The rejection of a motion to expedite amendments to the Maldives Immigration Act banning Israeli passport holders from entering the country has exposed glaring inconsistencies in the government’s rhetoric and actions. Despite repeated assurances, the proposal was dismissed by a Parliament with a government supermajority, sparking public outrage over its failure to honour its own commitments.
In June, the Cabinet, under immense public pressure following Israel’s escalating war in Palestine, made a high-profile announcement: the Maldives would ban Israeli passport holders from entering the country. This move was framed as a principled stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people, a decision ostensibly backed by the government’s political apparatus. Yet five months later, that pledge remains unfulfilled, and Wednesday’s vote signals a betrayal of public trust.
The ruling People’s National Congress (PNC), with a parliamentary supermajority, voted overwhelmingly against the motion to expedite the ban, despite their earlier support for the amendment. This glaring contradiction raises serious questions about the government’s sincerity. Was the Cabinet decision simply a populist ploy to quell public dissent without any genuine intent to follow through?
Equally troubling are the remarks from senior officials, including Attorney General Ahmed Usham, who suggested that implementing the ban would pose practical challenges. If such challenges were known, why was the announcement made with such fanfare? The President himself, flanked by key ministers and the Attorney General, unequivocally declared the ban in June, implying the existence of a roadmap for its enactment. Now, months later, the very architects of this policy seem to have backtracked, citing feasibility concerns.
Meanwhile, public sentiment against Israeli atrocities in the occupied Palestinian territories has not waned. Citizens protesting against what they perceive as genocide have faced arrests and legal action, with the government defending these actions under the guise of maintaining public order. Solidarity, it seems, is acceptable only when it doesn’t inconvenience the administration or its diplomatic relationships. This hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed. Social media is ablaze with criticism, accusing the government of posturing while continuing to facilitate Israeli visitors—a point underscored by the rise in Israeli arrivals during the summer months.
The government’s failure to act decisively is not just an indictment of its leadership but also a reminder of the widening gap between the administration and the electorate. The Maldivian people have demonstrated their unwavering support for the Palestinian cause through protests, petitions, and calls for concrete action. Yet, the Muizzu administration appears more interested in projecting an image of solidarity than taking any meaningful action.
This debacle has left many questioning the credibility of a government that promised transparency and responsiveness. Parliament’s rejection of the motion and the administration’s subsequent silence reinforce a troubling narrative: that public opinion is a tool to be exploited, not a mandate to be respected.
The Maldives has long prided itself on standing with oppressed peoples worldwide. This reputation is now under threat, not because of the actions of ordinary Maldivians, but due to the glaring double standards of Muizzu’s administration. It is time for the government to answer for its empty promises and to respect the will of the people it claims to represent. Anything less is unacceptable.