Tag: Q&A

Q&A: UK’s FCO State Minister Hugo Swire

Hugo Swire is Minister of State for the UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). Swire was previously Minister of State in the Northern Ireland office 2010-2012, before moving to the FCO with responsibility for Latin America, Cuba, Australasia, Commonwealth countries and now Sri Lanka and the Maldives.

JJ Robinson: Following the recent election are there any concerns about a potential authoritarian reversal in the Maldives, given that many of the same cabinet have been reappointed, including senior figures during Gayoom’s regime, and that the new Foreign Minister is the daughter of the former 30 year autocrat?

Hugo Swire: They’ve only made five appointments so it’s early days. In a small community you have the political class is a small pool to choose from, so you would expect to continuity to some extent.

Regarding the new government, we’ve issued our congratulations. It’s clear how we felt about the delayed elections – we felt that was wrong and we made our views very clear. But at the end of the day what we wanted were clear, transparent and fair elections. I’ve spoken to a number of people and election observers, and they say unanimously these elections may have been delayed, but they were transparent and fair.

It’s not for us to tell a sovereign government how to put together their cabinet. I had lunch with the new foreign minister and I find her very agreeable and very positive, and I’m sure she’s someone we will work together with very closely. I also met the acting Foreign Secretary; we are getting to know them and talked about areas of mutual concern. A good start – I’m the first minister to be in the Maldives following the recent general election, and I’m proud the UK was here first.

JJ: Some observers, while praising the conduct of the polls, have also privately questioned their fairness given the high level of Supreme Court involvement in deciding when they went ahead, the veto that was exercised over the polls on multiple occasions by candidates due to the Supreme Court’s judgement, obstruction on one occasion by the police, and finally the delay by a week which saw the winning coalition negotiation reached. Given that the polls were credible, to what extent to you consider them to have been fair?

HS: At the end of the day we saw a very high turnout – one which many countries such as the UK would be very proud to achieve, which shows that this is a maturing democracy where people engaged in the system. They’ve come up with a solution, there have been no complaints to us or the international community about the transparency or fairness of the elections, and there were a huge number of observers here.

We thought the elections should not have been delayed and we made our position very clear as I’ve said. At the end of the day I like to look forward, and we’re got these local council elections that have just been announced today that are now going to be in January, and also the Majlis elections in May.

Of course I think there are some issues with the Supreme Court’s decision requiring every candidate to sign every bit of paper, and I think that becomes very difficult with local council elections. There are issues like that which should probably be looked at

The Elections Commission has its work cut out for in over the next six months. They did a great job, incidentally.

JJ: You yourself speaking recently in the UK parliament on this topic referred to the conduct of the Supreme Court, in particular the UN Human Rights Commissioner’s statement on the behaviour of the Supreme Court and the judiciary.

What is the prospect now for judicial reform in the Maldives? Is there a need for that reform, and lastly how do you think the international community would react if, for example, the Nasheed trial was now reopened?

HS: In terms of judicial reform there is an issue with the training of judges here, of which there are about 170 around the country. Then you have the Supreme Court itself, and I know this has been an issue during the elections as to the power of the Supreme Court versus Parliament. This is something I’ve discussed with parliamentarians and others, and something that clearly needs to be resolved. I think the Commonwealth, and the UK independently, are in a good position to bring some of our expertise if asked to do so.

But at the end of the day you are dealing with a sovereign country so we’re not going to insist on anything.

In terms of your remarks about Nasheed, we’ve made it very clear that we think this is a government that has a mandate to govern in coalition and should be a government that reaches out to all. After all, an awful lot of people voted for Nasheed, and if they want to have a harmonious government going forward in the spirit they all signed up to in their speeches over the last 24 hours, we think it would be most unwise to start dividing society again by pursuing any kind of retribution or recrimination as a result of these elections. So we’re pretty clear on that front.

JJ: You mention the Commonwealth’s engagement. When the Maldives was placed on the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG)’s agenda (it has since been taken off), the outgoing President Mohamed Waheed declared this was something “of no concern”. Former President Gayoom has also publicly called for the Maldives to leave the Commonwealth. Do you think this is something that would damage the Maldives, or do you think the Maldives should make up its mind as to whether [being in the Commonwealth] is in its sovereign interest?

HS: I think both. I think it is absolutely the up to the Maldives to make up its mind on the subject, after all it is as you say a sovereign government and the Commonwealth is a coalition of the willing, a club of like-minded people who share common approaches and ideals; it’s not a compulsory club. But is it in the Maldives’ best interests to be in the Commonwealth? Most certainly it is.

The Commonwealth stretches across the world, it is 53 countries, trade is anything up to 50 percent cheaper to conduct inside the Commonwealth. It is a good family of nations and we’ve all signed up to the Commonwealth charter which is very strong on universal human rights. It’s a great club to be a member of and I think the Maldives should be proud of being a Commonwealth member, and I think they have a part to play.

JJ: The Maldives’ economic situation is pretty dire, and one of the ongoing challenges has been because of the democratic uncertainty up until the election, a lot of the donor aid was reticent. Do you see the Maldives receiving more bilateral aid now it has a clear democratic mandate, and what kind of aid do you think the UK might be in a position to provide?

HS: Putting together a coalition government when you’ve inherited a difficult economic legacy is something which is pretty familiar to us, because it’s something we did in May 2010. So I can empathise.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) came up with five major things some time ago, and I’m not sure if they’ve been enacted in the way they might have been, such as cutting the size of the state and finding other ways to get more taxation.

I think the government has done a lot in terms of taxation and there is a wider tax base than there was before, but I think there are clearly other things they could do. The two main industries are fishing and tourism – there are up to 1500 British tourists in the Maldives at any one time so we’re a major player here. I was talking today about it – they are looking at other ways of expanding on the tourism theme, and other ways of doing it.

Clearly the economy here is dependent on just a few things. One of things [the new government] is going to look at is whether there are hydrocarbons here – drilling. I understand there was some offshore exploration some years ago. That would be a game-changer if they found oil.

In terms of international aid that is something that would be looked at by my colleagues, if the Maldives meets the criteria. But I think there are huge opportunities here that are unexploited, and the government needs to show some determination to get the budget under control and grow the economy: reducing the public sector, growing the private sector and increasing the tax take, and attracting inward investment.

It comes back to the same argument. In order to attract inward investment, you have to have a certainty and clarity for people investing, and that means judicial independence, transparency of government and lack of corruption. That’s how you attract inward investment, that’s how the UK does it, that’s the road any country seeking to attract serious investment needs to go down.

JJ: Final questioned – you mentioned oil drilling, which is one of the things the new President and his coalition partner have suggested. That would seem to move the Maldives away from this eco-friendly, carbon-neutral image that the Nasheed government sought to promote. How do you think a move towards drilling would affect the Maldives, and would it impact things like climate change donors?

HS: We do this in the UK – we consider ourselves quite a green government. We have green taxes and we promote renewable energy, biomass, offshore and onshore wind, and yet we have drilling in the North Sea. So I dont think the two are confused or conflated.

Obviously in terms of the economy, as I said, if they find oil here that is a game-changer. We did have a long discussion at lunch about alternative energy, offshore windfarms and solar, and other such ways the Maldives could meet its targets. It’s enormously important – rising sea levels represent a real threat, and after the tsunami’s various populations were relocated. Of course if you’re living here climate change is a real problem for you. But I don’t think oil drilling necessarily can be anything other than beneficial, if done in a sensitive way.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Q&A: Former President Mohamed Nasheed

Former President and Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) presidential candidate Mohamed Nasheed is signing 1400 letters an hour in an attempt to mail a personalised letter to every single one of the Maldives’ 239,593 voters before Saturday’s election.

“He insisted on signing each one personally,” sighed a party official.

Nasheed continued this feat during a series of ‘one on one’ interviews with local and international media on Wednesday afternoon.

JJ Robinson: What’s with the letters?

Mohamed Nasheed: Our whole campaign has been very personal. I’m trying to reach out to the normal Maldives person. I’ve met them, I’ve touched them, I’ve visited their homes, and finally I want to write them a letter. When I’m signing them, I’m looking at the homes. I know who I am signing it to. I like that. I don’t think a printed version is appropriate.

I think the whole democratic idea is built on very Roman principles: individuals getting together and talking about things. When you go into mass media and mass organisation you lose the sense of doing something for a person. I think in good politics you do things for individuals.

JJR: The last time you came to power you were magnanimous in victory. You’ve since said this was a romantic idea that did not work in practice. How will you approach it this time if elected?

MN: I don’t think I can change overnight. I’ll still be the same person. I think it’s not viciousness that will bring justice. It is a process. We must strengthen the institutions, especially the Judicial Services Commission (JSC), the judiciary, especially the institutions associated with rule of law. We must increase their capacity to do things and reform them.

I would not come between any investigation of suspected wrongdoing. I think the main perpetrators must be brought to justice. Then again, it is very difficult to do these things to your political opponents. You are always mindful that if you stultify your position, that is not a good recipe for a vibrant democratic society.

Now it is getting very obvious that these opposing parties will come out with new leadership after these elections. I hope that the wrong-doers are brought to justice.

JJR: Given the immediate state of the police and judiciary, how do you propose such an investigation would be conducted?

MN: Well I’ve written to all the policemen and MNDF personally. The vast majority of them seem to believe that the coup was very, very wrong, and that their institutions got a very bad name out of it and they need to salvage their [institutions].

I feel there are enough people within these institutions who are of this view and want to investigate the wrongdoing. Previously when we were in government there was nobody [in the police or military] who wanted to reform this vigorously. But if you look at the top brass of the police, they may be out now, but I don’t think they should be outside. We will bring them in. I think they are very clear in their minds about what needs to be done.

JJR: Observers are asking how, even if you do return to power and given how swiftly your government fell on February 7, you propose preventing that from happening again?

MN: One thing is – the international community should not so be so naive or short-sighted. Please don’t fund coups. Please don’t encourage forceful change of government.

What we saw was a lot of evidence that the UN was busy at it. Instability comes because outsiders side with one faction or another. Just don’t do that.

JJR: What do you mean when you say the UN was ‘busy at it’?

MN: The [now reassigned] UN Resident Coordinator’s safety address in case of an issue on February 7 was the Vice President’s residence. I was shocked to learn that.

I felt the UN specifically wanted to recognise the new regime instead of conducting a proper investigation. They dragged the investigation out until they could cover it up. From the evidence we saw afterwards, especially from the government accountability committee in parliament, it is obvious it was a coup, and it is obvious that anyone should have seen it as a coup.

We should have gone for an early election instantly. We should not legitimise any forceful transfer of power. Right now the situation is that everyone believes ‘winner takes all’. [The impression is that] if you are the ruler, the UN and international community won’t give two thoughts about that and simply recognise whoever is holding power. That kind of attitude doesn’t help.

JJR: If you had the whole February 7 period again, on reflection is there anything you would have done differently?

MN: On the 7th? No. If you’re specifically talking about that day, no. In the lead up to it, yes. We have learned a lot of lessons from what led to this, the political nature of the police and military, and elements of the international community taking sides.

JJR: Many MDP supporters privately profess a sense of doom should you not win. Are the stakes really that high, and what sort of challenges do you think you would have in opposition?

MN: There is no doubt [we will not not win]. Not even entertaining that thought.

JJR: Given the high stakes then, what kind of concerns then do you have for the transition period of nearly two months?

MN: About a month back I had some concerns. But now I think there is enough inertia among the people so that this can be brought into proper alignment. There’s not a lot [the government] could do. I don’t see the military being able to do anything. There is enough support for us within the military, there is enough support for us within the police, it’s just the top brass [of concern], and they won’t have support among the rank and file. So we are fairly confident.

JJR: A lot of young Maldivians, particularly those aged between 18-25, those perhaps without direct experience of Gayoom’s rule in the 80s and 90s, give the impression of being politically apathetic. What kind of message would you give to these politically disengaged?

MN: Get involved. If you are not involved, you better not complain.

This is a multi-party participatory democracy, and there is room for everyone to make their views heard and get involved. I’m very encouraged that during these elections the bulk of the MDP’s campaign machinery has been run by young people. There’s a lot of people who are very involved.

Very often when your own personal viewpoint does not have resonance, you tend to become apathetic. It is not that you are politically apathetic, just that you sense that your viewpoint is not represented, so you go home.

We suggest – don’t do that. Come to us. We have room, and your voice is very, very necessary. And we need it.

JJR: Given that your government’s detention of the Criminal Court judge and efforts toward judicial reform were used to justify the protests in the lead up to February 7, how can you reform the judiciary from the position of the executive without risking this happening again, or without compromising the integrity of the three arms of state?

MN: We must reform the JSC. The police must have enough leverage to investigate wrongdoing. The police were aware of the brewing coup but were not able to investigate it. The Criminal Court was always obstructing that investigation. Primarily that was why the police felt that Abdulla Mohamed was a threat to national security.

In hindsight it was easy to understand why police were saying that, because left alone they felt there would be a coup. If the investigation was not done, and if these people were not apprehended, then police felt there would be a military coup. That is why they wanted to restrain certain elements.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Coup was live on TV, Nasheed tells One Earth

For a man who was tossed out of office by a police and military revolt less than two months ago, former President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives seems positively ebullient, determined to dramatise the dangers of climate change just as passionately as a citizen activist as he did as a head of state, writes George Black for One Earth magazine, in a Q&A with Nasheed.

GB: People say that a big part of your appeal is that you don’t play by the normal diplomatic rules.

MN: Well, what have the rules of diplomacy done for the specific situation we face? Last month there was a coup in the Maldives. But the United States and India were unable to understand what was happening. What’s to understand? The coup was live on TV! The problem with normal diplomacy is that it just wants to maintain the status quo.

GB: I’m guessing you see a parallel there to the rules of diplomacy as they were practiced in Copenhagen.

MN: People don’t want to move away from what’s comfortable. They like things the way they are. They come to the talks, they go home to their beautiful wife and their kids. They have no passion. You can’t express your concerns openly in the normal language of diplomacy. You lose sight of the bigger picture, so you develop short-sighted solutions. Your diplomacy is played out according to the text messages you’re getting from certain industries.

Read more

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Q&A: Al Jazeera interviews President Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan

Al Jazeera’s 101 East program has conducted an in-depth interview with new President of the Maldives, Dr Mohamed Waheed Hassan. The original interview can be seen on Al Jazeera’s website. The transcript below was provided by Al Jazeera.

Fauziah Ibrahim: Let’s start with the events on Feb 7 when President Nasheed resigned. He says that it was under duress. Was it a coup?

Dr Mohamed Waheed: It wasn’t a coup. It’s been portrayed in the Western media as a coup d’etat. But the president resigned voluntarily. We have pictures of him having a Cabinet meeting following which he writes his own letter of resignation. And in front of the television camera, he announced he was resigning with his Cabinet standing behind him. He could have indicated even indirectly even if he was under duress. He didn’t. It took 24 hours before he changed his mind. I am convinced that he resigned voluntarily.

FI: Doesn’t it disturb you though that your presidency is being challenged and being undermined by these accusations?

DMW: Of course these are unfair accusations. We were totally unprepared, it took us by surprise. And therefore, we could not get our message across to the rest of the world, to tell them about our understanding, to tell what actually happened. He had the machinery already in place because all these people were appointed by him from his party only. And therefore all shifted with him to his house and began the media campaign to show to the rest of the world it was a coup d’etat. It wasn’t a coup d’etat, if you think it was do you think he would be out here talking to you and everybody else? You know there’s no restriction on his freedom and he is moving around. We have a democracy and we are respecting it. We welcome an independent investigation to find out exactly what happened. We will not be in the way of finding out the truth.

FI: We have seen footage of security forces out on the streets; we have seen people demanding for the resignation of the then president Nasheed. Mainly these people have been the security officers. That’s what we are seeing from the video. Also, we have video footage of your current defense minister entering the barracks and then coming out of the barracks demanding the President’s resignation. We see him also in the President’s office just before and just after the resignation. Now, at that point he was just a civilian. Why was a civilian given so much privilege access?

DMW: I have no idea because I was not part of what happened that day.

FI: Did you know this was going to happen?

DMW: No, absolutely not.

FI: But you met with opposition parties before this happened.

DMW: The opposition call for his resignation has been going on for a very long time. For almost three weeks we had serial demonstrations every night in Male, calling for the President’s resignation for various reasons. And when this thing happened, nobody expected this to happen. My understanding of the issue was that the president was issuing unlawful orders to the security forces and at some point, they decided that enough was enough and they were not going to listen to him. And that’s when he decides that he was going to submit his resignation. But he changed his mind afterwards.

FI: Why do you think he changed his mind? Why do you think he is now saying it was a coup?

DMW: I think he just lost it. He lost it and realised what a blunder he had made. Maybe this was a trick he was playing on the people; I don’t know. But he resigned voluntarily and in front of the camera. He could have said under the circumstances, I am being forced to resign, but he didn’t. He didn’t give any indication, any clue. He could have called me and said “Waheed, I am being forced to resign.”

FI: What would you have done?

DMW: I would not have taken the oath of office if he had said that. He should have called me, he didn’t. He called some of the ambassadors in this country asking for help, he called some of his party members, and he called the rest of the Cabinet in his office but he didn’t talk to me.

FI: Why do you think he didn’t call you, is because he didn’t trust you?

DMW: We haven’t been talking for a while except in the….

FI: Is it because he thought you were not part of his plans in the Maldives?

DMW: We all fought for democracy in the country. It was not a reversal. I was part of the democracy movement as well.

FI: It does seem like a reversal though now that you have appointed this particular civilian, a retired colonel as the defense minister, you have appointed Mohamed Jameel Ahmed Home Minister both of whom are known as supporters of ex-President Gayoom. You have also appointed Dunya Maumoon who is Gayoom’s daughter as the state minister of foreign affairs. Are we about to see Maldives slide back into dictatorship here?

DMW: I have also appointed to the Cabinet people from seven other parties. I am trying to form a national unity government. I want everyone to participate.

FI: But everyone is looking at the security forces and they are saying the people who head this security forces are Gayoom’s supporters.

DMW: That is not true. The Home Minister is not from Gayoom’s party. In fact, the current Home Minister was in Nasheed’s government. President Nasheed came to power in a coalition. He was unable to win by himself. We brought in other parties and we won the election. But soon after the elections, he decided to go back on his words. And get everybody out of the government. The Home minister was one of them and what we saw progressively after that was a gradual reversal of democracy. The head of state began doing things that were unconstitutional like locking up the supreme court, arbitrarily arresting political leaders and detaining them without charge, and finally we have this very bizarre situation where the president orders the military to arrest a serving judge.

FI: During these events, you served as vice-president. Did you object to his actions?

DMW: Yes, I objected and advised the president that it was not the way to go about it.

FI: Did he take your advice?

DMW: He does not take anyone’s advice. He is not somebody who takes people’s advice.

FI: Why didn’t you as vice-president then resign?

DMW: I spoke out; I said this is not the way to do things. I don’t particularly like these people or the judge, I don’t know him. This is not the way to go about it. There are constitutional ways where these things have to be done.

FI: Do you trust the judiciary in the Maldives?

DMW: I trust the judiciary but it has its problems.

FI: What sort of problems?

DMW: There are problems in the sense that it has to be strengthened like in the use of modern evidence; I would like to see that the judiciary becomes more independent; that they have more resources.

FI: It has been said that the judiciary in the Maldives cannot be trusted and it is corrupt and basically supports the Gayoom regime?

DMW: No, no, no. This is not rue. The Supreme Court was appointed by the president himself. He was the one who nominated the Supreme Court judges.

FI: When you took office, several high profile officials overseas resigned. Among them are the Maldivian ambassador to the UN who went live on Aljazeera, the High Commissioner to the UK also resigned, the Deputy High Commissioner who happens to be your own brother also resigned. He said he did not know why you were favouring Gayoom. He warned you not to join the people of the autocratic ruler Gayoom. How do you feel when you are being connected to the former dictatorial regime?

DMW: The High Commissioner and the deputy high commissioner who happens to be my brother were all appointed by Nasheed. Their loyalty is clearly with the former president. Most of the educated people in this country were educated in the last 30 to 35 years. And out of that, former President Gayoom ruled this country for about 30 years. So it is very difficult to find people here who have not served with President Gayoom or who have not been with this government. If you look at the closest people to former President Nasheed you will find that there were a lot of people with him were also with former President Gayoom and his government. So it is an unfair accusation that I am taking particularly side with Gayoom. That’s not true; of course I want all political parties to be involved in a political process. Therefore, it is also proper that we must bring people from his party in.

FI: Do you not think that the specter of Gayoom looms large over Maldives and this is why you have this political turmoil now?

DMW: Not entirely. Of course Gayoom is a factor because he got 40 percent of the votes in the last election. You know, he still has some support. The man has got to be given a little bit of respect.

FI: Do you want him to be here?

DMW: If he wants to that is his right. But there are other political leaders in the country now. There are other political parties here now. They all want to be part of the political process, not to be alienated. We need to have an inclusive process in which more political parties must be involved. We simply cannot swipe all the other parties off. This is the problem.

FI: It’s certainly very honorable that you want a unity government, that you want all the parties together in order to progress the Maldivian democracy. However it’s also been said there are larger powers than you who are the machinations behind what is happening in the Maldives. You are merely a puppet. Now what do you say to that.

DMW: No, this is not true. Because I have said, I have my terms on my coalition partners who are now coming into the government. What I am saying is that you guys nominate the people and I will put them into the Cabinet. It’s my choice where I put these people. And I also don’t want them to talk to me about the vice-president’s post because that has to be somebody who I choose and somebody who I think is not involved in politics and so on. I believe that is very important this time to build confidence in the government, in the political process. The best I can do at the moment is to facilitate the process that brings people together and create some healing. There are some deep rifts in politics in the Maldives at the moment and the way to go forward is not violence, or not coming out on to the streets. The only violence that has happened here is because of former President Nasheed. There is no other violence here.

FI: Much of the current political turmoil started in September last year (2011) when the Islamist group Adhaalath left Nasheed’s coalition saying that he was not doing enough to strengthen Islam in the Maldives. Do you think Islam needs to be strengthened in this country?

DMW: This is a Muslim country. Of course there will be some political parties that will promote Islamic values. This is also true in other countries. Even in Western countries there are political parties which espouse religious values. So as a Muslim country, you shouldn’t be surprised that there are one or two parties that will talk about this. You must understand in the Islamic world there is a whole range of views on what an Islamic society should look like. And in this country and in my Cabinet, we have a range of views. Most of the people in this country are educated. We have a 96 percent literacy rate and most of our young people have gone abroad and studied in Western universities. We have emulated liberal democratic values in our country.

FI: And yet there is a rising growing Islamic fundamentalist movement in this country as well. Do you think Shariah law will work in the Maldives as some are calling for?

DMW: You see, even now our legal system is based on the Shariah and the civil law.

FI: Do you think full shariah law should be or can be implemented in the country?

DMW: Well, it is for our parliament to decide. That’s what a democracy is all about.

FI: I put it to you that perhaps democracy does not work in the Maldives. We have seen Gayoom’s dictatorship end after 30 years. Then we have seen Nasheed come in and try o implement democracy. You are alleging that he was dictatorial in some of his ways. Perhaps democracy does not work in the Maldives because this is a country that bases itself on personalities rather than policies. Is this right?

DMW: This is what we are trying to change. We started a journey of a democracy and we want this to be on the path. These are some of the challenges that we face. But we are increasingly moving towards a society where first of all we uphold our constitution, we respect the rule of law and then we don’t have people who practice dictatorial methods. We have independent institutions, we have the human rights commission, the anti-corruption commission and an independent auditor general and so on. They have to be empowered to make sure there are enough checks and balances so that people don’t go in on autocratic directions.

This is a struggle, and this struggle did not start only in 2008. It started a long time ago and we all have suffered in the process and therefore we have a stake in succeeding in democracy. And democracy will continue, there is no doubt about it. I have no doubt that democracy is for all of us. It is not only a Western concept. We have grown up with these values and we want to live with these values. We want to live ion a democratic free society and I think it can be done in Maldives. But people have to give in a little bit, you every time you don’t like something that happens you can’t go out on the streets and start pledging and burning places. This is a more advanced country; we have more educated people here. It’s a peaceful place and we cannot give this kind of shock to the people in this country. It’s not fair.

FI: Mr President, thank you for speaking with us.

DMW: Thank you.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

Q&A: Education Minister Dr Musthafa Luthfy

Education Minister Dr Musthafa Lufthy is facing a no-confidence motion in parliament later this month, a move led by Fares-Maathodaa MP Ibrahim Muttalib and sparked by a proposal from the Ministry’s steering committee to make Islam and Dhivehi optional subjects at A-Level. Dr Luthfy spoke to Minivan News on Sunday.

JJ Robinson: The Education Ministry has been heavily criticised for a proposal that Dhivehi and Islam be made optional subjects at A-Level in the new curriculum. Why do you think this happened?

Dr Musthafa Lufthy: The curriculum was developed in 1984, and there has been no major overall or revision since then. We have brought in changes now and then, but this is first time the we have embarked on a mega-revision of the curriculum.

The new curriculum we are envisioning will be very much different from the old curriculum and will be more relevant to the current society and also to the future of the Maldives.

JJ: Why do you think the A-Level Islam and Dhivehi subjects are proving so controversial?

ML: There are many changes in the present proposal, and one of the propositions is that all the subjects in higher secondary (A-Level) will be optional. The intention is to give students many different subject options, so they are not forced to take some subjects – rather they have the freedom to choose whatever they want.

That was the initial proposition. But it was taken very seriously by a group of people – initially we did not think it would be such an issue for these people. [On average] around 2000 students choose higher education every year, and all the rest, out of 10,000 students, do not.

We are taking about these 2000 students, not the rest. Previously we have had debates on whether we should teach primary grades in English or Dhivehi – but there was no enthusiasm for teaching in the Dhivehi language. Many people wanted to teach in English.

I think the Ministry’s steering committee did not think the proposal to make Dhivehi and Islam optional at A-Level would become such a big issue – it would not introduced this year or next, it would be in new curriculum.

JJ: The proposal to make these subjects optional is being perceived by some in the community as an assault on national identity – why do you think this has happened?

ML: I think there is a certain group of people who actually think that it is their responsibility and their duty to safeguard Maldivian culture and Maldivian religion, and that others are not treating this fairly.

But in fact we, as the educationalists, we are also taking care of our culture and religion and trying to train our students to become world citizens, rather than narrowing their perspective.

That may be one of the reasons why they have suspicions that we are not trying to do justice to the religion or language [of the Maldives], and that is obviously untrue.

JJ: Why make them optional? To encourage more students to take A-Level? Is there any evidence to suggest a lack of option is discouraging students from taking on A-Levels?

ML: No, it is not because of that. A-Level requires five five passes at O-Level, and those students who do pass go for A-Level. The reason [behind the proposal] was to give them the freedom to choose – that was the main reason.

JJ: Do you think forcing students to study Islam and Dhivehi at A-Level may be discourgaging them from higher education?

ML: You would have to ask the students. [Dhivehi and Islam] are not favourable subjects, actually – one reason may be the way they are taught and the quality of teachers, and also the reason that these subjects are not required to pursue higher education. Perhaps due to these reasons students do not give them equal attention as they do to other subjects.

JJ: Do you think a likely outcome is the revision of these subjects to make them more appealing to students?

ML: It should be done. Whether the subjects will be optional or not, we will revise them, and the curriculum, and we will train our teachers to teach these subjects in a better manner. That will be done.

JJ: Given the outcry this has caused already, do you think it is at all likely these subjects will become optional?

ML: It is still open for discussion – we haven’t concluded discussions yet. But we know this will not happen yet, not for several years when the new curriculum is implemented. I am not actually making these decisions, it is done in consultation with many groups of people, and that depends on result of the consultation process.

JJ: What is the pass percentage of the 10,000 students who complete O-Level?

ML: 32 percent. Last year it was 27 percent.

JJ: A 32 percent pass rate sounds extremely low – why is it so low, and how does in compare with the region?

ML: Even when it is compared with the region, it is very low. One reason is that we are teaching in a foreign language (English), and teachers may not be as conversant in the language as those who teach in their mother-tongue – that is one reason.

The other reason is we have teachers from other countries who do not remain with the students for a long period of time, only two years before another teacher comes. So a change of teachers is frequent. And the other reason may be the quality of teachers we have – mainly primary grade teachers.

We still have a lot of untrained teachers, and also teachers who trained several years ago who are not up to the standard that we would require to implement a natural curriculum. With them we have come this far.

We are focusing on improving certain areas – and one focus is on teachers. We are doing a lot of work upgrading teachers using the internet, business learning, reactivating teacher resource centres in the atolls and establishing teacher in-service training at the Centre for Continuing Education.

JJ: How has O-Level pass rate trended historically?

ML: Gradually it has been moving upwards. but this is the first time there has been such a large jump (five percent).

JJ: What is the pass rate of those students who go on to do A-Levels?

ML: A-Level pass rate last year was 69 percent. In 2004, 1835 students went on to A-Level. In 2009 it was 3244 students.

JJ: It is still surprising to hear so few students go through to do A-Level – what kind of effect do you think this has on Maldivian society?

ML: That’s a very important question, and it’s a question that we need a good answer for.

When students finish Grade 10, and when they do not have many other avenues to go to for education, they remain in society and have two years before they become adults at 18 years. So they have two years of not being able to get a job, and this is also a crucial period in their physical development.

During this time they are not in a school and due to this I think there will be negative impact on their behaviour and also on society.

Because of this we are thinking of a new venture – we are trying to keep students in the system until they are 18. We can do that by diversifying our curriculum – some can do A-Level, some can go for other programmes such as foundation and certificate level courses, and through that proceed to higher education.

So there are many ways there can go to higher education, and not only GSCE. We are trying to create paths for them to follow – this can be done through public-private partnerships, such as with Villa College. They are teaching A-Level, about they are also teaching other foundation courses as well.

So students even if they do not pass in five subjects they can continue their education. This year we are going start this programme and later expand it to the atolls, and we are hoping all students will remain in the system until they are 18.

JJ: We have heard anecdotal reports that some parents are bringing in outside tuition or coaching to make up for lapses in the education system. Is there any monitoring of this outside tuition?

ML: Unfortunately there is no monitoring – we do not track how many students go to outside education, and I don’t think schools do that. But we are trying to change schools into one session schools – so one batch of students come to a schools.

Previously, with two sessions, there was no space for students to become involved in extracurricular activities or remedial tuition, but it will be different now we have four one session schools in Male. By doing this schools can provide necessary help and find time and space.

But even then, unless parents are fully confident of the quality of education, they will continue to send their children to private education. Even then there is competition – they want their children to be the best.

JJ: If the standards do not approve does that mean that later down the line there will be a class issue between parents who can afford private tuition for their children and those who cannot?

ML: I don’t think there will be a class issue that is not there right now. One of the aims of education is to reduce disparity between people. We are consciously assisting disadvantaged groups in the country. It is one of the functions of the education system to reduce that disparity.

JJ: Are you concerned about the upcoming no-confidence motion in parliament against you?

ML: I’m not concerned about the no-confidence vote, but I am concerned about the possibility – and it’s very unlikely – the possible discontinuity to the work we are doing right now if it happens.

JJ: How would it affect the Ministry’s work it is doing now?

ML: It will affect us very much, because we have started our work very enthusiastically. I have been in the education system for a long time ever since I started teaching in the atolls, and in various institutions in the country and I know the system very well – and I know the important things we haven’t done.

So I think with the team I have we will be able to improve the education system very much within our period of time. If a new person comes, he or she may not have the vision I have. Of course it will depend on the manifesto, but even then, how you see the work and how you see other people and deal with the situation, it all matters in how you get appropriate results.

JJ: Where has the support been coming from?

ML: I’m getting good from the President and the cabinet ministers, and I’m also working very hard in convincing parliamentarians [as to the merits] of my position. I have distributed documents to them – one is the curriculum framework and a letter to suggest this is only a draft and nothing has been finalised, and they know this is consultation and debate. I also sent another letter answering questions raised in the debate, so the parliamentarians know my views on this.

JJ: What happened with the collapse of Arabiyya School’s wall?

ML: I don’t know why this became a big issue. When a school becomes unsafe for students we have to find an alternative. When we found the school was unsafe for students to remain there we have to find an alternative, and we did after consultation with parents and school board, and we negotiated finance to rebuild the school building (demolition work began today).

JJ: The school says it has been complaining about the wall for 15 years.

ML: We have only been here 18 months.

JJ: Do you think it is less than a coincidence that this no-confidence motion arrived at the same time as your decision to leave the Gaumee Itthihaad Party (GIP) and sign with the [ruling] Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP)?

ML: I don’t think so. I think this was going on even then. It is just a coincidence.

JJ: For the record, what was behind your decision to leave GIP?

ML: This is a very important question that many people have asked. I was one of the architects of forming the Gaumee Itthihaad Party. At that time [Vice President] Dr Mohammed Waheed Hassan (also a GIP member) was not in the Maldives. We worked tirelessly to form the party and Dr Waheed joined at the later stages. He is a good friend of mine and we worked together in the education ministry. I have strong faith in him.

We started this party and were very lucky that because Dr Waheed was with us he was taken as a running mate by[President] Nasheed. It was because of that our party became one of the strong parties in the coalition.

Unfortunately my views and Dr Waheed’s views changed – my view was that we should assist the government as much as possible and try to work as hard as possible to implement the manifesto promises. Dr Waheed wanted to do the same but then our party started acting as an opposition type of party – criticising from outside the government. That I did not like.

I was telling them that we cannot do that because we are a coalition partner and we have to be with the government all the time – this is the second year of a new democracy and we have to work very hard to get results as soon as possible, and it is not helpful our party to [criticise] while we are one of the strong parties in the government. But this continued and I thought I would not be able to tolerate it any more – that why I thought only thing for me to do was join MDP. That was the reason.

JJ: What was your view when (GIP member) Mohamed Rasheed was removed from the post of Economic Development Minister? Were you worried?

ML: I was very worried because we had two members from our party in the cabinet and he is a close friend of mine. We worked closely in forming GIP and I had good support from him. I was very unhappy with the decision [to remove him]. We did not like that – we did not want any of our cabinet members to be removed in that way.

JJ: Now GIP has lost two of its cabinet members, what is your view of the party’s future?

ML: GIP is a party of many members. Even if a few members leave the party I think the party will continue. But it is very unfortunate that very strong members of the party had to leave it.

JJ: What was your opinion of Dr Waheed’s holding a meeting with members of the opposition Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP)?

ML: My feeling was that it is OK for the Vice President to meet the opposition party members, but at that time when there was tension between the government and the opposition it was an unlucky coincidence. If it had happened at another time perhaps it would not have raised the concern that it did. For me it was OK to meet with them, but the time was not right.

JJ: The Human Rights Commission of the Maldives (HRCM) hasn’t quite got around to releasing its report on Lale Youth International School, the former principal of which is currently in court facing assault charges. Why wasn’t the Education Ministry monitoring the school?

ML: That school is one of the private partnership initiatives taken by the previous government. As soon as we started getting complaints we sent our supervision team there. The supervision team found some activities that should not happen in the school. We asked the police to investigate – that took some time.

We also informed HRCM, so two parties were investigating. In the meantime we followed suggestions given by the our own supervision team, while consulting with the Maldivian company (Biz Atoll) that took the school jointly with the Turkish group. We have seen their agreement – it is a very weak agreement. We revised the agreement in order to put in stronger conditions.

JJ: How seriously will the Ministry take the recommendations of the HRCM report, when it is released?

ML: We will take them very seriously. We have been very frank on this even from the initial stages – we were the people who reported this to the police. We have given the school conditions of our own to fulfill. So we will take those recommendations very seriously.

JJ: Is there a possibility that the school may be re-tendered and removed from Biz Atoll?

ML: I think there will be a possibility. In fact we consulted the Attorney General’s office on this before that report, thinking along that line.

JJ: We received many comments concerning the Lale case, that if the government is so serious about public-private partnerships but these sorts of thing can occur in a school, it doesn’t inspire public confidence in such partnerships. How do you address this?

ML: There is public confidence in public-private partnerships, like Villa International High School. I think parents and students are very happy about the progress of this school. These do inspire public confidence in public-private partnerships. The Lale case was an agreement done long before we came in [in government] and the agreements are not the kind we are doing now. It was a very simple agreement.

JJ: Was there any evidence of corruption in that agreement?

ML: I don’t know. It not fair for me to say. I haven’t investigated that part of it. I haven’t seen the report – only the draft. I think on our part we have taken Lale school issue very seriously and we have been doing work in order to change the situation. We are one of the group that brought this case to the independent authorities.

But these things should be reflected more in the report – the activities the Ministry has done. We are the people who know the schooling – we should know the students and the parents – we are professionals in this regard.

JJ: If you are voted out in parliament’s no-confidence motion, what will you go on to do afterwards?

ML: I have to think about it. There are different things I can do – I was in the previous government as Tourism Minister before I was transferred and resigned. These are not so complicated things. Life is like that.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)