Democracy

First Elected President

The persistence and perseverance of the Maldivian Democratic Party MDP behind the then activist Nasheed, led to a successful campaign spreading awareness across the archipelago. Trying to make the Maldivians aware of freedom and democracy came at a price of several months of jail time, with different accusations ranging from terrorism to inciting violence.

Though, with all the challenges faced and through the struggle of parliament members, MDP was able to test the waters of the political situation in Maldives via a referendum.  MDP took the side of a Parliamentarian System while Gayoom campaigned for a Presidential System.

In August 2007, voters decided via referendum that the Maldives' new constitution should provide for a Presidential System of Government (Instead of Parliamentary System). The special Majlis completed its work and the new constitution took effect in August 2008.

n accordance with the new constitution ratified by the then President, Gayoom on August 7, 2008, the first round of presidential elections was held on October 10, 2008. Five opposition leaders were allowed to contest the presidential elections.

As no candidate received 50 percent of the vote, a second round was held on October 29, between President Gayoom and the principal opposition candidate President Nasheed. With the new allies formed between Nasheed and the majority of the other contesters, Nasheed won with 54 percent of the vote, becoming the first democratically elected president of the Republic of Maldives.

Gayoom accepted defeat by stating "I accept the results of the.. run-off election and I respectfully congratulate Mr. Mohamed Nasheed and his party."

While Nasheed humbled himself and promised that he would not take action against the man whose security forces have tortured him, fed him ground glass and kept him in solitary confinement for as long as eighteen months at a stretch. "He is going to be staying with us. I don't think we should be going for a witch-hunt and digging up the past".

What was displayed after the democratic election between the autocrat who had ruled the country for 30 years, and a young-blooded president who was harmed several times as an opponent, was unique by all means. A rare case, as the world has experienced violence and blood shed as a consequence of bringing down dictators.

Regardless of this apparent peaceful transition, those with knowledge in the area knew that President Nasheed will face unprecedented challenges. This challenge will literally equal that of violence and bloodshed faced when bringing down a dictator. There were forces well placed in all the institutions of the nation. They did not want the change as President Gayoom single-handedly built the modern Maldivian economy that rests on high-end tourism, vesting all the wealth and power around a handful of his family and friends. The well fed businessmen of 30 years were well rooted in corruption and unethical practices for which they would certainly face the consequences if Nasheed was to execute his vision for "The Other Maldives".

Nasheed was given the burden and responsibility to reform all aspects of Maldives. This included the most tedious and dangerous task of reforming a well painted economy making Maldives the richest country in South Asia. The vast majority of the country was not helped to overcome the poverty line with this well-orchestrated economy. "People have seen a tiny group of people get very, very rich in the last thirty years. Meanwhile we have no communications between our islands. Our health system is in a bad way, People wanted a change from all this" said a spokesman for the MDP, Naseem Mohamed. Overcoming these issues came as a challenge as each and every resource of the country had very close ties with the politicians and businessman spoon-fed by Gayoom during his 30 years of repression.

A terrible attempt at “Hard Talk” in my opinion.

The interviews were all equally bad, she seemed determined to be confrontational for the sake of being so. Most questions were based on hearsay and no policy related questions were raised despite the name of the program.

To be fair she made all candidates squirm, every single skeleton in the closet was dragged out and probed. A shame though she never allowed anyone to answer a question fully before interrupting them with another.

A terrible attempt at “Hard Talk” in my opinion. But she is getting threats now, must have got something right after all.

http://www.sun.mv/33533

Political links and Power across the Middle East.

"Don't worry America!
Your Commander in Chief is in lock-step with the Arabian rulers..."

The United States supported the ouster of Saudi Arabian-backed Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in 2011, creating a serious rift between longtime allies Riyadh and Washington.

Now it looks like history is repeating itself, with the latest military coup overthrowing the democratically elected regime of President Mohamed Morsi, who had the backing of the now-embattled Muslim Brotherhood.

The result could be a significant shift in political links and power across the Middle East.

When Mubarak was ousted, Saudi Arabia decided it could no longer could rely on U.S. security arrangements and began to initiate an independent foreign policy, which was to incite Sunnis in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon under the leadership of Saudi National Security Council chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al Saud.

The Saudis also saw that the U.S. was prepared to further negotiate with Iran over its nuclear development program. Tehran saw the move as a sign of U.S. weakness because of Iran’s strategic interest in spreading its Shiite influence in the Gulf Arab states.

Riyadh already was wary of Iran’s influence in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, so it regarded the offer to negotiate as a threat to its rule. Tehran has sought to inflame the Shiites not only in the Gulf Arab countries but in Saudi Arabia’s sensitive eastern province, where much of its oil production takes place.

In addition, Tehran also attempted to draw in Kurdish leaders in its effort to incite Shiites in the Gulf Arab states, especially Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. The Kurds generally have been backing the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, since he has agreed to allow them more independence in northern Syria to offset Turkish aid to the Syrian opposition.

The Assad offer hasn’t passed unnoticed by Iran, which had worked closely with Syria, Turkey and Iraq to tamp down Kurdish influence. Like Turkey, Syria and Iraq, Iran historically has had a Kurdish problem, since the Kurds want to carve out their own Kurdistan, uniting Kurds from all four countries.

With the threat to the Assad regime, however, Iran appears to be keeping its options open with the Kurds and has worked closely with the Kurdish leadership in northern Iraq over the years, to Turkey’s consternation, since Ankara had sought to extend its Sunni influence with the Kurds, who also are Sunnis.

Iran wants to prevent against any Sunni uprising in Iraq, whose prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is Shiite.

For its part, Saudi Arabia has provided weapons and personnel – including the funneling of foreign Islamist militants – into Syria to back the opposition. However, the Saudis lack control over them, and the foreign fighters under Jabhat al-Nusra threaten to take over the fighting from the opposition with the goal of establishing a caliphate there.

The U.S. also cut off military aid and military exercises with Egypt over the ouster of Morsi, and the Saudis and the other Gulf countries have decided to pour in tens of billions of dollars to support the interim government the military has established, effectively replacing the $1.3 billion that would have been supplied by the U.S.

Now, relations between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia appear to be back to where they were following Mubarak’s ouster, suggesting a major geopolitical shift may be under way.

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said that U.S. opposition to the Egyptian military regime “will achieve nothing.”

The open intelligence group Stratfor says the U.S.  and Saudi Arabia “have long been aligned on most issues pertaining to the greater Middle East, and Riyadh has used its financial muscle to support past U.S. foreign policy initiatives.”

“The allies’ divergence on Egypt thus represents a major break with the historical trend,” a Stratfor report says.

For the Saudis, the rise of the Iranian-backed Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was a greater threat to the existence of the monarchy itself. Consequently, Riyadh has strongly backed the military regime in Cairo to crush the Brotherhood and is using its financial clout to back it up.

Given continued U.S. efforts to reach a negotiated settlement with Iran over the nuclear issue, the Saudis no longer see the U.S. as providing the nuclear umbrella of protection that it once had. It certainly can’t rely on Russia, since Moscow backs Iran’s nuclear development program and Tehran’s efforts to support the embattled Assad regime.

In turn, this development also is causing the Saudis to consider developing their own nuclear program, possibly nuclear weapons, in response to the perception that Iran similarly is working on developing a nuclear weapon.

For Washington, a stable Egypt is paramount to advance what foreign policy interests it has in the Middle East.

“This requires a compromise between the Islamist movement and the military regime,” the Stratfor report says. “The United States cannot turn a blind eye as Egypt comes under military rule and stamps out political dissent. Washington does not see the military regime as capable of single-handedly maintaining stability.”

Washington’s position suggests that the Saudis once again find themselves prepared to undertake an approach to Middle East independent of the U.S., indicating a strategic realignment is emerging.

Prior to the Arab spring, the U.S. worked closely with a security arrangement that included not only the Saudis and Egypt but also Jordan, Turkey and Israel – all aimed at containing Iran.

With Washington and Riyadh at odds once again, Saudi Arabia appears to have decided to undertake an independent course of developing its own alignment with Israel, Jordan and the other Arab countries.

Turkey may be out of the new re-alignment because of its backing of the Muslim Brotherhood and the ousted Morsi government. In addition, it is undergoing its own internal problems that have precluded any significant extensions of its own regional policy interests.

While the new alignment may represent limited U.S. influence in the Middle East, Washington may not be opposed to it as it “can serve U.S. interests in the Middle East by preserving a core group of stable and politically moderate nations even as Washington’s influence in the region is weaker than at any time since the end of World War II,” according to a report of the Langley Intelligence Group Network, or Lignet.

In an approach suggesting that Washington wants countries in the region to settle their own differences, the emerging strategic realignment precludes a more direct involvement as it pivots toward Asia.

For Egypt, an external peace will help it deal with its domestic situation. Cairo won’t tolerate Hamas or attacks from other terrorist groups in the Sinai, an obvious benefit to Israel and the U.S.

The Kurds, for their part, see that they are in a position to play off Iran from the Gulf Arab countries to obtain what they want. They also will work closely with Israel in cooperation with these countries to gain their concessions as internal conditions in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon become more unstable.

Kuda kudhin kuraa kushuge masala thah balai, thahugeegu koh, insaafu koh, adhabu dhinumugai amalu kuraane gothuge gavaidu

The legal source said that the culpability of minors is specifically dealt with in section five of the regulations.


“According to section five, children above the age of 10 and below the age of 15 are criminally responsible for five offences, which are apostasy, treason, fornication, falsely accusing fornication and consumption of alcohol,
“Children above 15 years are criminally responsible for their actions. 

With children who are below 10, parents are required to make good any damage because of a criminal act. There is no criminal liability for below 10.”

NGO had called on the Maldivian government to  Legalization concerning the treatment of sexual abuse victims. 

The NGO also raised concerns over the potential impact on the state’s ability to prevent sexual offences.

AG Azima paid lot of money her associate lawyers in Singapore & Uk, ACC never investigate

Nala Fehi Male’ program Goes Cafe's by City Council

Construction work is under way for another café and a new building in City Park located behind the old power station, under the City Council’s Nala Fehi Male’ program

“Rejection of the project encourages ‘slavery’” That's what ACC Did IMMIGRATION

July 17, 2012 -

Controller of Immigration and Emigration Dr Mohamed Ali has warned that failure to launch the Border Control System project in the near future might result in having to disrupt incoming and outgoing passenger traffic at Maldivian borders.

The Controller’s warning comes at a time when the High Court had issued an order yesterday, for the second time, to halt the $39-million Border Control System project.

Speaking to reporters today, Mohamed Ali said that the current Border Control System in the Maldives was established in 2003, and that this system does not allow proper monitoring of travellers to and from Maldives.

“The current system is a very simple one which had been used in Canada 13 years ago. It does not allow identification of deported individuals - the border of Maldives is open for anyone to come in. Unless this security measure is put in place, I may have to stop all passenger traffic at the border. It is my responsibility to ensure security,” he said.

Meanwhile, Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has repeatedly attempted to halt the Border Control System project, following suspicion of corruption.

Mohamed Ali noted that any group which works in the best interest of the nation would not attempt to halt a project which would result in numerous benefits to the people of Maldives.

When asked if this comment was targeted at ACC, the Controller refused to respond.

Mohamed Ali went on to say that entire projects do not have to be stopped following corruption suspicions.

“ACC has indicated that the allegations pertaining to the project have been submitted to the Prosecutor General’s (PG) Office. I don’t believe that the entire project has to be stopped. My concern is that the project might be ruined, just like the barge in Thilafushi which involved some corruption suspicions – and ended up in unused, deteriorated condition. The problem had nothing to do with the barge itself, did it?”

Referring to illegal import of labourers to Maldives, Mohamed Ali said that rejection of the Border Control System project would result in the encouragement of ‘slavery’ in Maldives.

“We are already included on the US Human Trafficking Watchlist. We barely managed to be in the second category, only because of the leniency of the US. If this continues, we will face pressure from the US,” the Controller said.

He refused to comment on the Border Control System project case, citing that it is in progress in Court.

Department of Immigration and Emigration has stated that the Border Control System project, conducted through Malaysia’s Nexbiz, is 95-percent complete.

Sun is informed that the current Border Control System is also operated using equipment provided by Nexbiz.

Source : http://sun.mv/english/4363