Dhiggaru MP Ahmed Nazim has warned that spreading rumours and inciting hatred against MPs to gain popularity could put their lives at risk.
Speaking during a debate on a petition signed by more than 7,000 people calling for an end to "expensive health insurance for MPs", Nazim said it was dangerous to target individuals based on issues that were popular at the time.
“Whenever someone just wants popularity based on what is trending, I believe it is very dangerous to attack the people involved. That has put members of this Parliament in danger, and one of our honorable members was assassinated as a result of hate speech in the past,” he said.
Nazim, former Deputy Speaker of Parliament, was referring to the assassination of religious scholar Dr Afrasheem Ali, who represented Ungoofaaru in Parliament.
He also cited an incident in which an Australian MP was deliberately struck by a car today as an example of the dangers politicians could face.
Defending MPs’ health insurance benefits, MP Nazim said Article 102 of the Constitution provides for allowances for several senior state officials, not just parliamentarians. The provision also covers the president, ministers, judges and members of independent institutions, he said.
“These allowances are not only for MPs. They were established for heads of independent institutions and judges following the adoption of the new Constitution,” he said.
MP Nazim said MPs’ allowances were fixed after Ministers raised concerns about the financial burden they could place on the state. The then Finance Minister subsequently came to Parliament and approved the salary increase for MPs, he said.
He also questioned the petition’s comparison of health insurance for MPs with the public healthcare scheme, Aasandha, arguing that the two should not be compared directly.
While MPs pay MVR 24,000 a year for insurance that covers treatment costing up to MVR 1.3 million, Nazim said Aasandha does not impose a limit on treatment costs.
During the debate, which began on Monday and continued today, several MPs criticized the petitioners. They argued that state expenditure on MPs was not excessive and that the structure of the Aasandha scheme placed a greater financial burden on the state.
