It has been quite a while since I wrote something on this blog. It is taking me quite an effort to clean up my rusted work skills, and I find that I am spending a lot of time to re-familiarize myself with the demands of “normal” work which does require certain skills. The shift from politics back to academia is not proving to be smooth. The striking thing I notice is that the frame of mind has to be totally re-aligned to be extremely objective whereas when in politics, the order of the day is somewhat normative. After a marathon 14 hour day, a just find myself too exhausted to start writing again in a completely different frame of mind. Mind you, age is also catching up, I must admit.
Nevertheless, events in the Majlis today, has sent me into shock. That the People’s representatives sitting in the supreme institution of the nation could blatantly break the very laws that they swore to uphold, and do it on public television sent my mind reeling. Battery, assault, call it what you will, is against the law at any place, any time.
But it did not surprise me really. The shock was that it happened in the Majlis. This has been building up for some time now, and it could only culminate in …..
The burning question is, what next? Where are we headed? The social system is disintegrating rapidly, the nation in a whirlpool, the economy at a dead halt, small businesses are closing down, people are losing their jobs, Ramazan is around the corner, food prices are predicted to climb….and the highest institution in the nation is fighting with ghosts…from the past. Some are fearful that some ghosts from the past will haunt them for the rest of their lives, and others are shaking with trepidation that some ghosts just refuse to die and live in ghostdom, and might eat them alive. In between, I am struggling to make ends meet so that my wife and children will not go hungry.
Sad thing is, we all know that nothing will come out of this hullabaloo. The Government knows very well that none from the past regime can ever be tried in a court (that is any of the big shots who committed the crimes) because members of the past regime has enough ammunition in their pockets to keep the Government out of the courts. Yet, there is a burning need for the Government to appease the bloodhounds which stick by them.
I wish the President would concentrate on governing well, the Majlis would stop wasting our money and make some good laws and the Judges would concentrate on delivering Justice.
As I lie in bed tonight, I will be wondering as to what kind of deals are being made behind the fiery smokescreen, in the backrooms of the MDRPA Alliance office.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
The Sixth Promise
During the second round campaigning of the last Presidential Elections I supported the MDP candidate against the DRP candidate and one of the campaign events I attended was at Nalahiya Building. This particular event was targeted at civil servants. Present at the meeting was MDP candidate Nasheed, his running mate Waheed, and if I remember correctly, also present was Aslam (the current Transport and Housing Minister), along with myself.
One of the purposes of the meeting was to reassure civil servants that they need not fear about losing their jobs with a change in government. That was not going to happen. This reassurance was necessary because MDP had been talking about the high costs of government, and had been promising the people that an MDP government would be mean and lean. There was growing concern amongst civil servants that the civil service would be chopped off to achieve the objective of a “small government”.
I specifically remember the candidate, Nasheed, saying in unequivocal language that the whole objective of the policy was to cut back the number of political appointments, making reference to the number of Ministers and State Ministers, Advisors and other such appointments made by Qayyoom. He assured those present at the meeting that civil servants would remain as they were, and that the political government would be drastically cut back, because a small nation such as the Maldives did not need all these Ministers, State Ministers and Advisors.
This promise was reiterated by the running mate, Waheed in more academic and elaborate language.
Immediately after being sworn in, President Nasheed declared a number of civil servants redundant and appointed 200 “Island Counselors” and 19 “Atoll Counselors” (posts which did not exist in the previous government). The number of Cabinet Ministers were revised somewhat, but the number of State Ministers are on the increase. For the first time in the history of the Maldives, we have resident State Ministers in various parts of the country.
I suppose with the advent of democracy, the size of the nation enlarged overnight.
Then came the coup-de-grace. Along with the Parliamentary Elections, The six promises were reduced to five, and not many even remember the sixth promise : that of a lean government. The only promise which could be completely achieved on the first day of the Nasheed Administration. The one promise, to achieve which, he did not even have to seek authorization from the Majlis or any other institution or person; and was totally at his discretion. The one promise which was very conveniently forgotten and swept under the carpet.
The Maldivian media is laughable. MDP lays out Six Promises to the people, turns around and drops one of them quietly on the wayside and start talking about five promises, and pronto, the media constantly talks about the Five Promises of MDP! Not one of the journalists in this country seems to remember there was a Sixth Promise, let alone what the Sixth Promise was!
I just had to pen this, folks. Lest we forget.
One of the purposes of the meeting was to reassure civil servants that they need not fear about losing their jobs with a change in government. That was not going to happen. This reassurance was necessary because MDP had been talking about the high costs of government, and had been promising the people that an MDP government would be mean and lean. There was growing concern amongst civil servants that the civil service would be chopped off to achieve the objective of a “small government”.
I specifically remember the candidate, Nasheed, saying in unequivocal language that the whole objective of the policy was to cut back the number of political appointments, making reference to the number of Ministers and State Ministers, Advisors and other such appointments made by Qayyoom. He assured those present at the meeting that civil servants would remain as they were, and that the political government would be drastically cut back, because a small nation such as the Maldives did not need all these Ministers, State Ministers and Advisors.
This promise was reiterated by the running mate, Waheed in more academic and elaborate language.
Immediately after being sworn in, President Nasheed declared a number of civil servants redundant and appointed 200 “Island Counselors” and 19 “Atoll Counselors” (posts which did not exist in the previous government). The number of Cabinet Ministers were revised somewhat, but the number of State Ministers are on the increase. For the first time in the history of the Maldives, we have resident State Ministers in various parts of the country.
I suppose with the advent of democracy, the size of the nation enlarged overnight.
Then came the coup-de-grace. Along with the Parliamentary Elections, The six promises were reduced to five, and not many even remember the sixth promise : that of a lean government. The only promise which could be completely achieved on the first day of the Nasheed Administration. The one promise, to achieve which, he did not even have to seek authorization from the Majlis or any other institution or person; and was totally at his discretion. The one promise which was very conveniently forgotten and swept under the carpet.
The Maldivian media is laughable. MDP lays out Six Promises to the people, turns around and drops one of them quietly on the wayside and start talking about five promises, and pronto, the media constantly talks about the Five Promises of MDP! Not one of the journalists in this country seems to remember there was a Sixth Promise, let alone what the Sixth Promise was!
I just had to pen this, folks. Lest we forget.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Development or Rule of Law?
“Nobody can rule against LAW, so just by saying rule of law means that you have nothing else to offer” (edu)
Ever since I entered the front line of reform and politics in the Maldives, I have been talking about the necessity of practicing the rule of law. I talked about it in the first “Minivan Bahus” way back in 2004 (it seems like centuries ago now!) and I spoke about it extensively in the last Presidential Elections. I visited every single populated island north of Male’, and some in the south as well, and spoke about it in every single one of those islands.
I have been criticized for getting “too hung up” on this issue. I have been ridiculed for preaching the rule of law “too much”. I have been accused of being an idiot because “the highest priority in the Maldives right now is Development” and I am not talking about that. The last comment on my last Post (Post Election) says it clearly, and that has prompted me to write this Post. I decided to dedicate a separate Post in reply to that comment because I believe that it warrants serious consideration.
In various discussions I had with different people and in debates in Parliament when I was there, and increasingly the stated rhetoric of the current government makes it clear that for some people, there is a certain dichotomy in the two, i.e Rule of Law vis-à-vis Development. Some see the two as two very separate and parallel concepts, while others view one as the anti-thesis of the other. I tend to view the two with a lot of overlap, if not almost synonymous. I certainly believe that Development cannot be achieved without the Rule of Law.
Most of those who believe in this dichotomy do so without analyzing the inextricable links between the two. They see the Rule of Law, or rather should I say the Law itself, in its entirety, as dealing with crime, human rights, social regulation and elections. Of course, if this narrow view of the Law and its application held water, then their view is correct. But unfortunately it doesn’t.
I could expound on the virtues of the Law and the Rule of Law at length, but not here. Let me focus instead, on my main argument, the Rule of Law – Development nexus.
Development is dependent on the growth of commerce and productivity. Commerce and productivity is dependent on willing labour and capital investment. Investors do not invest in environments where there is no certainty of protection for their investments. There are two ways to protect investments. One is to get the protection of powerful individuals and the other is to get the protection of the law. Labour is only willing in an environment where their rights are protected and there is certainty about award wages and remuneration. This can only be guaranteed either through the protection accorded by powerful individuals or through the protection by the law.
If the investors and the labour both seek protection from the same powerful individual, what happens when there is a conflict between the investor and the labour? Would investors want to risk millions of dollars of their money, depending on the good will of an individual?
The solution to these problems lie in the second alternative : both parties should seek the protection of the law. The Rule of Law must prevail for industry to thrive. Industry does not thrive except in a competitive free market. Competitors do not have the room to play in the absence of the rule of law, because if two competitors depended on two powerful individuals for protection, there will not be room for two. The more powerful of the two powerful individuals will eventually triumph and only one will survive.
When I say the Rule of Law here, I am talking about basic things such as : equal opportunity for all, the certainty that certain things will happen in certain ways and that goals can’t be shifted after the ball is struck , that there will be justice delivered without fear or favour in the case of disputes.
Just a week ago, I spoke to a friend of mine from overseas. She spoke about the opportunities for investment in the Maldives, but she was hesitant to engage in investment because she was not convinced that there was a sound enough legal framework and a good enough justice system for her to take that risk. One of the first things that serious investors do when planning an investment is to look at the provisions in the law, and the application of it in the courts. I am certain that if the legal framework in this country is strengthened, and institutions dealing with upholding the law are also strengthened, this will boost the confidence of potential investors…..and ultimately lead to development.
What are the prospects in this regard? Hard to say. I hope the new Majlis, and the Courts with newly gained independence will work towards guaranteeing this important framework. However, the key players in the game are consumed with power consolidation and power grabbing contributing towards deteriorating the strength of the law. I was apalled just last night, at a forum I attended, to hear prominent lawyers, the government spokesman and MPs urging the Prosecutor General to disregard the law for political expediency, of course, in the name of Maslaha. An indication of what is to come?
Following the law is not an easy thing. It does impede the speed of some activities. It even can have unfair consequences at times. But follow it we must. If a particular law is having undesirable consequences through its application, then we must change the law quickly. But until it is changed, it must be followed to the letter, because if not, the whole legal system can be made a mockery at the whim and fancy of various individuals for various purposes. That is why we wrote into the Constitution, in black and white, requirements for the President, the Attorney General, Judges and Independent Commissions to the follow the Constitution and the Law only, at all times.
Therefore, I believe that a system where the Law rules supreme is a pre-condition for proper development, with equitable outcomes, to take place.
My obsession with the Rule of Law stems from my desire for Development and Justice for the people of my country.
Ever since I entered the front line of reform and politics in the Maldives, I have been talking about the necessity of practicing the rule of law. I talked about it in the first “Minivan Bahus” way back in 2004 (it seems like centuries ago now!) and I spoke about it extensively in the last Presidential Elections. I visited every single populated island north of Male’, and some in the south as well, and spoke about it in every single one of those islands.
I have been criticized for getting “too hung up” on this issue. I have been ridiculed for preaching the rule of law “too much”. I have been accused of being an idiot because “the highest priority in the Maldives right now is Development” and I am not talking about that. The last comment on my last Post (Post Election) says it clearly, and that has prompted me to write this Post. I decided to dedicate a separate Post in reply to that comment because I believe that it warrants serious consideration.
In various discussions I had with different people and in debates in Parliament when I was there, and increasingly the stated rhetoric of the current government makes it clear that for some people, there is a certain dichotomy in the two, i.e Rule of Law vis-à-vis Development. Some see the two as two very separate and parallel concepts, while others view one as the anti-thesis of the other. I tend to view the two with a lot of overlap, if not almost synonymous. I certainly believe that Development cannot be achieved without the Rule of Law.
Most of those who believe in this dichotomy do so without analyzing the inextricable links between the two. They see the Rule of Law, or rather should I say the Law itself, in its entirety, as dealing with crime, human rights, social regulation and elections. Of course, if this narrow view of the Law and its application held water, then their view is correct. But unfortunately it doesn’t.
I could expound on the virtues of the Law and the Rule of Law at length, but not here. Let me focus instead, on my main argument, the Rule of Law – Development nexus.
Development is dependent on the growth of commerce and productivity. Commerce and productivity is dependent on willing labour and capital investment. Investors do not invest in environments where there is no certainty of protection for their investments. There are two ways to protect investments. One is to get the protection of powerful individuals and the other is to get the protection of the law. Labour is only willing in an environment where their rights are protected and there is certainty about award wages and remuneration. This can only be guaranteed either through the protection accorded by powerful individuals or through the protection by the law.
If the investors and the labour both seek protection from the same powerful individual, what happens when there is a conflict between the investor and the labour? Would investors want to risk millions of dollars of their money, depending on the good will of an individual?
The solution to these problems lie in the second alternative : both parties should seek the protection of the law. The Rule of Law must prevail for industry to thrive. Industry does not thrive except in a competitive free market. Competitors do not have the room to play in the absence of the rule of law, because if two competitors depended on two powerful individuals for protection, there will not be room for two. The more powerful of the two powerful individuals will eventually triumph and only one will survive.
When I say the Rule of Law here, I am talking about basic things such as : equal opportunity for all, the certainty that certain things will happen in certain ways and that goals can’t be shifted after the ball is struck , that there will be justice delivered without fear or favour in the case of disputes.
Just a week ago, I spoke to a friend of mine from overseas. She spoke about the opportunities for investment in the Maldives, but she was hesitant to engage in investment because she was not convinced that there was a sound enough legal framework and a good enough justice system for her to take that risk. One of the first things that serious investors do when planning an investment is to look at the provisions in the law, and the application of it in the courts. I am certain that if the legal framework in this country is strengthened, and institutions dealing with upholding the law are also strengthened, this will boost the confidence of potential investors…..and ultimately lead to development.
What are the prospects in this regard? Hard to say. I hope the new Majlis, and the Courts with newly gained independence will work towards guaranteeing this important framework. However, the key players in the game are consumed with power consolidation and power grabbing contributing towards deteriorating the strength of the law. I was apalled just last night, at a forum I attended, to hear prominent lawyers, the government spokesman and MPs urging the Prosecutor General to disregard the law for political expediency, of course, in the name of Maslaha. An indication of what is to come?
Following the law is not an easy thing. It does impede the speed of some activities. It even can have unfair consequences at times. But follow it we must. If a particular law is having undesirable consequences through its application, then we must change the law quickly. But until it is changed, it must be followed to the letter, because if not, the whole legal system can be made a mockery at the whim and fancy of various individuals for various purposes. That is why we wrote into the Constitution, in black and white, requirements for the President, the Attorney General, Judges and Independent Commissions to the follow the Constitution and the Law only, at all times.
Therefore, I believe that a system where the Law rules supreme is a pre-condition for proper development, with equitable outcomes, to take place.
My obsession with the Rule of Law stems from my desire for Development and Justice for the people of my country.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Post Election
Following the Parliamentary Elections, many have asked me about the outcome, both regarding the constituency I contested in, and in more general terms, nationally. I have not commented on either, other than to say that with regard to my own campaign, that I accept the decision of the public.
The first question asked from me by the media was of course, whether the result of the election meant that my political career was over. I was asked the same question over and over again following the Presidential Elections. I sometimes mull over what might happen to a nation if everyone who loses an election left the political stage. How many more politicians would be forthcoming?
The outcome of any election simply means that the public decided in a particular way at that point in time. They are at complete liberty to change their minds and go 180 in the next election. This is more so in parliamentary elections. But it seems to me that for some reason, there are a number of ‘powerful’ people who are rather anxiously waiting for me to declare that I have quit politics.
There is one myth which has been created that in 2005 I was elected to the Majlis by MDP, and therefore, my failure to secure the seat this time was because I left MDP. The wisdom goes on to say I should rejoin MDP to ensure centre stage in the political arena. The fact however is, that I got elected to the Majlis long before political parties became a reality in the Maldives. Selective amnesia, I suppose.
But there is one important question to be addressed in this regard. Do I want to be elected to the Majlis so badly, that I would sell my soul to the devil? If I seek election, why do I seek it? Is it for personal fame and gain, or to work towards achieving certain national goals while still retaining my morality and principles? Would I become part of a farce simply to declare that I am an MP?
There are two paths to the Majlis. One is to see which way the tide is turning, get on the band-wagon which is most likely to win, and sail through. That way, you could be changing loyalties every other day. But the question then is, what do you hope to achieve out of it? The second way is to feel a lot of passion for what you believe in with regard to your nation, convince enough people that what you are trying to do is good for the nation, and get a mandate from those people to act on their behalf in making national decisions. I chose the second path in 2004 and 2005 and again in 2008 and 2009. I succeeded in 2004 and 2005; but I failed in 2008 and 2009.
I failed to convince enough people of Machangolhi Uthuru constituency that the Majlis should be a place which focuses on the national interest rather than be an arena for two individuals to feed their egos via proxies and in the process destroy the nation. I tried, but I failed. Now that I have failed, I must accept the following fact.
The fact is, that the majority of Maldivian people do not want democracy or the rule of law. They just want to empower individuals who will look after their personal interests, and a government which will provide personal opportunities for them at the cost of their neighbour’s opportunities. Feudalism at its best. This is the harsh reality. Corrupt politicians can only succeed in a nation of corrupt or apathetic voters.
The question for me, then is, am I willing to ‘go with the tide’ to win political power? No, Thank you.
The first question asked from me by the media was of course, whether the result of the election meant that my political career was over. I was asked the same question over and over again following the Presidential Elections. I sometimes mull over what might happen to a nation if everyone who loses an election left the political stage. How many more politicians would be forthcoming?
The outcome of any election simply means that the public decided in a particular way at that point in time. They are at complete liberty to change their minds and go 180 in the next election. This is more so in parliamentary elections. But it seems to me that for some reason, there are a number of ‘powerful’ people who are rather anxiously waiting for me to declare that I have quit politics.
There is one myth which has been created that in 2005 I was elected to the Majlis by MDP, and therefore, my failure to secure the seat this time was because I left MDP. The wisdom goes on to say I should rejoin MDP to ensure centre stage in the political arena. The fact however is, that I got elected to the Majlis long before political parties became a reality in the Maldives. Selective amnesia, I suppose.
But there is one important question to be addressed in this regard. Do I want to be elected to the Majlis so badly, that I would sell my soul to the devil? If I seek election, why do I seek it? Is it for personal fame and gain, or to work towards achieving certain national goals while still retaining my morality and principles? Would I become part of a farce simply to declare that I am an MP?
There are two paths to the Majlis. One is to see which way the tide is turning, get on the band-wagon which is most likely to win, and sail through. That way, you could be changing loyalties every other day. But the question then is, what do you hope to achieve out of it? The second way is to feel a lot of passion for what you believe in with regard to your nation, convince enough people that what you are trying to do is good for the nation, and get a mandate from those people to act on their behalf in making national decisions. I chose the second path in 2004 and 2005 and again in 2008 and 2009. I succeeded in 2004 and 2005; but I failed in 2008 and 2009.
I failed to convince enough people of Machangolhi Uthuru constituency that the Majlis should be a place which focuses on the national interest rather than be an arena for two individuals to feed their egos via proxies and in the process destroy the nation. I tried, but I failed. Now that I have failed, I must accept the following fact.
The fact is, that the majority of Maldivian people do not want democracy or the rule of law. They just want to empower individuals who will look after their personal interests, and a government which will provide personal opportunities for them at the cost of their neighbour’s opportunities. Feudalism at its best. This is the harsh reality. Corrupt politicians can only succeed in a nation of corrupt or apathetic voters.
The question for me, then is, am I willing to ‘go with the tide’ to win political power? No, Thank you.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Help!
THIS POST IS WRITTEN ONLY FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT ME IN MY BID TO WIN THE MACHCHANGOLHI UTHURU SEAT.
I formally launched my campaign for Machchangolhi Uthuru seat this evening. When I went there, I went with mixed feelings and some degree of uneasiness as I did not know what kind of reaction to expect. After all, this is increasingly becoming a highly charged election and emotions are starting to ride high.
However, I was pleasantly surprised at the warm and genuine reception I received from the crowd of 200 or 300 people who gathered on Chandhanee Magu. I could feel the sincerity with which I was received. The people who greeted me were simple folk, and almost all of them were from the area. About 90% of those who turned out were eligible voters for the constituency. It gave me a sense of schievement as I could see from the interactions I had with them that they came there to greet me because they truly acknowledged the work I had done both in the Majlis and outside for Reform in the country. Many of them volunteered to work for my campaign, which was most heartening. When I shook hands with them, and saw the genuineness of their feelings, my confidence in being able to win this seat against all the political forces acting against me grew.
So for all readers of my blog who have supported me in my work, and more specifically those who support me for a seat in the Majlis, I have to say this : For the next 20 or so days, I need your help. You may not be eligible to vote in this constituency, but I am sure there is something that everyone of you could do; from a prayer to contacting people you know in the constituency, or if you are in Male', just drop into my office, as there is plenty to do. Hope to hear from you.
I formally launched my campaign for Machchangolhi Uthuru seat this evening. When I went there, I went with mixed feelings and some degree of uneasiness as I did not know what kind of reaction to expect. After all, this is increasingly becoming a highly charged election and emotions are starting to ride high.
However, I was pleasantly surprised at the warm and genuine reception I received from the crowd of 200 or 300 people who gathered on Chandhanee Magu. I could feel the sincerity with which I was received. The people who greeted me were simple folk, and almost all of them were from the area. About 90% of those who turned out were eligible voters for the constituency. It gave me a sense of schievement as I could see from the interactions I had with them that they came there to greet me because they truly acknowledged the work I had done both in the Majlis and outside for Reform in the country. Many of them volunteered to work for my campaign, which was most heartening. When I shook hands with them, and saw the genuineness of their feelings, my confidence in being able to win this seat against all the political forces acting against me grew.
So for all readers of my blog who have supported me in my work, and more specifically those who support me for a seat in the Majlis, I have to say this : For the next 20 or so days, I need your help. You may not be eligible to vote in this constituency, but I am sure there is something that everyone of you could do; from a prayer to contacting people you know in the constituency, or if you are in Male', just drop into my office, as there is plenty to do. Hope to hear from you.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Deep Cracks
After 4 years of struggle for Reform in the country, we finally managed to bring about a regime change. Unfortunately, along with the change in government, many seem to have lost sight of what we set out to do : Reforming the country. We have become complacent again. I have said this before many times, and I say it again, deposing Qayyoom was not a panacea. The real work has to begin, before the new government and its supporters succumb totally to the head rush and ecstasy of power and privilege. History is rife with these examples.
The honeymoon is nearly over, President Nasheed. Time to face real life again. For a government which came into power on a platform of reform, the honeymoon can’t be too long. We have to start seeing some real Reform. Reform in Governance.
Continuous bashing of the previous government as an excuse to veil non-performance is wearing thin. As Bob Marley said, “You can fool some people sometimes, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.” We can’t expect the “getting-rid-of-Qayyoom-panacea” to be replaced by “the-five-promises-on-a-bed-of-roses-panacea”. Our society is cracking, has cracked, and we better do something quick before it disintegrates totally.
The economy is worrying. But there are more important things than even the economy. We live in a society which is headed towards a systems break. All the signs of this are there to be seen, only if we care to look in the right direction. Trends in the political arena are driving wedges (thick ones at that) into the cracks and festering the wounds. Unless we quickly take steps, however bitter they may be, to get the public to believe in the system and establish credibility in institutions, the situation looks to worsen.
That senior State Officials would declare blatantly on public television that the government has no intention to follow the Constitution says it all. That particular gentleman appears to believe that the last Presidential Election was a public referendum on whether the Constitution should be replaced by the Five Promises! Oh! God! I wonder what Thy Wisdom was when Thou placed comics amongst us.
After all, maniacs find relief in their lunacy. It gives them the opportunity to reject reality and live in a world of make believe. A world where 50 translates to 12.
The honeymoon is nearly over, President Nasheed. Time to face real life again. For a government which came into power on a platform of reform, the honeymoon can’t be too long. We have to start seeing some real Reform. Reform in Governance.
Continuous bashing of the previous government as an excuse to veil non-performance is wearing thin. As Bob Marley said, “You can fool some people sometimes, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.” We can’t expect the “getting-rid-of-Qayyoom-panacea” to be replaced by “the-five-promises-on-a-bed-of-roses-panacea”. Our society is cracking, has cracked, and we better do something quick before it disintegrates totally.
The economy is worrying. But there are more important things than even the economy. We live in a society which is headed towards a systems break. All the signs of this are there to be seen, only if we care to look in the right direction. Trends in the political arena are driving wedges (thick ones at that) into the cracks and festering the wounds. Unless we quickly take steps, however bitter they may be, to get the public to believe in the system and establish credibility in institutions, the situation looks to worsen.
That senior State Officials would declare blatantly on public television that the government has no intention to follow the Constitution says it all. That particular gentleman appears to believe that the last Presidential Election was a public referendum on whether the Constitution should be replaced by the Five Promises! Oh! God! I wonder what Thy Wisdom was when Thou placed comics amongst us.
After all, maniacs find relief in their lunacy. It gives them the opportunity to reject reality and live in a world of make believe. A world where 50 translates to 12.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Letter
Dear President Nasheed,
I pen this letter to you with a heavy heart. A heart that is weary of seeing the same things repeated in our society, things which are tearing this nation apart.
Our Party, the Liberal Party, joined your Administration at your request, to support you in your pledge to the people of this country to better the country. To contribute to and to take part in a process which would pave the way for good governance; and to work towards eradicating various social ills abounding this nation. However, the lack of a proper consultation process within the “Alliance” has prevented us from taking part in your Administration in a meaningful way.
In this situation, I have tried to reach out to you in numerous ways to put forward my tuppence worth of suggestions to you. I do understand that the President of the country will have mighty little time to spare to listen to the ramblings of a “has been” politician who was able to muster only 1382 votes.
Mr. President. I may not be worth listening to. But listen to the voices of the people of this country. Try to gauge their concerns by listening to them. While a few more Rufiyaas in their pockets will be appreciated by them, there may be even graver concerns. Don’t delude yourself into believing that the last election was concluded on a platform of “5 promises”. The overwhelming emotion of the public was their desperation at the lack of Justice in all its senses.
Mr. President. Are you aware that the root of all problems in this nation is the lack of the rule of law? Do you realize that Qayyoom symbolized the anti-thesis of the whole concept of the rule of law? That he became the object of the loathing of many, including you, because of it? So then, Mr. President what have you done, what are you doing, to establish the rule of law in the country? Do you sincerely believe that putting a few Rufiyaas in people’s pockets is going to bring in order to a chaotic situation? If you do, you have already started to plug holes in a brand new ship just after weighing anchor on its maiden voyage. That was exactly what Qayyoom was doing from his 10th year in office.
The systematic undermining of the rule of law by the previous regime has disgorged the entire social fabric of the country. I need not outline in detail, the woes faced by us. The lawlessness which prevails, the utter disdain for rules and laws, the loss of faith in the justice system which has people believing that they should take the law into their hands and get justice mob-style, the sheer disregard for the human person evident in the mushrooming of pedophiles, rapists and murderers, the increasingly young age of offenders all point to a systems break of the largest magnitude.
Mr. President. The problems, and their extent spells an extreme situation, and extreme situations call for extreme measures. The problems cannot be tackled by the government alone. They can’t be solved by State Officials by themselves. The entire nation has to be mobilized if we are to get out of this hell hole. You can see the reaction of the Mob in relation to efforts by the police to establish the authority of the law. They will come after the Police, the Cabinet, the MPs and any other who will stand in their way. Only the unifying of the Public, across political divisions can combat this evil.
That brings me to the point of this letter, Mr.President. It is only you who can unify the nation on this one. It is your Constitutional duty to do that. The Constitution spells out in black and white that it is your Constitutional duty and obligation to promote unity among the people. You can’t do that by ignoring the majority of the people in this country and just acknowledging people of a certain political membership. You will be deepening the divisions even further.
Mr. President. You are the PRESIDENT of this country, elected by UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE. You are not the PRIME MINISTER appointed by a majority party in the Majlis. The Maldivian Constitution does not provide for a Prime Minister yet, Mr. President. I remind you, lest you forget.
Sincerely yours in nationhood,
Ibrahim Ismail,
MP for Male’
I pen this letter to you with a heavy heart. A heart that is weary of seeing the same things repeated in our society, things which are tearing this nation apart.
Our Party, the Liberal Party, joined your Administration at your request, to support you in your pledge to the people of this country to better the country. To contribute to and to take part in a process which would pave the way for good governance; and to work towards eradicating various social ills abounding this nation. However, the lack of a proper consultation process within the “Alliance” has prevented us from taking part in your Administration in a meaningful way.
In this situation, I have tried to reach out to you in numerous ways to put forward my tuppence worth of suggestions to you. I do understand that the President of the country will have mighty little time to spare to listen to the ramblings of a “has been” politician who was able to muster only 1382 votes.
Mr. President. I may not be worth listening to. But listen to the voices of the people of this country. Try to gauge their concerns by listening to them. While a few more Rufiyaas in their pockets will be appreciated by them, there may be even graver concerns. Don’t delude yourself into believing that the last election was concluded on a platform of “5 promises”. The overwhelming emotion of the public was their desperation at the lack of Justice in all its senses.
Mr. President. Are you aware that the root of all problems in this nation is the lack of the rule of law? Do you realize that Qayyoom symbolized the anti-thesis of the whole concept of the rule of law? That he became the object of the loathing of many, including you, because of it? So then, Mr. President what have you done, what are you doing, to establish the rule of law in the country? Do you sincerely believe that putting a few Rufiyaas in people’s pockets is going to bring in order to a chaotic situation? If you do, you have already started to plug holes in a brand new ship just after weighing anchor on its maiden voyage. That was exactly what Qayyoom was doing from his 10th year in office.
The systematic undermining of the rule of law by the previous regime has disgorged the entire social fabric of the country. I need not outline in detail, the woes faced by us. The lawlessness which prevails, the utter disdain for rules and laws, the loss of faith in the justice system which has people believing that they should take the law into their hands and get justice mob-style, the sheer disregard for the human person evident in the mushrooming of pedophiles, rapists and murderers, the increasingly young age of offenders all point to a systems break of the largest magnitude.
Mr. President. The problems, and their extent spells an extreme situation, and extreme situations call for extreme measures. The problems cannot be tackled by the government alone. They can’t be solved by State Officials by themselves. The entire nation has to be mobilized if we are to get out of this hell hole. You can see the reaction of the Mob in relation to efforts by the police to establish the authority of the law. They will come after the Police, the Cabinet, the MPs and any other who will stand in their way. Only the unifying of the Public, across political divisions can combat this evil.
That brings me to the point of this letter, Mr.President. It is only you who can unify the nation on this one. It is your Constitutional duty to do that. The Constitution spells out in black and white that it is your Constitutional duty and obligation to promote unity among the people. You can’t do that by ignoring the majority of the people in this country and just acknowledging people of a certain political membership. You will be deepening the divisions even further.
Mr. President. You are the PRESIDENT of this country, elected by UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE. You are not the PRIME MINISTER appointed by a majority party in the Majlis. The Maldivian Constitution does not provide for a Prime Minister yet, Mr. President. I remind you, lest you forget.
Sincerely yours in nationhood,
Ibrahim Ismail,
MP for Male’
Monday, March 9, 2009
State of the Nation
Honourable Speaker, Honourable Members of the Majlis. It is my pleasure and privilege to address you today to outline in broad terms the state of our nation as I see it, and some important steps that I believe should be taken to steer our nation towards achieving greater prosperity, happiness and greater equality among our people.
This nation of ours has been raped and pillaged since time immemorial by opportunists and those who have betrayed the trust placed in them by the people. A carefully planned strategy of reinforcing feudal structures and controlling the small populations on each island has left our people disempowered. On the back of this structure have ridden the immoral opportunists to gain riches unimaginable, while the subjugation of our people by the authorities guaranteed a “harmonious” environment for the propagation of ever growing inequities and atrocities among and against the people.
The revising of the Constitution has given hope to our people. They have acted in showing an unprecedented disdain towards a 30 year old regime and asserting their right to change their government. In doing so, the people have given a huge mandate for public office holders to turn around the nation a 180 degrees, and to start working towards righting a million wrongs, and more importantly devising state machinery and a legal framework which will never allow a few to dominate the many in this country ever again.
Honourable Speaker, Honourable Members. I believe it is our duty to strive to attempt to realize the aspirations of the people. To design for them state machinery through a sound legislative framework and policy initiatives, which will enable them to live their lives in peace and prosperity.
Honourable Speaker. Even as I stand here, a number of Maldivian youth are injecting heroin into their bodies. Others are partaking of brown sugar, crystal meth and the like. Some perverted individuals are literally raping and molesting our children. Child pornography and child prostitution is running rampant in our nation.
Justice is being denied to our citizens either through the delaying of delivery of justice or through the incompetence of the courts or through that detestable vice, corruption. The lack of proper laws are denying our citizens the opportunity to advance their aspirations and to engage in productive public life.
The living conditions in Male’, and increasingly in other islands are seriously hampering the development and maintenance of community ties and family lives. Children are suffering as a result of this. A nation of only 300,000 is well on its way to live like rats do. Deep rooted human instincts of survival are eroding values, ethics, morals and the semblance of civilization. Survival of the fittest, in any which way it could, is quickly becoming the order of the day.
The downturn in the world economy is starting to affect us, and projections tell us that the latter part of this year or early next year is when we may be hit the hardest. We must act quickly to ready ourselves for the coming onslaught and devise strategies to weather ourselves out of this difficult period. Preserving whatever wealth and assets we have, and engaging in nationwide austerity is, I believe imperative.
The jockeying for power has opened doors in our society for various extremist elements to take root: religious, opportunistic, political and the like. Maldivians have always been moderate people, ill-disposed towards extremist positions in anything. It might serve us well to cultivate that trait in our society to keep the nation on an even keel.
Honourable Speaker, Honourable Members. In order to address the multitude of issues facing our nation, it is imperative that the economy is made more vibrant. The time for national sacrifice is here, and we have to lead the people in leaving aside personal aspirations and working towards the common good. Work harder, save and economize. This needs to be the order of the day. A restructuring of the economy is called for, and certain distribution of wealth and distribution of the means of production is essential. A carefully controlled, yet deliberate transfer of services from the public to the private sector is necessary, with the proper safety nets and consumer protection measure put in place.
To address the various social ills that run rampant in our society, rule of law has to be strengthened, and the commitment to enforce laws without fear or favour is essential.
These, Honourable Speaker, are what are required from all public office holders. The recent upheaval in the political sphere of this country has left many deep and lasting wounds in our society. We all need to let go of personal idiosyncrasies, animosities, jealousies and hurts. We all need to unite to make the changes we have brought to last. Let us all work towards setting up an equitable framework for all before we engage in bi-partisan politics. That the public united behind the Alliance, and alliance which was as diverse as could be imagined, is proof enough that the public wants us to unite and work towards those goals that they hold so dear. It is imperative, for the future of our nation, that we forget, even if we do not forgive, the past and start a healing process which will allow us to build the nation.
Honourable Speaker, Honourable Members. When the public voted for a change of government last year, they finally and unequivocally endorsed the reforms that we had been proposing. We now need to act without dragging our feet. I hope that the Honourable Members of the Majlis will give serious consideration to these issues when they are setting the legislative agenda of the Majlis for this year.
In conclusion, Honourable Speaker, I would like to declare that the nation has to come first, and that I affirm my non-partisanship in this endeavour. Thank You.
As I sat in the Majlis on the second of March, I was looking forward to hear something along the vein of the above. But this isn’t the first, nor will it be the last time I was or will be disappointed.
This nation of ours has been raped and pillaged since time immemorial by opportunists and those who have betrayed the trust placed in them by the people. A carefully planned strategy of reinforcing feudal structures and controlling the small populations on each island has left our people disempowered. On the back of this structure have ridden the immoral opportunists to gain riches unimaginable, while the subjugation of our people by the authorities guaranteed a “harmonious” environment for the propagation of ever growing inequities and atrocities among and against the people.
The revising of the Constitution has given hope to our people. They have acted in showing an unprecedented disdain towards a 30 year old regime and asserting their right to change their government. In doing so, the people have given a huge mandate for public office holders to turn around the nation a 180 degrees, and to start working towards righting a million wrongs, and more importantly devising state machinery and a legal framework which will never allow a few to dominate the many in this country ever again.
Honourable Speaker, Honourable Members. I believe it is our duty to strive to attempt to realize the aspirations of the people. To design for them state machinery through a sound legislative framework and policy initiatives, which will enable them to live their lives in peace and prosperity.
Honourable Speaker. Even as I stand here, a number of Maldivian youth are injecting heroin into their bodies. Others are partaking of brown sugar, crystal meth and the like. Some perverted individuals are literally raping and molesting our children. Child pornography and child prostitution is running rampant in our nation.
Justice is being denied to our citizens either through the delaying of delivery of justice or through the incompetence of the courts or through that detestable vice, corruption. The lack of proper laws are denying our citizens the opportunity to advance their aspirations and to engage in productive public life.
The living conditions in Male’, and increasingly in other islands are seriously hampering the development and maintenance of community ties and family lives. Children are suffering as a result of this. A nation of only 300,000 is well on its way to live like rats do. Deep rooted human instincts of survival are eroding values, ethics, morals and the semblance of civilization. Survival of the fittest, in any which way it could, is quickly becoming the order of the day.
The downturn in the world economy is starting to affect us, and projections tell us that the latter part of this year or early next year is when we may be hit the hardest. We must act quickly to ready ourselves for the coming onslaught and devise strategies to weather ourselves out of this difficult period. Preserving whatever wealth and assets we have, and engaging in nationwide austerity is, I believe imperative.
The jockeying for power has opened doors in our society for various extremist elements to take root: religious, opportunistic, political and the like. Maldivians have always been moderate people, ill-disposed towards extremist positions in anything. It might serve us well to cultivate that trait in our society to keep the nation on an even keel.
Honourable Speaker, Honourable Members. In order to address the multitude of issues facing our nation, it is imperative that the economy is made more vibrant. The time for national sacrifice is here, and we have to lead the people in leaving aside personal aspirations and working towards the common good. Work harder, save and economize. This needs to be the order of the day. A restructuring of the economy is called for, and certain distribution of wealth and distribution of the means of production is essential. A carefully controlled, yet deliberate transfer of services from the public to the private sector is necessary, with the proper safety nets and consumer protection measure put in place.
To address the various social ills that run rampant in our society, rule of law has to be strengthened, and the commitment to enforce laws without fear or favour is essential.
These, Honourable Speaker, are what are required from all public office holders. The recent upheaval in the political sphere of this country has left many deep and lasting wounds in our society. We all need to let go of personal idiosyncrasies, animosities, jealousies and hurts. We all need to unite to make the changes we have brought to last. Let us all work towards setting up an equitable framework for all before we engage in bi-partisan politics. That the public united behind the Alliance, and alliance which was as diverse as could be imagined, is proof enough that the public wants us to unite and work towards those goals that they hold so dear. It is imperative, for the future of our nation, that we forget, even if we do not forgive, the past and start a healing process which will allow us to build the nation.
Honourable Speaker, Honourable Members. When the public voted for a change of government last year, they finally and unequivocally endorsed the reforms that we had been proposing. We now need to act without dragging our feet. I hope that the Honourable Members of the Majlis will give serious consideration to these issues when they are setting the legislative agenda of the Majlis for this year.
In conclusion, Honourable Speaker, I would like to declare that the nation has to come first, and that I affirm my non-partisanship in this endeavour. Thank You.
As I sat in the Majlis on the second of March, I was looking forward to hear something along the vein of the above. But this isn’t the first, nor will it be the last time I was or will be disappointed.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Public Mandate
Most democracies are built on the premise that all powers of the state emanate from, and reside in the people. Those charged with governance tasks are given a mandate directly or indirectly by the public to discharge certain functions o behalf of the state.
The most daunting aspect of obtaining a public mandate is to face an election and convince the voting public that one is trustworthy enough to be charged with disposing state functions. As per our Constitution, those who will be given these honourable tasks directly by the public are the President and the Vice President of the Country, Members of the Majlis, and those who will be elected to posts (yet to be defined by law) under the local governance/administration system.
No one outside these posts can claim a direct mandate from the people to carry out any public function.
The next class of state officials is those appointed to various commissions and other posts. This class of state officials are appointed to their positions through concurrence between the President (who is elected directly by the People) and a majority of the Majlis (who are also elected directly by the People).
Then there are those appointed by the President to the Cabinet, who are also confirmed by the Majlis. They are similar to the previous class of state officials in that these officials have functions and powers defined either by the Constitution or through some other law.
With the intro duction of an independent Civil Service has cropped up a new class of state officials under the auspicious label of “political appointees”, whatever kind of creatures this new class may comprise of. Both Qayyoom’s Administration and Nasheed’s Administration have “interpreted” the Constitution to assert the legality of these positions. The object of this Post is neither to affirm nor negate the legality of such positions.
It has come to my knowledge that many persons holding such “appointed political” posts of the State intend to contest the upcoming Parliamentary Elections. That they will invariably use state resources and influence of their posts to win the election is enough to nauseate any right thinking individual. That the Constitution clearly says that an MP should not hold any other State Post makes these intentions even worse. True, the Constitution does not explicitly bar any of these people from contesting the elections. But if one reads the relevant sections of the Constitution, it is abundantly clear that the intention of those who wrote the Constitution was to separate the Executive and the Legislature to the fullest level possible and to remove all influence of the Executive from Parliamentary (and other ) Elections. Yet they proceed without a single blush.
Those people holding these “appointed political” posts are not required to seek a public endorsement. Yet those going for elections have put themselves up to be a target for the public. The question is, will these people have the decency to resign from their political posts if they fail to get public support?
More importantly, will the President have the guts to sack them in such an event, and act according to the wishes of the people?
Ah! One could live and die in wishful thinking. One is reminded of Mark Twain’s comment on sanctimonious individuals.
The most daunting aspect of obtaining a public mandate is to face an election and convince the voting public that one is trustworthy enough to be charged with disposing state functions. As per our Constitution, those who will be given these honourable tasks directly by the public are the President and the Vice President of the Country, Members of the Majlis, and those who will be elected to posts (yet to be defined by law) under the local governance/administration system.
No one outside these posts can claim a direct mandate from the people to carry out any public function.
The next class of state officials is those appointed to various commissions and other posts. This class of state officials are appointed to their positions through concurrence between the President (who is elected directly by the People) and a majority of the Majlis (who are also elected directly by the People).
Then there are those appointed by the President to the Cabinet, who are also confirmed by the Majlis. They are similar to the previous class of state officials in that these officials have functions and powers defined either by the Constitution or through some other law.
With the intro duction of an independent Civil Service has cropped up a new class of state officials under the auspicious label of “political appointees”, whatever kind of creatures this new class may comprise of. Both Qayyoom’s Administration and Nasheed’s Administration have “interpreted” the Constitution to assert the legality of these positions. The object of this Post is neither to affirm nor negate the legality of such positions.
It has come to my knowledge that many persons holding such “appointed political” posts of the State intend to contest the upcoming Parliamentary Elections. That they will invariably use state resources and influence of their posts to win the election is enough to nauseate any right thinking individual. That the Constitution clearly says that an MP should not hold any other State Post makes these intentions even worse. True, the Constitution does not explicitly bar any of these people from contesting the elections. But if one reads the relevant sections of the Constitution, it is abundantly clear that the intention of those who wrote the Constitution was to separate the Executive and the Legislature to the fullest level possible and to remove all influence of the Executive from Parliamentary (and other ) Elections. Yet they proceed without a single blush.
Those people holding these “appointed political” posts are not required to seek a public endorsement. Yet those going for elections have put themselves up to be a target for the public. The question is, will these people have the decency to resign from their political posts if they fail to get public support?
More importantly, will the President have the guts to sack them in such an event, and act according to the wishes of the people?
Ah! One could live and die in wishful thinking. One is reminded of Mark Twain’s comment on sanctimonious individuals.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Decentralization or Recentralization?
When we were writing the Constitution, one of the first decisions that was made by the Special Majlis was whether the Maldives would continue to remain as a unitary state or whether we would opt for a federal state. After much discussion and debate, the Special Majlis, by an overwhelming majority, decided that we would remain a unitary state for a number of good reasons. It was one o f the few things which did not create many divisions in the Majlis. I remember very clearly that the Special Majlis actually adopted a resolution on this issue which was proposed by me. This resolution formed the basis of the development of the Chapter on Decentralized Administration of the Atolls found in the Constitution.
In this resolution, I proposed that the Maldives would remain a unitary state, but each region or atoll would have locally elected bodies and officials to take care of local matters and make decisions on local issues.
When the actual chapter was being drafted in the Drafting Committee, we swayed back and forth trying to determine what level of decentralization, and what powers would be devolved to the various authorities. On the one extreme we had total local governance, with wide ranging decision making, revenue raising and spending powers accorded to these bodies, including certain legislative powers. On the other extreme we had total local administration, which would have brought in central level control on these bodies as far as decision making was concerned.
After much debate, discussion and serious consideration , and after about 7 different drafts, the Committee decided to adopt a versatile model into the Constitution. This model would allow the gradual introduction of local governance, depending on the readiness and strength of the bodies, the prevailing social, economic and political conditions. The tweaking of the sytem would be by law passed by Majlis. To facilitate this, we made two important provisions in the Constitution. One is that we stated that the details of the local government/decentralized system would be prescribed by law by the Majlis, and the other is that we provided for the Majlis to delegate carefully defined legislative powers , such as making by-laws, to local authotrities.
The vision was that initially we would introduce largely administrative powers (an extension of the Executive) to the bodies and gradually move towards more and more powers as these bodies gained maturity and people came to terms with local adminsitration and governance. The other consideration was that of revenue and resources. The legislation was to provide guarantees of revenue raising and distribution of Central revenue to these bodies.
The setting up of this system was left entirely to the Legislature, and had nothiong to do with the Executive. It certainly was not meant for the President to do it via political appointments. It could easily be argued that what we are seeing now is extra-constitutional to say the least.
What we are seeing now is troublesome. It is trouble some because the President has created a set of political appointments which will interfere with decisions in service delivery. For example, the question arises as to whether a school principal should take directives from the Local Councillor, The Deputy State Minister, the State Minister or the Minister of Education. The Constitution (in the absence of a law on local governance) certainly makes provision for the Minister of Education to be held accountable for the actions of the School Principals. If, to get around this, we are to say that the The State Minister in the Province and hence the whole chain of command from there on, will take directives from the Minister of Education on matters related to the schools, this amounts to reverting to the same system of Atoll Chiefs and Katheebs as before.
What, in effect is happening is, because Katheebs cannot be directly controlled by the President anymore (they are in the Civil Service), and the Constitution does not make provision for the President to appoint Atoll Chiefs, the political government is trying to find a way around this to control the populations in time for elections. This has nothing to do with service delivery or efficiency or involvement of the local people. If it is local governance, where is the voice of the people?
It is simply Recentralization (ousting even cabinet ministers from the loop) in the name of Decentralization. Tumultuous days are to come.
In this resolution, I proposed that the Maldives would remain a unitary state, but each region or atoll would have locally elected bodies and officials to take care of local matters and make decisions on local issues.
When the actual chapter was being drafted in the Drafting Committee, we swayed back and forth trying to determine what level of decentralization, and what powers would be devolved to the various authorities. On the one extreme we had total local governance, with wide ranging decision making, revenue raising and spending powers accorded to these bodies, including certain legislative powers. On the other extreme we had total local administration, which would have brought in central level control on these bodies as far as decision making was concerned.
After much debate, discussion and serious consideration , and after about 7 different drafts, the Committee decided to adopt a versatile model into the Constitution. This model would allow the gradual introduction of local governance, depending on the readiness and strength of the bodies, the prevailing social, economic and political conditions. The tweaking of the sytem would be by law passed by Majlis. To facilitate this, we made two important provisions in the Constitution. One is that we stated that the details of the local government/decentralized system would be prescribed by law by the Majlis, and the other is that we provided for the Majlis to delegate carefully defined legislative powers , such as making by-laws, to local authotrities.
The vision was that initially we would introduce largely administrative powers (an extension of the Executive) to the bodies and gradually move towards more and more powers as these bodies gained maturity and people came to terms with local adminsitration and governance. The other consideration was that of revenue and resources. The legislation was to provide guarantees of revenue raising and distribution of Central revenue to these bodies.
The setting up of this system was left entirely to the Legislature, and had nothiong to do with the Executive. It certainly was not meant for the President to do it via political appointments. It could easily be argued that what we are seeing now is extra-constitutional to say the least.
What we are seeing now is troublesome. It is trouble some because the President has created a set of political appointments which will interfere with decisions in service delivery. For example, the question arises as to whether a school principal should take directives from the Local Councillor, The Deputy State Minister, the State Minister or the Minister of Education. The Constitution (in the absence of a law on local governance) certainly makes provision for the Minister of Education to be held accountable for the actions of the School Principals. If, to get around this, we are to say that the The State Minister in the Province and hence the whole chain of command from there on, will take directives from the Minister of Education on matters related to the schools, this amounts to reverting to the same system of Atoll Chiefs and Katheebs as before.
What, in effect is happening is, because Katheebs cannot be directly controlled by the President anymore (they are in the Civil Service), and the Constitution does not make provision for the President to appoint Atoll Chiefs, the political government is trying to find a way around this to control the populations in time for elections. This has nothing to do with service delivery or efficiency or involvement of the local people. If it is local governance, where is the voice of the people?
It is simply Recentralization (ousting even cabinet ministers from the loop) in the name of Decentralization. Tumultuous days are to come.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Judicial Independence? Or Independence of the Judiciary?
Much has been said recently about the issue of “independence of the Judiciary” and the whole system of governance in this country is being twisted back on forth before it even had a chance of taking off properly. Before I proceed further on this topic, let me reproduce some relevant provisions in the Constitution for us to consider.
142. The Judges are independent, and subject only to the Constitution and the law. When deciding matters on which the Constitution or the law is silent, Judges must consider Islamic Shari’ah. In the performance of their judicial functions, Judges must apply the Constitution and the law impartially and without fear, favour or prejudice.
149. (d) The People’s Majlis shall pass a statute relating to Judges.
151. Every Judge shall devote his full time to the performance of the responsibilities of a Judge. A Judge
shall perform other work only in accordance with and as specified by the statute relating to Judges.
155. The People’s Majlis shall have authority to pass laws concerning the administration of the courts, the trial and appellate jurisdiction of the courts and trial procedures.
These provisions are pivotal to how the Judiciary is set up, and what was envisioned by the people who wrote the Constitution. Let me first outline what the vision was.
It was envisioned that there would be Judges whose sole responsibility would be to adjudicate and deliver justice, and do so without fear, favour or prejudice, and would be solely bound by law. It was perceived that all aspects of Islamic Shariah would also be codified into law eventually, and then Judges would not have to even revert to Islamic Shariah in any event. This is necessary if there is to be certainty of law and therefore rule of law.
To achieve this, Judges had to be granted a high degree of independence, and the only instances of external scrutiny would be if any one of them became incompetent or committed an act which was unbecoming of judges. They are the only state officials who are appointed for life. Such is the dignity and respect accorded to Judges. By the same token, it is expected that once granted this independence, Judges would remain totally apolitical, and not concern themselves with matters other than adjudication.
Article 142 (above) speaks about Judges being independent. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the entire Judiciary being independent of other state organs. How can it be? It too, after all, is an organ of the state. The concept of Judges being independent is very important for the rest of my argument. The recent decisions and actions of the Supreme Court is actually undermining the independence of Judges, and opening the doors for Judicial Tyranny.
When we talk about independence of Judges, we are not only talking about Judges being independent from influences from other state organs, but also Judges being independent from one another. In adjudicating on a matter before a Judge, s/he should not consult anyone, including any other Judge. S/he should solely focus on the law, and the facts as presented in evidence, and precedents set by rulings in similar cases, especially those of higher courts.
When we wrote the Constitution, we also envisioned each tier of the Judiciary being independent of the other tiers. That is, the Lower Courts should not be influenced by the Higher appellate Courts, and the High Court should not be influenced by the Highest appellate Court.
That is why we decided to leave the administrative matters to the Judicial Service Commission which would operate in parallel, but would not intervene in any judicial decisions. If the Supreme Court takes on the administration of the entire Judiciary, and the Chief Justice starts making decisions regarding other Courts, the independence of the High Court and the Trial Courts will be compromised.
With this push by the Supreme Court to take on the entire Judiciary as its own domain, it is, I believe, violating Article 151 of the Constitution, as the Chief Justice is seeking to do “work other” than adjudicating when the law does not make provision for it. Imagine this scenario. The Chief Justice decides to sack an employee of a Court (there are about 2000 of them) out of personal prejudice, mandated by the Supreme Court. Where does this person go to seek a remedy? The Courts? And ultimately to the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court who did it in the first place? Just one example of the stupidity of subjecting the administration of all the Courts to the Supreme Court. On the other hand, with the setup we had made, these decisions by the Judicial Service Commission can be taken to the Courts and an independent decision sought by the disaffected person. (I think lawyers call this “Principles of Natural Justice”; i.e, one should not be judging one’s own self to deliver Justice.)
Article 155 (above) gives unequivocal power to the Majlis to make laws both on Jurisdiction of Courts (including the Supreme Court) and on administration of the Courts. The Majlis made such law. The Supreme Court struck it down, quoting “inherent (meaning extra-constitutional) powers” of the Supreme Court (I think Lawyers call it “ultra virese”).
What they don’t understand is that the Constitution gives the complete power of the public purse, hiring of most, and firing of ALL public officials to the Majlis. No one can fire an MP from his or her job. If these taken together doesn’t spell Supremacy, what does? Time to face the facts and retract all that rhetoric and political juggling.
The Majlis is being patient with this unruly child, because this child is the Majlis’s own. It is in the interest of the nation (and therefore the Majlis) that this child is not a victim of infant mortality. The Judges of the Supreme Court may seek to destroy the institution called the Supreme Court. But the Majlis will not allow it. The Majlis will protect its own child, and nurture it to full maturity, because the Majlis has high hopes for this child. The Majlis will remove guardianship from the current five if necessary in order to protect this newborn baby. The Majlis will not let senility be an excuse for infanticide or the raping of a baby. The Supreme Court maybe the “Guardian of the Constitution”, but the Majlis is the “Guardian of the Nation”.
The Majlis is working to seek an amicable, diplomatic and peaceful solution to this acute problem before it becomes chronic, and do it quietly. But with Supremacy will also come responsibility. The Majlis will not hesitate to do what is necessary to protect and defend judges of the Trial Courts and the High Court and hence serve the best interest of this country. Many may think that the Majlis is divided on political lines and therefore can be cuckolded. Forget it. The Majlis will unite when it comes to protecting this nation. The Special Majlis, and the current People’s Majlis have demonstrated that many times. Yes, some MPs, on some occasions have displayed hilarious behavior on the floor of the Majlis. But do review the decisions of the Majlis, especially when we managed to get DRP to bow down, and you will have to agree that in spite of the “comic” nature of MPs, this institution is the institution which has sought protection for the people and fought on behalf of the people to end tyranny. If you think this membership is comic and unruly, just wait until the next elections. Judging by the caliber of candidates being proposed by the “major parties”, we can expect hilarity unbeknownst.
Yes, the Constitution makes excellent provision for Judicial Independence. But the Judiciary cannot be independent from other organs of the State. The Judiciary as a whole will be subject to the Majlis, and hence the People. Only Judges, in their work of adjudicating, is given that privilege. The Majlis will not seek to interefere in the process of adjudication.
142. The Judges are independent, and subject only to the Constitution and the law. When deciding matters on which the Constitution or the law is silent, Judges must consider Islamic Shari’ah. In the performance of their judicial functions, Judges must apply the Constitution and the law impartially and without fear, favour or prejudice.
149. (d) The People’s Majlis shall pass a statute relating to Judges.
151. Every Judge shall devote his full time to the performance of the responsibilities of a Judge. A Judge
shall perform other work only in accordance with and as specified by the statute relating to Judges.
155. The People’s Majlis shall have authority to pass laws concerning the administration of the courts, the trial and appellate jurisdiction of the courts and trial procedures.
These provisions are pivotal to how the Judiciary is set up, and what was envisioned by the people who wrote the Constitution. Let me first outline what the vision was.
It was envisioned that there would be Judges whose sole responsibility would be to adjudicate and deliver justice, and do so without fear, favour or prejudice, and would be solely bound by law. It was perceived that all aspects of Islamic Shariah would also be codified into law eventually, and then Judges would not have to even revert to Islamic Shariah in any event. This is necessary if there is to be certainty of law and therefore rule of law.
To achieve this, Judges had to be granted a high degree of independence, and the only instances of external scrutiny would be if any one of them became incompetent or committed an act which was unbecoming of judges. They are the only state officials who are appointed for life. Such is the dignity and respect accorded to Judges. By the same token, it is expected that once granted this independence, Judges would remain totally apolitical, and not concern themselves with matters other than adjudication.
Article 142 (above) speaks about Judges being independent. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the entire Judiciary being independent of other state organs. How can it be? It too, after all, is an organ of the state. The concept of Judges being independent is very important for the rest of my argument. The recent decisions and actions of the Supreme Court is actually undermining the independence of Judges, and opening the doors for Judicial Tyranny.
When we talk about independence of Judges, we are not only talking about Judges being independent from influences from other state organs, but also Judges being independent from one another. In adjudicating on a matter before a Judge, s/he should not consult anyone, including any other Judge. S/he should solely focus on the law, and the facts as presented in evidence, and precedents set by rulings in similar cases, especially those of higher courts.
When we wrote the Constitution, we also envisioned each tier of the Judiciary being independent of the other tiers. That is, the Lower Courts should not be influenced by the Higher appellate Courts, and the High Court should not be influenced by the Highest appellate Court.
That is why we decided to leave the administrative matters to the Judicial Service Commission which would operate in parallel, but would not intervene in any judicial decisions. If the Supreme Court takes on the administration of the entire Judiciary, and the Chief Justice starts making decisions regarding other Courts, the independence of the High Court and the Trial Courts will be compromised.
With this push by the Supreme Court to take on the entire Judiciary as its own domain, it is, I believe, violating Article 151 of the Constitution, as the Chief Justice is seeking to do “work other” than adjudicating when the law does not make provision for it. Imagine this scenario. The Chief Justice decides to sack an employee of a Court (there are about 2000 of them) out of personal prejudice, mandated by the Supreme Court. Where does this person go to seek a remedy? The Courts? And ultimately to the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court who did it in the first place? Just one example of the stupidity of subjecting the administration of all the Courts to the Supreme Court. On the other hand, with the setup we had made, these decisions by the Judicial Service Commission can be taken to the Courts and an independent decision sought by the disaffected person. (I think lawyers call this “Principles of Natural Justice”; i.e, one should not be judging one’s own self to deliver Justice.)
Article 155 (above) gives unequivocal power to the Majlis to make laws both on Jurisdiction of Courts (including the Supreme Court) and on administration of the Courts. The Majlis made such law. The Supreme Court struck it down, quoting “inherent (meaning extra-constitutional) powers” of the Supreme Court (I think Lawyers call it “ultra virese”).
What they don’t understand is that the Constitution gives the complete power of the public purse, hiring of most, and firing of ALL public officials to the Majlis. No one can fire an MP from his or her job. If these taken together doesn’t spell Supremacy, what does? Time to face the facts and retract all that rhetoric and political juggling.
The Majlis is being patient with this unruly child, because this child is the Majlis’s own. It is in the interest of the nation (and therefore the Majlis) that this child is not a victim of infant mortality. The Judges of the Supreme Court may seek to destroy the institution called the Supreme Court. But the Majlis will not allow it. The Majlis will protect its own child, and nurture it to full maturity, because the Majlis has high hopes for this child. The Majlis will remove guardianship from the current five if necessary in order to protect this newborn baby. The Majlis will not let senility be an excuse for infanticide or the raping of a baby. The Supreme Court maybe the “Guardian of the Constitution”, but the Majlis is the “Guardian of the Nation”.
The Majlis is working to seek an amicable, diplomatic and peaceful solution to this acute problem before it becomes chronic, and do it quietly. But with Supremacy will also come responsibility. The Majlis will not hesitate to do what is necessary to protect and defend judges of the Trial Courts and the High Court and hence serve the best interest of this country. Many may think that the Majlis is divided on political lines and therefore can be cuckolded. Forget it. The Majlis will unite when it comes to protecting this nation. The Special Majlis, and the current People’s Majlis have demonstrated that many times. Yes, some MPs, on some occasions have displayed hilarious behavior on the floor of the Majlis. But do review the decisions of the Majlis, especially when we managed to get DRP to bow down, and you will have to agree that in spite of the “comic” nature of MPs, this institution is the institution which has sought protection for the people and fought on behalf of the people to end tyranny. If you think this membership is comic and unruly, just wait until the next elections. Judging by the caliber of candidates being proposed by the “major parties”, we can expect hilarity unbeknownst.
Yes, the Constitution makes excellent provision for Judicial Independence. But the Judiciary cannot be independent from other organs of the State. The Judiciary as a whole will be subject to the Majlis, and hence the People. Only Judges, in their work of adjudicating, is given that privilege. The Majlis will not seek to interefere in the process of adjudication.
Friday, January 16, 2009
On Parliament’s Recess
The hottest topic in political circles these days is that of Parliament’s recess. When the Speaker put the matter to vote, I voted for recess. In spite of all the “spinning” that has gone on, I still believe that I made the right decision. Let me outline why. I apologise in advance for those readers who often express frustration because my Posts are too long. This one will be long. For the first time in my Parliamentary career, I have been questioned by some of those who support the work I have been doing, about the way I voted in Parliament, and I feel it is my duty to explain my justification for that vote. I must be accountable for my actions to the People. Next to my belief in Allah, my most fervent belief is that public officials must always act in the interest of people and that accountability by public officials to the public is of paramount importance.
Some of these writings and musings of mine are a bit long because when I try to write things concisely, I tend to write at an abstract level, and there are many readers who do not have the background information on many of these things, and they find it difficult to put what I write in the proper context. Subsequently, they pose many questions for me, seeking further clarifications and amplifications. So I try to write assuming nothing about readers’ background information.
Therefore, for those of you who have asked me about it with the sincere intention of finding out the reasons for the Recess, let me try to expound the reasons.
The Background
When the Constitution was being written, the initial draft prepared by the Drafting Panel for the Transition Chapter did not specify any dates for anything. It just listed periods for various activities. Further, the consultant and the panel advocated concurrent Presidential and Parliamentary elections, within a period of six to eight months. However, DRP, who held the majority at the time, insisted on specific dates, and wanted the Presidential elections, Parliamentary elections and Local elections in that order. MDP at the time was arguing for the reverse.
When dates were being proposed, I lamented, begged, wrote out detailed lists of activities and appropriate and realistic periods, all to no avail. The Chapter was written in late January / February 2008, and it was envisaged that the Constitution would be ratified in early March. If that had happened, it would have given us 8 months to make all the preparations for the Presidential elections and a full year to make preparations for the Parliamentary elections, and nearly eighteen months for the preparation of Local elections.
However, the Sub-committee of the Drafting Committee couldn’t finish the final editing of the constitution until nearly July. This was mainly because the Attorney General sent a document listing 301 “problems” with the Constitution (the Constitution has 301 Articles!), and the committee had to go through each and every one of them. Why? Because there was a veiled threat that unless they were accommodated, the President would be advised to send back that Constitution for reconsideration, which would have meant the death of it because then we would be required to get a two third majority to pass it.
Then the President took a further one month to ratify it, which meant it didn’t get ratified until Thursday, the 7th of August. Incidentally, if it had not been ratified by Thursday, the Election Commissioner would have been required under the old constitution to announce Presidential Elections under the old constitution on the following Sunday, which would have meant it would not have been a multi-candidate election, but the old Parliament-approval-followed-by-referendum system. This would have happened had we not demonstrated outside the Palace, which some labelled as the “Spectacle at the Palace”.
Therefore, what was written to allow an eight month period for Presidential elections was suddenly shortened to two months, because the envisaged ratification date was overshot by six months, but the election date was fixed. I believe this was done deliberately by DRP to hold the elections amid confusion. MDP also subscribed to it at a later stage. So did the Republicans.
We all know what happened in the Presidential elections. The whole thing was a bloody mess and a debacle.
In the process, the old and the new governments very conveniently “overlooked” THEIR constitutional duty and did not submit the necessary bills for Parliamentary elections to Parliament.
Due to the late ratification of the Constitution, what was envisaged as a one year period for preparations for Parliamentary elections was cut short to 5 months. The late submission of the bills has actually shortened the effective period to less than two months.
Both governments were fully aware that Parliament recess would come at the end of December, and that the Parliament would be fully engaged in the budgetary process during the whole of December. Therefore they knew very well that by delaying the submission of the bills until December actually meant that the bills would not be completed by early January. This would mean that it just left one month for everything to be done to hold the elections.
Nobody actually expected the Parliament to be firm on this issue and that Parliament would resist being bulldozed and coerced into denying the Maldivian People the right to take part in a free and fair election, an election which followed DUE PROCESS. So now that Parliament has done exactly that, they are trying to tarnish the Parliament, and in the process have successfully created a Supreme Court which can over-rule Parliament any time they want. Worse, they have destroyed the credibility of the only Institution in this country which has actually delivered any freedom and power to the people. After this Debacle, the People are left with a eunuch of a Parliament.
The Vote
Against this backdrop, on the 25th of December, just after the budget was passed, the Speaker asked for a vote (without any debate) on whether Parliament should go for recess as stipulated in the Constitution and the Standing Orders of the Parliament.
I voted for the motion.
In voting for the motion, I asked myself the following questions :
Will going for a recess violate the Constitution? The answer was No. It would not violate the Constitution for the facts that : 1. Article 83 of the Constitution quite clearly specifies that the Parliament shall have three sessions in a year, and that the beginning dates and the end dates of each session should be specified in the Standing Orders of the Parliament; and the date specified in the Standing Orders for the beginning of the Major recess for Parliament for 2008 was the end of December. In fact even the Supreme Court recognized this in their “ruling”. 2. Following the Presidential elections, Husnu Suood and a group of lawyers went to the High Court to nullify the elections because the elections had not been completed by 10th October as specified in Article 301 of the Constitution. The High Court ruled that overshooting that date did not constitute a violation of the Constitution because those dates in the Constitution were not absolute. The Supreme Court had not over-ruled that decision of the High Court.
Will not going for recess and quickly finishing the bills allow elections to be held by 15th February, as specified in the Constitution? The answer was No. It could not be done for the simple reasons that: 1. It would have taken about 10 days to finish those bills. Some would argue that it could be done in three days. But I disagree because the Standing Orders of the Parliament outlines a process for the passing of any bill, and simply following that process would have taken that amount of time. This meant that the bills could not have been passed before the end of the first week of January (The Lunar and Gregorian New Year Holidays fell into this period as well). That meant The Elections Commission would have about thirty five days to complete the elections. In the meantime, the Elections Commission had communicated in writing to the Parliament that they would need the bills to be passed by 18th of December in order to conduct the elections by the 15th of February. They wrote three times. They came in person to Majlis Committee and are on record stating that it could not be done, and they would need a minimum of fifty days to do it. 2. Article 170 of the Constitution spells out quite clearly the responsibilities of the Elections Commission in holding any election. Among these are delineating and announcing boundaries well ahead of time, publishing voter lists and registries with enough time allowed to address voters’ complaints, educating the Public about the elections. So I asked myself, should I allow the Elections Commission to shirk these responsibilities and hold a farce of an election yet again? The memories of the Presidential Elections are still fresh in my mind. So I knew the elections could not be held AS SPECIFIED IN THE CONSTITUTION by the DATE SPECIFIED IN THE CONSTITUTION anyway. If we held on to one requirement, we would be forced to violate the other requirement. Which way do I go? I decided, even if the date is passed, we must facilitate the election AS SPECIFIED IN THE CONSTITUTION.
In taking this decision, I deliberated on article 75 of the Constitution, that MPs must always act in the best interest of the NATION and ALL its people, in discharging their duties. In making this decision, we were taking the brunt of all kinds of accusations, but saving the Elections Commission from being forced to violate the Constitution. That is our job. To make the best decision for the Nation in spite of accusations from political opponents.
Has the Parliament worked to discharge its duties? The Answer was a big resounding Yes. Parliament has worked round the clock since January 2006, and has not had a proper recess since September 2006. As for me, this is the first recess I have had since then.
Who will benefit by a snap election? The answer was, the major league political parties, and it would put individual candidates at an extreme disadvantage. The sense I am getting from the public is that the Public do not trust political parties yet. The next lot would be the power hungry politicians sitting on the sidelines. They don’t want to waste a day out of the arena.
One final consideration in my decision was that if the Election was held properly, HA Atoll would get one more seat in Parliament, because statistical projections and numbers tell us if their population was increased by a few, they would be entitled to one more seat from what the Elections Commission was specifying now. It would increase from four to five.
The Summary
The summary is that by going for recess, Parliament has not violated the Constitution, and we would not have had a proper election anyway in the time specified, and that this was due largely on the failing of the government to submit the bills on time, and had nothing to do with Parliament.
I made the decision on behalf of the people who elected me, and for the benefit of the Maldivian People. I still think I made the right decision, and on Monday, when Parliament convenes, I will still make the same decision. If the people punish me in the next election for working in their interest by not re-electing me….well…it is their prerogative, and I will respect it. But I still would not change my mind on this issue. If the People weigh my contributions to this nation in the last four years as their elected representative against this one vote, and my stand on it, and this one vote outweighs four years of sacrifice and hard work, well….what can I say? It will decide for me, once and for all that the Maldivian people do not subscribe to my ideals and principles. This issue has to be tested now. The upcoming elections will show whether the People share my vision for this country and my principles.
Forgive me folks, for the lengthy Post, but I had to spell it out in detail.
Some of these writings and musings of mine are a bit long because when I try to write things concisely, I tend to write at an abstract level, and there are many readers who do not have the background information on many of these things, and they find it difficult to put what I write in the proper context. Subsequently, they pose many questions for me, seeking further clarifications and amplifications. So I try to write assuming nothing about readers’ background information.
Therefore, for those of you who have asked me about it with the sincere intention of finding out the reasons for the Recess, let me try to expound the reasons.
The Background
When the Constitution was being written, the initial draft prepared by the Drafting Panel for the Transition Chapter did not specify any dates for anything. It just listed periods for various activities. Further, the consultant and the panel advocated concurrent Presidential and Parliamentary elections, within a period of six to eight months. However, DRP, who held the majority at the time, insisted on specific dates, and wanted the Presidential elections, Parliamentary elections and Local elections in that order. MDP at the time was arguing for the reverse.
When dates were being proposed, I lamented, begged, wrote out detailed lists of activities and appropriate and realistic periods, all to no avail. The Chapter was written in late January / February 2008, and it was envisaged that the Constitution would be ratified in early March. If that had happened, it would have given us 8 months to make all the preparations for the Presidential elections and a full year to make preparations for the Parliamentary elections, and nearly eighteen months for the preparation of Local elections.
However, the Sub-committee of the Drafting Committee couldn’t finish the final editing of the constitution until nearly July. This was mainly because the Attorney General sent a document listing 301 “problems” with the Constitution (the Constitution has 301 Articles!), and the committee had to go through each and every one of them. Why? Because there was a veiled threat that unless they were accommodated, the President would be advised to send back that Constitution for reconsideration, which would have meant the death of it because then we would be required to get a two third majority to pass it.
Then the President took a further one month to ratify it, which meant it didn’t get ratified until Thursday, the 7th of August. Incidentally, if it had not been ratified by Thursday, the Election Commissioner would have been required under the old constitution to announce Presidential Elections under the old constitution on the following Sunday, which would have meant it would not have been a multi-candidate election, but the old Parliament-approval-followed-by-referendum system. This would have happened had we not demonstrated outside the Palace, which some labelled as the “Spectacle at the Palace”.
Therefore, what was written to allow an eight month period for Presidential elections was suddenly shortened to two months, because the envisaged ratification date was overshot by six months, but the election date was fixed. I believe this was done deliberately by DRP to hold the elections amid confusion. MDP also subscribed to it at a later stage. So did the Republicans.
We all know what happened in the Presidential elections. The whole thing was a bloody mess and a debacle.
In the process, the old and the new governments very conveniently “overlooked” THEIR constitutional duty and did not submit the necessary bills for Parliamentary elections to Parliament.
Due to the late ratification of the Constitution, what was envisaged as a one year period for preparations for Parliamentary elections was cut short to 5 months. The late submission of the bills has actually shortened the effective period to less than two months.
Both governments were fully aware that Parliament recess would come at the end of December, and that the Parliament would be fully engaged in the budgetary process during the whole of December. Therefore they knew very well that by delaying the submission of the bills until December actually meant that the bills would not be completed by early January. This would mean that it just left one month for everything to be done to hold the elections.
Nobody actually expected the Parliament to be firm on this issue and that Parliament would resist being bulldozed and coerced into denying the Maldivian People the right to take part in a free and fair election, an election which followed DUE PROCESS. So now that Parliament has done exactly that, they are trying to tarnish the Parliament, and in the process have successfully created a Supreme Court which can over-rule Parliament any time they want. Worse, they have destroyed the credibility of the only Institution in this country which has actually delivered any freedom and power to the people. After this Debacle, the People are left with a eunuch of a Parliament.
The Vote
Against this backdrop, on the 25th of December, just after the budget was passed, the Speaker asked for a vote (without any debate) on whether Parliament should go for recess as stipulated in the Constitution and the Standing Orders of the Parliament.
I voted for the motion.
In voting for the motion, I asked myself the following questions :
Will going for a recess violate the Constitution? The answer was No. It would not violate the Constitution for the facts that : 1. Article 83 of the Constitution quite clearly specifies that the Parliament shall have three sessions in a year, and that the beginning dates and the end dates of each session should be specified in the Standing Orders of the Parliament; and the date specified in the Standing Orders for the beginning of the Major recess for Parliament for 2008 was the end of December. In fact even the Supreme Court recognized this in their “ruling”. 2. Following the Presidential elections, Husnu Suood and a group of lawyers went to the High Court to nullify the elections because the elections had not been completed by 10th October as specified in Article 301 of the Constitution. The High Court ruled that overshooting that date did not constitute a violation of the Constitution because those dates in the Constitution were not absolute. The Supreme Court had not over-ruled that decision of the High Court.
Will not going for recess and quickly finishing the bills allow elections to be held by 15th February, as specified in the Constitution? The answer was No. It could not be done for the simple reasons that: 1. It would have taken about 10 days to finish those bills. Some would argue that it could be done in three days. But I disagree because the Standing Orders of the Parliament outlines a process for the passing of any bill, and simply following that process would have taken that amount of time. This meant that the bills could not have been passed before the end of the first week of January (The Lunar and Gregorian New Year Holidays fell into this period as well). That meant The Elections Commission would have about thirty five days to complete the elections. In the meantime, the Elections Commission had communicated in writing to the Parliament that they would need the bills to be passed by 18th of December in order to conduct the elections by the 15th of February. They wrote three times. They came in person to Majlis Committee and are on record stating that it could not be done, and they would need a minimum of fifty days to do it. 2. Article 170 of the Constitution spells out quite clearly the responsibilities of the Elections Commission in holding any election. Among these are delineating and announcing boundaries well ahead of time, publishing voter lists and registries with enough time allowed to address voters’ complaints, educating the Public about the elections. So I asked myself, should I allow the Elections Commission to shirk these responsibilities and hold a farce of an election yet again? The memories of the Presidential Elections are still fresh in my mind. So I knew the elections could not be held AS SPECIFIED IN THE CONSTITUTION by the DATE SPECIFIED IN THE CONSTITUTION anyway. If we held on to one requirement, we would be forced to violate the other requirement. Which way do I go? I decided, even if the date is passed, we must facilitate the election AS SPECIFIED IN THE CONSTITUTION.
In taking this decision, I deliberated on article 75 of the Constitution, that MPs must always act in the best interest of the NATION and ALL its people, in discharging their duties. In making this decision, we were taking the brunt of all kinds of accusations, but saving the Elections Commission from being forced to violate the Constitution. That is our job. To make the best decision for the Nation in spite of accusations from political opponents.
Has the Parliament worked to discharge its duties? The Answer was a big resounding Yes. Parliament has worked round the clock since January 2006, and has not had a proper recess since September 2006. As for me, this is the first recess I have had since then.
Who will benefit by a snap election? The answer was, the major league political parties, and it would put individual candidates at an extreme disadvantage. The sense I am getting from the public is that the Public do not trust political parties yet. The next lot would be the power hungry politicians sitting on the sidelines. They don’t want to waste a day out of the arena.
One final consideration in my decision was that if the Election was held properly, HA Atoll would get one more seat in Parliament, because statistical projections and numbers tell us if their population was increased by a few, they would be entitled to one more seat from what the Elections Commission was specifying now. It would increase from four to five.
The Summary
The summary is that by going for recess, Parliament has not violated the Constitution, and we would not have had a proper election anyway in the time specified, and that this was due largely on the failing of the government to submit the bills on time, and had nothing to do with Parliament.
I made the decision on behalf of the people who elected me, and for the benefit of the Maldivian People. I still think I made the right decision, and on Monday, when Parliament convenes, I will still make the same decision. If the people punish me in the next election for working in their interest by not re-electing me….well…it is their prerogative, and I will respect it. But I still would not change my mind on this issue. If the People weigh my contributions to this nation in the last four years as their elected representative against this one vote, and my stand on it, and this one vote outweighs four years of sacrifice and hard work, well….what can I say? It will decide for me, once and for all that the Maldivian people do not subscribe to my ideals and principles. This issue has to be tested now. The upcoming elections will show whether the People share my vision for this country and my principles.
Forgive me folks, for the lengthy Post, but I had to spell it out in detail.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
The Pendulum Is Swinging
The Supreme Court gave a ruling today in the Case of the Century. They ruled, but did not decide. The plaintiffs pleaded the Court for a ruling that the Parliament had violated the Constitution and that the Parliament would stand dissolved on the first of March. Surprisingly, the Supreme Court was silent on both counts in its “verdict”. I had always thought that people went to Court for a remedy regarding a grievance. The Supreme Court certainly gave none in this instance. I am a bit baffled that “eminent lawyers” are claiming that the Supreme Court decision was in favour of the plaintiffs. Must be because I am not a lawyer. I suppose only lawyers are expected to understand Court decisions, and an interpretation has to be made on how the Court interpreted the Law. A bit convoluted, all this legal stuff, I conclude.
In the most convoluted decision to ever come out of a Maldivian Court, what was apparent is this: The Supreme Court is of the opinion that they are the Supreme body in the country, and they do not recognize Parliamentary immunity.
This is exactly what I have been fearful of (Refer my Post entitled “The Power Pendulum”). I have seen this coming from a distance.
The Court referred to “inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court” when the Constitution quite clearly states only four instances of original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court, and everything else is referred to jurisdiction as defined by the Law (of which there is nothing yet), or original jurisdiction of a case on appeal against a High Court decision. How can there be “inherent jurisdiction and powers of a court” in constitutional supremacy?
This case has opened a door for a tug of war, the ultimate result of which can only be a Judiciary whose powers will be curtailed. They have committed what would be considered sacrilege in most democracies.
The flexing of their muscles is further evident in a statement issued by the Supreme Court which warns that anyone commenting on a Supreme Court decision will be punished. Where in the world did they gain the power to limit the right of speech through a press release? Does the copy of the Constitution they refer to come minus article 16 and article 19? They have ventured again into the exclusive powers of the Parliament : the power to make law and define punishable offences.
This is my worst nightmare coming true. After ruling against Parliamentary immunity, they are shamelessly moving onto curtailing fundamental rights and freedoms and liberties of the people. Well, the “eminent lawyers” may sit and watch in awe and reverence at the power of the Supreme Court. They may very conveniently disregard the issue when the Supreme Court shifts immunity from Parliament to the Supreme Court. But I shan’t. The Supreme Court can put me in jail if they like. But even they will not strip me of my right and freedom to express myself. I purchased that right with my own sweat and blood from a tyrant who ruled this country for 30 years.
Yes, the Pendulum is Swinging. It hasn’t stopped yet. Right now, it is on the verge of going out of tolerance range.
In the most convoluted decision to ever come out of a Maldivian Court, what was apparent is this: The Supreme Court is of the opinion that they are the Supreme body in the country, and they do not recognize Parliamentary immunity.
This is exactly what I have been fearful of (Refer my Post entitled “The Power Pendulum”). I have seen this coming from a distance.
The Court referred to “inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court” when the Constitution quite clearly states only four instances of original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court, and everything else is referred to jurisdiction as defined by the Law (of which there is nothing yet), or original jurisdiction of a case on appeal against a High Court decision. How can there be “inherent jurisdiction and powers of a court” in constitutional supremacy?
This case has opened a door for a tug of war, the ultimate result of which can only be a Judiciary whose powers will be curtailed. They have committed what would be considered sacrilege in most democracies.
The flexing of their muscles is further evident in a statement issued by the Supreme Court which warns that anyone commenting on a Supreme Court decision will be punished. Where in the world did they gain the power to limit the right of speech through a press release? Does the copy of the Constitution they refer to come minus article 16 and article 19? They have ventured again into the exclusive powers of the Parliament : the power to make law and define punishable offences.
This is my worst nightmare coming true. After ruling against Parliamentary immunity, they are shamelessly moving onto curtailing fundamental rights and freedoms and liberties of the people. Well, the “eminent lawyers” may sit and watch in awe and reverence at the power of the Supreme Court. They may very conveniently disregard the issue when the Supreme Court shifts immunity from Parliament to the Supreme Court. But I shan’t. The Supreme Court can put me in jail if they like. But even they will not strip me of my right and freedom to express myself. I purchased that right with my own sweat and blood from a tyrant who ruled this country for 30 years.
Yes, the Pendulum is Swinging. It hasn’t stopped yet. Right now, it is on the verge of going out of tolerance range.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Responsibility
The Maldives has made history, I think (I am not sure on this), by holding a trial with the Parliament as defendant. The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no immunity for parliament in the constitution. Among the reasoning for this ruling was that it is in the inherent power of the Supreme Court to take on the responsibility of deciding what is best for the nation, and that the Attorney General had asked for an opinion from the Court on this issue, and therefore it constitutes as a valid reason for trying the Parliament in Court.
Effectively, what the Court is saying is that if the Executive asks for an opinion from the Court regarding Parliament’s actions and decisions, it then falls into the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to sit in judgment over Parliament, disregarding the clauses defining Immunity and Privilege of Parliament.
I could make a lengthy case for the Supremacy of Parliament. But that is not the topic of this Post. The topic is Responsibility.
The Parliament is being accused of not discharging its duties and acting “irresponsibly”, and the Supreme Court is going to pass judgment on Parliament any minute now. I do not wish to comment on this issue either.
I just want to pose a few questions regarding responsibility and irresponsibility.
Article 149 (d) of the Constitution says that Parliament should pass a law on judges (or more commonly known as a Judicature Act) which would guide how judges should discharge their duties. While the Constitution was in its final stages of being written, I wanted to submit such an act to Parliament to get it ready for implementation. I was told that the then Attorney General had employed a consultant from the Commonwealth to write such a bill, and the government would submit it to Parliament as a matter of priority. After the Constitution was passed, I begged the Legal Reform people that the first bill should be that because I was afraid that with the high degree of independence being given to judges and the courts, and due to the weakness of the courts, the Judiciary may step out of bounds and start messing things up. I was promised that it would come very quickly, but it never did. To date, there is none. The result? Judges are out of control. They are ruling arbitrarily to send lawyers to jail for non-appearance to court on contempt of court. They have refused to act according to the criminal procedures code “because it was too difficult to do so”. The Supreme Court has ruled to take away powers given to the JSC by law to increase their control on the High Court and Trial Court. The Supreme Court has accepted a case for hearing which was kicked out of the high court without going through an appeals process and reversing the High Court’s Judgment.
They are doing whatever they like in the name of “inherent powers of the Court” while at the same time quoting Constitutional Supremacy. How can you have “inherent powers” which are not defined in the law when the Constitution is Supreme?
Are the courts, specially the Supreme Court acting “responsibly”?
The Legal Reform Ministry of the Qayyoom Government never submitted any bill on parliamentary elections or constituency boundaries. Neither did the Attorney General of the Nasheed Government until early December, when they clearly knew the Majlis was going into recess, and the budget bills were under way. Did the Legal Reform Minister and the Attorney General act responsibly?
Article 155 of the Constitution says quite clearly that the Parliament has the power to pass law which sets out the jurisdiction of all the courts, to pass law on administrative arrangements and procedural arrangements of the courts. Why didn’t the Legal Reform Minister or the Attorney General, submit those bills to Parliament? Were they acting responsibly?
Why isn’t there a Judicial Void in the country in the absence of laws which spell out jurisdiction of courts, administrative arrangements, procedure of courts and laws which spell out qualifications of judges and guidelines for adjudicating? Are the courts acting within the constitution? Does any of these courts have the jurisdiction to pass judgment on anything? Are they acting responsibly now?
Were the former officials of the Legal Reform Ministry acting responsibly when they took a matter before the Supreme Court when all the while they knew they had a High Court Ruling against them, and the Supreme Court had not overturned the High Court’s ruling? Were the same people acting responsibly when they opened up a can of worms and allowed a confused Supreme Court to assume powers out of their jurisdiction? Were they acting responsibly when they took the matter to courts when they knew full well that Parliament never had the chance to make these laws because the same people never submitted the bills for Parliament’s consideration?
Such is Responsibility and how different people interpret it.
Effectively, what the Court is saying is that if the Executive asks for an opinion from the Court regarding Parliament’s actions and decisions, it then falls into the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to sit in judgment over Parliament, disregarding the clauses defining Immunity and Privilege of Parliament.
I could make a lengthy case for the Supremacy of Parliament. But that is not the topic of this Post. The topic is Responsibility.
The Parliament is being accused of not discharging its duties and acting “irresponsibly”, and the Supreme Court is going to pass judgment on Parliament any minute now. I do not wish to comment on this issue either.
I just want to pose a few questions regarding responsibility and irresponsibility.
Article 149 (d) of the Constitution says that Parliament should pass a law on judges (or more commonly known as a Judicature Act) which would guide how judges should discharge their duties. While the Constitution was in its final stages of being written, I wanted to submit such an act to Parliament to get it ready for implementation. I was told that the then Attorney General had employed a consultant from the Commonwealth to write such a bill, and the government would submit it to Parliament as a matter of priority. After the Constitution was passed, I begged the Legal Reform people that the first bill should be that because I was afraid that with the high degree of independence being given to judges and the courts, and due to the weakness of the courts, the Judiciary may step out of bounds and start messing things up. I was promised that it would come very quickly, but it never did. To date, there is none. The result? Judges are out of control. They are ruling arbitrarily to send lawyers to jail for non-appearance to court on contempt of court. They have refused to act according to the criminal procedures code “because it was too difficult to do so”. The Supreme Court has ruled to take away powers given to the JSC by law to increase their control on the High Court and Trial Court. The Supreme Court has accepted a case for hearing which was kicked out of the high court without going through an appeals process and reversing the High Court’s Judgment.
They are doing whatever they like in the name of “inherent powers of the Court” while at the same time quoting Constitutional Supremacy. How can you have “inherent powers” which are not defined in the law when the Constitution is Supreme?
Are the courts, specially the Supreme Court acting “responsibly”?
The Legal Reform Ministry of the Qayyoom Government never submitted any bill on parliamentary elections or constituency boundaries. Neither did the Attorney General of the Nasheed Government until early December, when they clearly knew the Majlis was going into recess, and the budget bills were under way. Did the Legal Reform Minister and the Attorney General act responsibly?
Article 155 of the Constitution says quite clearly that the Parliament has the power to pass law which sets out the jurisdiction of all the courts, to pass law on administrative arrangements and procedural arrangements of the courts. Why didn’t the Legal Reform Minister or the Attorney General, submit those bills to Parliament? Were they acting responsibly?
Why isn’t there a Judicial Void in the country in the absence of laws which spell out jurisdiction of courts, administrative arrangements, procedure of courts and laws which spell out qualifications of judges and guidelines for adjudicating? Are the courts acting within the constitution? Does any of these courts have the jurisdiction to pass judgment on anything? Are they acting responsibly now?
Were the former officials of the Legal Reform Ministry acting responsibly when they took a matter before the Supreme Court when all the while they knew they had a High Court Ruling against them, and the Supreme Court had not overturned the High Court’s ruling? Were the same people acting responsibly when they opened up a can of worms and allowed a confused Supreme Court to assume powers out of their jurisdiction? Were they acting responsibly when they took the matter to courts when they knew full well that Parliament never had the chance to make these laws because the same people never submitted the bills for Parliament’s consideration?
Such is Responsibility and how different people interpret it.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Procrastination
The Maldives has been heading towards economic disaster for quite some time now. There are many factors, I am told by economists, which have contributed to this economic demise. I am not an economist, and I don’t understand their jargon half the time. So, I will just try to look at this from a common sense angle. I may be wrong, I may be right. I don’t really know. I hope those who know better than I do in this area will shed some light on these issues.
For a number of years, the Government had been spending more money than it earned. The Majlis would be fooled into believing that it was a balanced budget that they were passing, but at the end of the first quarter, the budget would already be in the deficit. “Short term loans” would be taken from the MMA Ways and Means account which invariably became permanent. What this effectively means, I suppose, is that the MMA would just print more and more bank notes to honour government cheques for which there was no substantial backing in kind. Inflation creeping in was the result, because the Rufiyaa could not hold its own against the dollar. Artificial control of Rufiyaa value meant a kind of a soap bubble was created for a time.
I could be way off the mark here. If so, somebody please point out and put us on the right track.
In the meantime, consumer confidence was at an all time high, and people just kept on spending and spending like there was no tomorrow. Credit cards were made more accessible to white collar workers, creating credit for consumption. But there was no real credit available for production. At the end of the day, if the fuels for consumption cannot be maintained, the bubble has to burst.
Government spending was hugely in the recurrent area and there was an ever burgeoning civil service. I remember, in 1994, when I was a civil servant, I was working on a World Bank Project, and the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the International Monetary Fund warned the Government to seriously cut back civil service employment. However, in the past 14 years since then, the civil service has grown out of all proportion. For the previous Government, employing more and more people in the civil service was a means of controlling them and their families, especially in the atolls, when it was time for elections. In the absence of formalized political parties, “government employees” constituted the ruling party.
It is claimed that there are close to 40,000 government and state employees. This, in a nation of 300,000 people. That means close to 40% of the working population are in government employment, which is mainly a consumption area. To offset this, foreign workers have to be brought for the production side, losing real foreign currency in the process. A labourer employed for a monthly salary of USD 150 sends home, on average USD 1,000 per month.
These are just some aspects. There are many more, I am sure. Whatever it is, I hope that the Nasheed Administration does not make the same mistakes that Qayyoom’s Administration made. Somewhere along the line, we will have to bite the bullet. Procrastinating facing the inevitable and hoping for a miracle will not help. The earlier we devalue the Rufiyaa the sooner it will start to recover. Drastic reduction in spending is necessary to try and generate some savings to address the national debt which has spiralled out of control. A time for austerity is here, and we had all better embrace it.
Government borrowings from abroad could be used to offset the deficit. But then again, the Government would have to borrow again from the MMA for day to day spending. The net result is more or less the same, with a little bit more external debt than before. The only option left would be to pump more notes into circulation, which in turn will bring up inflation, creating a greater momentum towards devaluation. Otherwise, the MMA would have no option but to dishonour Government cheques presented to them.
The financial crisis in the world has also at its roots lending and consuming beyond means. Banks have taken huge risks in lending without proper collateral. Age old, and tested standards of basic accounting has been ignored, putting financial markets at great risks.
The bottom line is what household wives have known for ages. You just can’t spend what you don’t have. One fine day, it will catch up with you, and you will have to pay. “Kanmathee Store” is a creation of living beyond the means, at a national level.
To my untrained and ignorant “economics mind”, I see certain steps that will have to be taken sooner or later. They are:
- We have to devise a way of retaining foreign currency that we earn
- We have to reduce consumption, particularly wasteful and luxury items
- More people have to be engaged in production than consumption related activities, i. e, the civil service has to be reduced, and the work force diverted to more productive areas
- Government sector has to be much, much, more efficient by reducing wasteful spending
- Stimulus has to be provided for not only big business, but also to small and medium businesses. SMEs are the hardest hit in these times, but they also generate more employment on the whole, and generally keep the whole economy running
- Allow the creativity of the private sector to take off, and stop thinking in “populist” terms
These are just some thoughts of an average person. Do forgive me for my ignorance in these matters. It is for the Government to devise policies and strategies to make these things work. I hope that a more down to earth approach will be adopted by the new government to address these issues.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Being a Muslim
Islam, like most other religions, or all other religions is a set of beliefs that one has about one’s existence, the existence of the universe, of God or a Supreme Being, of the Hereafter, which in turn impacts on how one conducts one’s life. Belief is a deeply personal thing, and religious belief is a commitment one makes to oneself, out of one’s own volition. No matter what is said and done, ultimately, religion for each person has a profoundly different meaning as it relates to the psyche of each individual which is shaped by one’s own circumstances, past and present. For some, religion is vastly exhilarating and enabling, while for some others it becomes limiting and crippling.
I would like to share some of my thoughts on religion as it relates to me. This Post, by the nature of its very contents, is extremely personal, and it may run against the grain of others. I feel compelled to write this as I am increasingly disturbed about the trend that religious discourse is taking in our society. All I ask of readers is to be tolerant of views expressed here.
First and foremost, I claim no expertise in Islamic Jurisprudence or Shariah. I have never studied the subjects at University and have no formal training in the area. However, I am a deeply religious Muslim, and I have made attempts at reading and understanding the Quran, Hadhith and academic writings of scholars on various subjects relating to Islam. I have also engaged in countless discussions and debates with scholars over the past 15 years or so. All this in a quest to quench my thirst for knowledge in the subject and to become a “better Muslim”.
Amongst the many and varied opinions and views expressed about the teachings of Islam and Islamic Jurisprudence are the four main sects or mazhabs, and the views of those scholars who do not particularly subscribe to any mazhab, but claim to get inspiration directly from Quran and Sunnah. From the knowledge that I have gathered from the teachings of all of these, I have come to one conclusion : that there is a wide spectrum of beliefs among scholars ranging from ultra-conservative, literal interpretations to highly progressive and liberal interpretations of Islamic doctrine. I tend to lean towards the progressive end of the spectrum, which stems from my belief that Allah meant us to live our life to the full and that times change and divergent and progressive thinking should not be constricted in the name of religion. This is not say that I deny un-crossable boundaries in Islam. Nevertheless, I believe that Islam is an enabling religion, and there is plenty of space within the boundaries, and that the societies of Arabia some 15 centuries ago should not define and limit the possibilities of the 21st Century.
What disturbs me most is the increasing push among some scholars to impose a narrow interpretation of religion to usurp the liberties of people, particularly those of women. I keep pondering on the teachings of Quran and the Prophet (saw) as I know it, which I am certain promotes those liberties, and establishes the equality of sexes beyond doubt. That some schools of thought should seek to become the dominant worldview, and thus promote intolerance disturbs me. It appears to me, that there is a strong push for thought control, and hence behaviour control, in the name of religion, on the part of some scholars. That such scholars are rejecting scientific thought out of hand, and believe that knowledge of the Shariah alone gives one the right to dictate over all other knowledge is alarming.
One is reminded of how, in the Middle Ages, Priests in Christianity gradually gained control over the masses through claims of being intermediaries of God. The epistemological significance is enormous : the only source of knowledge is through the Sharia. Is an Islamic Inquisition in the making?
As a Muslim, I believe that ultimately, I am accountable to Allah, and Allah alone, for my actions. If other Muslim brothers and sisters believe I am straying, they may, and they should, remind me. But ultimately, it is for me to listen, evaluate and act. Religion, by its nature, is one dimension of human sociology, and by extension human psychology. Just as we, students of sociology, philosophy and psychology should attempt to understand Religious Scholars, it might do well for Religious scholars to make an attempt at familiarizing themselves with Sociology, Psychology and Philosophy. Thereby we may create a common ground for mutual exchange of ideas.
If I, as a Muslim ignorant of Arabic, have to let go of my faculties and submit myself to interpretations made by people with knowledge of Arabic, can I, or will I be held accountable for my actions on Judgement Day, or will I be absolved and they be held accountable should I err by following them?
To be a Muslim, for me, is to completely submit myself to Allah, and Allah alone. Therefore as a believing Muslim, it is my duty to think about what is right and what is wrong, and decide for myself.
If I have offended anyone by these thoughts, I apologise profusely. It was not meant to do so. Just expressing a point of view.
May Allah bless us all, and guide us in our quest for his Rah’mah.
I would like to share some of my thoughts on religion as it relates to me. This Post, by the nature of its very contents, is extremely personal, and it may run against the grain of others. I feel compelled to write this as I am increasingly disturbed about the trend that religious discourse is taking in our society. All I ask of readers is to be tolerant of views expressed here.
First and foremost, I claim no expertise in Islamic Jurisprudence or Shariah. I have never studied the subjects at University and have no formal training in the area. However, I am a deeply religious Muslim, and I have made attempts at reading and understanding the Quran, Hadhith and academic writings of scholars on various subjects relating to Islam. I have also engaged in countless discussions and debates with scholars over the past 15 years or so. All this in a quest to quench my thirst for knowledge in the subject and to become a “better Muslim”.
Amongst the many and varied opinions and views expressed about the teachings of Islam and Islamic Jurisprudence are the four main sects or mazhabs, and the views of those scholars who do not particularly subscribe to any mazhab, but claim to get inspiration directly from Quran and Sunnah. From the knowledge that I have gathered from the teachings of all of these, I have come to one conclusion : that there is a wide spectrum of beliefs among scholars ranging from ultra-conservative, literal interpretations to highly progressive and liberal interpretations of Islamic doctrine. I tend to lean towards the progressive end of the spectrum, which stems from my belief that Allah meant us to live our life to the full and that times change and divergent and progressive thinking should not be constricted in the name of religion. This is not say that I deny un-crossable boundaries in Islam. Nevertheless, I believe that Islam is an enabling religion, and there is plenty of space within the boundaries, and that the societies of Arabia some 15 centuries ago should not define and limit the possibilities of the 21st Century.
What disturbs me most is the increasing push among some scholars to impose a narrow interpretation of religion to usurp the liberties of people, particularly those of women. I keep pondering on the teachings of Quran and the Prophet (saw) as I know it, which I am certain promotes those liberties, and establishes the equality of sexes beyond doubt. That some schools of thought should seek to become the dominant worldview, and thus promote intolerance disturbs me. It appears to me, that there is a strong push for thought control, and hence behaviour control, in the name of religion, on the part of some scholars. That such scholars are rejecting scientific thought out of hand, and believe that knowledge of the Shariah alone gives one the right to dictate over all other knowledge is alarming.
One is reminded of how, in the Middle Ages, Priests in Christianity gradually gained control over the masses through claims of being intermediaries of God. The epistemological significance is enormous : the only source of knowledge is through the Sharia. Is an Islamic Inquisition in the making?
As a Muslim, I believe that ultimately, I am accountable to Allah, and Allah alone, for my actions. If other Muslim brothers and sisters believe I am straying, they may, and they should, remind me. But ultimately, it is for me to listen, evaluate and act. Religion, by its nature, is one dimension of human sociology, and by extension human psychology. Just as we, students of sociology, philosophy and psychology should attempt to understand Religious Scholars, it might do well for Religious scholars to make an attempt at familiarizing themselves with Sociology, Psychology and Philosophy. Thereby we may create a common ground for mutual exchange of ideas.
If I, as a Muslim ignorant of Arabic, have to let go of my faculties and submit myself to interpretations made by people with knowledge of Arabic, can I, or will I be held accountable for my actions on Judgement Day, or will I be absolved and they be held accountable should I err by following them?
To be a Muslim, for me, is to completely submit myself to Allah, and Allah alone. Therefore as a believing Muslim, it is my duty to think about what is right and what is wrong, and decide for myself.
If I have offended anyone by these thoughts, I apologise profusely. It was not meant to do so. Just expressing a point of view.
May Allah bless us all, and guide us in our quest for his Rah’mah.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Charity begins at home
Ever since Majlis remuneration was set at Rf 62,500, much has been said about it. The main reason for public dissatisfaction about the issue was, I believe, due to a deliberate attempt by the then Information Minister to try and discredit parliament in the public by immediately giving the decision huge media coverage. Television Maldives simply stated the amount, and asked members of the public their opinion on it. Of course there was dissatisfaction, because the public were not told that all Cabinet Ministers and about 100 other political appointees were being paid the same, some of them more. The public were not told why this decision was made.
Ever so often, whenever anyone wants to bash an MP or the Majlis, they talk about this. With time, the benefits also keeps growing exponentially in the public mind. I have largely remained silent about the issue. But I believe the time has come now for me to disclose details of Majlis remuneration and benefits and why I voted for it at the time.
Firstly Majlis remuneration and benefits. It is as follows:
Each Member of the Majlis is entitled to :
Rf 42,500/- as salary
Rf 20,000 as allowance
*Medical insurance for the MP, spouse and children
A Diplomatic passport
Use of VIP lounges at airports (both national and international, domestic and overseas)
Immunity from arrest on their way to and back from Parliament
Assistance (non-monetary) from government offices across the country, should they visit the offices or any island.
*Medical insurance has still not been issued.
These are (excepting salary and allowance) standard benefits to MPs in most democratic countries. Honour is accorded to them because they are charged with making decisions on behalf of the entire nation, and more importantly, the people honoured them by electing them to be their representatives.
The salary is equivalent to that of Cabinet Ministers. Cabinet Ministers at that time had many other perks of office, and unlimited medical expenses from the government accounts.
In return for these benefits and honour, MPs are expected to work without specified hours in the Majlis. The sittings (jalsa) of the Majlis is only one aspect of an MPs work. Most MPs work in 2 or three committees (sometimes more). On average, an MP often spends time at the Majlis from 9 in the morning through to 10 in the evening, with breaks in between, depending on timings of committees, working through most weekends as well. In addition, most conscientious MPs are available to their constituents either by phone, in their offices, or often at their homes in person, round the clock. I can safely say that MPs, generally speaking, would be the people with the least bit of privacy or own time.
Until the revision of MPs’ benefits in August this year, an MP’s salary was Rf7000, housing allowance of Rf 5000, a telephone allowance of Rf1500, an office allowance of Rf 3000, a staff allowance of Rf 1500 and committee allowance of Rf 300 per sitting, and a maximum of Rf 12000 per annum on transportation costs for travel to constituencies. Travel costs were paid directly by Majlis to service provider (or reimbursement on presentation of bills) and not to MPs.
Ever since I was elected to the Special Majlis in 2004, I have maintained a rented office and a paid secretary to attend to my constituents and to assist me in Parliamentary work (Office rent Rf 5000, phone and electricity about Rf 3000, staff salary Rf 4,000). As per government rules at the time, I was not entitled to housing allowance (because I am from Male’) or transportation allowances (because I was Male’ MP).
Work wise, in addition to Majlis jalsa and the 4 committees I was serving on, I also spend considerable time daily, to meet constituents, listen to their troubles, take follow up action with relevant government offices to solve their problems. Normally, I don’t get home before 10 or 11 pm. Often, I eat dinner with a constituent when I get home, because he or she would have been waiting in my house for me to return because of an urgent problem that just can’t wait until the next morning. And then I will usually spend another 2 or 3 hours going through bills for the next day, or preparing for committee work for the next day. If I am lucky, I will get to bed by about 1 am, and if I am extremely lucky I will not be woken up by someone calling me on my phone at 2 or 3 am. If I really put an effort and pull myself out of bed by 6 am, I might get a glimpse of my kids before they go off to school. The weekend Friday I have the luxury of sleeping-in until Prayer time, and after lunch I have the relaxing work of going through research and preparing the next question for some Minister or drafting a new bill or a motion or a resolution which will hopefully ease the suffering of some citizens, if passed by the Majlis.
And the long recesses! Another myth. Even though Majlis jalsa breaks in May, September, January and February, committees still go on. Most MPs travel to their constituencies. Others engage in research and bill preparation etc.
In fact, the past four years was almost without a break. With Majlis members having to work in both Majlis and Special Majlis, the demand on time was immense. As Chair of the Drafting Committee, I often worked late into the night with my team of draftsmen and the consultant, getting ready for the next day’s committee meeting.
The privileged and luxurious life of any conscientious MP is such.
But why did I vote for increase in pay for MP’s? There is a story behind this. Up until then, MPs were lowly paid people who couldn’t make ends meet. Every so often they would have to either go to the Government or some rich businessman for assistance in basic survival. MPs depended on their government jobs to simply make ends meet. They were forever fearful of either losing their jobs, or displeasing the friendly businessman or the government in case they may reject his appeal for assistance for that lifesaving surgery for his son. The result was seen in Parliament voting patterns. The difference was seen after the change in remuneration.
A more compelling reason for me was to try and make the next Majlis more independent. We had to devise a way of attracting educated, young professionals to the Majlis. People who would understand the democratic process. We had to devise a way for them to be in Majlis with confidence and not kow-tow to The Powers. Of course, nothing is fool proof in this game. But at least, people can look forward to a dignified life as an MP now. Again the result is being seen with the number of people, particularly independent candidates, who are coming forward to contest elections this time.
Therefore, it saddens me when people harp on about Majlis remuneration everytime they want to have a go at an MP. They compare MP remuneration to civil servants. But this is not comparable. Civil servants are tenured, MPs are not. Their responsibility is limited to a specific task or tasks. MPs responsibilities are different, and varied. Civil servants have no fear of political reprisal. MPs live through it everyday. Civil servants are protected by the Civil Service Act and the Labour Law. MPs are not. Civil Servants can go home at knock-off time and work by the clock. MPs can’t. Civil servants report to one boss. MPs are accountable to the entire public. MPs don’t have an enviable life, I can tell you. If critics really want to better the country, it might do well for them to focus on performances of MPs rather talk about their remuneration.
I decided to write this post because there still are people who are either misguided or very venomous and vengeful, and the venom spreads. When attacks are made, it is also often at those of us who at least keep communication channels open. Those MPs who are actually betraying the people don’t get to hear those comments, neither could they be bothered. Why? Because they know, come election time, they will still get away with it, because they have the money, or some big party will back them, and they will get re-elected. The result? It is only the sincere people who will get fed up with the vengeful public and leave them to their woes and pursue things which give them more happiness and less ridicule. I believe, in the end, it is only the public who will lose, and not those people.
I did not write this to talk about my busy life. I thought that just as people know about our remuneration, they should also be shown the other side of the coin.
So, readers of my blog. Should I run for Parliament again, or not? Please tick the “Mainly Agree” box for Yes, or “Mainly Disagree” box for No.
All I know is that there is nothing more that my wife and children would want than for me to quit politics and start taking care of them again. After all, charity begins at home.
Happy New Year to all.
Ever so often, whenever anyone wants to bash an MP or the Majlis, they talk about this. With time, the benefits also keeps growing exponentially in the public mind. I have largely remained silent about the issue. But I believe the time has come now for me to disclose details of Majlis remuneration and benefits and why I voted for it at the time.
Firstly Majlis remuneration and benefits. It is as follows:
Each Member of the Majlis is entitled to :
Rf 42,500/- as salary
Rf 20,000 as allowance
*Medical insurance for the MP, spouse and children
A Diplomatic passport
Use of VIP lounges at airports (both national and international, domestic and overseas)
Immunity from arrest on their way to and back from Parliament
Assistance (non-monetary) from government offices across the country, should they visit the offices or any island.
*Medical insurance has still not been issued.
These are (excepting salary and allowance) standard benefits to MPs in most democratic countries. Honour is accorded to them because they are charged with making decisions on behalf of the entire nation, and more importantly, the people honoured them by electing them to be their representatives.
The salary is equivalent to that of Cabinet Ministers. Cabinet Ministers at that time had many other perks of office, and unlimited medical expenses from the government accounts.
In return for these benefits and honour, MPs are expected to work without specified hours in the Majlis. The sittings (jalsa) of the Majlis is only one aspect of an MPs work. Most MPs work in 2 or three committees (sometimes more). On average, an MP often spends time at the Majlis from 9 in the morning through to 10 in the evening, with breaks in between, depending on timings of committees, working through most weekends as well. In addition, most conscientious MPs are available to their constituents either by phone, in their offices, or often at their homes in person, round the clock. I can safely say that MPs, generally speaking, would be the people with the least bit of privacy or own time.
Until the revision of MPs’ benefits in August this year, an MP’s salary was Rf7000, housing allowance of Rf 5000, a telephone allowance of Rf1500, an office allowance of Rf 3000, a staff allowance of Rf 1500 and committee allowance of Rf 300 per sitting, and a maximum of Rf 12000 per annum on transportation costs for travel to constituencies. Travel costs were paid directly by Majlis to service provider (or reimbursement on presentation of bills) and not to MPs.
Ever since I was elected to the Special Majlis in 2004, I have maintained a rented office and a paid secretary to attend to my constituents and to assist me in Parliamentary work (Office rent Rf 5000, phone and electricity about Rf 3000, staff salary Rf 4,000). As per government rules at the time, I was not entitled to housing allowance (because I am from Male’) or transportation allowances (because I was Male’ MP).
Work wise, in addition to Majlis jalsa and the 4 committees I was serving on, I also spend considerable time daily, to meet constituents, listen to their troubles, take follow up action with relevant government offices to solve their problems. Normally, I don’t get home before 10 or 11 pm. Often, I eat dinner with a constituent when I get home, because he or she would have been waiting in my house for me to return because of an urgent problem that just can’t wait until the next morning. And then I will usually spend another 2 or 3 hours going through bills for the next day, or preparing for committee work for the next day. If I am lucky, I will get to bed by about 1 am, and if I am extremely lucky I will not be woken up by someone calling me on my phone at 2 or 3 am. If I really put an effort and pull myself out of bed by 6 am, I might get a glimpse of my kids before they go off to school. The weekend Friday I have the luxury of sleeping-in until Prayer time, and after lunch I have the relaxing work of going through research and preparing the next question for some Minister or drafting a new bill or a motion or a resolution which will hopefully ease the suffering of some citizens, if passed by the Majlis.
And the long recesses! Another myth. Even though Majlis jalsa breaks in May, September, January and February, committees still go on. Most MPs travel to their constituencies. Others engage in research and bill preparation etc.
In fact, the past four years was almost without a break. With Majlis members having to work in both Majlis and Special Majlis, the demand on time was immense. As Chair of the Drafting Committee, I often worked late into the night with my team of draftsmen and the consultant, getting ready for the next day’s committee meeting.
The privileged and luxurious life of any conscientious MP is such.
But why did I vote for increase in pay for MP’s? There is a story behind this. Up until then, MPs were lowly paid people who couldn’t make ends meet. Every so often they would have to either go to the Government or some rich businessman for assistance in basic survival. MPs depended on their government jobs to simply make ends meet. They were forever fearful of either losing their jobs, or displeasing the friendly businessman or the government in case they may reject his appeal for assistance for that lifesaving surgery for his son. The result was seen in Parliament voting patterns. The difference was seen after the change in remuneration.
A more compelling reason for me was to try and make the next Majlis more independent. We had to devise a way of attracting educated, young professionals to the Majlis. People who would understand the democratic process. We had to devise a way for them to be in Majlis with confidence and not kow-tow to The Powers. Of course, nothing is fool proof in this game. But at least, people can look forward to a dignified life as an MP now. Again the result is being seen with the number of people, particularly independent candidates, who are coming forward to contest elections this time.
Therefore, it saddens me when people harp on about Majlis remuneration everytime they want to have a go at an MP. They compare MP remuneration to civil servants. But this is not comparable. Civil servants are tenured, MPs are not. Their responsibility is limited to a specific task or tasks. MPs responsibilities are different, and varied. Civil servants have no fear of political reprisal. MPs live through it everyday. Civil servants are protected by the Civil Service Act and the Labour Law. MPs are not. Civil Servants can go home at knock-off time and work by the clock. MPs can’t. Civil servants report to one boss. MPs are accountable to the entire public. MPs don’t have an enviable life, I can tell you. If critics really want to better the country, it might do well for them to focus on performances of MPs rather talk about their remuneration.
I decided to write this post because there still are people who are either misguided or very venomous and vengeful, and the venom spreads. When attacks are made, it is also often at those of us who at least keep communication channels open. Those MPs who are actually betraying the people don’t get to hear those comments, neither could they be bothered. Why? Because they know, come election time, they will still get away with it, because they have the money, or some big party will back them, and they will get re-elected. The result? It is only the sincere people who will get fed up with the vengeful public and leave them to their woes and pursue things which give them more happiness and less ridicule. I believe, in the end, it is only the public who will lose, and not those people.
I did not write this to talk about my busy life. I thought that just as people know about our remuneration, they should also be shown the other side of the coin.
So, readers of my blog. Should I run for Parliament again, or not? Please tick the “Mainly Agree” box for Yes, or “Mainly Disagree” box for No.
All I know is that there is nothing more that my wife and children would want than for me to quit politics and start taking care of them again. After all, charity begins at home.
Happy New Year to all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)