proceedings.

On December 15, 2010, prior to the passage of the privileges bill, the parliamentary Financial Committee submitted a report to the floor proposing to award themselves a “committee allowance” of Rf 20,000 (US$1550), increasing the already inflated MP salary of Rf 62,500 (US$4860) to Rf 82,500 (US$6420) per month.

Understandably, this caused public outrage which strangely appears to have taken some MPs by surprise.

The two different instances of personal privileges and remunerations are being sought by MPs at a time when the government is struggling to cope with an all-time high budget deficit, and being heavily criticised for making controversial cut-backs in civil service wages. These developments have lead to a considerable build up of public frustration, dissatisfaction and loss of confidence in the parliament.

On December 30, 2010, protesters gathered outside the parliament building demanding the resignation of MPs and the whole parliament, and ridiculed MPs for asking payment to “get out of bed”!

A few young people went so far as to call for a “Majlis Fund” and joined the protest with a cardboard donation box, raising funds for the allegedly destitute MPs.

Two days later on January 2, 2011, another public demonstration took place at Raalhugandu where protesters demanded MPs show accountability to the people and called for the reinstatement of civil servants’ wages and the scrapping of the proposed MP salary increment.

Citizen opinion

An open Facebook group entitled “Majlis membarunge musaara bodukurumaa dhekolhah” (“against MP salary increment”, sprang up virtually overnight and has attracted nearly 2000 members in just over a week.

As the momentum of the public protest gathered speed, a group of concerned citizens met at the social centre (MCSE) in Malé on the evening of January 8, 2011 to discuss and analyse the privileges bill.

Several lawyers and an economic analyst gave presentations on the issues arising from the bill. Two MPs, Mr Ahmed Nihan and Mr Ahmed Mahloof attended the meeting. They explained to the audience some of the difficulties conducting their work, including their obligation to follow the party line as well as the issue of getting insufficient time to read bills before voting.

Both MPs – who incidentally had voted in favour of the bill – said that they now supported those speaking out against the bill.

Nihan informed a member of the audience that he would not support the bill any more. This brings little comfort for citizens who find the contents of the privileges bill a parliamentary disgrace. The fact that an MP tried to justify voting for a bill he did not have time to read, further undermined any efforts for redemption.

On the evening of January 9, 2011, MNBC One aired a live panel discussion organised by three NGOs: Strength of Society, Madulu and the Maldivian Democracy Network.

The four panellists were practising lawyers Ali Hussain, Ahmed Abdulla Afeef and Shafaz Wajeeh, as well as economic expert Mr Ahmed Adheeb. The panel was moderated by prominent social advocate Salma Fikry.

Opening the discussion, Shafaz explained that the main purpose of the 400 year old principle of parliamentary privileges was to facilitate the unobstructed and independent freedom for MPs to perform their duties and functions as MPs.

However, nearly 75 percent of the “privileges” in the Maldivian MPs privileges bill, the panel argued, went beyond the remit of the principle of parliamentary privilege. In fact, it appears that the elected MPs of the new Maldivian democracy have attempted to redefine the whole concept of parliamentary privilege, as practiced in established democracies around the world. Privilege in the context of parliamentary practice had become distorted to personal status building.

Issues and concerns

Critics of the bill raised several concerns. They argued that it contravened citizens’ basic rights as provided in the constitution, contravened the constitution and existing laws and completely disregarded the serious economic situation of the country.

If ratified, they argued that this bill could not be implemented because it falls foul of many existing laws of the country.

The MP privileges bill gives powers to the Speaker of the Majlis to impose jurisdiction over independent statutory bodies, the judiciary as well as individual citizens.

According to Article 5 of the privileges bill, outlining “actions which impede privileges”, the penalties for non-compliance by any individual or institution range from fines between Rf1,000 to Rf100,000 as well as removal from employment or a jail term of 1-2 years. Several other articles of the bill set out similar punishments for non-compliance or “criminal misconduct” as perceived within the bill.

Of the 39 articles in the bill, 30 percent include non-compliance penalties directed outside the realm of the Majlis.

Legal experts say that the harshest punishment for non-compliance with parliamentary privilege in a developed democracy is up to six months in jail. In the fledgling democracy of the Maldives, this has reached a new height.

Moreover, they point out that the current bill gives the Speaker of the Majlis powers to remove from office senior officials of the Police, members of the Judiciary, the Prosecutor General and other such heads of statutory institutions. This undermines the concept of “separation of powers”.

Supported by Article 102 of the Constitution, Article 7(a) of the MP privileges bill stipulates that all financial remuneration including MPs own salaries will be decided by the parliament, meaning by themselves.

A vocal critic of the privileges bill,lawyer Ali Hussain, argued that MP salaries should be decided through a public referendum, even if this requires a constitutional amendment. This is perhaps a valid argument given the situation where the constitution is facilitating the highest degree of conflict of interest by requiring MPs to set their own wages. One could argue that the constitution is setting a precedent for MPs to abuse their powers. And they appear to have done just that in the privileges bill.

Some “privileges”:

  • Article 7 (b) of the privileges bill requires the provision of medical insurance for MPs, their spouses, any children under 18 and parents to receive an insurance package which includes services available in the Maldives as well as any SAARC or ASEAN country.
  • Article 7 (c) states that every MP and spouse must be issued a diplomatic passport.
  • Article 7 (f) states that each MP should be entitled to import one duty free car during each term in office although should such a car be sold or passed on to another person, duty should be paid.
  • Article 7 (g) explains that if a “natural incident or any other incident” prevents the use of such a vehicle, the importation of a replacement would be permitted.
  • Article 8 (a-c) provides pension entitlements of 30 percent of the salary for serving one term in office, 45 percent for 2 terms and 60 percent for 3 terms.
  • Article 8 (e) states that any person who has served as an MP should receive medical insurance (presumably for life)
  • Article 8 (f) requires an official passport to be issued to any person who has served as an MP and article 8 (g) states that such person(s) must receive “honourable status” and should be addressed as the “honourable member for” whatever constituency seat held at the time of departure from the parliament.
  • Article 9 requires MNDF to provide bodyguards if any MP requests for protection at any time.
  • Under article 16 (c-d), MPs cannot be searched (by law enforcement authorities) in a public place unless “absolutely certain without suspicion” of an offence.

Critics argue that this is a non-sequitur highly illogical and outside of legal reasoning which would be impossible to implement.

What next?

As more and more citizens come to understand the distorted, pervasive and impossible remit of Bill No 29/2010, the MP Privileges Bill, they are also beginning to understand just how unfit for public office their MPs really are.

While most citizens neither have the time nor the inclination to speak out against what they see as meaningless political shenanigans, MP accountability can only come with active citizen participation and protest. As the country struggles to get to grips with its new democratic constitution, its MPs are busily seeking to ensure their collective and personal interests at the expense of the ordinary citizen and the financial health of the nation.

While the job of MPs is state building, their preoccupation is personal status building. The MP privileges bill has the capacity to undermine democracy, respect for citizens’ rights and the rule of law in the Maldives, unless its citizens act to make the parliament accountable.

On January 3, 2011, the parliament sent the MP privileges bill to the President for ratification. As they await the President’s decision, concerned citizens are putting their faith in their elected leader’s capacity and willingness to listen to the people and return this bill to parliament, as wholly unfit for ratification given its current ludicrous content.

Read the Imthiyaz bill (Dhivehi)

How the MPs voted (English)

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)

Comment: ‘geveshi aniyaa ge’ bill lifts social taboo on domestic violence

In Mauritania in North Africa, force-feeding young girls is a cultural practice under the socially-held belief that fat women are beautiful, desirable and a valuable asset, increasing the social status of the whole family.

Girls as young as five are forced to eat to gain weight, by means that can only be described as torture. Some die in the process.

In Mauritania, this cultural ‘norm’ is practiced openly and is accepted as the way they do things. In the Maldives too, we have cultural ‘norms’ which are accepted as the way we do things.

Ignoring and hiding physical and sexual abuse of women and children within the family has been the way we had handled this social problem in the past. The issue of violence within the home or domestic violence, has been a taboo subject so hidden that it did not even have a name, until now.

Today, we can actually call it something : geveshi aniyaa.

The Domestic Violence Bill submitted to the Peoples’ Majlis today by MP Rozaina Adam has a Dhivehi name, the Geveshi Aniyaa ge Bill, which formally lifts the final taboo against domestic violence, complete with a reference for everyone to use.

Now we know what it is, in name and deed. Now we can talk about it freely and be heard.

At least we think so.

Addressing social taboos can be difficult in any society, regardless of the human cost. Resistance to addressing domestic violence has been observed for many years in the Maldives.

On March 8 2002, the Minister of Women’s Affairs and Social Security addressed the occasion of the International Women’s Day, where she said :

“If we want to make our environment safe, free and conducive for all individuals, we have to start openly talking about the actions of perpetrators of violence… Issues of violence must be viewed as societal concerns rather than a private issue, and it must be seen as the responsibility of all to work towards eliminating violence from our society.”

Then, of course, we did not have a word for the issue. Nor were we ‘all’ prepared to take responsibility for it.
It was the way we did things.

But much has happened since then.

Supported by various UN agencies in the Maldives, the issue of domestic violence kept being looked into by those who were concerned about the issue.

Several studies were conducted and some of the findings were so disturbing that these were never made public. How can people ill-prepared to talk about something, face up to the reality of it?

However, several dedicated people kept chipping at the thick wall of the social taboo of domestic violence and we can say that today, the wall has finally fallen, thanks to all those who persevered.

In 2007, a major piece of research was conducted by the then Ministry of Gender and Family, entitled The Maldives Study on Women’s Health and Life Experiences.

This study revealed that one in three women between the age of 15-49 had experienced physical and/or sexual violence, including childhood sexual abuse at some point in their lives. The study also revealed that one in five women in the same age group, had reported experiencing violence from an intimate partner. These findings showed the extent of the problem of violence within Maldivian homes.

The representatives of the Maldivian people in the People’s Majlis today referred to the Geveshi Aniyaa ge Bill, and repeatedly reminded those listening that geveshi aniyaa exists in the Maldives, that it must not stay hidden, that it is a problem that has to be addressed through the law.

This historic bill is the first of its kind in the country. It brings a ray of hope of justice to the many women and families affected by domestic violence in this country.

When it comes to domestic violence, the way we do things has to change. It is no longer acceptable to hide this social ill.

Today’s bill promises to be the first step to protecting and providing justice for a large number of Maldivian women and children.

Today the representatives of the Maldivian people will vote to accept this bill to the Majlis and send it for approval by a special committee. As we watch the process unfold, we must not forget that the people who will most benefit from this bill are those least able to fight for the protection and justice this bill can potentially provide them.

For this reason, every voting member of the Majlis has a responsibility to support this important piece of legislation to secure justice that a large number of women and children of this country have long awaited.

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)

Parliament cancelled during debate over retrials

Speaker of the Parliament Abdulla Shahid cancelled last night’s hearing on the Court’s Bill when the debate heated up between ruling and opposition party MPs, during the last sitting of the second session of parliament for 2010.

A statement issued by the parliament this morning said that the parliament had ceased for recess and would resume in October.

During last night’s session, ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MPs expressed disapproval amendments proposed by Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MPs, however all the amendments presented by the opposition were passed.

The amendment that triggered uproar was a proposal to prevent the courts from conducting trials related to activities of the former government. The amendment also obstructs the retrial of controversial cases.

MDP Parliamentary Group leader Moosa ‘Reeko’ Manik claimed that last night’s sitting was to be cancelled “because DRP MPs tried to take hold the judiciary in their fists more than they already do.”

‘’We had to protest against the way parliament’s session was conducted when DRP MPs forwarded their self-interest,’’ said Moosa. ‘’DRP presented an amendment that disables courts hold trials of ‘recent cases’.’’

He said the “friendly environment” in parliament established after conclusion of the constitutional deadline “has now vanished because of the DRP MPs.”

DRP MP Abdulla Mausoom said last night’s session “was ruined” by MDP MPs when the session “was not going the way MDP MPs wanted.’’

“We have the right to propose amendments; all the things they are saying are excuses,’’ said Mausoom. “MDP MPs just do not like following the due procedure of the parliament.’’

Mausoom said MDP MPs had previously boycotted parliament sessions when matters did not go the way they wanted, and suggested it would have been better “if they also did so this time”.

‘’Our amendments were proposed to broaden the bill and to frame it in such a way that the courts can perform their work best,’’ he said. ‘’All the amendments were presented after discussion with [DRP’s] parliamentary group.”

The Bill on Courts was presented to the parliament by the government.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

New rent regulation bill proposed in Parliament

A new bill has to regulate rent in Malé been proposed in Parliament by Independent MP Mohamed Nasheed, reports Miadhu.

Nasheed said the bill aims not to control rent, but to set certain standards for the real estate business.

Nasheed noted that in a time when human rights have become key in policy-making, this bill would protect the rights of both owners and tenants. The bill would also form a tribunal to arbitrate rent cases.

Most of the MPs supported the bill, which could help with overcrowding in Malé. But it was proposed that the bill also include rented offices and businesses, so it will not reduce the cost of goods and services.

Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) leader Ahmed Thasmeen Ali said the bill could potentially harm the real estate industry.

He said the government should not intervene, because fewer people would enter the market and fewer would construct new homes.

Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Ahmed Hamza also said introducing the bill at this moment could hinder construction business, adding that the bill would present challenges to the free-market.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Bill on government preschools to appear before parliament

A bill governing pre-schools has been presented to parliament by Independent MP Ahmed Shiyam and was accepted by all 64 members present.

If the bill is approved the government would assume responsibility for funding the country’s preschools, which are now largely privately operated.

Deputy Minister for Education Shifa Mohamed said preschools were very important as they represented the first stage of education.

But she also noted that it was very difficult for the government to handle and develop preschools at a time when it was focusing on widening the availability of higher education.

”It would be very difficult for the government to handle the preschools as the country’s economic condition is also not very good, and I do not think the approved budget would be sufficient,” Shifa said.

She called on the MPs to include sufficient funding in the budget and increase it as necessary.

Press Secretary for the President’s Office Mohamed Zuhair said the government supported the preschool bill, approved by the majority of MDP MPs as well.

”Every one dollar spent on preschool education represents seven dollars saved in secondary,” he explained.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Party backlash over 33% boost in electricity prices

The ruling Maldivian Demcratic Party (MDP) have expressed concern over the raised electricity prices in Male’.

“It has always been a vow of the MDP to lower living costs, however at the moment electricity prices are ridiculously high,” said MDP chairperson Mariya Didi.

MDP MP Hamid Abdul Gafoor explained the main issue was the change in the pricing scheme.

“On average, a household will use at least 300 to 350 units of electricity in a month,” he said.

STELCO, the state electric company, recently dramatically increased the price for the first 300 units of electricity. The first hundred units have risen from Rf1.60 to Rf2.25, while the second and third hundred units have risen from Rf .70 and Rf2.15 to Rf2.50 each.

That means the average monthly electricity bill for household has risen almost overnight from Rf545 ($US42) to Rf725 ($US56).

“Many people are assuming we are attacking the government, but we are just voicing the concerns of the people,” Hamid said.

Currently there is a Rf45 subsidy per head per day to help with the cost of electricity for households with monthly incomes of less than Rf9450 ($US735).

“We have to get rid of this mentality that if a house hold electricity bill is high, they are well off,” urged MDP MP Eva Abdulla. “We have to assume that it might just be 12 people living in that household, chipping in for the bill – this is the reality.”

The president’s office issued a statement claiming the government was listening to the concerned MPs.

“We can’t provide additional financial assistance to STELCO – if we did that we would have to start printing money, and this would devalue the ruffiyya,” said the president’s press secretary, Mohamed Zuhair.

Hamid agreed that the solution was not to print more money.

“If we were to print an additional Rf50 million, it would only raise inflation and we would have no control over prices,” he said.

“The MDP wants to increase the subsidy, but there are many issues we need to rethink,” he said. “The figures we are currently using to calculate eligibility for the subsidy is very outdated, so there is research underway to get a ground figure.”

Mariya noted that many eligible households were failing to claim the subsidy.

“We have conducted house-to-house research and found that many people do not have sufficient information about the subsidy and thus have not been filling out their subsidy forms,” she said.

Cutbacks

The government could only boost subsidies if it reduced its current spending, Eva claimed, renewing the government’s controversial calls to slim the administration by reducing the spend on civil servant salaries.

“The government needs to reduce the civil service – offices should only have the required number of employees for optimal performance. Only then will government spending be reduced,” she said.

Civil service spending must be kept “on hold” until the government’s income surpassed Rf7 billion, Hamid said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)