comment – Page 4 – Minivan News

Comment: Extreme times…extreme measures?

Are you familiar with the game of ‘chicken’? It’s when two testosterone (and probably alcohol) fueled teenagers, egged on by their often scheming and cowardly friends, challenge each other to get into a car and drive towards themselves at high-speeds to see who will back-down or steer-away from certain collision and probably death. The first person to do so is then regarded as a ‘chicken’, with subsequent consequences on pride, relationships and social standing.

Over the last fortnight in the Maldives, we are witnessing the silliest, but most high stakes game of chicken being played by politicians who really should know better. From both sides of the political spectrum, rational individuals who should know better are getting into their respective cars – that on which the entire country relies on – and simply revving up their engines and let go of the brake.

By their side, we have the bearded Islamists, egging them on and waiting for the entire foundations of the Maldivian economy to self-destruct – so that the atoll caliphate can be reborn in all its glory.

In the old days (i.e. the time right after Maumoon forgot his criticism of Nasir for allowing alcohol to be sold), we were told that a central tenet of islam was : to each, his own. If you wanted to be a Christian, Buddhist, Shinto, Scientologist – that was your right and we will not try to change that. It conveniently allowed an ideological space for our tourism sector to grow.

However, according to the new religious authorities of the Maldives, this is no longer the case. A Maldivian economy that relies on the money of Kafir’s drinking and sleeping with their unmarried partners in our hotel rooms is hypocritical and should be overthrown.

These are extreme times we are living in. However, it is perhaps becoming slowly but abundantly clear that the existing status quo is slowly disintegrating. History has shown that when there are two parties of people living on the same area with wildly different ideas of what society should be like – the only sad solution is separation. Think India and Pakistan, West and East Germany, North and South Korea, South and North Sudan…etc.

Or perhaps take a more domestic metaphor – for many years, the relationship between the tourism industry and moderate Islam in general, and the firebrand conservatism of the current Islam in the Maldives, was like a marriage of convenience. Like any partners in a marriage, they each had their idiosyncrasies. However, for the sake of a young growing nation, both sides simply put their differences aside and tried to work it out. Today, both sides argue that the other are simply not playing fair and making unreasonable demands on each other. For the sake of the children (and future generations), isn’t it time now to consider a divorce and go their own separate ways?

Now, I’m not saying that a separation is not going to be a messy affair – what separation is not? However, in our case, it does not have to be. The Islamic conservatives do not want to have anything to do with the tourism industry. So naturally Male’ atoll and Ari Atoll will be part of the Liberal Maldives – where most of the existing resort infrastructure are. Male has also been built on money ill-gotten from trading in alcohol, adultery (not all tourists who stay in resorts are married), and generally haram behavior. Every single aspect of the existing economy has been tainted with it, so surely they cannot in good conscience live in Male’.

So for the Islamic conservatives we provide them with a part of the country and call it the Islamic State of Maldives (or the Arabic name for Maldives) – say North or South – they can choose – and they will give up their existing land in Male’ so that people from that part of the country can come and stay there. Now I am not so certain quite what they will base their economy on – but surely they must have ideas (fisheries, agriculture, Islamic banking hub, Islamic tourism) And to be frank, good luck to them. I value diversity, and I hope they are successful and show us an alternative way to live to the western dominated environment destroying globalised economy.

The other part of the country will form the Liberal Democratic Maldives. The nature of that liberal democracy is one that puts individual freedom at heart – and runs an economy on the basis of that. The role that religion plays in this society is clearly complex – as it is in any society. It could be a moderately religious place (i.e. like Malaysia) or it could be one where religion has no place in public life but only in private life. It could for example be a dual economy – where a different set of rules apply to visiting tourists than to locals in terms of what they can and cannot do. Or it could (Allah forbid) be one where people are free to practice whatever religion they please.

As you may be able to tell from my tone, I have a small bias towards the liberal viewpoint and my preference is to live in the LDM. However, I truly and genuinely respect that you may have a conservative viewpoint. Your idea of Islamic banking and Islamic tourism hub may work like a charm – I mean they do say that Europe is now a dead economy. And who knows, as I grow older and as my wife grows uglier, I may be convinced of the joys of a second younger wife – and then, I’ll be on the first boat to your side.

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: Maldives: ‘Political Islam’ here to stay?

Maldivians, particularly the security authorities in the country, may have heaved a sigh of relief after the competing rallies by the NGOs and the political Opposition on the one hand, and the ruling MDP on the other, went off peacefully on Friday last. They had anticipated rioting and violent clashes for which public protests of the kind are often known in the country. Yet, the fact also remains that the competitive posturing on the type of Islam that the moderate Muslim country should follow may have made ‘political Islam’ the core of public discourse in the country in the long run-up to the presidential polls that are however due only in October 2013.

UNHRC chief Navi Pillay thus should be contented, if not happy, for what Maldives is doing since her proposing a national discourse on the kind of Islam that the country should be following. She made the suggestion during a visit to the country in November, both inside and outside Parliament. While protesting Navi Pillay’s proposal making Islam a debatable issue, the otherwise divided Opposition parties lending support to seven NGO organisers of the rally, have done precisely that. By competing with them, the MDP, particularly President Mohammed Nasheed, has thrown a challenge to the rival camp, declaring that the nation had to decide the kind of Islam it wanted to follow.

Addressing the MDP rally on Friday evening, President Nasheed said it was a ‘defining moment’ in the nation’s history. “At this moment we may not realise how important this gathering is, but years down the line we will look back and realise this was a crucial moment,” he said.”This is an old country, people have lived here for thousands of years and we have practiced Islam for more than 800 years. In 2011, we are faced with a question, how should we build our nation: what we will teach our children, how should we live our lives, and what will we leave for future generations?” President Nasheed, according to a Press release issued by his office, stressed that he wanted to continue to practice a tolerant form of Islam.

The President said that he believed that the Maldivians wanted “a better life, the ability to travel, not to have to beg for medicines, for each Maldivian to be able to fend for themselves, feed their families and stand tall.” He said, “To build our economy we need foreign investments and we need to create an environment in which foreigners can invest. We can’t be scared of foreign countries; we can’t just stay within our shells without development. History shows this is the path to economic failure…We can’t achieve development by going backwards to the Stone Age or being ignorant.”

Taking the political battle on moderate Islam to the Opposition camp, President Nasheed asked: “Should we ban music? Should we mutilate girls’ genitals? Should we allow nine year-olds to be married? Should we forbid art and drawing? Should we be allowed to take concubines? Is this nation-building?” Even while standing up for values that he has reiterated that he stands for steadfastly, President Nasheed was also setting the agenda for his re-election campaign for 2013, and by his strident position on moderate Islam, possibly hopes to retain much, if not all of the youth voters that had contributed to his success in the 2008 polls. In a country where the 18-25 age-group accounts for 40-45 per cent of the population, that is saying a lot.

This may not end here, though. The Opposition’s protest for protecting Islam has also provided a platform for them to come together after the Dhivehi Rayyathunge Party (DRP) of former President Maumoon Gayoom split earlier in the year, with the splinter group identified with his leadership floating the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) more recently. Both DRP, now under Gayoom’s 2008 running-mate Thasmeen Ali and PPM leader Abdulla Yameen, half-brother of the former President, shared the dais with other Opposition party leaders at the Friday rally. This need not mean that they would settle for a common alliance and candidate to challenge the incumbent in 2013, but that has since become a possibility, nonetheless. This would be more so if the presidential polls run into a second, run-off round, as in 2008.

An ‘Afghanistan’ in the making?

Ahead of the rally, Foreign Minister Ahmed Naseem too cautioned the nation that an increase in extremist rhetoric might affect the country’s international image and the ability of its citizens to freely travel abroad. Maldives had “a lot to lose” should such intolerance continue, the local media quoted Naseem as saying. “A large number of Maldivians travel outside the country and such rhetoric will have implications for the average Maldivian travelling abroad, and on those Maldivians already living abroad,” he said, pointing out that Maldives was a liberal democracy “with a Constitution based upon respect for the human rights of all.”

Appearing before the National Security Council of Parliament, Police Commissioner Ahmed Faseeh reportedly expressed concern that Maldives was heading towards becoming another “Afghanistan” – except that unlike Afghanistan, it was not able to produce its own food. Organisers of both the ‘Defend Islam’ and ‘Moderate Islam’ protests also assured the committee that there would be no violence at the rival rallies. As subsequent events proved, the rally organisers proved the police chief wrong, after he had said that local gangs had potential to capitalise on the opportunities to their own benefit if political parties ended up using them, even if for a good cause.

However, there was no immediate response to a report in the Indian newspaper, The Hindu, in which top Government sources claimed that Pakistan funding was available for the Opposition rally. Interestingly, the ‘Defend Islam’ protest and movement has its origins in fundamentalist elements destroying the Pakistani monument for the 17th SAARC Summit in the southern Addu City, describing it as idolatry. The Navi Pillay observations only hastened the process, even though indications are that the fundamentalist Adhaalath Party, which is at the back of the pro-Islam protests has been targeting the US and Israel, and their purported influence on the Government of President Nasheed, in matters that they argue are anti-Islamic.

‘Prisoner of Conscience’

The US has been made the villain of the piece in Afghanistan and Iraq, two Islamic nations, while Israel has been targeted over the Palestine issue, with the Nasheed Government’s decision to permit the Israeli airliner to operate flights to Maldives providing the immediate provocation and justification. Fundamentalist groups, as also the political Opposition, are not convinced that Maldives could not cast its vote on admitting Palestine into UNESCO owing to a communication gap, which meant that the official delegation had flown home early on. In private, they argue that either the decision did not make sense or the Government did not do its homework properly as Palestine was admitted into UNESCO, after all. Here again, they see a western hand.

A day after the Friday rallies, reports said that the Afghanistan monument for the SAARC Summit at the southern Addu City had been vandalised and thrown into the sea, like those of Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal. A replica of Afghanistan’s Jam minaret, featuring Koranic phrases and a UNESCO World Heritage site, the monument could not be restored, reports from Addu said. The Haveeru quoted local MDP leaders as saying that the party was not behind the vandalism, adding that it owed to ‘political reasons’.

Interestingly, Amnesty International has described as ‘prisoner of conscience’, blogger Ismail ‘Khilasth’ Rasheed, who was arrested after being attacked when he was addressing a small group, defending religious freedom in the national capital of Male a fortnight back. Foreign Minister Naseem said it was a matter of concern to the international community. Rasheed’s initiative followed UNHRC’s Navi Pillay’s call for religious freedom and for a national discourse for ending flogging of women in the country. As may be recalled, Amnesty had named President Nasheed a ‘prisoner of conscience’ for his pro-democracy political and public initiatives, after he was imprisoned more than once by the erstwhile Gayoom leadership.

For now, the ruling party has called off the ‘moderate Islam’ rallies that were to have continued for two more days, what with the Opposition too ending its protest at the end of day one. After the Friday rallies, presidential spokesman Mohamed Zuhair acknowledged people’s participation in the Opposition protest, and said that the Government would consider their demands. However, he wondered who had made those demands, political parties, or individuals and/or NGOs, which needed to be treated differently. Ahead of the MDP rally, many party seniors, including MPs, had urged President Nasheed not to have their programme on the same day. Some of them also publicly suggested that as Head of State, President Nasheed should not participate in what essentially was a political rally.

While this may have quietened the situation, it remains to be seen how various political players take off from here — or, listen to the voice of reason among a substantial section of the people, who do not want them to make Islam a political issue. There is large-scale apprehension among the masses and the current rallies could trigger societal divisiveness that goes beyond politics and elections, and could also concern larger national interests, starting with security issues, in the months and years to come.

N Sathiya Moorthy is a Senior Research 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)

Comment: Energy for all

The Maldives has recently announced ground breaking plans to become the world’s first carbon neutral nation by 2020. The government has published its ‘renewable energy investment framework,’ which includes a mandatory target for the country to generate at least 60% of its electricity from solar power by 2020. The plan also proposes a shift to wind, batteries and biomass to complement solar power.

Energy is hope: hope for economic development, for a better future. Together with its partners, Norway is working to establish an international energy and climate initiative to increase access to energy services and limit greenhouse gas emissions from the energy sector in developing countries. This initiative will be presented at the conference entitled “Energy for all – financing access for the poor” in Oslo starting today. The conference is being arranged in cooperation between Norway and the International Energy Agency (IEA). Mahmood Razee, the Maldivian Minister for Economic Development, will attend the conference where Norway and the Maldives will announce a partnership on renewable energy.

Globally today, 1.4 billion people lack electricity. That is 20% of the world’s population. Electricity failures create huge problems: for the girl who cannot attend evening classes, for the doctor who cannot keep medicines cool, for the businessman who has to close down production. Such problems are widespread in many developing countries. Many countries also experience frequent power cuts due to an overburdened grid and inefficient energy use. Better energy systems would benefit everyone, as well as improving the economy and the environment.

Energy for all is an important goal. This means considerably more than just providing each family with a light bulb and the opportunity to charge a mobile phone. It means creating jobs, strengthening the economy and making it possible for doctors to use lifesaving equipment and medicines. It also means giving people access to new, clean cooking facilities. Today, around 1.5 million people – mainly women and children – die due to the cooking facilities in their homes.

If we are to achieve energy for all – including for industry – we must plan 10–20 years ahead. Electricity consumption will increase over these years, at the same time as there is considerable potential for using electricity more efficiently. Without a plan for improving efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions will increase.

In order to achieve the goal of access to more sustainable forms of energy, efforts are needed from many parties. The countries concerned must give priority to this sector and provide a good framework for investment. Companies must identify opportunities. Rich countries and the major international institutions must play their part, and so must NGOs by providing information and implementing concrete measures to increase access and improve efficiency.

Norway would like to play a leading role in this work by taking part in the financing of energy developments in other countries based on the results achieved in terms of increased energy access and reduced emissions for the country as a whole. Norway will also encourage companies to invest in enterprises that increase energy access in poor countries. The Maldives is taking a lead in implementing renewable energy policies, setting a new international standard for the future of energy.

Political will is vital for change, and we have enough examples that show that it is possible. Energy for all represents hope for a better future – for all. And together we can make it happen.

Erik Solheim is Norway’s Minister of the Environment and International Development. Mahmood Razee is the Maldives’ Minister for Economic Development

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: Majlis fiddles with democracy as society burns

The country is broke and the price of living is going up every day while the standard of living is going down.

The price of a can of tuna is now 20 percent higher than it was a few months ago. A valhoa mas kiba, part of our staple food since time immemorial, is now beyond the common person’s reach. A bottle of water was Rf10 just a month ago; it is Rf14 this month.

Electricity bills, water bills, gas bills, are all hugely more expensive than any other country in the neighbourhood. A majority of people are living hand to mouth.

A vast chunk of the country’s youth population are either addicted to drugs or recovering from it. They are unemployable, and out on the streets, committing crimes big and small or looking in vain for another chance at life.

The standards of teaching in public schools are abysmal, and private schools remain an unaffordable dream for the majority. To say that public schools are free is to lie through one’s teeth; for people are paying through their noses for private tuition – a parallel education system that exists in a parallel universe. It is the elephant in every classroom that nobody in authority wants to talk about – the government cannot regulate it without first acknowledging the massive failings in the education system; and a majority of the teachers do not want to talk about it because it is the cash cow that supplements their meagre incomes.

Children from other islands are having to migrate to Male’, boarding with host families or packed into small rooms the rent of which they share; paid by parents who break their backs working on farms or on fishing boats, just so their children can get an education. The housing crisis and social problems related to overcrowding increase.

The health system is too weak to cope with any unexpected outbreaks of disease; Maldivian doctors are still the minority and are offered less pay and benefits than their expatriate counterparts; and infant and adult mortality rates are needlessly high. It was all too clear to see with the recent dengue fever outbreak.

Unemployment rates are sky-high while trafficked Bangladeshis are bought and sold by the planeload. They live in their scores of thousands working and living on building sites; existing in an alternate realm of worker drones, buzzing away in the background, building, serving, cooking, cleaning, maintaining; jobs that Maldivians consider themselves too good to be doing.

Their presence is acknowledged only when the buzzing gets annoying; when their levels of ‘civilisation’ are deemed not to match our allegedly impeccable manners and faultless social graces; and when foreign governments chastise the Maldives for its cruelty for putting a price on the heads of human beings and selling them to the highest bidder.

Longstanding traditions of peace, friendliness and cleanliness have disappeared; replaced with avarice and aspirations of grandeur achieved by any means possible. Basic civility, let alone friendliness, is conspicuous in its absence: the smile; the queue; the exchange of niceties; respect for the elderly; the weak and the vulnerable; the knowledge of belonging together – what are they? People push, shove and climb over each other to get to an undefined ‘there’ faster than anyone else – literally and metaphorically.

It is all there to see in the pantomime that the Majlis is enacting, fiddling with democracy as society burns. What is the purpose of these theatrics? Are we supposed to be impressed with his behaviour? Are we supposed to admire this display of ignorance as ‘people power’? Is this to be seen as standing up (or sitting down) for the rule of law? Are we supposed to applaud these MPs for their ‘valour’ in forcing a needless confrontation between legislative and military power?

Are we supposed to cheer in adulation or tremble in fear when one MP who was only recently bought by one party now shouts at the party he had just left?

Are we to ignore the fact that if such members did indeed have an ideology, or a set of deeply held political beliefs or values they would not be so easily bought and sold?

Are we supposed to laugh with them and chuckle at the smirks on their faces when they are being led away by the army? Are we supposed to let our children hear the filth that is sprouting from their mouths into our airwaves on daytime TV? Are we to appreciate as media savvy the manner in which, like a bunch of schoolboy bullies in a playground, they are taking photographs and videos of each other being bundled away by men in army fatigues?

Are we supposed to be appreciate as role models of feminism the female voices heard screeching like cockatoos at the spectacle of MPs being carried away like chimpanzees by zoo handlers? What exactly is being celebrated here? What state will our nation be in the coming years if these are our highest representatives, if this is the pinnacle of success that our children as future leaders can aspire to?

Whatever destruction that three decades of dictatorship could not unleash on our society with its ruinous policies, society is wreaking upon itself. We did not have a transition to democracy, we just changed one supreme power to which we subjugate ourselves for another: Mammon for Maumoon.

The Majlis should be where the people turn to for solutions to their problems. It is, however, both the representation of all our problems as well as their nucleus and their source.

What a sham.

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: Manners and animals

“They are like animals…”

These were the words I overheard a few feet away from me, as I stood outside the Hulhumale’ ferry terminal. The voice sounded of an elderly foreign woman. I turned my head to see who that was, judging by my initial glance it was an elderly European woman, possibly in her 40’s, and judging by her accent, Dutch. There was an elderly European man and a younger female, possibly their daughter.

As I listened to a few more words from her, I realised they were talking about the encounter they just experienced while boarding the ferry from Male’ to get to Hulhumale’. I was also on the same ferry.

I must admit, somehow, I wasn’t surprised by those remarks. I could relate to exactly what she was talking about. For a moment, as I stood there I had a flashback of having a similar experience, and making similar remarks (of course not out loud).

I had my first experience boarding the ferry to get to Hulhumale’ about two years back. Having been abroad in Europe for quite a few years, I became accustomed to some of their generally accepted social etiquettes and good manners. For example in the UK, they are well known for their orderly queuing, staying in line among other similar social etiquettes to abide by in public situations, which are considered to be in the best interest of all citizens. Breaking a line in queue, raising your voice to be heard while you are being spoken to, pushing another, taking someone’s seat, rushing your way to the counter when there is some else in front etc would be considered a cardinal sin of good social etiquettes and norms.

I tried to recall what actually may have happened about half an hour ago that led her to make this remark. As I entered the Hulhumale’ terminal in Male’, I noticed these three foreign visitors sitting in the back of the seating area inside the terminal. I glanced around and saw an empty seat in the front row. I made my way over to the seat, put the bag of passionfruits and papaya I was carrying with me on the floor and sat down. As I sat and watched the news from the TV in the seating area, I could also see in the reflection from the glass window in front of me, the growing crowd in the seating area. A minutes before 7:30 there were a lot people standing up in the aisle, even when there were enough seats for all the people to sit down.

Just before the terminal attendant could open the door, suddenly, in no particular order, almost everyone rushed towards the door. Since I was in the front seats, I waited until the door was opened. As I walked to board the ferry in the crowd, I was not very gently pushed by a couple of people, perhaps not purposefully. And yet I was mildly irritated by it, but I didn’t allow myself to ponder any feelings of anger, perhaps I was accustomed to such norms after being a regular ferry commuter for nearly two years.

As I found myself a seat on the ferry and sat down, I noticed the three foreigners were almost the last to board the ferry. And as we neared to Hulhumale’ terminal, even before the ferry closed to the harbour, again all of a sudden in no particular order everyone rushed to get off the ferry.

I imagined, perhaps this was their first time boarding the ferry, and as I related to my first experience two years back, I knew exactly what she meant when she made that remark and possibly how she felt. I assume these visitors are not going to stay here for long, but because of that incident, she was quick to make generalisation about Maldivians. Possibly an experience that will stay with her for a while and possibly an experience she will share with her friends.

At this point, I would like to ask you this question: is this sort of image we want portray to the foreign visitors who visit the Maldives? Particularly away from the polished resort life to the everyday unpolished Maldivian city life?

I wonder if there are others like me, who share a similar view; that we have a lot to learn and work on to improve our social etiquettes and good manners. Possibly we could try to emulate and practice some of the good manners and social etiquettes from developed countries.

We can start off with simple social etiquettes. Let me suggest seven simple things to practice for now:

Always make queues and stand in line, if anyone cuts you off, kindly tell them “Sir/madam, there is a queue here” (moral persuasion is better than pointing fingers)
For heaven’s sake, SMILE, even just a little bit when someone makes eye contact with you, the last thing you want to do is stare back at them with an evil eye. Guys, smile to others guys as well, it’s completely OK (there is nothing gay about it!).
Say ‘thank you’ to whoever serves you, where ever that maybe.
Sit in orderly fashion when there are chairs, if you arrive first to the ferry terminal or board the ferry, sit in front and away from the aisle making it easy for others to find their seats. And when getting off, let the ferry come to a stop at the harbour and let the people in the front seats get off first.
When the ferry terminal door opens, allow the people in the front seats to board first.
Raising your voice and breaking the conversation just to be heard, not only makes you sound dumb, it makes you look immature and proves you lack the communication skills to persuade the other person(s) with good reason.
Even if your relative or close friends say ‘drop in anytime’, don’t take it literally. Let them know in advance you will be coming over and check whether it’s convenient for them. And guys/girls always keep to the time you agree, if you are going to be late or running let give a ring or sms and let them know.

As the overused saying goes: “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks”. Sometimes this might be true. I like to think I am a realist. Some people will just brush it off when they hear about things like what I talked about and just go about their life the usual way.

Since you are still reading this, I know a part of you is saying “Ok, Mr Perfect! This is all very nice, but most of the people are not going to bother practice this anyway, why waste my energy on doing it differently, I’d rather go with the flow.”

I hear you buddy, so let me tell you the rest of the story, how it ended, hopefully you will rethink and take some action. Read on.

After I overhead these remarks and as I turned my head to see them, I made eye contact with her and smiled. There was no reaction from her; perhaps she didn’t see me clearly as it was a bit dark outside the terminal. I took a few steps forward, made eye contact with her again and smiled. There was a partial smile and I said “Hi! You guys waiting for a taxi?” (I took the cue as they were waiting near the taxi stop).

She said “Ya, is this the correct stop?”, I replied “Yes, this is the stop, but there aren’t too many taxis on this island, so it may take a while for one to arrive, but let me help you, I’ve got a taxi number I can try.”

She said “that’s very nice of you, thank you”. I said “sure thing, you are very welcome”. I took my phone dialled and asked if the taxi was available to come over the terminal. In about a minute, the taxi arrived; they thanked me again and left.

My only hope is they would share this story with their friends and loved ones instead of their ferry experience. But, I don’t know if that will happen, maybe they will tell both stories, but even then, it is better than having just a single bad experience. So, it is up to us, you and your friends, to practice good social etiquettes and set an example. If not all, hopefully even a few will recognise and try to emulate you.

Ahmed Lilal is involved in the LAL Consulting Group, established to improve the wellbeing of the Maldivian society through informal education.

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

(1)Dislikes

(0)

Comment: Will the real DRP please stand up?

The Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), the main opposition party of Maldives held their last congress in February, 2010. During this congress there were two main lines of thought regarding electing their presidential candidate.

One group, led by Umar Naseer, proposed the presidential candidate should be elected through a party primary. The other group, led by the DRP council, proposed that such a primary was unnecessary and the leader of the party will be the party’s presidential candidate.

After much heated debate and talks during party meetings and local television, the issue was to be decided by the members of the party, at their upcoming congress. A vote was taken and more than 95 per cent of the attendees of the DRP congress voted in favour of the proposal made by the DRP council to make the elected leader of the party their presidential candidate.

The issue was solved. The presidential candidate of DRP would be its leader. This means Thasmeen will be the candidate from the DRP, for the 2013 presidential elections.

For a while it at least appeared to me, as an outside observer, that the debates were forgotten and everyone was working together. But as time passed, DRP started to show hints of a divide. Before long, the divide deepened and today DRP is split into two unequal parts. There is the main DRP under its leadership, and there is its “Z faction” as they now call themselves.

Z faction seems to be functioning under the leadership of Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, the former president of the Maldives. The letter Z in the name of this faction stands for Zaeem, an affectionate reference made to Gayyoom. Zaeem is an Arabic word, translated as ‘the honorary leader’. This honorary position was awarded by the DRP leadership to Gayyoom, who played a major role in founding DRP.

Gayyoom was thought to have resigned from politics for he announced his resignation in January 2010. So people expected him to spend his time away from the local political scenario. But if he did resign at that time, he seems to have re-entered politics and is now seen as an active member of the Z faction of DRP. Some even associate him as the reason why the Z faction was born.

Z faction, as the name indicates, is a faction of DRP. But on Saturday, after returning back to Male’ from a recent trip to India, Gayyoom announced that the Z faction of DRP is “the real DRP.”

My question is can this even be a legitimate faction? I think as long as they call it a faction of DRP, it cannot be legitimate before the DRP approves of its legitimacy. I don’t think the DRP will approve of its legitimacy because no matter what the supporters of Gayoom would like to call it, Z faction is formed of a rebellious group of DRP members.

The main leadership of DRP considers the Z faction as DRP members who do not accept decisions made by the party’s councils and committees. This is except for one person – Umar Naseer, whose name has been struck off the DRP membership register. Even though Umar Naseer and others who belong to the Z faction think Umar is still a deputy leader of DRP, DRP leadership considers him one of their ex-deputy leaders.

It is also worth noting here that most relatives of Gayyoom that I have seen on televised meetings of DRP are now seen in the frontline of the meetings held by the Z faction. So the Z faction is seen mainly as Gayoom, his relatives and supporters.

Representatives of a few minor political parties can be seen in the meetings held in the name of the Z faction of DRP. Many such meetings are solely or partially supported by the People’s Alliance (PA). PA’s leader, Yameen can be seen playing an active role in most of these meetings. Because of this and based on the comments made to local newspapers, until very recently, I was under the impression that Z faction is trying to promote Yameen as their presidential candidate. Like probably everyone else, I too was speculating. But now, I am thinking maybe I was wrong. I am now speculating that Z faction wants to bring Gayoom back as the president of this country.

Z faction has their own leadership which they selected only last week. I am not aware of how they chose their leadership. I only know that they announced the names of their leaders and council members. All of Gayyoom’s children hold posts in this newly announced leadership. This is not surprising to many of us because it is also widely speculated that Gayoom wants to create a dynasty. This will not be easy to achieve in the views of many political analysts.

Last Thursday night, Z faction held a meeting at the Artificial Beach. This was to publicly announce their leadership, amongst other things. In this meeting they tell us that Z faction holds the thinking of Gayoom. They also tell us that it is a democratic organisation. I cannot understand how it can be both. From what I understood, Z faction revolves around Gayyoom. How can an organisation that revolves around someone be democratic? If they love democracy so much, why did they split from the main DRP in the first place?

According to what they said, recently some of the council members of Z faction have even met foreign diplomats in Colombo, as the leading opposition party of the Maldives. They even discussed issues that are of national interest. I wonder what the foreign diplomats will think of this group. I also wonder whether they presented themselves as those belonging to a faction of DRP. If the members of Z faction met the diplomats, as members of DRP, then yes, they are indeed the leading opposition party. If they met as members of Z faction, I disagree.

Z faction is not a registered political party. Z faction is not DRP. Yet the members of this faction claim they are the “real DRP.” If they are the real DRP, why call it Z faction? Why not just DRP? For me, it appears that the Z faction is trying to highjack DRP and then bring a coup to it.

Even though the DRP congress decided that their presidential candidate will be their leader, in the minds of those belonging to Z faction, this issue has not been solved. Z faction does not want Thasmeen to be the presidential candidate from DRP. They want their favourite person to be the DRP presidential candidate. And because, under existing party regulations, this will not be possible, they have to search for an alternative means to do this. The result is the birth of Z faction.

Legitimate or not, the creation of Z faction has hit DRP hard. The biggest opposition party has not disintegrated but is weakened. All because one man wants to fulfil his dreams?

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: Maldives on path to Right to Information Act

Three years after conducting elections, the Maldives is on a path to participatory democracy by trying to finalise the Right to Information Bill, with the Bill under review by the Majlis Committee on Social Affairs. The Bill was drafted with inputs from civil society.

It’s a challenge for Maldives to implement Right to Information as a part of functional and participatory democracy. In general, both politicians and bureaucrats in Maldives accept that despite experiencing higher levels of human development compared to its neighbors in the South Asia region, the Maldives wasn’t an open society under 30-year long President Mamoon Abdul Gayoom’s administration. In a paradigm shift, the current President Mohamed Nasheed after being elected in the October 2008 general elections acknowledged that the previous administration was characterised by several examples of corruption and human rights abuses. Furthermore, the Maldives media was completely under the control of the government with little freedom for free and unbiased reporting until 2003. The right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the then Constitution wasn’t in practice.

Earlier, the exercise of democratic reform initiated by Gayoom’s regime in its final years had given some meaning to the idea of freedom of expression. Censorship of the media was reduced considerably by the year 2006 which can be attributed to pressure from civil society and the opposition parties. However information from government bodies was disseminated by their public relations officers on a need to know basis only. The old Constitution did not contain any reference to the people’s right to information.

As part of the process of initiating democratic reform in 2007, the then Minister for Information and Legal Reforms drafted a Bill on the right to information. This Bill was closely modeled on the access laws of the Common Wealth countries such as United Kingdom and Canada. Article XIX an international resource organization on freedom of expression and access to information assisted the Government with drafting this Bill. The Bill could not pass muster in the People’s Majlis as it fell short of majority support by one vote.

Despite this debacle the Minister for Information and Legal Reforms took the initiative of converting the Bill into a set of regulations applicable to the executive only. The regulations were notified by Presidential decree on 03 May 2008 on the occasion of World Press Freedom Day. The objectives of the regulations were to: provide Maldivians with the right to access information held by government administrative specify the situations and conditions under which information shall not be disclosed.

The Government gave itself a lead time of eight months to prepare for the implementation of the regulations which were to become fully operational in January 2009. Under the regulations there was a provision to appoint an Information Commissioner to guide its implementation and adjudicate over access disputes. However by May 2008 the Civil Service Commission was created in order to shoulder the responsibility of recruiting and overseeing the civil service. The erstwhile Presidential function of recruiting people to the civil service was transferred to this Commission. The then Government took this step bowing to pressure from the opposition parties ahead of the Presidential elections. It is said that these procedural difficulties came in the way of the appointment of the Information Commissioner forthwith.

The new Constitution enacted in 2008 after the October 2008 elections guarantees not only the right to freedom of speech and expression but also the freedom to seek receive and impart information. Subsequently in November 2009 the Attorney General of Maldives tabled the Right to Information Bill 2009 in the People’s Majlis. This Bill is closely modeled on the existing RTI Regulations.

Challenges to Implementing RTI in the Maldives

Legislature challenge: As Maldives is presently undergoing a process of democratic consolidation the legislative agenda of the People’s Majlis is heavy and the law makers they will serve their purpose well if they acquaint with law-making and drafting legislatures. The RTI Bill is one of the important pieces of legislation waiting the approval of the Majlis.

Executive challenge: A large majority of the members of the bureaucracy continue to be unaware of the RTI Regulations. Further, the systematic challenges are compounded by the fact that government is going through a process of large scale restructuring, ministries and departments are being abolished and their duties and responsibilities reassigned to others. Instances of loss or misplacement of documents of the abolished offices during this transitional process are not rare. The existing departments will have difficulties when people start asking for information about the activities of the abolished offices. The communications system within executive is an obstacle in the infantry stages of the implementation of the RTI law.

The Maldives is currently engaged in the process of democratic consolidation and restructuring of government. Despite this onerous task the Government has placed transparency high on its agenda. The introduction of the RTI Bill in the People’s Majlis is the first step in fulfilling the MDP alliance’s electoral promise of transparency in the administration. Still the bill needs several major changes for it to be matched up to international standards. The bureaucracy also needs to be more efficient to provide people with access to information in real time. Mass awareness raising programmes must be initiated to educate Maldivian about their right to information and its responsible use. In this way, advocacy in the Maldives can be both top-down and down-top.

Meanwhile, civil society has also pitched in with effective changes to be made in the Maldives Right to Information Bill for effective implementation of the RTI. The recommendations on the bill made by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative would like to point out the following changes that are applicable at various places throughout the RTI Bill:

Gender sensitive language must be used: It is common practice in both developed and developing countries to use gender-sensitive language in the drafting of legislation.

Replace ‘records’ with ‘information’: The RTI Bill purports to provide access to people to the ‘records’ held by public authorities. However as the title of the Bill suggests it is a law intending to provide for the right to access ‘information’ and not merely ‘records’ which is a sub-category of the former.

In practice, the use of the word ‘record’ is much more limiting than the use of the term ‘information’. Providing access to “information” will mean that applicants will not be restricted to accessing only information that is already in the form of a hard copy record or document. The current formulation excludes access to materials such as scale models; samples of materials used in public works and information that may exist in disaggregate form in multiple records that may require compilation or collation. Replacing the term ‘records’ with the term ‘information’, unless otherwise required by the context is required.

Ensure stricter harm tests in the exemption clauses: Several exemptions clauses listed in the Bill have a lower threshold of harm test than what is considered as international best practice. The term ‘prejudice’ is used to define the harm caused to a protected interest if information is disclosed under specific circumstances [For example S27 (a), 28, 30]. ‘Prejudice’ is a vague term and is amenable to varied interpretation. Instead the phrase ‘serious harm’ is a much better usage as it requires that sound arguments and logic be put forth to refuse disclosure.

Public authorities must have a duty to confirm or deny possession of information: most of the clauses stipulating the circumstances in which information is exempt from disclosure do not place a duty on public authorities to confirm or deny the existence of a record in their possession. For example, S23 relating to personal information, S24 relating to protection of professional privilege, S25 relating to business affairs and trade secrets, S26 relating to health and safety, S28 relating to law enforcement, S29 relating to defence and security, S30 relating to economic interest, S31 relating to administration and formulation of policy and S32 relating to a Cabinet document all empower a public authority to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of a record in its possession.

This rider is characteristic of the second generation of access laws passed after World War II. The access laws of Canada, Australia passed in the 1980s and more recently the access law in UK contain such provisions. However several access laws belonging to the third generation enacted during the 1990s and later place an obligation on public authorities to confirm or deny the existence of a record. The change in international best practice is most welcome as the absence of an obligation to confirm or deny the existence of a record opens the path to commit a lot of mischief.

In conclusion, the implementation of the RTI in Maldives means that beginning of decentralization and participatory governance and a citizen-friendly orientation to government. This will help Maldives in effective nation-building and empowering citizens.

Venkatesh Nayak is Coordinator, Access to Information Programme and Balaji is Volunteer with Media Unit of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

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: 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: Clearly rejected

Among the wheeling and dealings we’ve seen in the Majlis, the issue of Cabinet Ministers has been one of the most convoluted and silly arguments we’ve seen.

Can the Cabinet Ministers be questioned? Can’t they be accepted or rejected together? Are they just nominated or actually appointed? And therefore once chosen by the President, are they Ministers or Ministers-in-waiting? And in what capacity are they beholden to the Majlis?

Within two days the Supreme Court will decide on these questions. In two days, hopefully the drama will end, rather than begin anew.

Why are they going to court?

The Majlis has rejected seven Cabinet Ministers. MDP does not like this and would like all of their Ministers to keep their portfolios. Was approval necessary? Yes. Can the Majlis reject a Cabinet member without a vote of no confidence? Yes, but only when the President asks for their approval and acceptance of that appointment.

Nowhere is it written in the constitution that there is only one way to remove a Cabinet Minister, as Reeko Moosa suggests.

Article 101 of the Constitution states that a vote of no confidence is possible, but it does not say that a vote of no confidence is the only way to remove a Minister. There are in fact two ways: 1) A vote of no confidence; or 2) A rejection when appointed.

Once appointed, s/he is a Minister

The opposition claims that individuals were nominated rather than appointed. They claim that the President can choose people, and that those people would only become Ministers once they have approval. This is false.

The President does not nominate, he appoints. The moment those individuals take their oath by either the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or his representative, those individuals become Ministers of the Cabinet of the Republic of the Maldives as per Article 131 of the Constitution.

Article 131 states: ‘A member of the cabinet shall assume office upon taking and subscribing, before the Chief Justice or his Designate, the oath of office.’

The only thing that might be left up to debate is whether the Chief Justice could choose to simply not provide himself or his representative to swear the appointees in, and refuse to do so until each individual had parliamentary approval.

But in this case, Abdullah Saeed (Chief Justice at the time) did not do so. If you think back, though, you will remember that the cabinet was re-sworn at the same time that the MNDF had locked up the Supreme/High Courts and taken away the key. Not surprisingly, after Abdullah Saeed had sent his representative to swear in the cabinet he was given back the key to his office.

Nonetheless, once these individuals were sworn in, they were fully fledged Ministers, with every power, right, authority, and responsibility afforded them. All talk claiming they were just acting as ministers is just silliness. But if these people are already Ministers, do they still need approval? Isn’t it just a formality?

Approval or rejection necessary

Article 129C and D of the Constitution state:

C. Except for the Vice President, the President must receive the approval of the People’s Majlis for all appointments to the cabinet.

D. The President shall submit to the People’s Majlis, within seven days of making appointments to the Cabinet, the names of the appointees to the Cabinet for approval to the People’s Majlis.

Article 129C clearly states that the President “must receive approval” of the Majlis. Therefore, if any Cabinet Minister is rejected, then they are no longer Ministers of the cabinet. The only way they can continue is if the President swears them in again, where they will then have seven days before the President is required to send their names to the Majlis for a second time.

I do not believe there is any impediment to repeating this as many times as the President wants. Though I’m sure rejection after rejection by the Majlis would appear a complete farce in the eyes of the public.

Together or one by one

As to the issue of whether the cabinet should be approved together or individually, that is completely up to the preference of the Majlis Members. It is a tiny insignificant point that the constitution makes no reference to.

MDP thought there would be a bigger chance to get everyone approved if they are lumped together, because then DRP could be made to look stubborn and completely against all betterment of the nation if all of the cabinet members were wholly rejected.

One usually expects the entire cabinet to come to approval only once in a presidential term. It was assumed that after the approval of the entire cabinet, if a minister was dismissed, it would be done on a case by case basis.

But alas, that was not how things went down in this scenario. In this case, there is another instance which was particularly odd as well in the issue around whether Minister’s couldn’t be questioned.

Questioning Ministers

So, can a Minister be questioned? Of course, but only about the job at hand.

The opposition wanted to evaluate and judge each Minister before giving their approval. They claimed that a summons for this purpose required Ministers to come.

This is false. Ministers are only required to attend the Majlis for questions regarding their duties and responsibilities – not their qualification. In fact, under Article 98 of the Constitution, they can question any head of any government office if they so chose to. To answer falsely, or withhold information would directly violate the constitution.

The Supreme Court agreed with this evaluation in stating at the article in the Majlis rules of procedure that required their presence to judge their qualifications was outside of the constitution.

The bottom line and 2011 budget

The seven Ministers who were rejected by parliament remain rejected. However, until that rejection was decided by a vote of parliament, they were proper Ministers.

They were therefore required to answer summons that related to their job, but not to summons to simply scrutinize them on their qualifications.

The only way for the President to have Ali Hashim, former Finance Minister, present the budget is to reappoint him and swear him in. I believe Ali Hashim is one of our most capable Ministers, and if not for being caught in the crosshairs of political maneuvering, his position would not be in question.

It is a shame and a travesty that this issue is dominating so much of the public’s time and that these Ministers are losing their livelihoods over it. It is a shame that so many other bills that need passing, like those on drugs, evidence, and the penal code are left on the sidelines while we quibble about Ministerial portfolios.

While I have my own claim and object to GIP (Gaumee Itthihaad Party) not receiving its three cabinet portfolios in Economic Development, Education, and Fisheries as was understood in the MDP Itthihaad Coalition agreement, I still do not condone spending time on this issue when so many more desperate issues are waiting to be addressed.

There are procedures for cabinet appointments that should have been followed. There once was a clear understanding of how to go about all of this. But instead of it being a simple and day long matter, it has led our nation to constitutional crisis. Instead of following procedure we all now look at the constitution from a thousand different angles and wrest every type of meaning we can from every line before proceeding in the way most beneficial to us.

I am not a government apologist trying to hide constitutional violations, nor an opposition sympathizer trying to topple the government. I’m just trying to make sense of a now convoluted issue.

I pray that the Supreme Court protects the constitution and laws it was created to uphold and that their life time tenures ensures justice free of political sway and maneuvering.

I pray that we can move forward from this upcoming Supreme Court decision and find a way to create a whole government dedicated to the MDP Itthihaad manifesto confirmed two years ago.

I pray our conscience prevails and sanity finally reigns.

Note: Article 87 states:

A. Unless otherwise provided in this Constitution; all decisions made by the People’s Majlis shall be decided by a majority of the votes of members present and voting (Approval or rejection of Cabinet Ministers is done this way as it is not mentioned anywhere else.

http://jswaheed.com

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)