Category World News

A bill that critics say could muzzle free speech and the media has sparked an outcry in the Maldives after the government of President Mohamed Muizzu pushed it through parliament, where it enjoys a supermajority.

A prominent union of journalists pledged on Wednesday to defy the bill, while the main opposition party called for protests and a global press freedom group urged Muizzu to veto the legislation.

“The Maldivian parliament has passed a draconian bill that seeks to muzzle dissent online and offline, both on traditional media and social media,” said Ahmed Naaif, the secretary general of the Maldives Journalists Association (MJA), the country’s biggest union of media workers.

“We journalists will stand together in defiance against this takeover of the media by the executive branch,” he told Al Jazeera.

Muizzu’s government, however, says the legislation, known as the Maldives Media and Broadcasting Regulation Bill, only seeks to create a unified body to oversee broadcast and online media and to “safeguard the constitutional right to freedom of expression”.

“Personal social media accounts used in a private capacity are not regulated under this legislation,” Foreign Minister Abdulla Khaleel said in a statement on X. He added that it will establish “clear standards and a code of conduct” and will also “address the challenges of misinformation, disinformation and coordinated manipulation of content”.

The controversy has ratcheted up tensions in the Maldives, an island nation of 500,000 people that has struggled to consolidate its democracy since it ended 30 years of one-man rule at the ballot box in 2008.

It comes months after the president’s allies in parliament and the judicial watchdog overhauled the country’s Supreme Court, suspending a judge and firing two others on allegations of abuse of power. The former judges say the charges were manufactured to influence the outcome of several cases, including one challenging constitutional amendments that strip legislators of their seats if they switch political parties.

The government denies the accusations.

Censorship

Muizzu’s party, the People’s National Congress (PNC), and its allies control 79 of the parliament’s 93 seats.

On Tuesday, the PNC called an extraordinary session in the evening, while parliament was in recess, to push the new media bill through. Deputy Speaker Ahmed Nazim ignored protests inside and outside parliament, expelling seven legislators of the main opposition, to go ahead with the vote.

The approved bill envisions the creation of a commission comprised of seven members, three of whom will be appointed by parliament and four elected by registered media groups. All members can be dismissed by the parliament, which is formally called the People’s Majlis of Maldives.

The bill also grants the commission sweeping powers to fine, suspend and shutter news outlets. These include for coverage that the commission deems contrary to religious norms, national security or public order.

The initial version of the bill had said it would not be parliament but the president who appointed three of the members of the commission, which some advocates and critics alike acknowledged showed the PNC had listened to some concerns to withdraw those provisions.

However, Naaif, the secretary-general of the MJA, said the bill still places the media “under government control” as the president’s party controls parliament and has the power to dismiss any member who is elected by journalists.

“The PNC has ignored our calls for the media to be regulated through a self-regulatory mechanism, without government interference. Instead, it is giving these regulatory powers to a politicised commission,” he said. “This bill is all about penalising journalists and media groups for their coverage rather than safeguarding the freedom of the press.”

Naaif also claimed a provision in the bill – which states that electronic media would be subject to the same rules as traditional media – puts anyone who publishes content online at risk. The bill defines electronic media as channels that broadcast news and information using audio, video, tape, and the internet.

“This bill will enable censorship of the internet to a whole new level,” he said.

The government, however, vehemently denies the claim.

“Let’s look at how ‘media’ is interpreted. It is interpreted as registered media. This bill will not apply to people who are not part of the media,” Minister of Youth Ibrahim Waheed, a former journalist, told the PSM public broadcaster on Wednesday.

“This bill will not apply to young people who are creating content for social media.”

Waheed also told reporters later that the provision on electronic media refers to channels run by registered media outlets on social platforms.

‘Sad day for democracy’

The opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has meanwhile declared the passage of the bill a “sad day for democracy in the Maldives” and called for the public to “join us to protest this draconian control bill”.

Former President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih said that the bill “signifies the end of press freedom in Maldives” and that the “underhanded manner in which it was forced through parliament, despite protests by journalists, opposition parties, media organisations, civil society, and the public, lays bare the government’s disregard for Maldivians’ democratic rights”.

Former Foreign Minister Abdulla Shahid said that the government has “declared war on free speech” and that “instead of fixing the crises our nation faces, they are trying to censor the voices that hold them accountable”.

The United States Embassy in the Maldives, following the bill’s passage, urged Muizzu’s government to “uphold the freedoms of expression, including dissenting and opposition voices” while the Bar Council of the Maldives (BCM), which represents the country’s legal profession, called on the president to reconsider enacting the bill.

“The BCM believes the bill requires substantial revision and reconsideration to align with constitutional principles and international best practices,” Hussein Siraj, the council’s president, told Al Jazeera.

Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) echoed the call.

“CPJ is deeply concerned that the Maldives Parliament has passed a bill that would undermine the work of independent journalists and place the media under government control,” the group said in a statement on X.

Tesla shares jumped 6 percent on Monday after CEO Elon Musk disclosed that he had bought $1bn worth of the company’s stock. The move reinforces Musk’s push for greater control over Tesla and comes a week after the company’s board offered him a $1 trillion pay package over the next decade.

Musk’s stock purchase – his first open-market buy-up of shares since 2020 – comes at a critical time for Tesla, as it races to transform into an artificial intelligence and robotics firm whilst also grappling with falling sales of electric vehicles (EVs).

But Musk’s pay packet has come in for intense criticism. Last weekend, Pope Leo decried the widening pay gap between corporate bosses such as Elon Musk – whose estimated wealth now stands at $367bn – and ordinary working people, which he said was a major factor in growing global unrest.

Why is Musk buying up Tesla shares?

On September 12, Musk, 54, purchased 2.57 million shares (which represents less than one percent of Tesla’s market capitalisation), paying between $372 and $397 per share as the price varied through the day, according to regulatory filings. He now owns almost 20 percent of Tesla, which seemingly pleases its investors.

Tesla’s share price rose to around $422 on Monday – still 12 percent lower than its all-time high of $479 (reached in December 2024). Following his recent move, Musk posted on X that the increase in Tesla’s value was “foretold in the prophecy”.

While Musk wasn’t an original founder of Tesla – he invested in the company one year after it was established – he became chairman in 2004. The South African entrepreneur has consistently demanded a bigger stake and more voting power at Tesla, having previously said he would prefer to build AI products and robots outside of Tesla if he cannot control 25 percent voting power in the firm.

Musk sold more than $20bn of Tesla’s stock (or 4.6 percent of its market cap) in 2022 to fund his acquisition of Twitter, now X, for $44bn. He also owns private holdings in SpaceX, Neuralink and The Boring Company.

Is Musk really being paid $1 trillion?

The Tesla CEO will have to meet certain performance-related criteria first. To unlock the full $1 trillion payout, Musk will have to raise the company’s valuation from roughly $1 trillion today to $8.5 trillion over the next 10 years. He will also have to sell one million autonomous taxis and one million robots and increase Tesla’s profits by more than 24 times what it earned last year.

Tesla currently operates a few dozen autonomous taxis in a limited area in the city where it is headquartered, Austin, Texas in the US. Known as “robotaxis“, they are self-driving vehicles but are accompanied by human “safety supervisors”, who can intervene if problems occur.

On the robotics side, the company unveiled its first humanoid robot – Optimus – in 2022. In 2024, Musk claimed that Tesla would deploy robots for “internal use [ie for use inside its own factories]” in 2025, and that it would have produced 5,000 units by then. Neither pledge has been met so far.

Musk also recently said that “80 percent of Tesla’s [future] value will be Optimus”.

How has Musk’s pay at Tesla risen over time?

After Musk joined Tesla in 2004, he took very little cash pay. Instead, he chose to be paid in equity. Then, in 2018, shareholders approved a landmark 10-year pay package for Musk – linked to various operational targets – estimated at $2.6bn.

As Tesla’s market value surged after the start of 2020 (when it was trading at just $29.50 a share), many of those pay objectives were met, and Musk received a large number of additional Tesla shares. Due to broad stock market gains since the COVID-19 pandemic, Musk’s earnings are estimated to have climbed by $40bn-$60bn.

Though Musk’s pay windfall at Tesla has attracted regulatory scrutiny for overcompensation, especially from Delaware’s Court of Chancery, most of the company’s shareholders have repeatedly ratified the CEO’s payment packages.

How do CEOs’ pay packets compare to those of average US workers?

Tesla doesn’t disclose non-executive salaries, so it is hard to say how Musk’s income compares to that of the average worker there.

However, corporate pay in the US has generally rallied in recent decades compared to that of workers. According to the Economic Policy Institute, average pay for CEOs at S&P 500 companies  – the 500 biggest listed firms in the US – rose by almost 1,000 percent over the 50-year period leading up to 2024.

By contrast, a typical worker at an S&P 500 company has seen his or her pay packet rise by just 27 percent (adjusted for inflation) over the same period. Stated differently, the CEO-to-worker pay ratio has increased from 30:1 to 350:1 over the past five decades.

In an interview last week with Crux, a Catholic news website, Pope Leo singled out Elon Musk as an example of the kind of wealth he said was corroding “the value of human life, of the family, of the value of society”.

Asked about Tesla’s proposed $1 trillion pay packet, Leo responded: “What does that mean, and what’s that about? If [personal wealth accumulation] is the only thing that has any value any more, then we are in big trouble.”

Is Tesla in trouble?

Despite its recent uptick, so far this year, Tesla’s stock market performance has been among the worst of the “Magnificent 7” group of tech giants – which also includes Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft and Nvidia – having lost around 2 percent of its value this year so far.

Tesla’s most recent quarterly results showed profit losses amid falling demand for electric vehicles and increased import production costs associated with US President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs. Looking ahead, earnings look set to continue falling.

This is what Palestinians in Gaza City are facing as Israeli forces relentlessly bomb the area as part of the ‘second phase’ of their plan to capture it.

Several European countries have announced that they will not participate in the next Eurovision Song Contest if Israel, which has taken part in the annual competition for half a century, is allowed to continue.

On Tuesday, Spain joined the Netherlands, Ireland and Slovenia in denouncing Israel’s war on Gaza, which has killed nearly 65,000 people since October 2023, with many thousands more lost under the rubble and presumed dead, and announced that they will not take part if Israel continues to do so.

What is Eurovision?

Eurovision is an international song competition which takes place every year, primarily in European countries, and is televised. It has been running since 1956 and is one of the world’s longest-running and most-watched non-sporting TV events.

Each country performs an original song and the winner is determined by voting. The contest is organised by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), a collective of public broadcasters in more than 35 countries.

Any country which has a broadcaster operating within Europe as part of the EBU can participate in Eurovision. Australia joined in 2015, Armenia in 2006 and Azerbaijan in 2011.

The winner of each contest hosts the following year competition.

The next contest will take place in May 2026 in Vienna.

Israel and Eurovision: a brief history

Israel first took part in Eurovision in 1973 because its national broadcaster is a member of the EBU. Back then, Israel’s national broadcaster was the Israel Broadcasting Authority; now it is the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation, or Kan, and is still part of the EBU.

Arabic-speaking countries have only taken part very rarely: Morocco participated only once in 1980 – which was the only time an Arabic song featured in the contest. Tunisia and Lebanon withdrew in 1977 and 2005 after refusing to air Israeli content.

Israel’s participation in Eurovision has frequently met protests, but objections have intensified since the start of its war on Gaza in October 2023, following the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel.

For the 2024 competition, which was held in Malmo, Sweden, the EBU rejected Israel’s entry for being too political. The entry was a song called October Rain, referencing the victims of the October 7 Hamas attack, during which 1,139 people were killed.

While initially reluctant, Kan changed Israel’s entry to a romantic ballad. Israel was ranked fifth in the competition.

Israel also participated in the 2025 competition, which was held in Basel, Switzerland, finishing in second place.

Which countries are boycotting Eurovision over Israel?

So far, five European countries have said they may not participate in Eurovision if Israel does.

Iceland

Iceland’s broadcaster RUV said that it is possible that Iceland would withdraw from Eurovision if Israel participates in the competition, according to a news report published by the RUV website on September 9.

Ireland

On September 11, Irish national broadcaster RTE issued a statement announcing it would not participate in Eurovision in 2026 if Israel participates.

“RTE feels that Ireland’s participation would be unconscionable given the ongoing and appalling loss of lives in Gaza,” the statement said.

Netherlands

On September 12, Dutch broadcaster AVROTROS, one of the public broadcasters that funds and organises Eurovision, announced that it will not participate in the competition in Vienna if Israel takes part.

It cited the “ongoing and severe human suffering in Gaza” as the reason.

The statement added, “The broadcaster also expresses deep concern about the serious erosion of press freedom: the deliberate exclusion of independent international reporting and the many casualties among journalists.”

Slovenia

Also on September 12, Slovenian broadcaster RTV Slovenia announced that it will also not participate in Eurovision if Israel takes part in the competition.

Spain

On Tuesday this week, Spanish state broadcaster RTVE’s board voted to withdraw from Eurovision if Israel participates.

Spain is the first country among Eurovision’s “big five” to make such an announcement. The big five, which also includes the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy and France, are countries that automatically qualify for Eurovision’s final round regardless of how they perform in previous rounds.

This announcement came a day after Spain’s Culture Minister Ernest Urtasun told the local television programme, La Hora de La 1, that the country would consider “measures” if Israel was “not expelled”. Urtasun added that Spain had already formally requested Israel’s exclusion from Eurovision.

How has Eurovision responded?

Eurovision typically stresses political neutrality.

Martin Green, director of Eurovision, released a statement saying the organisation is “still consulting” with its partners on how to deal with “participation and geopolitical tensions around the Eurovision Song Contest”.

Green said, “We understand the concerns and deeply held views around the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. It is up to each member to decide if they want to take part in the contest, and we would respect any decision broadcasters make.”

Will this divide Eurovision?

Experts say that while it is difficult to determine whether the boycott will divide Eurovision, it could keep awareness about the war in Gaza strong as Eurovision is televised throughout Europe and beyond.

Christina Oberg, a professor at the Department of Marketing and Tourism Studies at the Linnaeus University in Sweden, told Al Jazeera that the original ambition of Eurovision was to foster collaboration and peace in Europe after World War II.

In an article she published in June 2025 about the politicisation of Eurovision, Oberg said that Eurovision had managed for decades to uphold its “inclusive European vision” despite ongoing regional tensions until the first “real shift” was seen when the EBU banned Russia following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

It stated at the time, “The Eurovision Song Contest is a non-political cultural event. The EBU is however concerned about current events in Ukraine and will continue to closely monitor the situation.”

“This means that ESC – or more rightfully EBU made itself a political player,” Oberg said. “Then, based on the Gaza war, questions arise why IBU does not act the same. I don’t want to say what is right or wrong here, but there are issues in the inconsistency.”

She added that there will probably will be peer pressure on other countries to issue statements similar to those issued by Spain and other European countries recently.

“I don’t see this as a divide, more as country-level decisions, rather than as some countries being for or against.”

She added that while the countries’ announcements to withdraw from the competition are mostly symbolic, they do bring attention to the issue.