Tourism must evolve with global trends for success: Saeed

Responding to a no-confidence motion submitted by 12 opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MPs, Minister Saeed said tourism experts recommend changes to the industry every five to 10 years, with theories supporting such changes dating back to the early 1970s.

Featured Image

Economic Minister Mohamed Saeed speaking at the parliament sitting today -- Photo: Parliament

Malika Shahid

2026-11-04 13:12:37

Economic Minister Mohamed Saeed has defended the government's sustainable township model, saying countries that fail to adapt to changing global tourism trends risk falling behind.

Responding to a no-confidence motion submitted by 12 opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) MPs, Minister Saeed said tourism experts recommend changes to the industry every five to 10 years, with theories supporting such changes dating back to the early 1970s.

He said the pace of global competition had accelerated significantly, pointing to the rapid development of tourism and hospitality industries in the Middle East.

"Look at the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE. Look at the pace of their development, how they have entered the global hospitality network and how tourism is transforming. Countries that do not evolve and adopt these tourism trends are failing," Minister Saeed said.

He said the Maldives had developed a tourism industry featuring some of the world's most recognized hotel and fine dining brands.

Minister Saeed said successive governments had emphasized the importance of maintaining the Maldives' position in the global tourism market while diversifying the industry.

He described the sustainable township project in Noonu Atoll as an initiative made possible through amendments to the Special Economic Zones (SEZ) Act.

Minister Saeed was responding to allegations in the no-confidence motion that amendments to the SEZ Act allowing the development of townships would cause serious harm to Maldives.

He said he did not believe Parliament would pass legislation that violated the Constitution, adding that the allegation that the SEZ Act amendment was unconstitutional should be left for parliament debate.