DRP – Page 49 – Minivan News

DRP to hold second congress

The Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) will hold its second congress on 3 February 2010, to elect new members for party leadership.

According to Miadhu, former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom is contesting for party leadership and many believe he will win the elections in 2013.

Miadhu also reports that many within the party believe Maumoon should handover power.

In a previous DRP meeting, Maumoon claimed that Ahmed Thasmeen Ali would be the next leader of the party, Miadhu reported.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Comment: Why some people like DRP and hate the MDP

My first assignment at university, back in 1997, asked me to look into why people voted the way they do.

I remember feeling quite ill-prepared to answer this question because I had never experienced voting in its true democratic form. After all I grew up in the Maldives.

However, I came to realise that it boils down to a combination of personal characteristics, particular circumstances and the choice of leaders, as well as the image of these leaders put across to the public.

In 2008, faced with a choice between the DRP and the MDP, it is not difficult to see who someone such as I would pick.

I am (relatively) young, and as such I am prone to taking risks. I feel comfortable with a changing world. I have a tertiary education from a western institution. I am starting off in life, have no family who relies on me to provide for them, have no business that I have poured my heart and soul into, and feel confident that I have the skills to make it in life. My philosophy to change is summed up by the other iconic saying of our time: “Yes we can!”.

You don’t have to be Don Draper to realize which product I’m buying.

But what continues to fascinate me is the support that the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party still holds among the people. It also fascinates me just how much hatred some people have for the MDP.

I refuse to believe that these people are all crazy. After all, some of these people are intelligent, educated and perfectly reasonable people.

So let me try and outline some categories of people who may find it ‘logical’ to support DRP and what you may feel if you belonged to any of these categories:

Direct beneficiary of DRP in power:

You are someone (or are a family member of someone) who was a direct recipient of benefits under the DRP.

This does not mean that these benefits were through corruption – but just run-of-the-mill influence or power that came to you because you believed in the vision and message of the party and supported it since its inception. And let’s face it, this is the same reason why a generation of people who are in places of influence because of the MDP now may support MDP in the future.

Democracy ain’t so hot after all:

You simply prefer the harmony that existed when democracy was not around. You are not necessarily taken in by all this talk of democracy and human rights because it has meant the disintegration of the social harmony and fabric that existed under Gayyoom. Now, every other day, there are demonstrations, strikes, and some kind of nuisance on the street.

These days people are just so angry at each other. Families, friendships, sports-clubs, marriages, relationships have all been affected quite adversely by the rise of democracy in the country.

I mean things were just so much better when people didn’t talk politics and talked about the movies or joked about their families or something equally harmless. Life was hard enough without all these politics on the street.

Worse of all, democracy has not delivered the instant benefits that it promised. You just want things back the way they were, and to go on with your life leaving the government to do what it did, even if it was doing it badly.

However, now that democracy (in all its messiness) is around, who do you blame for this? Why, the people who started doing these demonstration on the streets after all – the MDP.

After all, if it wasn’t for the MDP we wouldn’t have protests on the street. We would have a serene parliament that never debates. In fact we wouldn’t have parliament at all, especially on our TV screens. We would have songs and movies and entertainment, interrupted occasionally by a ‘riddle’ we can answer by SMS.

MDP are incompetent:

You do not believe the capabilities of the existing government are sufficient for leadership. You question the leadership ability of President Nasheed and his team. You regard them as those, who even with good intentions, simply do not have the intellectual firepower to pull all this off.

Your worst have suspicions come true because the MDP have rewarded positions of power to cronies and activists. For every qualified person in the administration, you see two hacks who had more talent at throwing stones than conducting policy. You secretly feel that the leader of our country and the majority of his cabinet should at least have a PhD, but may not quite say this out loud for the sake of being accused of elitism.

MDP are liars selling false hope for the sake of power:

You think that the MDP are peddlers of populist dreams who have promised things that they (or anyone without divine help) cannot actually deliver, simply for the sake of coming to power.

Inter-island transport network? This has never been done in the Maldives so why should it work now?

A modern real-estate market in the outer islands of the Maldives? These seem like wishful thinking to many people – even to reasonable people.

A carbon-neutral Maldives when 100% of our existing power-plants are diesel?

US$1 billion in aid in 2010? That’s seem like a little too much – especially if you fall into the category above.

The MDP leadership is dictatorial and undemocratic themselves:

Deep down you are a democrat at heart and feel strongly about the ideals of representative government. You feel that President Nasheed is pushing things in the wrong direction and acting in direct conflict with the constitution of the country.

This is a completely reasonable opinion to have, but you cannot also hold this and support DRP. That would be a tad bit hypocritical and downright silly. This however is completely justifiable if you are an ‘independent’ follower of democracy in its true forms espoused by the great political philosophers of time.

The MDP philosophy is wrong:

You oppose the center-right philosophy of the government. Rather than a free-market state that makes you responsible for your own well-being, you feel (deep-down) that the government should take care of its people – it should provide jobs in a protected public sector so that everyone has a decent guaranteed salary. You don’t care, nor do you want to care, about how the state gets its money. It should just provide us with healthcare, schooling, housing, jobs, TVs… the whole shebang if possible.

If probed a little deeper, you would say that the economic vision of the country should be that the tourism sector of the economy – just like the oil and gas sector is in Saudi Arabia – and the state should play the role in distributing the benefits of that tourism sector to the public.

Our tourism market has functioned well enough even with a few people getting very rich – and the ‘benefits’ this country has seen in the last 30 years are because of this economic model. Sure you would like change, but that change should be gradual and planned – like on a roadmap. Evolution, not revolution, is what you would have preferred.

In a sense, it is the strangely soothing tale of the state playing a truly paternalistic role in its most literal sense – acting like a benevolent father.

He/it rewards those who accept his/its wisdom and vision, while punishing those who misbehave and question its/his authority.

While this is old-fashioned, we must admit that like all fathers, there is a genuine appeal in having someone to look over us. This I believe is the reason why (in some mass pseudo-oedipal complex) the support of DRP is stronger among women of a certain generation.

My point in conducting this analysis is primarily to take the level of discussion in our political sphere to a more intelligent and hopefully beneficial level.

Firstly, I hope it gives those on the yellow-side (MDP) of the political divide something to think about on how to successfully challenge those who oppose them. No doubt, those in the first category cannot really be converted because they are the unwinnable masses, but the concerns of those in the other categories can and should be addressed.

The MDP must show these people that they are capable, that their ideology of self-help center-right compassionate economic conservatism (borrowed from their friends at the ‘New’ UK Conservative party) is a winning philosophy. They must turn their dreams into a reality.

However, for those on the blue-side (opposition and DRP side) of the divide, I hope it gives you a moment of reflection to see quite why it is that you hate the MDP so. If you fall into the first category – perhaps its time you looked into ways in which you fashion your life around having a beneficial outcome irrespective of whoever is in power.

However, for those of you who fall into the other categories – I hope it sheds light on quite why you hate the MDP so, and ask yourself how you can help your party (the DRP) to outline a better vision for our country.

The MDP claim they are center-right – so what is the philosophy of the DRP? Surely it cannot be that of a paternalistic state, which is outdated and unsustainable.

I say this because before you know it, we will once again be asked to choose our leaders. And when you do, I hope you will at least take a minute to ask yourself why it is that you are inclined to vote in a certain way. You will do this country a world of good by that small act.

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

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Parliament cancelled after MPs clash on decentralisation bill

Parliament was cancelled barely an hour into today’s sitting after MPs clashed over the committee report on the decentralisation bill proposed by the government, leading to pandemonium and disorder in the chamber.

MPs of the ruling Maldiivan Democratic Party (MDP) accused the opposition-dominated committee of coming under external influences and violating Majlis rules of procedure in completing its review, calling on the speaker to send the bill back to committee.

The opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) majority on the committee passed an amendment to scrap provinces in the legislation.

DRP MPs accused the MDP of failing to respect democracy and the will of the majority and attempting to block local council elections, which could only take place when the legislation was passed.

“I would like to first inform the honourable members that the Majlis secretariat received 765 amendments for this agenda item at 2.30pm yesterday,” said Speaker Abdullah Shahid, beginning the third and final reading of the bill.

Shahid urged MPs to merge similar amendments to save time and have unofficial discussions among political parties to speed up the process.

Point of order

In a series of points of order that followed, Vilufushi MP Riyaz Rasheed reminded MPs that the constitutional deadline for local elections had elapsed while the legislation was still pending.

Hulhu-Henveiru MP “Reeko” Moosa Manik, parliamentary group leader of the MDP, claimed the committee report “came from outside”.

“Proposing amendments to the decentralisation bill in the thousands shows they do not accept democracy,” responded Thohdhoo MP Ali Waheed. “We have no problem spending the whole day here – we’ll be here.”

Dhidhoo MP Ahmed Sameer of the MDP argued the committee did not follow the rules of procedure as all of the amendments were made by the DRP.

Presenting the report, Hanimaadhoo MP Mohamed Mujthaz of the DRP, chairman of the committee, said the committee faced many obstacles in reviewing the legislation due to serious disagreements between MDP and DRP MPs.

The bill was submitted by the government in June.

“Among the views expressed by members at the Majlis, the most disputed issue was provinces or dividing administrative areas into provinces,” he said.

A vote at the committee to scrap provinces in the legislation was passed with 6 to 5 in favour, Mujthaz said.

Raising further points of order, MDP MPs attacked the committee for changing the “safari vessel” presented by the government into “a bokkura (dinghy)”.

Hulhumeedhoo MP Ilyas Labeeb said the report should be sent back as the chairman had admitted the amendments were made by DRP instead of reflecting the views of MPs as required by the rules.

Meanwhile, Sameer further argued the amendments were in violations of the rules as changes could not be made to negate the purpose of the legislation.

DRP MPs defended the report, attacking the MDP for “failing to digest” whenever things did not go their way.

Ali Waheed accused the MDP of blocking the legislation to prolong the tenure of its “unelected” councillors.

Cancellation

After 30 minutes of points of order, Shahid said he would not allow any more in the interest of speeding up the proceedings.

But, the first MP to present amendments, Maavashu MP Abdul Azeez Jamal Abubakuru, was shouted down by MDP MPs insisting on points of order.

“I condemn these efforts against democracy at a time when we’re trying to consolidate it,” Abdul Azeez said over the din.

When Shahid relented and allowed points of order, Mid-Fuahmulah MP Shifaq Mufeed objected to the committee not including reservations of MDP MPs.

The sitting became heated when Mujthaz defended the committee report; MPs sprang out of their seats and acrimonious arguments broke out.

After his repeated appeals for MPs to take their seats went unheeded, the speaker canceled the sitting.

The sitting has been pushed back to 8.30pm tonight, when MPs will begin proposing the 765 amendments.

The 11-member ad hoc committee comprised of Moosa Manik, Bilendhoo MP Ahmed Hamza, Henveiru South MP Hamid Abdul Gafoor and Hithadhoo North MP Mohamed Aslam of the MDP; Mohamed Mujthaz, Mid-Henveiru MP Ali Azim, Fonadhoo MP Ali Saleem, Thohdhoo MP Ali Waheed and Thulusdhoo MP Rozaina Adam from the DRP; and independents Eydhafushi MP Ahmed “Redwave” Saleem and Kudahuvadhoo MP Ahmed Amir.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Circus in parliament as MPs reject bill banning sale of alcohol

Parliament has narrowly rejected a bill outlawing the sale of alcohol in inhabited islands, airports and other places frequented by Maldivians.

Of the 57 MPs in attendance, 28 voted against proceeding with the legislation, while 23 voted in favour and six abstained.

Several MPs from the two main parties vociferously raised points of order when independent MP Muttalib, who proposed the legislation, in his closing statement after the debate, told DRP MP Ali Azim to repent for his remarks and called on the authorities to take action against him.

Azim had argued against the legislation, claiming it was not a “sensible” or “necessary” law.

However Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim did not allow any points of order, leading to pandemonium in the chamber. The sitting was temporarily called off after almost every MP walked out in protest and quorum was lost.

Muttalib also accused MDP MP Mariya Ahmed Didi of opposing the bill because of her “close association” with the Holiday Inn in Male’, and accused MDP MP Mohamed Mustafa of defrauding pilgrims to “steal their money”.

After the sitting resumed at 11am, Muttalib said MPs would have to “bear responsibility” when the government authorised sale of alcohol in hotels in Male’.

A number of Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party-People’s Alliance coalition (DRP-PA) MPs joined several independents and all the MPs of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) in either abstaining or voting against the bill.

Among the MPs who opposed the legislation were Thohdhoo MP Ali Waheed, Galolhu South MP Ahmed Mahlouf, Vili-Maafanu MP Ahmed Nihan, Mid-Henveiru MP Ali Azim, Villigili MP Mohamed Ramiz, Feydhoo MP Alhan Fahmy of the DRP and Maavashu MP Abdul Azeez Jamal Abukaburu and Isdhoo MP Ahmed Rasheed Ibrahim from the People’s Alliance.

Unconstitutional

During the debate, several MPs argued the bill was unconstitutional as it would indirectly authorise the sale of alcohol.

Article 10(b) of the constitution states no law contrary to any tenet of Islam shall be made or enacted in the Maldives.

Machangaoalhi North MP Mariya Ahmed Didi, chairperson of MDP, argued tourist resorts should also be considered inhabited islands.

“The constitution states all Maldivians have equal protection under the law. Therefore, if we are to give protection to people in inhabited islands, we must provide it to people in resorts,” she said, adding resort workers spend most of the year living in the resorts.

Ungoofaru MP Dr Afrashim Ali of the DRP, a religious scholar, said MPs were mistaken when they argued a law was not needed to ban a practice forbidden in Islam, as it was necessary to devise regulations to protect Maldivian society from social ills such as alcohol.

He added flaws and imperfections in the bill could be remedied at committee stage.

His DRP colleague, Mid-Henveiru MP Ali Azim said MPs should consider whether such a law was needed and whether it would protect Islam in the country.

“My thinking on this is very different. We have to consider who we are trying to forbid alcohol to. We are trying to make it illegal for expatriates and foreigners who visit the Maldives. I don’t think this is a reason we should make it illegal,” he said.

With the economy reliant on the tourism industry, he continued, it did not make sense to outlaw the sale of alcohol only in parts of the country as this would not prevent Maldivians gaining access to it.

Azim said the bill was backed by “the Jews” as part of a long-term plan to weaken the country and introduce other religions.

Meanwhile People’s Alliance MP Abdul Azeez spoke in favour of the bill and urged MPs to send it to committee, but voted against it.

“Unacceptable”

Speaking to Minivan News today, Mauroof Zakir, spokesperson for the coalition of NGOs and associations campaigning against the sale of alcohol in inhabited islands, said the reasons given by MPs for rejecting the bill were “unacceptable”.

“We agree that there are problems with the bill, but throwing it out doesn’t solve anything,” he said. “While [parliament] has the power to send it to committee and cut and trim it, the things they said were intended to mislead the public.”

The coalition was considering proposing another bill, he said, and planned to stage protests and employ civil disobedience if the government enforced the revised regulations on the sale of alcohol.

Last month, the government revised the regulations on the import and use of alcohol to revoke over 800 liquor permits issued to expatriates in favour of authorising hotels to serve foreigners under strict supervision.

The Economic Development Ministry argued lax monitoring of the liquor permits had resulted in a black market for alcohol in the capital Male’.

But, the Ministry’s revised regulations were withdrawn following public pressure before it could be enforced and were sent to a parliamentary committee for consultation.

Under the regulations, tourist hotels in inhabited islands with more than 100 beds would be authorised to sell alcohol to foreigners, but the hotel bar should not be visible from outside or employ Maldivians.

Further, an inventory of the alcohol in storage and daily sales has to be maintained and made available to police on request, while the storage room has to be monitored by CCTV cameras.

Alcohol could not be kept at mini-bars in the hotel rooms and expatriate employees at the bar would be subject to police clearance.

Zakir said the coalition would begin work “immediately” on filing a case at the Supreme Court to abolish regulations made 50 years ago that gave authority to the Economic Development Ministry to allow the import and use of alcohol.

Following today’s vote, he said, the coalition expected the revised regulations to be enforced.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

MDP numbers boom while DRP declines: EC

A sustained recruitment campaign in the atolls has led to a surge in the number of Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) members.

The party welcomed 5,000 members in the last few months, taking its total membership to 28,995 as of 10 December 2009. At such a pace the party will soon overtake the 30,215 tally of its rival, the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP), which recorded a slight decline according to President of the Elections Commission Fuad Thaufeeq.

The grassroots MDP campaign involved establishing network coordinators for every atoll and enlisting existing members to recruit others, explained MDP registrar general Ahmed Shahid.

“We’re not going to stop until we’re on top,” Shahid said. “We have a further 600-800 applications currently processing, and there are many more coming in from the atolls. However the weather has been bad over the last few months and we’ve had some trouble collecting the applications.”

Despite the overall gain the party had also lost some members, he admitted.

Dr. Mohamed Mausoom, Secretary-General of DRP, questioned the recruitment tactics of the MDP.

“They have appointed island councillors to recruit members, paid for by the state. But despite this they’ve only gained 5000 members,” he said.

Mausoom suggested that the number of new “sincere” MDP recruits was no more “than about 2,000.”

“The rest of them – although they are yellow on the outside, their heart is blue,” he speculated, suggesting that in some cases people were being pressured to join the party in order to keep their jobs.

“There’s no direct instruction, but [in the case of some government workers] it can be ‘sign up [to the MDP], or quit,'” he alleged. “This is the type of environment people are working in. I really can’t say what the MDP is up to anymore, but we have noticed many of their members signing up with us.”

The MDP’s gain was irrelevant, Mausoom said, because “as a proportion of the voting population, political membership numbers are not significant in the country.”

If the MDP overtakes the DRP, “it will be a joke”, he added. “The Maldivian population are among the most politically educated in the world; if you walk around Male and you’ll find hardly anyone who voted for MDP.”

In the May parliamentary elections, MDP won a total of 48,000 votes or 31 per cent of the vote, while the DRP and its coalition partner People’s Alliance won a combined total of 47,400 votes.

DRP won a total of 39,000 votes or 25 per cent.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Embezzlement accusations resurface amid World Bank investigation

Ibrahim Hussein Zaki, special envoy to the president, has renewed allegations that former president Maumoon Abdul Gayoom has US$80 million hidden in foreign bank accounts, including US$40 million in tsunami aid from the Emir of Qatar.

The last time the allegation was made, by Hassan Afeef, a former MP and now political advisor to the president, Gayoom successfully sued for defamation and Afeef was fined US$350.

Zaki insisted he “was only quoting what was said in newspapers in the UK in an interview with the Global Protection Committee (GPC),” describing it only as “an international NGO.”

The GPC’s leader, Michael Lord-Castle, told Minivan News during an interview in November 2006 “that we have been advised that between US$60-80 million has been transferred from Maldives’ governmental funds directly to various private bank accounts in favour of President Gayoom. Some of those funds we understand derive from donations made in respect to the tsunami disaster.”

When Minivan News asked ‘Commander’ Lord-Castle to disclose the countries and banks the money had been transferred to, he replied that “investigations are continuing and at this stage it is necessary to withhold certain information.”

Members of the controversial GPC, of which little record exists for an organisation “first formed in 1943 towards the end of the Second World War” and boasting “over 2,400 members ranging from ex-presidents, prime ministers and ministers of different countries”, travelled to the Maldives to observe the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)’s planned assembly for constitutional change on 10 November 2006.

Lord-Castle said the group had been commissioned to produce a report to the European Parliament on the political situation in Maldives, a claim denied by the European Parliament. He was deported from the Maldives together with four associates.

The GPC’s website has since disappeared from the web, while Lord-Castle’s current wikipedia entry describes him as a ‘well-known English businessman’ with varied involvement in an insolvency advisory service, a failed business-class airline, a vigilante ambulance service, and the supplier of a cleaning chemical called Vizexon promising to “kill all pathogens, including swine flu, H5N1, bird flu, SARS, influenza virus and HIV.”

Zaki said that he did not believe the accusation was defamatory “and if Gayoom feels he is getting defamed then he should file a suit against the GPC.”

“If [the accusation] proves true it will be fairly significant because first of all it was money from the National Treasury, secondly the money was for tsunami victims, and thirdly there would be reason to anticipate more [hidden money],” he said.

World Bank enlisted

Zaki pictured with members of the GPC in November 2006

Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed announced in September he was seeking the help of the World Bank’s Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative (StAR) to recover a suspected US$2 billion in embezzled funds, stating that the money was needed to plug a budget deficit of 34 per cent of GDP.

“Many people have been in one way or another connected to this huge web of corruption,” Nasheed said, adding that international help was needed because of a lack of forensic accountancy skills in the country.

Gayoom’s assistant and former chief government spokesperson Mohamed Hussain Shareef (Mundhu) responded to the allegations by demanding Zaki “show us the evidence. If you have the details make them public, instead of repeating allegations. Maumoon has said, ‘go ahead and take a look, and if you find anything make it public.'”

“There is no evidence to link Gayoom to corruption,” he insisted. “What Afeef said was very slanderous. We threw the book at him, and showed in court that he had no evidence to back up his claim at all, not a single piece of evidence.”

He described the renewal of the allegations as “immature, especially dragging the Qatari government into this. We called them and they were as surprised as us – senior officals in their government had no clue about [the alleged theft of US$40 million in tsunami aid]. Anyone of intelligence knows that aid money is not passed across a table by leaders. Gayoom could obviously not just take off with donor or tsunami aid.”

Mundhu expressed confidence that the World Bank’s investigation “would find nothing untoward. I know for a fact that our tsunami aid accounting mechanism was far superior to that of many other countries. All the aid money went through one oversight body headed by the then UN representative and the auditor general.”

The source of the allegations, the GPC, were one of many “voodoo NGOs” around at the time, he said. “We tried to find out what they were about, and basically drew a blank. Nobody in the UK knew anything about them.”

The allegations were intended “to wipe Gayoom off the political map,” Mundhu claimed. “The MDP is a minority government. Nasheed himself as an individual has no more than 25 per cent support in the country. Gayoom is the most popular individual with 45 per cent and over 100,000 die-hard supporters – clearly people thought he did a good job. Nasheed could not beat him one-to-one, and that reality is very hard [for the MDP] to stomach.”

The accusations of embezzlement, he suggested, were the activities of “certain unpleasant elements in the MDP. I don’t branch Nasheed in this, but [the party] was so intent on bringing in people with grievances towards the [former] government that they brought in unsavoury elements that now even Nasheed cannot control.”

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Opposition MPs accuse govt of favouring MDP voters in budget

Funds were disproportionately allocated for public sector investment programme (PSIP) in next year’s budget for constituencies represented by MPs of the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party-People’s Alliance (DRP-PA), Mulaku MP Abdullah Yamin said at parliament yesterday.

Speaking at the budget debate, Yamin said approximately Rf25 million (US$1.9 million) was allocated for areas that voted for the opposition, while Rf121 million (US$9.4 million) was allocated for constituencies represented by the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP).

“I don’t think this a coincidence. I don’t believe at all that this could be a coincidence,” he said, adding the Rf530 million (US$41 million) for the PSIP was a fraction of the Rf11.9 billion (US$926 million) budget.

Yamin strongly criticised the government’s reliance on public-private partnerships (PPP) to deliver on development projects, claiming they were unlikely to materialise.

Other opposition MPs objected to the lack of funds allocated for development of the atolls.

Kelaa MP Abdullah Mausoom of the DRP said funds were not allocated for small businesses or development of fisheries and the construction industry.

MPs of the ruling MDP defended the budget, arguing development projects would be undertaken under PPPs.

Presenting the budget last month, Finance Minister Ali Hashim said the budget had the confidence of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). If the mid-term budget was implemented, he added, the deficit would decline to 14.8 per cent in 2010, 2.4 per cent in 2011 and reach a surplus in 2012.

The structure of the budget was agreed upon after consultations with the IMF, he said, and included recommendations by the IMF, Asian Development Bank and World Bank to solve structural problems in the economy.

Kendhoo MP Ahmed Thasmeen Ali, parliamentary group leader of the DRP, said yesterday the budget did not reflect the government’s stated policies.

Although the government had constantly urged reduction in government expenditure, he said, the expenditure for 2009 as well as the projections for 2010 exceeded the previous year.

Reductions were made to public sector investment by almost Rf900 million (US$70 million) from the previous year, he noted, while subsidies for electricity and food were lower by Rf300 million (US$23 million).

While the government’s policy was to reduce the number of government employees and civil servants had a pay cut in October, he continued, the expenditure on salaries and allowances for government in next year’s budget was Rf300 million (US$23 million) more than this year.

He urged the budget committee to identify the areas the funds had been increased for.

Thasmeen noted that funds allocated for salaries and allowances for employees of independent institutions were also lower than previous years.

Further, the budget for parliament was 16 per cent smaller than this year.

“We have to consider what kind of difficulties we will face in our task of holding the government accountable and responsible,” he said.

Thasmeen criticised the government for unilaterally reducing salaries for staff at independent institutions in next year’s budget.

The budget for the Human Rights Commission Maldives was decreased by 14 per cent and the Anti-Corruption Commission by 12 per cent, he said.

In the judiciary, the budget for the Supreme Court was lower by 33 per cent, the High Court by 42 per cent and island courts by 20 per cent.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)

Budget falls short of development pledges: DRP

The Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) has expressed regret over the proposed 2010 mid-term budget, which it argues will fail to deliver on the development pledges of the incumbent government.

The largest opposition party said the budget had a deficit of Rf4.7 billion (US$366 million), noting that while Rf7.2 billion (US$560 million) is expected in revenue, this was accounted for 60 per cent of the budget.

“It is further doubtful that the revenue goals could be reached since a large part of the income rests upon taxes to be levied under laws that would be made in the future,” a statement from the party said.

Addressing MPs last week, Finance Minister Ali Hashim said the government had proposed a number of measures to generate around US$354 million to plug the deficit. These included foreign aid, foreign loan assistance, privatisation of government companies and the sale of treasury bills through the Maldives Monetary Authority.

In their statement, the DRP further noted that Hashim said government revenue depended on three new taxes, legislation for which was currently pending in parliament.

But, the party continued, the Rf3.4 billion (US$265 million) expected in tax revenue in next year’s budget was only three per cent higher than tax revenue in 2008.

Last week, Hashim urged MPs to pass the taxation legislation before the end of the year and said a goods and services tax would be imposed on tourist resorts and hotels in the final quarter of 2010, which he anticipated would raise Rf358 million (US$27 million) in revenue.

Revenue

The party further noted that at Rf333 million (US$26 million) revenue from profits of government companies was significantly lower than 2009 because of the government’s policy of selling off state assets.

DRP pointed to the government’s decision to sell seven per cent of its stake in the highly profitable Dhiraagu, the country’s first telecommunications company, to British company Cable & Wireless for US$40 million.

“We believe that another reason for the decrease of income from government companies is handing over management of these companies to unqualified people for political purposes,” their statement said.

Since coming to power, the government has introduced a policy of public-private partnerships it hopes will enhance the efficiency of state-owned enterprises.

Beyond the 40 per cent deficit, another of the issues raised by the DRP was the lack of funding for large development projects such as a national university,

“The extraordinarily high government expenditure casts doubts on the government’s talk of reducing expenditure,” the statement said, further claiming that a large portion of the total expenditure on government employees, Rf3.9 billion (US$304 million), would be spent on political appointees.

Even with the reduction of civil servants’ salaries and dismissals, expenditure on salaries is higher than previous years, the DRP said.

In August, the government announced a raft of austerity measures to help alleviate the budget deficit. These included pay cuts of up to 20 per cent for civil servants and all political appointees ranked deputy minister and above, cutting back on foreign trips, and letting go of all government-rented buildings.

Both the president and the vice-president also volunteered to take a 20 per cent pay cut to their salaries.

Despite a high number of political appointees, the government continues to maintain that it has made fewer appointments than the former administration.

“Benefit for the people”

In their statement, the opposition party described the interest on loans as “alarming”, noting that compared to Rf279 million (US$22 million) in 2008, the amount raised from interest in 2010 will be Rf529 million (US$41 million).

The party said that while the government’s policy was to reduce the size of the government, the proposed expenditure in 2010 will be higher than in previous years.

The DRP further pointed to the increase in foreign debt from Rf755 million (US$59 million) in 2008 to Rf1,057 million (US$82 million) in 2010, adding that the interest rate had not been revealed.

“Our only hope is that this mid-term budget will be amended for the benefit of the people and the country and pave way for development. We give full assurance to the beloved people that we will do everything we can in parliament,” the statement concluded.

Speaking to MPs at parliament, Hashim said that by the IMF government finance statistics measure, the deficit for 2009 was 26.1 per cent.

But, he added, if the mid-term budget was implemented, although there would be a decline to 14.8 per cent in 2010 and 2.4 per cent in 2011, it will reach a surplus in 2012.

Hashim said the structure of the budget was agreed upon after consultations with the International Monetary Fund and recommendations by the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank.

Likes

(0)Dislikes

(0)