Advising or Approval?

I have been on this subject for sometime. I sent the article published earlier today, to Minivan News on the 29^th of July 2008. It is obvious that my writing is not up their standards, or the content is not considered important as it was not published. I have also written several comments on Haveeru, hoping one of the reporters will follow up.

 

When Ibra’s blog came out, I made a comment on the subject in his entry “Hypocrisy Defined” .My basic question was:

 

“Article 116 is one which I have noticed that is not high lighted in yellow, but the Article has changed very much from advising the Parliament, to approval from the Parliament.”

 

He referred me to his reply under a separate entry “Cabinet Debacle and 116”. However, I could not agree to Ibra’s interpretation hence wrote another comment.

 

Dear Ibra,

 

Thanks to “Cabinet Debacle and 116″, which you have directed me as your answer to my question.

 

You are not very straight forward here.

 

Quote:

the wording of which was very ambiguous (in the context of the constitution), because on the one hand it said the President had the power to create Ministries, but he should submit the decision to parliament.

Unquote

 

The version passed is not ambiguous, it is still available for down load, and it is not the decision to be submitted. 116(h) clearly gives the power to create a Ministry and allocate its work to the President. It required the President to submit the INFORMATION (Mauloomaath) to the majlis, not the decision.

 

The problem with most of our MPs is they have taken this as a vendetta against Maumoon. I respect that you have the honesty to admit it, few will. This is one reason that there are so many short comings of the Constitution which took 4 years in the making.

 

The way I see it, this was more of Qasim’s doing than anyone else. If amendments which changed the substance of any Article were voted for this debate would not have been there.

 

The Hansard shows that Riyaz did take a Point of Order but was asked to sit in the middle of what he was asking. These are all in the public archive, and while I believe that this was wrong, I am willing to let history judge the participants.

 

July 30, 2008 4:22:00 PM MVT

 

For this comment included in his reply was :

 

“By the way, your interpretation of 116 is exactly what the drafting committee wanted to avoid. Besides, you asked me about the yellow highlight, and now you are twisting the argument on to something else!”

 

I have to respectfully say, no Ibra I am not the one twisting the argument. My original comment was about the change in substance of the Article 116 due to the amendment.

 

In the last reply, Ibra also wrote :

 

However, let me put to you this question. If the President had the unfettered power granted in the constitution to create any number of Ministries, and the same Constitution also granted unfettered power to the Majlis to approve or strike down proposed budgets for each Ministry, and the Majlis decided not to allocate any funds for a given Ministry because the Majlis did not agree with the existence of such Ministry, in which institution’s (the President’s or the Majlis’s) favour should the Supreme Court rule?

 

This clearly shows that the change is substantial and was made because there were some Members who believed that this is the better way.

 

Article 116 when first submitted to the Special Majlis gave the power to create Ministries to the Parliament and it was not accepted by the Majority. This was changed to give that power to the President and the Article was passed.

 

In addition, the information of the two systems of Government which were distributed to the public made it very clear that in a Presidential System, this power will be with the President. The Presidential System was accepted by an overwhelming majority of the people. Hence the change made is also contrary to the System (Presidential) the Special Majlis was empowered by the people to follow.

 

The way I see it, the change to Article 116 was not done properly. The argument is not about whether the change is for the better or worse, it is the way it was done. DRP members who command the majority of the Special Majlis have a big burden on their heads. Why did they participate in a block vote if there were changes which they were against? Had they not taken part in the vote, it would not have passed. The excuse of not being aware of the change is not sufficient. It is the duty of the Members to scrutinize the document before voting, and if the time was not enough, they have to demand for more time rather than voting for something which they have not gone through.

Carefully thought out strategies

“Fact is, a number of decisions made by the President to destroy the Amended Constitution, implemented by those who are so willing to do his bidding, were turned around by us through carefully thought out strategies on the Majlis floor, complemented with direct action by the people.” Hypocricy Defined 25/5/08, Ibra’s Blog.

 

Whether by error or on purpose, Ibra has written the true fact here. There is more to the pressure for ratification of the new Constitution than which meets the eye. The whole drama, it seems is a well planned act, to ensure the change of power in the next elections is cemented to a certain individual. Both DRP and MDP seem to have been played out by better strategists. This reminds me of the story of the hare and tortoise story which I read in one of the Dhiveh readers when I was in school. Am I paranoid, or is there something going on which somehow seems to be missed by all the media on both sides.

 

The People’s Special Majlis (PSM) assembled on the 19^th of July 2004, finally managed to complete the work of the new Constitution on 24^th June 2004. The proceedings of the sitting should be written in Maldivian History. Let me track back a little.

 

On 22^nd May 2008, the President sends the draft Constitution back to the PSM with seven recommendations.  The Drafting Committee was given the task of checking for dictation, language errors and to correct conflicting Articles. The Drafting Committee completed its work and handed over a comprehensive list of the changes in tabular form, with keys indicating the changes. The document is available for download at PSM website http://www.majlis.gov.mv/specialmajlis/final%20draft%2020%20June%202008.pdf

 

In the key, it is indicated that any Article which due to the editing, may have changed in substance is highlighted in yellow. There are quite a few such amendments. This was also confirmed by (Male’ Member) Mr.Ibrahim Ismail’s when he gave a summary of the procedures followed by The Drafting Committee. The Hansard for the sitting of 26^th June 2008 is also available for download and the Speaker made it clear in no uncertain terms that he was not going to allow any Points of Order. This is where my suspects start. Was he aware, that there may be trouble ahead?

 

Even though the Speaker said he will not allow Points of Order, he did give the opportunity to a handful of members to raise their concerns and every one of them pointed out that going for a block vote for all the amendments may not be fair. Their argument was, while they may support some of the changes, there were others that they may not support. It is worth noting here that the protests were from MDP and DRP members. It went to the extent that some Members threatened to boycott the vote. The Speaker already had a solution for this. While I cannot confirm the next line, I quote a Member of the Special Majlis. “If there is a boycott of the vote, I am going to send this (Constitution) as it is to the President and let him return it back”, I have no reason to doubt the Member, who is among the people who voted Yes.

 

The questions which arise are:

 

Can the Drafting Committee given a specific task, make amendments which were not within its mandate?

If such amendments change the substance of the Article (which was voted by the members), isn’t the Speaker obliged to get the majority of the Members to approve such amendment?

 

If this is such a simple matter why did we waste public money over 4 years? Why didn’t the Drafting Committee members just let the Articles fly through as most members wanted, voting with the majority? They can make the changes which they really want anyway during the final editing and let the Speaker call for a block vote.

 

One of the carefully thought out strategies may be Article 116 among others.

 

 

Article 116 refers to the Government Ministries. The Original draft which was passed by the Special Majlis gives the power of creating Government Ministries to the President.  He is required to give the relevant information regarding the Ministries and their work to the People’s Majlis.

 

The amendment here is a sentence added (instead of requiring to give the information) the President has to submit such required Ministries and their responsibilities to be passed by the People’s Majlis.

 

I believe this changes the substance of the Article, however the yellow highlighting is not present, hence Members would see the amendment as typo or grammatical changes only. There are similar changes not marked.

 

President Maumoon has found himself in a dilemma. He is now practically in a situation where is either be in the frying pan or jump into the fire. It was his man at the helm of the People’s Special Majlis or was he?

 

PS : Except for the quote referred, all the information here can be verified by Peoples’s Special Majlis Hansard of 26^th June 2008, the copy of Constitution sent to the President for ratification, and the table of amendments. All these documents can be downloaded at www.malis.gov.mv/specialmajlis