Parliament rejects emergency motion on 40% USD revenue exchange requirement

The Parliament has rejected an emergency motion submitted by opposition MDP’s Kendhoo constituency MP Mauroof Zakir, claiming that the government's decision to require resorts to exchange 40 percent of their foreign currency earnings through the Maldives Monetary Authority (MMA) could have detrimental effects on the economy.

Deputy Speaker, Eydhafushi MP Ahmed Saleem, who was presiding over the sitting, said the emergency motion could not be accepted under the Parliament's regulations.

He explained that, under Article 197 (h) of the Standing Orders of the Parliament, an emergency motion cannot address a matter that is already under consideration as part of a bill or issue before the Parliament. He therefore ruled the motion inadmissible, noting that the Public Accounts Committee's report on the proposed amendments to the Foreign Exchange Act was already on the agenda for the sitting.

In his motion, MP Mauroof warned that the government's proposed amendment to require resorts to exchange 40 percent of their total earnings—replacing the existing requirement of USD 500 per person or 20 percent of revenue—could significantly disrupt the tourism sector and have wider repercussions for the national economy.

The motion also referred to comments by MMA Governor Ahmed Munawwar concerning plans to reduce the foreign currency exchange period from three months to one month and introduce mechanisms to monitor the expenditure of funds that are not exchanged through banks.

The motion further highlighted concerns raised by the Maldives Association of Tourism Industry (MATI), which represents 146 resorts and has said that requiring resorts to exchange 40 percent of their revenue is neither feasible nor sustainable.

Mauroof's motion argued that resorts must meet a range of expenses, including fuel costs, staff salaries, service charges and taxes, while also making substantial repayments on foreign loans in US Dollars, and that implementing such a measure without prior consultation would constitute a grave injustice.

The motion called on the government to engage with all stakeholders in the tourism sector to identify a fair and sustainable solution before the economy sustains significant damage; however, the Parliament ultimately dismissed the matter.