Tag: MDP

MVR 15.3 billion state budget might not last until end of next year: Finance Minister

Finance Minister Abdulla Jihad has claimed that the MVR 15.3 billion (US$992 million) state budget approved by parliament this week might not last until the end of 2013 – requiring supplementary finance for the state.

Parliament reduced Jihad’s proposed budget of MVR 16.9 billion (US$1 billion) by more than MVR 1 billion (US$64.8) before passing it on Thursday (December 27).

Jihad told local media today that a supplementary budget may have to be implemented at some point next year should the funds allocated by parliament not be enough to cover expenses.

Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom today told Minivan News that concerns expressed by Jihad concerning the budget were “reasonable” given that the Finance Minister had originally requested a larger figure to see out state spending for the year.

“For the government to function properly I would not be surprised if they need the supplementary budget to be introduced. If it is, I should imagine it will be in the last quarter of 2013, after the election,” said Mausoom.

Earlier this month, Parliament’s Budget Review Committee had proposed MVR2.4billion (US$156 million) worth of cuts that some of its members claimed had been made had largely by reducing “unnecessary recurrent expenditures” within the budget.

However, the budget was eventually passed with MVR 1 billion (US$64.8) in cuts by 41 votes in favour, 28 against and no abstentions. The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MPs voted against the budget.

Jihad today told Sun Online that with services being provided by the government having doubled, it would become more difficult for the government to manage its budget.

“Because the budget is reduced, it will become difficult to manage expenses at a certain point. We think that a supplementary budget has to be introduced,” he was quoted as saying.

Due to the amendments in the budget made by the parliament, Jihad said the state had been forced to reduce spending. According to the Finance Minister, talks have already taken place with various offices to reduce their budgets.

“We don’t have any other choice. Due to the amendments brought into areas that were planned for further revenue generation, we have to reduce the expenses,” Jihad told Sun Online.

Jihad, State Finance Minister Abbas Adil Riza and Economic Development Minister Ahmed Mohamed were not responding to calls from Minivan News at time of press.

Budget amendments

The estimated MVR 15.3 million budget was passed by parliament with eight additional amendments at Thursday’s sitting.

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

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

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

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

Budget cuts

The Budget Review Committee approved cuts of MVR 1.6 billion (US$103.7 million) to Jihad’s proposed state budget of MVR 16.9 billion, however added MVR 389 million (US$25.2million) for infrastructure projects on islands.

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

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

Rightsizing the public sector to reduce deficit

Aidst proposals to balance state spending during 2013, recommendations to reduce the public sector wage were made by the Auditor General and submitted to parliament prior to the budget being passed.

Auditor General Niyaz Ibrahim observed that of the estimated MVR 12 billion (US$778 million) of recurrent expenditure, MVR 7 billion (US$453.9 million) would be spent on employees, including MVR 743 million (US$48 million) as pension payments.

Consequently, 59 percent of recurrent expenditure and 42 percent of the total budget would be spent on state employees.

“We note that the yearly increase in employees hired for state posts and jobs has been at a worrying level and that sound measures are needed,” the report (Dhivehi) stated. “It is unlikely that the budget deficit issue could be resolved without making big changes to the number of state employees as well as salaries and allowances to control state expenditure.”

Following the report, the The Budget Review Committee made cuts to overtime pay (50 percent), travel expenses (50 percent), purchases for office use (30 percent), office expenditure (35 percent), purchases for service provision (30 percent), training costs (30 percent), construction, maintenance and repair work (50 percent) and purchase of assets (35 percent).

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Political parties bill designed to “eradicate” Islamic ideology: Adhaalath Party leadership

Leaders of the religious conservative Adhaalath Party have claimed legislation passed by parliament last week requiring political parties to have a minimum of 10,000 registered members was a direct attempt to dissolve the party.

If the political parties bill passed on Thursday is signed into law, parties without 10,000 members would have three months to reach the legally required number or face being dissolved.

At a press conference on Saturday, Adhaalath Party Leader Sheikh Imran Abdulla said he suspected that “black money” from Indian infrastructure company GMR was behind the decision to insert the clause requiring 10,000 members.

Imran said the bill was intended to “eradicate” Islamic ideology from Maldivian politics and “defeat” the party’s efforts to oppose alleged attempts to secularise the country.

Imran claimed that “a person with a brain would not deny” that the decision by parliament’s Independent Institutions Committee to raise the prerequisite to 10,000 members from 5,000 at a late stage was made “because Adhaalath Party would be disqualified at that number.”

He further contended that the party’s recent campaigns to “reclaim the airport” from the GMR-led consortium and “reform parliament” was also “connected to passing that bill.”

“This is a big political and legal challenge [they] placed before Adhaalath Party. The way the political sphere in the country is shaped today, it is very important for a political party like Adhaalath Party to exist,” he said.

Imran also argued that the bill also violated the constitutional principle of equality.

Following preliminary debate in early 2010, the political parties bill was reviewed and finalised by the Independent Institutions Committee on December 10, 2012.

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

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

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

The political parties bill was passed with 64 votes in favour and four against.

According to figures from the Elections Commission (EC), Adhaalath Party has 5,881 as of December 27. In October 2011, the party had 6,140 members.

Only four parties out of 16 registered in the country have more than 10,000 members, including the formerly ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) and government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM), Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) and Jumhooree Party (JP).

Speaking at yesterday’s press conference, Islamic Minister Sheikh Mohamed Shaheem Ali Saeed, chief spokesperson of the party, dismissed the notion that the minimum requirement of 10,000 members was approved for economic reasons as political parties were provided funds from the state budget.

Shaheem criticised provisions in recently-passed legislation on MPs’ privileges guaranteeing retirement pensions after one term as well as overseas medical treatment for MPs’ family members as untenable expenses by the state.

“When a MP serves a five-year term, the state has to pay him till he goes to the grave. And [the state] has to take care of him and his family,” Shaheem said.

If state funding for small political parties was too costly, Shaheem argued that a monthly pay of more than MVR 12,000 for island councillors was excessive as well.

Five-member councils in islands with very small populations had “nothing at all to do,” he claimed.

Housing Minister Dr Mohamed Muiz meanwhile said that the membership clause was intended to get rid of the religious conservative party due to its efforts “on behalf of Islam” in recent years.

Muiz referred to the Adhaalath Party’s successful campaign against proposed regulations to authorise sale of alcohol in city hotels as well as its opposition to making Dhivehi and Islam non-compulsory subjects in higher secondary education. He claimed that the party also put a stop to former President Mohamed Nasheed’s attempts to strengthen ties with Israel and “bring Jews” to allow them to “exert influence in the country”.

Muiz, who also serves as the Adhaalath Party’s secretary general, called on “all citizens who love Islam” to sign up for the party.

Sheikh Ilyas Hussain, head of the party’s religious scholars council, meanwhile claimed that efforts to get rid of Adhaalath Party were intended to “erase” Islam from the Maldives and “spread secular activities in society.”

Following the parliament’s vote on the political parties bill, Adhaalath Party Sheikh Mohamed Iyash wrote on the party’s website last week that it was “essential for religious people to have political power given the state of the Maldives.”

“Religion and politics cannot be separated. Calls by some secular individuals to separate religion and politics are dangerous,” he wrote in response to a purported question regarding the “Shariah judgment” on signing for Adhaalath Party.

“Their [secular individuals’] intention is for religious scholars to not criticise any affairs of state and just stay in mosques praying and giving religious advice,” he wrote, adding that it was compulsory upon all Muslims to “enjoin good and forbid evil.”

A “religious political party” in the Maldives was therefore “necessary and obligatory,” he contended.

“Adhaalath Party is the only party formed to protect religion in the country. To say that all other political parties were formed for worldly purposes would not be demeaning them,” he added.

Sheikh Iyash wrote that it was “a big responsibility of every Maldivian citizen to find a way to maintain Adhaalath Party in existence.”

The Adhaalath Party has announced that it would hold a rally on Thursday night to launch a recruitment drive to increase membership.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Department of Immigration and Emigration transferred to Defence Ministry

Responsibility for overseeing the Department of Immigration and Emigration has been switched to the Ministry of Defence and National Security.

According to the President’s Office, the decision to transfer the department to within the mandate of the Ministry of Defence was taken to make administration of the country’s immigration system more efficient.

The Immigration department had previously been operated under the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Immigration Controller Dr Mohamed Ali was not responding to calls at the time of press.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Political parties bill passed with 10,000 member prerequisite

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament passes bill redefining limitations on freedom of assembly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right to assemble

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not an ideal time to tamper with fundamental rights: MDP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likes(1)Dislikes(0)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Party Primaries, a fundamental aspect of democracy: MDP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PPM Presidential Primaries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Yameen Abdul Gayoom identifies youth and economy as key focus for primary campaign

Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Parliamentary Group Leader MP Yameen Abdul Gayoom has said that “youth” and the “economy” will be the key focus of his campaign to stand as presidential candidate for his party in general elections scheduled for next year.

Yameen, half-brother of former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, told Minivan News today that as he prepared to launch his campaign for the PPM Presidential Primary – expected to be held early next year – no decision was as yet taken on a potential running mate should he win.

“There is still time for that. All will be done in good time,” he said via SMS, without elaborating further on his presidential aspirations.

Yameen also did not comment on whether he would continue to contest in the primaries in the event former President Gayoom also opted to stand.

The presidential Primary of the PPM is scheduled to take place after its long-delayed national congress, which is presently scheduled between January 17 to January 19, 2013.

Volunteer drive

Yameen’s comments were made as PPM Interim Vice President Umar Naseer was reported in local media as yesterday (December 22) holding his own ceremony to try to recruit 300 volunteers from the party’s 17,900 strong membership to assist with his own primary campaign.

Local newspaper Haveeru quoted Umar as claiming that some 250 volunteers signed up for his campaign last night.

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

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

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

Umar was not responding to calls from Minivan News at the time of press.

Likely candidates

Earlier this month, Umar claimed that he and MP Yameen Abdul Gayoom were seen as the most likely candidates to contest the PPM’s primary elections scheduled for February 2013, following the party’s upcoming congress.

However, other key figures have yet to rule themselves out of the running, most notably former president Gayoom himself, who told Indian newspaper The Hindu on December 11 that he may consider contesting in a presidential election presently expected to be held in August or September next year.

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

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

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

Despite his current support, Umar Naseer, in an interview with Al Jazeera in November 2007 alongside (now) former President Mohamed Nasheed and then-Information Minister Mohamed ‘Kutti’ Nasheed, stated that Gayoom had “failed” in running the country and urged him to step down.

“The best thing for the Maldives at the moment is for Mr Gayoom to step down,” Naseer said. “He has failed in all areas. As far as education is concerned, he has failed. Security he has failed. Corruption, he has failed. All these areas, he has failed. He must step down,” Naseer said, speaking then as President of his own Islamic Democratic Party (IDP).

Beyond Gayoom, local media and senior politicians have previously speculated that President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan could also be a potential PPM candidate to stand in next year’s general elections.

However, Gayoom, in his most recent interview with the Hindu newspaper, suggested that such a development could only happen if the president joined his party.

Gayoom has previously welcomed the prospect of President Waheed competing in a primary for the party’s ticket.

“The president, or anyone else, can join PPM if they want, and if they win the [party’s] primary, they will become our presidential candidate,” he said at the time.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Elections Commission looking into MDP’s revolution calls

The Elections Commission (EC) has confirmed it is investigating calls made by the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) earlier this month to try and overthrow the current government through an ‘Ingilaab’ (revolution).

Former President Mohamed Nasheed on December 11 called for a “revolution” to overthrow the administration of President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan, claiming it is the only way to have a government that is “by the people”.

The motion was later passed the same day by the National Council of the MDP at Kulhudhuhfushi in Haa Dhaal Atoll.

Vice President of the Elections Commission Ahmed Fayaz stated today that the commission had received a complaint concerning the MDP’s motion, and hence had begun looking into the matter.

“Our in-house legal team is working along with an external firm of lawyers who sometimes provide legal advice to our commission. The commissioners will be discussing the matter only when the legal team finishes their review,” he said.

Fayaz further added that he did not know when the commission would be able to come to a decision on the matter, saying it all depended on how fast the legal team manages to review the matter.

Fayaz said that the legal team would need to review the definition of what an ‘Ingilaab’ or revolution is, and what the constitution and accompanying laws and regulations stated on the matter before deciding whether or not action needed to be taken against MDP.

“We cannot comment on what the outcome may be before the legal review is completed. We don’t even know yet what action, if any, will have to be taken against the MDP,” Fayaz said.

MDP Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor defined ‘Ingilaab’ as bringing about a change. He declined from commenting on the complaint currently being looked at by the EC.

The complaint is reported to have been registered with the EC earlier this month by Ibrahim Manik of Henveiru Finifenmaage Aage.  Manik was reported to have requested at the time that action be taken against the MDP’s plans for a revolution “at the earliest”.

“Since my mind believes that the MDP National Council’s decision to topple the government through a revolution may weaken the country politically, socially, economically and in the area of military defences, and the country may be faced with an unrecoverable loss, I am pleading with your commission with respect, love and affection to take necessary action against this without the slightest delay,” local media reports Manik to have said in his letter to the EC.

Meanwhile, former President and interim President of the Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Maumoon Abdul Gayoom has previously labelled the MDP’s resolution to bring about a revolution as a “criminal offence.”

Gayoom further said at the time that MDP’s announcement to commit the offence must be met with the due penalty, adding that the idea to orchestrate a revolution could not be entertained, stating: “It is an offence to even speak of such a thing.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Home minister confident ahead of parliamentary no-confidence vote

Home Minister Dr Mohamed Jameel Ahmed has said he expects to successfully defend himself within the People’s Majlis against a no-confidence motion submitted this month by the opposition Maldivan Democratic Party (MDP).

Local media reported Friday (December 21) that Parliamentary Speaker Abdulla Shahid has sent the required 14-day notice to Dr Jameel informing him of a second no-confidence motion submitted by the MDP against him.

The motion was forwarded by the opposition party over allegations the home minister had failed to control civil peace and order in the country. A previous motion submitted by the MDP against Dr Jameel was withdrawn by the party for unexplained reasons.

Earlier this month, parliament also tabled a no-confidence motion filed against Defence Minister Colonel (Retired) Mohamed Nazim, despite a Supreme Court injunction ordering parliament to halt all pending no-confidence votes.

The People’s Majlis secretariat revealed at the time that Defence Minister Nazim has been given the required 14-day notice and his ministry also duly informed by Speaker Abdulla Shahid. A no-confidence motion against President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan is also in parliament awaiting scheduling.

Confirming that the 14 day notice ahead of the second no-confidence vote against him had now been received, Dr Jameel claimed he expected to successfully defend himself from the motion, as would other senior government representatives.

“[The no-confidence motion] is part of a democratic process that the government of the day must always be prepared to face. I feel it’s equally vital for those of us sitting in the government to inform the public and People’s Majlis of our performance and decisions.”

“I am sure once our side of the story is heard by the Majlis, the concerns and charges raised in the motion will become clearer and will be seen as baseless. It’s important in such a motion, in my opinion, to appear in the Majlis and fully cooperate with this democratic exercise,” he told Minivan News.

Dr Jameel added that the would not comment on whether he felt the MDP could garner enough support for the motion, referring the question to the opposition party.

MDP allegations

After last week submitting the bill, which was backed by 17 of MDP MPs, the opposition party accused the Home Minister of  failing to control law and order in the country and therefore holding ultimate responsibility for the loss of eight lives.

The MDP further referred to an incident in which a police officer struck a speeding motorcyclist with his baton.  The action caused the vehicle – alleged to have been driven by a suspected robber – to collide with another man’s motorcycle and killing him.

Police at the time did not reveal the involvement of the police officer in the death of the bystander. Video footage of the incident was subsequently leaked to the media.  The MDP alleged that Home Minister Jameel had tried to cover up police involvement in the death.

MDP MP and Spokesperson Hamid Abdul Ghafoor claimed there was sufficient support in the Majlis to back the three no-confidence motions the party submitted against Dr Jameel, President Waheed and Defense Minister Nazim.

“We believe it is possible and necessary to [pursue the no confidence motions]. If you look at all cases, it is quite clear that all have acted unconstitutionally. This applies to all three cases,” he said.

In light of the government’s recent decision to terminate a sovereign agreement with India-based infrastructure group GMR over developing Ibrahim Nasir International Airport (INIA), Ghafoor contended that sufficient support remained in parliament to vote against the government in all three cases.

“We believe there are enough sensible MPs who understand the need for a legal ouster of an unelected executive,” he claimed.

Ghafoor added that the party was confident that a majority of MPs would not continue to allow what he alleged was the growing role of radicalism within the executive’s decision.  He contended this influence had been seen in the government’s attitude against not only parliament, but foreign investment in the form of GMR.

“You have a government without any democratic mandate taking major decisions against parliament and foreign investors,” he added.

Earlier this week, government-aligned Progressive Party of Maldives (PPM) Parliamentary Group Leader and MP Abdulla Yameen alleged in local media that any damage to relations between India and the Maldives following the GMR contract termination had been the result of the actions of the National Movement.

The National Movement is made up of several representatives in the coalition government of President Waheed, notably including the religious conservative Adhaalath Party (AP).

During an interview with private broadcaster DhiTV on Tuesday (December 18), Yameen claimed that the airport was not withdrawn from GMR due to the pressure of National Movement, which had strongly opposed the deal, but rather a unanimous decision by the coalition government.

However, Yamin alleged that during rallies held by the National Movement, some participants spoke in a tone about GMR and the airport development that might have caused diplomatic issues with India.

According to Sun Online, Yameen was also quoted as claiming that the ongoing protests and rallies being held by the National Movement were unnecessary.  He added that the Maldives might have to face difficulties due to the recent activities of the National Movement.

Days earlier, National Movement steering committee member and Minister of State for Finance Abbas Adil Riza said efforts would be taken to “break up” parliament should its dispute with the Supreme Court over holding temporary secret ballots for upcoming no-confidence votes continue.

However, speaking on December 9, government-aligned Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Abdulla Mausoom stated there was no ‘spirit’ within his party to support the no-confidence motion against Defence Minister Mohamed Nazim.

Mausoom said although the DRP would support no-confidence motions against cabinet ministers where it thought such actions were justified, he believed the party would not back the Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) in trying to remove Nazim as defence chief as part of what he believed was a “personal vendetta”.

Mausoom contended that, for the vote against Defence Minister Nazim at least, the MDP would not be able to pass such “personal vendetta-based motions” and repeated his claim that the motion lacked sufficient grounds to be supported.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)