Tag: Majlis

Controversial salary amendments not yet approved, say MPs

MPs “have not taken pay increases”, Deputy Speaker of Parliament Ahmed Nazim has said, despite the Rf20,000 wage hikes for MPs included in the 2011 state budget approved yesterday.

Deputy Speaker Nazim said the proposed wage hikes must receive additional approval by the Majlis before they can take effect.

Despite “cross party support” for budgetary amendments allowing additional MP privileges like salary increases, he said, no wage hikes have actually been approved. Nazim anticipates that the proposals, considered a possible means of improving parliament’s “productivity”, would come under review in March after the recess.

The claims were made at the first session of the Mjalis since it passed the 2011 state budget. It opened to chants of “We need cash” from protesters gathered near the parliament building, angry over the salary amendments passed as part of a budget said to be aimed at cost-cutting.

However, acting Finance Minister Mahmood Razee said he believed the budget had been passed relatively well. He added that any amendments such as those suggested for MPs’ salaries – passed yesterday by a majority of members – would still ultimately require presidential approval.

In addition, the acting Finance Minister said, all amendments would ideally fulfil the commitment to keep the budget at about Rf12.37bn for the year ahead.

These commitments are also focused on trying to ensure a budget deficit of around 16 per cent, which has been sought in an attempt to appease institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which suspended finance to the country earlier this year over concerns about it living beyond its means.

However, Nazim, who also serves as Deputy Leader of the opposition People’s Alliance (PA) party, rebuked the optimism shown by the acting finance Minister. He added that concerns remained among some “opposition and independent MPs” over a lack of detail in the budget, such as in the funding of enterprises like the Maldives National Broadcasting Corporation (MNBC).

Addressing the topic of MPs salaries outlined under amendments to parliamentary privileges, Nazim claimed  the salaries were not solely a “money issue”, but were also part of an attempt to test methods for improved “productivity” among the Majlis.

“The amendments were not to do with spending cuts, the salary structures have been amended as part of measures to increase productivity among members, which will be reviewed by parliament’s Public Accounts Committee,” he said. “The figure of Rf20,000 is an upper ceiling level that parliament will look to see whether it can be increased, it doesn’t mean anything has been passed.”

“We are not taking a pay rise,” Nazim added.

In looking at the wider budget, Nazim stressed that there remained concerns among some MPs over a number of proposed amendments to the budget, such as those concerning MNBC, that had been dismissed by Parliamentary speaker Abdullah Shahid as “not in the budget”.

Citing the 2010 budget that he claimed had not outlined funding for the MNBC, Nazim said  the government still provided a total of Rf54m for monthly salaries to the broadcaster, which had not been accounted for once again in the latest state finances.

The Deputy Speaker also noted that the state-owned Maldives National Shipping Limited, which  had required Rf84 million from the government’s contingency budget in 2009 had also required another Rf48 million so far this year.

In light of the recent privatisation agreement with Indian infrastructure group GMR to manage Male’ International Airport, Nazim asked why the government had “not sold off” the shipping enterprise to aid finances.

“The government refused to give this contingency budget out before it was brought to the Majlis,” he said. “They have not cooperated with parliament. Though there have been improvements since the acting [Finance] Minister came in, we still believe there has been systematic abuse of the system.”

From a government perspective, Acting Finance Minister Razee claimed that he believed budget discussions had “actually gone quite well”.

He said the approved budget was within the Rf12.37bn first projected earlier this month, but amendments would require it to “take some funds from existing programmes” so they could be invested elsewhere.

Razee said he remained hopeful that the funding would not significantly impact the proposed target for an annual budget deficit of 16 per cent.

However, he conceded that possible amendments to programmes within the budget could yet “be more significant” in terms of their financial impact than anticipated.

When asked if passing proposed amendments to parliamentary privileges such as increased wages for MPs was a failure for a budget aimed at cost reduction, Razee said that the proposals were not part of the government’s original plan.

“These [privileges] were amendments to existing bills,” he said. “Obviously, these amendments that have been provided would have to be approved by the president, who would decide if there was enough revenue to support such an increase.”

Razee added that he did not have the figures on the exact numbers of MPs and party members who had voted to approve the amendments that included the privileges, though he confirmed they “had been passed by the majority”.

“I can’t say why people voted for it, the amendments had included allowances to independent institutions so perhaps they were confused,” he claimed.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Anti-Majlis protests hit the capital’s streets

Hundreds of protesters have today gathered near parliament to call on the abolition of the Majlis, citing anger over the passing of a bill to extend MP privileges within the state budget.

Activists, which sources have claimed support a number of political parties, joined civil servants, NGOs and other workers near the parliament building to protest against the actions of the Majlis, leading police to restrict access to some streets around the area.

The outrage was said to have been sparked yesterday when parliament passed allowances for parliamentarians that the protesters believe is ‘’way too much’’.

According to the new bill, parliamentarians will receive an additional Rf20,000 to their salary for attending committees, while also being allowed to import vehicles without paying any duty on them. The parliament also approved measures to reinstate the salaries of independent commissions, while failing to address the reduced salaries of civil servants.

This decision has led protesters to claim that MPs were working for their self-interest in the name of working for the nation and citizens in their work.

By this afternoon, a group of protesters brought a box written “Majlis Fund” that was passed beyond the police barrier, before they joined others in heavily criticizing the country’s MPs.

As a result, local media reported that tempers also flared within parliament, as rival MPs clashed with each other forcing speaker Abdulla Shahid to cancel today’s sitting. Haveeru said that some MPs had argued to withdraw the bill for amendment, with Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Ahmed Maloof one of the names said to support a repeal of the privileges bill on claims that it was against the “pulse of the people”.

Today’s street protests follow on from similar action undertaken last night by the ‘Tortured Victims Association’, which was disrupted after some people present clashed with the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) parliamentarian group leader Moosa ‘Reeco’ Manik, verbally assaulting him over the issue of budget.

The protest, which involved around 20 to 30 people over practices of torture allegedly committed under the rule of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, ended up as a protest against all the parliamentarians. A few protesters then marched towards the house of Speaker of the Parliament Abdulla Shahid later in the evening.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Majlis amend laws over Rf600,000 a year retirement package to former judge with fraud record

The Majlis yesterday amended the Judges’ Act (13/2010) to award a Rf 53,250 monthly retirement package to former Interim-Supreme Court Justice Mujthaz Fahmy, who was found to have embezzled state funds in 1996.

Former Justice Fahmy claimed, by fraudulent means, Rf900 in overtime pay while working as a judge at former Court No.2 in 1996. A development that casts doubt over his moral character and according to the principle of hadd offences, whether he met the constitutionally-stipulated Islamic qualifications required for the bench.

According to a letter seen by Minivan News that was sent to the Justice Ministry by the Anti-Corruption Board in June 2009, former Justice Fahmy and another judge were said to have deliberately omitted their working hours from attendance records to carry out the deception, and to fraudulently obtain pay for work they had not done.

None of the 77 MPs who were present when the retirement package was passed yesterday raised the question of former Justice Fhamy’s fraud record, despite some MPs openly admitting the package was being introduced especially for the former Justice.

Dismissing any objections to the extraordinary circumstance where the nation’s legislative body passes a law designed for a specific person, Vilufushi MP Riyaz Rasheed said, “Even though it may appear today that this is an amendment proposed for one person only, it is something that we have to do for the future.”

MP Rasheed also pointed out that the People’s Majlis passing a law for the benefit of one particular person is not without precedent. He asked members to recall another similar legislation passed with former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom in mind.

MP Afraasheem Ali, who had introduced one of the amendments, also made it clear that it was a purpose-built package for former Justice Fahmy.

“I believe that it will enhance the strength of the country’s judiciary immensely if we were to award these benefits, as we have proposed in the amendments, to Mr Mujthaz, the judge who recently left the Supreme Court”, MP Afraasheem Ali said.

MP Afraasheem said judges are awarded high salaries and benefits to ensure their ethical and disciplinary standards, and that it is essential for them to continue to be able to uphold their dignity and impeccable ethical standards even after they leave office.

“If a retired Justice were forced to wheel a cart on the street after leaving the bench, it will not give them the respect and the love that they received in office, and still deserve”. That is why, he said, it was essential for Mujthaz – who was specifically named in the Majlis – to be awarded the package.

Constitutional requirements

Article 149 of the 2008 Constitution requires that only those who possess the stipulated educational qualifications and competence, in addition to a “high moral character”, are eligible for the bench.

It also stipulates that only those who “have not been convicted of an offence for which a hadd is prescribed in Islam, criminal breach of trust, or bribery” should be allowed on the bench.

Theft, big or small, is one of the hadd offences prescribed in Islam.

A judge’s required professional qualifications, as stipulated under the Constitution, requires education in Islamic Shari’ah or law in addition to a minimum of seven years experience.

Former Justice Fahmy’s education qualifications, although a matter of public interest, are not publicly available. Documents seen by Minivan News show that in addition to the “Sentencing Certificate” with which former Justice Fahmy first sat on the bench, he has undergone four other training programmes in the last 29 years.

In 1985, he attended a two-month “Training for Island Court Judges”; a four-month “Training to Upgrade Judges” in 1996 – the same year in which he was found to have made fraudulent claims for overtime; a month long “Computer Course conducted by CPL” in 1998; and a four-day training programme conducted for Maldivian Judges and Court Administrators in Singapore in October 2007.

According to these records, Justice Fahmy spent a combined total of roughly eight months –217 days – spread over a period of 26 years training for his career in the judiciary, which ultimately put him on the Interim-Supreme Court bench and has now provided him with the lifetime retirement package of Rf600,000.

The above total does not include the unspecified number of days it took him to acquire the initial “Sentencing Certificate”, but includes the month in 1998 which he took to learn how to use a computer.

There is no record of whether or not former Justice Fahmy had any formal education before acquiring his sentencing ‘sanadh’ or certificate.

A law degree takes an average of four years to obtain, and has higher entry requirements than most other faculties in the humanities.

Article 285 of the Constitution required that the Judicial Service Commission – established to oversee the professional, ethical and disciplinary standards of the judiciary – remove from the bench by August 2010 any sitting judge who did not fit the criteria stipulated in Article 149.

Former Justice Fahmy himself was the Vice Chair of the Judicial Service Commission from 2008 to 2010. He was removed on 7 August 2010, when the Interim Supreme Court was abolished and the Supreme Court proper established in its place. He also lost his seat in the JSC as a result.

MP Afraasheem, who introduced part of the amendments to reward former Justice Fahmy the retirement package, is also on the Judicial Service Commission and was a colleague of former Justice Fahmy.

MP Afraasheem is on record as having said that Article 285 is “symbolic”, suggesting that he does not regard the Constitutional stipulations concerning a judge’s qualifications and moral character as legally binding.

Fonadhoo MP Abdul Raheem Abdulla, who introduced the amendments at Majlis yesterday, is in the Parliamentary Oversight Committee for Independent Commissions, with oversight of the Judicial Service Commission.

Speaker Abdulla Shahid is also a member of the JSC.

MP Afraasheem also proposed to the Majlis yesterday that the benefits package for retired Supreme Court Judges should begin from 7 August 2010. It was the day on which former Justice Fahmy was ousted from the two positions he held – the Interim-Supreme Court bench and the JSC seat.

Job benefits

Minivan News has also learnt that despite Justice Fahmy not having been a member of the judiciary for the last four months, he has continued to receive full salary and benefits “pending a decision by the Majlis”.

The salary for a Supreme Court Justice is Rf51,000, plus Rf20,000 in living allowances.

A “Special Car”, or “Kaaru Kolhu” as well as medical insurance worth Rf12,000 is also part of the monthly remunerations.

The amendments approved by Majlis yesterday also entitles a Supreme Court Justice who retires after 20-25 years of service to two thirds of a serving Supreme Court Justice’s salary.

If the retirement is after 25 years of service, they are entitled to three fourths of the salary. Benefits and other living expenses as well as state protection, and the status of a dignitary are also included in the package.

It will become law if President Nasheed ratifies the amendments within fifteen days of receiving them from the Majlis.

hadd offences
Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Oregon legislators visit Maldives to share experience with Majlis members

Elected representatives from the Oregon state legislature visited the Maldives this week to hold workshops and discussions with the country’s parliament.

State Senator Jackie Dingfelder and State Representative Ben Cannon, both US Democrats, met with the media on Wednesday afternoon to explain their trip to “share experience” of working across party political lines to legislate effectively.

“We’ve heard concerns about the need for a stronger and more independent judiciary, we’ve heard about the need for independent non-partisan staff for parliament, and we’re heard about the need for greater transparency, and a more robust civil society, NGOs, media, and schools,” said Cannon.

The pair said they were “particularly struck” by the Youth Parliament held yesterday at Bandos Island Resort and Spa, where 50 young people have been “engaging and learning what it means to engage issues peacefully in a parliamentary setting.”

“Our goal [in the Maldives] is to share our understanding that under the system of separation of powers that the Maldivian constitution presents, each branch of government has a responsibility to help govern the country, not merely to undermine other branches of government,” Cannon said.

Practically, Dingfelder explained that the two hoped to bring a combined 14 years of experience in legislature to a discussion “of what does it means to work across party lines.’

“We are also talking [with MPs] about implementing and monitoring legislation – both of us work in committees, we’ve worked to pass climate change legislation and been successful at getting through large bills in a bipartisan manner, and following up to make sure legislation is implemented.”

A focus of the discussions, Dingfelder said, would “also be relationship building.”

“We’ve heard that not a not of legislation has been getting through because of fighting – this happens all over the world, it happens in the States, and it certainly happens at a state level.”

One technique for passing bills through a heavily-partisan legislature, she explained, was “to find out what is important to the other legislator. Find out what they would like to see, and come to a compromise in the middle. I start by saying ‘What your end goal?’, instead of: ‘Here’s what I want to do’.”

It was important, she said, for an elected legislator “to be a good listener and hear the other point of view, because if you go in with a closed line saying ‘It’s my way or the highway’, then it makes it harder to reach a compromise.”

Often, she explained, the end goals of both sides were same, and the differences “just about how to get there.”

“Put the campaign aside during session”

Cannon observed that it was important for legislators “to be willing to put the campaign aside – at least for a time.”

“I run every two years, that’s a lot of campaigning,” he said. “But for those six months we are in session, it cannot be primarily about the next elections. You have to believe that your adversaries are also working to further the best interests of the country.”

That, he said, did not mean the campaign goal disappeared – “it doesn’t go away in a democracy, but at least for a time our responsibility is to govern effectively.”

He noted that democracy in the Maldives was old two years old, “and it takes time to build the habits and institutions of effective governance. In the US it has taken us 230 years and we’re still at it. We have not perfected it.”

Many of the challenges facing legislators in the Maldives were the same as those still faced in the US, Cannon noted.

“Each point raised you can say about our own system. [Democracy] is a messy and conflict-ridden process, but we are hopeful that the people of the Maldives will give this experiment the time it needs to prove it is better than the alternatives.”

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)

Deadlock loosens, as landmark Supreme Court ruling establishes separation of powers

The landmark Supreme Court ruling last week over article 171(i) of parliament’s rules of procedure establishes clear legal precedent for the separation of powers, according to Attorney General Dr Ahmed Ali Sawad.

Parliament was cancelled for the entirety of last week because MPs from both major parties kept clashing on points of order over parliament’s endorsement of cabinet ministers, who were reappointed by the President in July after resigning en masse in protest against the “scorched earth politics” of the opposition majority parliament.

Now, the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) argues that cabinet ministers should be endorsed individually, and is reported to have a list of six ministers it wishes to disapprove. The government meanwhile wants a wholesale endorsement of the cabinet, a function it argues is “ceremonial” arguing that a no-confidence procedure already exists.

At the height of the deadlock several weeks ago, which led to opposition protests, the government went to the Supreme Court in late August claiming that Article 171(i), which states that presidential nominees for the cabinet must be questioned by a parliamentary committee “to determine qualification, educational background and competence”, was outside the constitution.

The Supreme Court issued an injunction against parliament debating the endorsement, but consistent derailment of proceedings by DRP MPs led the Speaker to finally cancel all sessions last week.

The Supreme Court ruled last Thursday that while article 171(i) of the parliament’s rules of procedure does not contradict with constitution, it cannot be used in endorsing cabinet ministers.

Dr Sawad said the ruling “clearly establishes that even if the Majlis does something outside its stated precinct in the constitution, such an act will be ultra vires (beyond its powers)”.

“In terms of legal precedent it has established a Supreme Court endorsement of separation of powers theory in the constitution, and identifies the separate legal precincts of the executive, legislature and judiciary,” he added.

While the ruling installs boundaries for parliament, it is unlikely to resolve the deadlock by itself.

“In terms of the deadlock in the Majlis over cabinet confirmation, the ruling says the Majlis cannot put additional stipulations on endorsing ministers. The ruling still leaves it open to political parties to resolve the matter,” Dr Sawad said.

The DRP has been insistent that it will respect the Supreme Court’s ruling, and that its protests were directed not at the Court but at the government’s use of “delaying tactics” to avoid the controversial cabinet endorsement.

DRP MP Ahmed Mahlouf told Minivan News that the party would still seek to have ministers endorsed individually.

Independent MP Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed meanwhile wrote on his personal blog that although Article 6 of the new Judicature Act – which has been in force for over a week now – stipulates that each Justice must announce his verdict separately, both the ruling and the sole dissenting opinion was announced by the Chief Justice.

“I wouldn’t dare say they issued the ruling in violation of the law,” he wrote. “But I can say that the way they acted and how it is laid out in the law is not the same.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Domestic violence accepted and justified in the Maldives, says report

The proposed Domestic Violence Bill will nullify some “God given rights” that no man-made law should be allowed to take away, according to some of the objections raised by MPs when it was debated in the Majlis last week.

“Do not to call upon us to make haraam (forbidden) something that God’s law has permitted us to do. It is when we try to forbid things that God allows us to do that problems begin”, Thimarafushi MP Mohamed Musthafa said, according records of the debate.

Several MPs said various parts of the Bill were against the teachings of Islam, and criticised it for “unduly favouring” women while at the same time making life “extremely difficult” for men, who they said, were wronged by women.

A Ministry of Gender and Family study, the first comprehensive nationwide survey of domestic violence in the Maldives, showed that one in every three women between the ages of 15-49 has been a victim of domestic violence.

It also showed there is general acceptance of domestic violence across the country and among both sexes, as ‘normal’ or ‘justified’.

Seventy percent of Maldivian women believe, for example, that there are circumstances under which a man is justified in beating his wife. Infidelity and disobedience, most women accept, are valid reasons for taking a good beating from the husband.

A majority of women also accept that women have a subordinate role to men, according to the report.

One in every three Maldivian men who commit acts of domestic violence against women do so for ‘no reason’. One in four does it to punish the woman for disobedience, and one in five does it because he is jealous.

One in every ten man beats up his partner because she refused him sex, and the rest of them do it for any number of reasons  – lack of food at home, family problems, because they are broke or unemployed, because they are having problems at work, or because the woman is pregnant.

Seven per cent of the men do it when they are drunk or on drugs.

Continuing his objections to the Bill on religious grounds, MP Musthafa said the Bill would allow the legalisation of abortion, and something that would pave the way for ‘Satanist laws’ to replace the law of God, which the Maldives should be following.

“We are being swayed by non-Islamic people and their beliefs”, he said. He also told the Majlis that Maldivians are allowing the contamination of the society by marrying ‘foreigners from all sorts of places across the world,” he said.

“It is”, he said, “destroying our culture, our Islamic way of life, bringing in all sorts of poisons and viruses into society.”

Islam, he said, recognises the importance that women should be given in society, as is evident from the fact that “it forbids men to wear any jewellery at all while encouraging them to adorn their women with gold and silver”.

Other objections to the Bill were raised on similar religious grounds. MPs Ibrahim Muththalib was concerned that it would become an impediment to the Muslim practise of polygamy. “This is a right accorded to every man by Islam,”
MP Muththalib said.

MPs also expressed concern over what they described as the “unduly harsh” punishments proposed in the Bill.

MP Muththalib said that such punishments would mean the criminalisation of a man’s rightful actions against his wife’s infidelity.

Agreeing with Muththalib on the harshness of the penalties proposed in the Bill, Vilufushi MP Riyaz Rasheed said he feared being locked out of his own home for the day due to his objections to Bill.

“The Bill criminalises too much – the way it is, the particular way a man enters his house may be judged a crime. There are some situations where wives take other men as lovers. In such situations they may make false reports about their husbands – these are things that have happened in this society”, he said.

Hoarafushi MP Ahmed Rasheed, who also voiced strong objections to the Bill, said some of the injuries suffered by women were the result of accidents caused by cramped living conditions rather than the result of violence by men.

“A woman walks down a narrow alley. She trips over pots and pans. In reality, it is not that some one deliberately tripped her…The reality is the circumstances – how can a fat person walk on a two feet alleyway without tripping?” MP Rasheed said.

According to the Gender Ministry report, one in every three Maldivian women are subjected to violence – sometimes physical, sometimes sexual or, more often than not, both. Most of the violence is committed by the man they are married to, or are in a relationship with.

Much of the physical violence to which they are subjected is ‘severe’ rather than ‘moderate’ – they are punched, kicked, choked, or burnt. Most of the violence is also long term, some times life-long.  Many are often beaten into consciousness, and most victims never receive medical treatment for their injuries.

Several are brutally beaten up while pregnant, causing miscarriages or still births. Women who suffer domestic violence are more likely to have unwanted pregnancies than those who are not. Their children are also more likely to suffer long term psychological damage due to the violent environment to which they are exposed.

Women who have suffered domestic violence are twice as likely to have suicidal thoughts than women have not. 14 percent of women who had experienced such violence have attempted to take their own lives. The prohibition of suicide in Islam, the Gender Ministry report says, is one the reasons why the suicide rate among such victims is not higher.

The violence is more common in long term, cohabiting relationships than in short-term or non-cohabiting relationships.  Almost half the women who are abused have never been to school or only have a primary level education.

Women who are divorced or separated are more likely to have suffered at the hands of their partners, suggesting that violence is an important cause of the large number of divorces in the Maldives.

Most women never complain, because there are no mechanisms available for them to do so. Or they feel that complaining would stigmatise them socially. Or they fear retaliation by the husbands if they do so.

Over ninety percent of the women who were abused had never gone to the police and almost fifty percent of the women said no one had ever helped them.

The Gender Ministry study also found that women only find the strength to escape, to leave the house and to leave the abusive relationship they are in when they felt they could not endure any more.

It is when they feel that they are in mortal danger that they manage to start the long drawn out process of finding a life outside of the home in which they had suffered for so long.

In the Majlis debate over the Bill, many MPs objected to what they perceived as a bias against men in the Bill.

“We accept that some husbands do beat their wives. But there are women who commit more extraordinary, bigger acts of violence against men. Violence is not always a physical fight. One woman wants to marry a younger man after she has had 10 or 12 children”, Vilufushi MP Rasheed said. “This is also violence”.

Despite the objections, MPs actively promoting the Bill, introduced by Opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Rozaina Adam, told Minivan last week they were optimistic it will be passed after it is sent to a special committee to refine the particulars.

The Parliament is currently deadlocked after the Supreme Court granted the government a temporary injunction on Monday, blocking the endorsing of cabinet ministers until a ruling on the process can be issued.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At least we think so.

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

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

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

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

But much has happened since then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Death penalty and Shari’a are the answer to escalating violence in the Maldives, say MPs

Imposing the death penalty, following Shari’a, and harsher prison conditions are the best way forward for solving the increasing violence in Maldivian society, several MPs have stated.

Fares-Maathodaa MP Ibrahim Muththalib said the major problem faced by society today is the decision of the criminal justice system to ignore Shari’a. “We cast aside the Shari’a and adopted man-made sentencing laws”, he said, making today’s violent society possible.

“Instead of being put to death, murderers are allowed to languish in prisons, given the opportunity to get married and to procreate. We cannot stop the violence without stopping such practices. We cannot stop such problems without a death for death policy”, Muththalib told the Majlis.

“I believe that if you impose the death sentence on just two people in this country, there will no longer be anyone left who will kill. If you amputate the hands of two people in this country, there will be no more thieves left. We have to think about how we can establish these principles of Islam”, Muththalib said.

The debate began after an emergency motion tabled by Hoarafushi MP Ahmed Rasheed on Monday to discuss the violent murder of 81-year-old business man, Hussein Manik, on September 27 in Hoarafushi.

“Those who kill should be killed”, Rasheed said, introducing the motion. “We should amend our penal system to ensure that those who endanger the lives of others would be held in solitary confinement for life, and are never eligible for parole”, Rasheed told the Majlis.

If the murderers of Mohamed, or “any criminals of the sort” should ever return to Hoarafushi, he said, he would personally lead a campaign to provide justice to the people of the island. “I will not hesitate, even if it means that I personally get entangled in the law.”

Madaveli MP Mohamed Nazim agreed that the death penalty, as in the Shari’a, was the answer. “Islam is unequivocal that the penalty for death should be death”. The current violence in the country is a consequence of ignoring or violating the teachings of Islam, he said.

“Otherwise, had we maintained the principle of death for death the murderer would not be there to kill again, or to encourage others to kill. The problems we are confronting today is a consequence of ignoring this principle, which would have set an example for the Ummah and the nation’, he said.

Nazim also said there is no need to amend the country’s murder laws, as the death penalty already exists. “I do not see anything in the penal code that says the penalty for murder should be changed to 25 years imprisonment”.

Nazim said that unless and until the death penalty is imposed, as it is stated in the current penal code, the escalating violence in the Maldives could not be stopped.

Thoddoo MP Ali Waheed attributed the increase in violent crime to the lack of proper prisons. “People who should be behind bars are sitting around on the beaches, sucking on butts and all sorts of things – this is the result”, he said.

Drugs, agreed several MPs, were the main cause for the increase in violence in the Maldives. “We know that sometimes people can get intoxicated to such an extent that they become unaware of their own actions. Sometimes murder can be committed,” said Vilifushi area MP Riyaz Rasheed.

MPs themselves should set a good example, and allegations of intoxicating substances being found in their places of residence or their vehicles are not helping matters, Riyaz Rasheed said.

“Pictures of official delegations abroad show them drinking some sort of a yellow liquid”, he said. Unless such ways are amended, there would be no solution to the social problems of the Maldives today, Riyaz Rasheed said.

Maavashu member Abdul Azeez Jamal Abubakr suggested that religious scholars can make the most important contribution to the problems in society. Perjury, he said, is a major problem in Maldivian courts.

The gravity of such an act, as stated in Islam, should be made clear. “It is incumbent upon religious scholars to relay the ominous penalties that await such actions in Islam”, he said.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)