Tag: MPs

Comment: Parliament is laughing at you

What a laugh the Majlis is having at the people’s expense. If voting to give themselves the extra MRF20,000 (US$1300) was like spitting people in the face, having the pay cheque backdated is like rubbing the polity’s face in the MPs’ bejewelled excrement.

For what is this money being rewarded? For emotional distress caused by having to bend to the people’s will for eight arduous months? Has life really been that tough on MRF60,000 US$(3900) a month that MPs need financial redress for their suffering?

It really must have been difficult coming up to Ramadan, having to forgo one or many of all those pre-Ramadan MP necessities. No pre-fasting trips to Bangkok, no spiritual rejuvenation trips to Sri Lanka, no shopping trips to Malaysia, no tri-annual holiday abroad for the parliamentary off spring.

Having had to endure a month in which the prices from fish to furniture have gone beyond the common man’s reach, the collective empathy of the people are no doubt with the Majlis.

Kudos to the 17 who have said they do not want the allowance.  Most fascinating, though, are the 16 who abstained. Would the allowance have been possible without them?

How complex and nuanced a question is: do you think you deserve the MRF20,000 a month at a time of grave national debt? It requires a simple yes or no answer – you are either with the people or you are not. Sitting on the fence on this question is even more self-serving than those who voted to keep the allowance – at least they were honest.

And then there are the MPs who are speaking out against the proposed income tax. On the grounds that it applies only to a small percentage of the population! Taxing the small percentage of the mega rich who have this country in a stranglehold, and letting the poor escape the burden – that is the purpose of it, one would have thought. In some MPs’ books, taxes should be equal – this is some people’s understanding of democracy, alas.

The avarice in the parliament is widespread, and its connections to big money are many. On the day of the salary vote at the Public Accounts Committee, its Chairman Ahmed ‘Jangiya’ [Panties] Nazim was in court for allegedly embezzling money from the public coffers to the tune of US$400,000.

If MPs stuck the polity’s face in their excrement, the Criminal Court’s decision to ban the media from MP Nazim’s court hearings buried the public in shallow graves dug in the same matter.

The accused is the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, the man who chairs the meetings at which decisions are made on how public accounts are to be balanced. He stands charged with fraud. If this is not a matter of public interest, then what is?

And what does the Criminal Court’s justification for the decision to ban the media even mean? Article 42 of the Constitution, to which the Court referred in its decision, says courts can only exercise their discretion to exclude the media if doing otherwise would disrupt public order, public morality or national security. None of these issues are at play here.

If the Criminal Court’s decision to gag the media refers to ‘other special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice’ as said in Article 42, what the Court is effectively saying is that it is open to suggestion by every lowly hack out there.

The ‘democratic norms’, only according to which the discretionary powers in Article 42 are to be exercised, has long established that dangers of prejudice by media criticism arises where a jury is involved – not in cases where judges are sitting alone.

Unlike a jury of 12 ordinary people, judges – assumed to have achieved higher levels of education and higher levels of ethics and morality than ordinary people – are seen as above outside influence, and able to make a ruling based solely on the evidence before him.

By saying the court cannot come to a fair and impartial ruling because of what is being said in the media, it is clearly admitting that the judge sitting alone is easily influenced and cannot be trusted.

Perhaps balancing the people’s right to freedom of expression with an accused person’s right to a fair trial was not a module covered in the Sentencing Certificate?

The media should be in an uproar over this gagging order. Apart from a statement from the Media Council, however, there has been nothing.

Where is the Maldives Journalists Association with their usual indignation? Where is the Maldives National Journalists Association? Where are the highly paid members of the Broadcasting Commission? Where is the burgeoning ‘free press’?

Will the real Fourth Estate please stand up?

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)

Quarter of all parliament sittings disrupted, report finds

A quarter of all parliamentary sittings last year were terminated due to disruption, a report into the legislature’s performance last year by Transparency Maldives (TM) has found.

The Parliament Watch report, produced with UNDP support, draws on attendance and voting data obtained from the parliament secretariat.

Attendance data shows that shows that 22 MPs were absent for 35 sittings of parliament – more than a third of the total number held.

In addition to the four months of recess, 13 MPs took casual leave for 58 days – almost two months – while 20 MPs took 38 days leave. Only seven of the 77 MPs attended all sittings of parliament.

Notable absentees included Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Ali Mohamed, who was absent for 52 consectutive votes, and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MP Nazim Rashaad, who missed blocks of 34 and 19 consecutive votes with only several days in between.

Independent MP Ahmed Shiyam Mohamed was among those who attended the least number of votes, and was absent for 84.

The report’s “highlights” of the first session of parliament included the dismissal of the Auditor General (and failure to approve a replacement for over a year), and the provision of Rf 2 million in media subsidies to the two wealthiest opposition-supporting private broadcasters, one of which is owned by a sitting MP.

Performance evaluation

The report also interviewed 15 MPs from a spread of parties and seven professionals from the media, civil society and legal sectors in an attempt to evaluate parliament’s performance.

It found that the strongest perceived aspect of parliament was the relative freedom MPs had “to express their opinions freely, without executive and legal interference,” although interviewees noted significant under-representation of women.

Parliament’s oversight of the executive was also highlighted for its autonomy over the government and scrutiny of appointments to executive posts, although the effectiveness of committees scored poorly.

The weakest area of parliament, TM found, was accountability, particularly the public acceptability of the procedure whereby members determined their salaries.

This was highlighted in one of parliament’s first votes of the June session, in which MPs voted against a motion to cut a controversial Rf20,000 in committee allowances – an effective 33 percent salary increase that sees Maldivian MPs earning on par with those in Sweden. A quarter of the chamber was absent during the vote.

The report highlighted oversight of party and candidate funding, procedures for preventing financial conflicts of interest, and reporting back to constituents as particular areas of weakness.

Based on its findings and interviews conducted, the report makes a number of recommendations. These include:

  • Fulfilling parliament’s constitutional obligation to publicise financial and other interests of MPs submitted to parliament. The report noted that the disclosure of such interests “should extend to the MP’s immediate children, spouse and parents”;
  • Prioritising bills of national interest, as bills vital to the state and preservation of justice, such as the evidence bill, right to information bill, political parties bill, penal code bill and drugs bill “remain stagnated at committee stage”;
  • Incentivising MPs to consult their constituencies, as despite allowances paid for such, “few MPs – if any – operate offices”;
  • Assessing the financial and governance impact of bills before they were passed, as bills such as the Public Finance Act and Decentralisation Act contained conflicting clauses;
  • Increasing the participation of women in parliament so as to ensure a balanced gender perspective;
  • Developing the infrastructure and human resource capacity of the secretariat, both of which were insufficient, as were the quality of documentation produced and its accessibility.~

Read the full Parliament Watch report

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Quarter of chamber absent as MPs approve themselves Rf20,000 in committee allowances

The parliament yesterday rejected a resolution presented by Dhivehi Rayithunge Party (DRP) MP Ahmed Mahlouf to cut Rf20,000 in committee allowances on top of MPs’ existing salaries.

The controversial allowances would see MP’s existing monthly salary and allowances rise from Rf62,500 (US$4053) to over US$5350 – higher than the per capita annual income of US$5000 for an ordinary Maldivian.

Prior to the government’s devaluation of the rufiya this would have put MP earnings on par with MPs in developed countries such as Sweden. At the official pegged rate of Rf12.85 an Maldivian MP would take home over US$7000,  outearning an MP in France.

Out of the 58 MPs present, 17 MPs voted to accept Mahlouf’s resolution and cut the committee allowance while 20 voted in favor of keeping it. 16 MPs abstained from voting. 19 were absent – almost a quarter of the chamber.

Minivan News attempted to obtain a breakdown of the vote by MP, however this section of parliament’s website was not functioning at time of press.

The resolution to cut the committee allowance was first presented to the parliament during the last term of the parliament by Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Chairperson and MP Mariya Didi, who reluctantly withdrew it after the party’s parliamentary group’s majority ordered her to do so.

After widespread public criticism at the decision – made at the same time as the country is attempting to reform its way out of a crippling budget deficit – many opposition and MDP MPs announced they would refuse to accept the committee allowance if it was retained.

However during  parliament’s session yesterday, MPs attacked Mahlouf for presenting the resolution to cut the allowances.

Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP) MP Riyaz Rasheed alleged that Mahlouf was attempting to gain more support from the public by presenting the resolution, and claimed that his intention was to portray himself as ‘’a good MP.’’

Mahlouf said he presented the resolution because due to the introduction of committee allowances, the parliament had become the subject of heavy criticism.

”By presenting the resolution to the parliament I believe my lawful duty is fulfilled, It is not for me to decide how the MPs should vote,” Mahlouf told Minivan News. ”However, it is a regrettable decision made by the parliament.”

Mahlouf said he believed that parliamentarians were already paid an adequate salary and there was no need to increase it.

”The objectives of the MDP are questionable since this was [resolution was dismissed] with their new majority of parliament,” he said. ”I do not have issues with critics, but it wasn’t my intention to gain fame and support -there are other ways I can gain fame and support.”

MDP MP Ahmed Easa said recently that he did not support the committee allowance, but he acknowledged that the MPs who did support the allowance “have reasonable points.”

”It’s true what they say – MPs have so much to do with their salary each month. People can’t even imagine how many calls a MP receives each day asking for help,” Easa explained.

“Anyone in trouble from any area will run to their MP first. MPs have to lend money to people in need of medication, even for reasons such as people coming to get money to pay the school fees of their children.”

Easa also explained that most of the MPs were not from Male’, which forced them to live in rented apartments.

”As everyone knows, a standard apartment’s rent in Male’ will be Rf10000-20000 (US$750-US$1500), and what about all the phone calls that MPs have to make, that costs an additional Rf5000 (US$375) each month, and what about their family, wife and kids?” he asked, claiming that MPs “already have to spend most of their salary on society.”

MP’s salaries compared:

Maldives
MP’s monthly salary (US $): 5350 @ Rf15.42, including allowances
GDP (US $) (2009 est): 1.683 billion
Current Account Balance (US $) (2009 est): -$370 million

Sri Lanka
MP’s monthly salary (US $):877
Plus Rs 500 for every parliamentary session
GDP (US $) (2009 est): 96.47 billion
Current Account Balance (US $) (2009 est):-$291 million

India
MP’s monthly salary (US $):5,966
GDP (US $) (2009 est):3.68 trillion
Current Account Balance (US $) (2009 est):-$26.63 billion

Singapore
MP’s monthly salary (US $):9,264
GDP (US $) (2009 est):251.2 billion
Current Account Balance (US $) (2009 est):32.63 billion

UK
MP’s monthly salary (US $):8,552
GDP (US $) (2009 est):2.123 trillion
Current Account Balance (US $) (2009 est):-$23.65 billion

US
MP’s monthly salary (US $):14,500
GDP (US $) (2009 est):14.12 trillion
Current Account Balance (US $) (2009 est):-$378.4 billion

Australia
MP’s monthly salary (US $):9,687
GDP (US $) (2009 est):321.6 billion
Current Account Balance (US $) (2009 est):8.73 billion

France
MP’s monthly salary (US $):6,651
GDP (US $) (2009 est):2.094 trillion
Current Account Balance (US $) (2009 est):-$51.86 billion

Italy
MP’s monthly salary (US $):6,936
GDP (US $) (2009 est):1.737 trillion
Current Account Balance (US $) (2009 est):-$66.2 billion

Sweden
MP’s monthly salary (US $):7,298
GDP (US $) (2009 est):335.1 billion
Current Account Balance (US $) (2009 est):30.23 billion

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Mahlouf submits resolution to delay parliament’s recess until critical bills are passed

Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) MP Ahmed Mahlouf has submitted a resolution to the parliament to delay its recess until parliament concludes the Criminal Justice Procedure Bill, Evidence Bill, Parole Bill, Amendment to Children’s Act, Amendment to Gang Violence Act and Crime Prevention Bill.

Mahlouf told Minivan News that he presented the resolution in the hope that MPs will hasten their work and put more effort to pass those bills as soon as possible.

”The crimes occurring in the Maldives are now a very big concern for the citizens and they have expectations from the parliament,” Mahlouf said. ”I think the parliament should pass these bills before going to recess, which will play an important role to curb the gang violence and crime at the same time.”

The parliament is scheduled to go on recess on the first of next month, he said.

In parliament today Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) Parliamentary Group leader MP ‘Reeko’ Moosa Manik presented the Criminal Justice Procedure Bill to the parliament.

The bill consisting of 229 articles and was drafted well, said Mahlouf.

”Although there might be some amendments that should be brought, I think the parliament should shorten the preliminary debate and pass it,” he said. ”Such bills often get politicised, but these are bills that need to be passed soon.”

He added that he fully supported any bills presented to the parliament if it will benefit the citizens, regardless of whether they were submitted by MDP.

Mahlouf recently resubmitted a resolution cutting a controversial Rf 20,000 committee allowance for MPs, which had originally been submitted by MDP Chairperson and MP Mariya Ahmed Didi. Mariya was forced to withdraw the amendment after the MDP Parliamentary Group voted that she do so.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Parliament spends Rf 127,000 a month feeding MPs and staff

Local newspaper Haveeru has reported that parliament spends Rf127,000 per month (US$10,000) feeding MPs and staff.

Of this, parliament spends Rf 54, 000 per month (US$4200) on lunches for MPs and staff responsible for organising the 12 sittings a month.

In January members of parliament voted themselves a total monthly salary increase from US$4863 to US$7083 under the MP Privileges Bill, an increase that would have seen them earning on par with MPs in Sweden.

President Nasheed refused to ratify the bill and returned it to parliament.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Protesters petition President not to ratify MP Privileges Bill

A group of “concerned citizens” today gathered outside the President’s office to present a letter to president Mohamed Nasheed requesting him not to ratify the recently-passed MPs Privilege Bill.

The protesters claimed that the bill was passed by the MPs for the sake of unfair personal gain, and should not be ratified.

”If the bill is to be passed, the salaries and allowances for the police and independent commissions should be increased,” said a protester, claiming that “we are not from any political party but we are representing the citizens.”

The letter stated that the Privileges Bill was against the Constitution and the objective of parliamentary privileges.

”[The Bill] allows [MPs] to import expensive assets (such as cars) duty free, receive pensions in a different manner to normal citizens, and benefit from an expensive insurance scheme, all of which are definitely against the purpose of MP privileges,” the letter said. ”The bill also obstructs the conduct of criminal justice proceedings in the Maldives, antd contains many other things that independent democratic countries do not accept.”

The letter noted that the bill stated that MPs were to be treated differently in criminal cases, and called on the president to reject the bill and to send it back to parliament.

Minivan News reported last week reported that should the bill be ratified, the salaries and allowances of Maldivian MPs would amount to thousands of dollars more than their counterparts in many developed countries.

In their defence of the bill some MPs have argued that an MP’s salary of Rf 62,500 a month includes allowances, while the cash component represents a “welfare fund” to be drawn on by their constituents.

Even before the proposed increases, every Maldivan indirectly spends approximately US$20.65 (Rf 265) a year (derived via ‘invisible’  taxes on goods such as import duties) supporting roughly 120 politicians across both parliament and the executive, assuming a population of 350,000, GDP of US$1.6 billion and a share of the country’s ‘cake’ equal to about US$5000 (ignoring income disparity).

In similar vein, Australians pay approximately US$7.40 (Rf 95) a year to support parliament and the executive across all states and territories – meaning that Maldivians not only individually pay three times more than Australians in dollar terms to support their politicians, but seven times more when this bill is expressed as part of each citizen’s share of total GDP.

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)

MPs clash over signing Convention on International Criminal Court

MPs clashed over signing the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) at a rancorous debate during yesterday’s sitting of parliament.

While MPs of the ruling Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) used the debate time to condemn the “unlawful and authoritarian” practices of the previous government, opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party-People’s Alliance (DRP-PA) MPs accused the current administration of disregarding rule of law and negating parliamentary oversight.

Following an hour-long debate, a motion to send the matter to the national security committee for further consideration, proposed by DRP MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom, was carried with 61 votes in favour and four against.

The issue was sent for parliamentary approval by President Mohamed Nasheed in accordance with article 93(a) of the constitution, which states that, “Treaties entered into by the executive in the name of the state with foreign states and international organisations shall be approved by the People’s Majlis and shall come into force only in accordance with the decision of the People’s Majlis.”

“Torturers”

MDP Parliamentary Group Leader “Reeko” Moosa Manik said the purpose of the international criminal court was to “arrest torturers like Maumoon [Abdul Gayoom], people like Ilyas Ibrahim [brother-in-law of the former president] who stole state property and funds, and Attorney Generals like Hassan Saeed who tried to hide it.”

Moosa compared legislation voted through last year to afford privileges and protection to former presidents to laws enacted in Serbia to protect war criminals.

The former president and his brother-in-law, along with former National Security Services senior officer “Isthafa” Ibrahim Manik, he continued, numbered among “the worst torturers in the country’s history.”

Moosa accused former Attorney General Hassan Saeed, leader of the minority opposition Dhivehi Qaumee Party (DQP), of unlawfully arresting and jailing peaceful protesters on August 12 and 13, 2004.

Further, he speculated that the current administration was “incapable of touching [the issue of the former government]” because people involved in the purported crimes were in the new government as well.

He added that “suckling babes” in parliament who “jump up to defend [senior officials of the former government]” would not be able to understand the “feelings of torture victims”.

Moreover, he argued, numerous custodial deaths and brutal torture in prisons exacerbated the national crises of drug abuse and corruption, adding that the new government would go the same way if “action is not taken now.”

Following Moosa’s tirade, DRP MP Dr Abdulla Mausoom accused the MDP government of formulating policies only to “benefit certain people”, which he argued could be “considered a crime in international courts.”

DRP MP for Mid-Henveiru Ali Azim insisted that parliament needed time to carefully study the documents sent over by the president’s office, containing legal advice from the Attorney General, before reaching a decision.

Islamic principles

Minority opposition People’s Alliance (PA) MP Abdul Azeez Jamal Abubakur meanwhile noted that the absence of the United States and most Islamic countries from the list of signatories “raises some questions”.

Referring to article 7.1(h), which deals with persecution of minorities, Independent MP Ibrahim Muttalib argued that parliament should consider whether some articles of the convention were in conflict with Islamic principles.

“This article talks about discrimination,” he cautioned. “Today, international parties consider as discrimination the fact that people of other religions don’t live among us; the fact that we don’t have gay marriage. This is something we have to think about.”

Muttalib added that he was “certain” that secularists and followers of other religions in the Maldives would “come out openly after this convention is signed and start working for their rights.

“Those amongst us today who want gay marriage, once this convention is ratified, will begin work on getting married,” he continued. “We are certain that there are people among us who are scared of our religious scholars and rebuke them. They will make use of this court and begin work against the scholars.”

Vili-Maafanu MP Ahmed Nihan agreed that Maldivian citizens would “surely” take the government to the ICC “saying the government did not allow us to have gay marriage.”

Controversial religious scholar Dr Afrashim Ali, DRP MP for Ungoofaru, meanwhile warned that such conventions could be used “to shatter Islamic principles” and defame individuals “outside the bounds of law”.

Afrashim insisted that the convention should not be signed if it could lead to “the construction of temples here under the name of religious freedom.”

Moreover, Afrashim reprimanded MDP MPs for leveling serious accusations at the former president, pointing out that he had never been convicted of wrongdoing in a court of law.

DRP Deputy Leader Ali Waheed attacked the government for refusing to enact legislation passed by parliament, such as the amendments to the Public Finance Act, which was passed for a second time after the president vetoed the bill.

Independent MP Ahmed Amir suggested that consultations should take place with stakeholders in the judiciary before parliament makes a decision.

Vilifushi MP Riyaz Rasheed of DQP questioned the President’s motive for proposing the matter to parliament.

Referring to the People’s Court protests carried out by the MDP, Riyaz insisted that parliament should pass a law before signing the convention to specify the circumstances under which a Maldivian could be tried at an international court.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Police continue investigation of opposition leaders; criminal court denies arrest warrant

Youth Minister Hassan Latheef has said that police have commenced another investigation into the activities of People’s Alliance (PA) party leader Abdulla Yameen and Jumhoory Party (JP) leader Gasim ‘Buruma’ Ibrahim.

Latheef said police had requested the criminal court issue a warrant for the arrest warrant of the pair, but this was denied.

”The criminal court declined to issue the warrant saying there were no grounds to issue an arrest warrant for the second time,’’ said Latheef. ”But this is a whole different case.’’

Latheef said that when police requested the criminal court issue the arrest warrant, the court referred to the recent case and issued a statement signed by the chief judge of the criminal court denying the police request.

”The case concerns the influence of independent commissions,’’ Latheef said. ”We do not accept the criminal court’s denial of the police request.’’

He said that attempts by police to investigate allegation of corruption and bribery were not intended to threaten and intimidate political figures.

”We are currently monitoring to see if there are any judges involved in corruption and bribery,’’ Latheef said, adding that ”we are not saying that judges have been involved in such activity.’’

He declined to reveal the names of the judges being observed and the courts they belonged to, claiming it would obstruct the observation.

”If there are fair and independent judges in courts, we will succeed in this case,’’ Latheef claimed.

Under Secretary for the President’s Office, Ibrahim Rasheed, promised the government would listen to the voice of people.

”We will investigate any act of aggression,’’ he said. ”The government will not cease its effort to eliminate corruption and bribery.”

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)