Any institution which oppresses growth of their human resources is unjust. Oppression is often too subtle to define and takes up the form of racial slurs, intellectual degradation and favoritism. Two things enable opression: 1. the lack of a framework of guidelines enforced by a higher power and 2. the greed of institutions which blinds them to the needs of their human resources.

Combating oppression need not be left to the powers who govern institutions, but can also be waged by individuals of the institutions themselves. When one of Maldives' mobile service providers refused to accept the capabilities of its Maldivian staff, to the point of laying off some against jurisprudence, I decided to ensure that I made the message clear to them by quitting the firm. I would rather be a Maldivian who respects my fellow people and reveres our strengths than a coward who tolerates oppression for a (measly) remuneration.

Those of you who would like to know how to handle matters of oppression please refer to the following sample letter:

Dear Sir,

Last Thursday night, [this institution] terminated two employees, Mr. A and Mr. B, citing transgressions against the company. These two employees were also threatened in the presence (albeit out of earshot) of two police officers. This was brought to my attention only after the events transpired, despite the fact that the aforementioned employees were directly answerable to me.

I have had a dialogue with the [concerned authorities], who has no recollection of a case involving employees of [this institution] in a criminal act of the sort.

What is sad about this incident is that [this institution] enforced its punishment on individuals working under me without disclosing to me the necessary proof. As soon as the surviving members of my team eventually learned about this they have confessed to me their fears of future calamities that may await them. They have made clear in no uncertain terms their newfound lack of faith in their employer. This is an incident which demands retribution if my employees' confidence in [this instituion] is to be restored.

Having said that, I feel I cannot continue to work under [my superior] given the prejudices he holds against the Maldivian staff in my team and this brash act of laying off individuals without concrete reasons. I believe I have given this company ample notice of my desire to resign and subsequently I have also been given the opportunity, by [my superior], to walk out whenever I felt that any hindrances were preventing me from performing up to par with the company's expectations. This incident has spawned such hindrances and hence I will not be returning to the company starting 17th July 2005. If by any chance [this institution] wishes my return I want two things to happen: [my superior] to step down and Mr. A and Mr. B to be offered an apology by the company.

I hope that [this institution] will set aside its prejudices and pride to consider the reciprocities of this incident. In the balance hangs its integrity, public acceptance and benevolence towards the Maldives and its people.

Your's sincerely,

Why vampires are superior to human beings:

1. they feed off others' (social, financial, metabolic, etc) efforts
2. almost all of them are anonymous except for the really notorious ones: Dracula and Lestat to name some.
3. they live forever which negates all fear of the supernatural resulting in the lack of belief in God which ultimately leads to complete recklessness: all evil abound
4. biomorphic, yet utter revulsion of all living things: immensely increases the capacity to enact inhumane acts
5. highly contageous given a most effortless mode of infection

Are you teetering on the edge of the realm of vampires, dear reader?

Conflicts continue when views differ and views continue to differ for a number of reasons: 1. there still are arguable opposites to a viewpoint, 2. an unknown aggravator is warming the pot.

The Maldivian people, the Maldivian economists, the Maldivian government and the political activists (aka. the 'better halves' of the government) are all parts of an equation of arguable differences. Given the lack of an aggravator, arguments will reach various culminations based on the differences in opinions only. That is to say, the argument does not stray from the issue at hand.

When the aggravator comes into the picture, the argument often diverts from the case in question and wanders into the realms of hatred, despise, jealousy, wrath, etc. These other emotions are what is consuming the arguments between the social, economic or political entities (be it governmental or non-governmental). Aggravators in our midst - and from beyond - are constantly applying heat to conflicts which would otherwise take rational exchanges for resolution. Weed out these moles and you will find your conflicts more manageable.