Connect with us

News

MDP files SCourt petition to suspend sittings until Nasheed no-confidence motion done

FI

Published

on

The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has filed a petition with the Supreme Court, asking it to suspend parliamentary sittings to conduct any other work until the no-confidence motion against Speaker Mohamed Nasheed is processed.

The Parliament had been scheduled to hear the no-confidence motion against Nasheed on Sunday. However, Deputy Speaker Eva Abdulla, Nasheed’s cousin and fellow Democrats member, called in sick.

Nasheed, who has been given 30 minutes to speak in his defense during the debate, did not attend the sitting either.

The Parliament’s Secretary-General Fathimath Niusha decided to cancel the sitting.

In a press conference on Sunday, Ahmed Abdulla Afeef, a member of MDP’s legal team, said the party found Niusha’s decision to be unconstitutional, and in violation of the Parliament’s Standing Orders.

He said that the MDP has filed a constitutional case with the Supreme Court seeking two key decisions.

First, the MDP has asked the court to establish that the Parliament is required to implement Article 44 of the Parliament’s Standing Orders, in a situation where the Deputy Speaker is unable to chair a sitting if a no-confidence motion is submitted against the Speaker.

Article 44 (a) dictates that in a situation where both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker are indisposed of, the Speaker must appoint an MP to chair sittings in accordance with Article 82 (b) of the Constitution.

“The five MPs who will chair sittings if both Speaker and Deputy Speaker are indisposed of are already determined,” said Afeef.

“These five MPs are selected to chair sittings under certain rules if a sitting must be held in such a situation.”

Next, the MDP asked the court to establish that the Parliament cannot hold any other sittings until work on the no-confidence motion is done.

Afeef referred to Article 205 (d) of the Parliament’s Standing Orders, which states that in a situation where a no-confidence motion is submitted against the Speaker, the Parliament cannot engage in debate or make a decision on any other work submitted until a decision is made on the motion, first.

MDP lawmakers had remained at the Parliament’s chambers on Sunday in protest of the cancellation of the sitting. They accused Nasheed of deliberately blocking the no-confidence against him, and demanded the resignation of both the Parliament’s secretary general and the counsel general – Fathimath Filza.

A video shows a group of lawmakers confront them, while one of them – Kanditheem MP Abdulla Shaheem Abdul Hakeel – grabbed Filza’s computer monitor and dropped it on her desk, breaking her phone and tipping over a glass of water on documents in the process.

The MDP had originally submitted no-confidence motions against both Nasheed and Eva earlier this year. The motion against Eva was submitted with the endorsement on 50 MPs in May, and the motion against Nasheed followed, with the endorsement of 54 MPs, in June.

But the MDP withdrew the motions in September, while the party was engaged in negotiations with the Democrats – the party to which both Nasheed and Eva belong – for the presidential runoff election.

The recent motion against Nasheed was submitted with the endorsement of 49 MPs on October 9.

The MDP parliamentary group convened for a meeting week, during which they passed a three-line whip to vote in favor of the motion.

The vote was unanimous.

The MDP holds a majority at the Parliament, with 56 MPs. 43 votes are required to pass the motion.

Source(s): sun.mv

World

Can America still be called the land of the free?

FI

Published

on

By

“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

This powerful slogan which captures the aspiration for the freedom of Palestine extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, is resonating with student protesters across the US who are urging for an end to the violence in Gaza.

Despite months of peaceful protests, the US government persists in its military, political and financial support for Israel to continue the conflict. Recently, a bipartisan majority passed a $95 billion military aid package, including $15 billion in Israeli military aid.

In growing discontent over the US government’s policies on the conflict, university students across the country have turned to the legacy of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement and set up encampments, demanding university divestment from companies tied to the Israeli government. However, their nonviolent protests have been met with a heavy-handed response. Police forces have conducted campus raids in New York City and elsewhere, arresting students, faculty members and journalists.

On April 30, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) locked up over 100 protesters at Columbia University, the epicenter of the demonstrations, after House Speaker Mike Johnson paid a visit and was greeted with a chorus of “free Palestine”. With the raid, the number of individuals police had taken away from American campuses since mid-April reached more than 2,400.

Johnson called the students “lawless agitators” and threatened to call in the National Guard during his visit. He was not at all helpful in cooling down the tension, and the White House’s condemnation of the protests as “antisemitic” only exacerbated the situation. In a rare show of unity, both US lawmakers and the executive branch want to silence the protesting students—possible reasons are intriguing.

But the students are only making justified appeals: safeguarding the human rights of the Palestinians in Gaza and opposing US complicity in human rights abuses. They refuse to accept the standard official lines that the US was only assisting Israel in its legitimate right to self-defense.

The images of encircled hospitals, ruined homes, as well as the helpless faces of children, women and the elderly who have been wounded or displaced do not lie. They are proof of how the US “military assistance” is helping Israel with its cruelty against the innocent and the vulnerable. The young people back in the US have the right to challenge the disgraceful behavior of their own government.

The US government’s stance in the ongoing conflict in Gaza has been questionable from the very beginning. On top of the continued military aid, it has been vetoing UN resolutions for a cease-fire and Palestine’s full membership, keeping the green light on for Israeli offensives that violate international law and, more deplorably, challenge human conscience. The Congress even passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which adopted a broad definition of antisemitism and could be used as an easy excuse to suppress criticism and the rights of Americans.

Just like decades ago when young Americans stood up against the Vietnam War, students today are challenging US policies that contradict American values and perpetuate injustices. Standing united, their voice is getting louder as they call on the US government to align its actions with its democratic and human rights ideals. Their appeal shows the struggle for justice is not confined to Gaza.

But what’s different now is that the US is becoming much less tolerant of criticism and opposition. As things stand, a peaceful expression of disagreement may result in days of custody. Unarmed students can become targets of police officers armed to the teeth, and any critic of government policies can be labeled antisemitic.

What is the US, and its politicians, afraid of? Do they fear that the closer the public gets to the truth, the more difficult it will be for the US to sugarcoat its real intentions? The path from Columbia University to NYPD custody poses a critical question: can America claim to be the land of the free when it suppresses voices for human rights?

The protests in Columbia University and beyond are about justice, an ideal held dearly by all Americans. If American policymakers persist in their indifference and turn a deaf ear to the concerns of their constituents, the nation will lose its credibility as a purported champion of justice and freedom in the eyes of its own people and all those around the world.

The author is a commentator on international affairs, writing regularly for Xinhua News, CGTN, Global Times, China Daily etc. He can be reached at xinping604@gmail.com.

Source(s): Global Times

Continue Reading

News

India denies claims by Maldivian government on unpermitted operation

FI

Published

on

By

India has denied the claims made by Maldivian Defense Minister Ghassan Maumoon last week, alleging Indian military pilots had carried out an operation in the Maldives without the necessary permits.

The High Commission of India in the Maldives released a statement on Tuesday, stating that Indian aviation platforms in the Maldives have always operated as per the agreed procedures and with due authorization.

On the contrary, while speaking at a press conference on Saturday, Minister Ghassan said he had knowledge of one of the aviation platforms undertaking an unpermitted trip. He went onto detail an incident where one of the Indian-operated helicopters landed in Th. Thimaraushi, allegedly without permission – a case which he said was reviewed by the Parliament’s Committee on National Security Services (241 Committee), when he had been a lawmaker.

Referencing the remarks by the Minister, the High Commission said the particular incident which saw an emergency landing at Thimarafushi on October 9th, 2019, was “necessitated due to an unforeseen exigency”.

They added that the landing was carried out after taking necessary on-ground approvals from Air Traffic Control (ATC) to ensure the safety and security of the platform and crew.

Source(s): sun.mv

Continue Reading

News

Maldives calls for strong measures to maintain tuna stocks at IOTC

FI

Published

on

By

The Maldives has called for strong measures to sustain tuna stocks at the 28th session of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC).

A high-level delegation from the Ministry of Fisheries and Ocean Resources is attending the five-day session in Bangkok, Thailand. It will address various issues related to the sustainability of tuna stocks in the Indian Ocean.

The Maldives is advocating for member states to prioritise the sustainability of tuna stocks, focusing on the adoption of strong management measures for drifting Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) and shark conservation. Additionally, the Maldives will push for the implementation of a management procedure for skipjack tuna.

During the session, the Maldives emphasised the need for science-based management plans to protect against threats to fisheries and to enhance the restoration and management of tuna stocks. The Maldives also aims for the IOTC to lead Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs) in adopting science-based conservation and management measures, reflecting the nation’s dedication to the well-being of coastal communities and the health of tuna stocks.

The IOTC is an intergovernmental organisation responsible for managing tuna and tuna-like species in the Indian Ocean.

Source(s): PsmNews

Continue Reading

Trending