An acquaintance asked me, 'Why are people so flustered over the government of Maldives? What is the government doing wrong?"

The government of Maldives is responsible for running a country. As such, I believe the most abstract highlights of its responsibilities are the following:

• Investing the domestic earnings in the country's best interests (in areas of researching, developing and running the nation) and achieving the maximum yield from these investments.
• Developing, optimizing and maintaining the country's law with intentions of delivering maximum benefit to the country and its people.
• Enforcing law.

In my belief, the government of Maldives is not putting enough of an effort (one that I would deem ambitious) into their responsibilities. If the government pushed the 'pedal to the metal' the Maldives will achieve more milestones in a single year than was achieved in the past ten.

In the area of investment the Maldives has the capacity to undertake all of the following:

• Open at least one university in the span of a year
• Develop at least one additional industry (how about IC fabrication?) in the span of two years
• Open the leading hospital in the SAARC region within one and a half years
• Win the gold medal in the Olympic 100-meter freestyle swimming within ten years
• Win the world cup within 15 years
• Increase the GDP to compete with the likes of Malaysia, within five years
• Within one and a half years, decrease corruption to below 0.5% loss of gross earnings, thereby facilitating the above

The above are milestones that have come to my mind at the spur of the moment. I am sure there are many more that you can think of (were you Maldivian), dear reader...

1983-1989:
Aspired to become a policeman or a doctor when i grew up.
1990-1995:
Had dreams of getting drafted to the NBA and at the same time become a software enigneer.
1996-2005:
Just another IT slob.
2006:
No clue...

Simon mentions in his comment to my last post that Qasim has built a 'vast empire' and that he is a 'tycoon', whereas I am blowing a horn for vanity's sake. Why don't we ask ourselves the paramount question then? (before you throw in your comments, dear reader, I would like you to go through this.)

Here's the question which truly beckons answers:

• What does Qasim have that we don't which has propelled him to his present-day stature as a successful businessman (was it his intellect, his ethics, his exuberant personality, his philanthropy or something else)?

And Simon, I have known you to be one of the most learned intellects in IT in the Maldives (and that's something that I have never failed to give you credit for). Given that, why were you not able to bring any of your IT business ventures to fruition?

A fellow asked me:

• "After reading The Chronicles of Qasim, I gather you are campaigning against Qasim's potential chances for presidency of Maldives, right?"

I did not answer quite as thoroughly as would have liked to. Here is what my answer would have been had I had time to think about the question:

• "The Chronicles of Qasim is about the dealings between Qasim and myself, and does not by any means implicate policitics of any nature and/or magnitude. However, in retrospect, Qasim did not retaliate against me when I published the chronicles. Perhaps that means he finally understands the true meaning of accountability (in the very least it shows a certain amount of tolerance). In that respect he should be regarded as an inspiration to all those in the running. Perhaps in the future everyone with political power will be as willing to accept their faults without rebuttal as Qasim is turning out to be."

That the institution of governance of the Maldives is undergoing a considerable metamorphosis at this time is undeniable. That the awareness of the nation's people is ever-increasing is evident. However, should we believe that our awareness has reached the epitome of understanding our choices without question? This question dawned upon me while pondering over the promise of an open referendum to be enacted in order to ascertain Maldivians' choice of governance: whether parliamentary or presidential.

I thought I would try and squeeze a bit of sense out of my dilapidated brain to scrutinize this unprecedented task. As is the norm for me nowadays, I also thought I would let my pondering be read by everyone interested enough – that's you, dear reader, and it's a beck for you to rebuff my rantings.

As per my self-afflicted habit of oversimplifying, the proponents of a governing institution comprises two components: the executive and the legislative. Some might demand the inclusion of the defensive component, but I believe defense is a tool for survival. Does that not make it an important component for comprehensive governance? That question is only partially true given the need for the autonomy of the defensive component in order to ensure that, 1) the executive or the legislative components do not hold sway upon it and 2) to ensure unwavering reaction to all threats against the nation. Command of the defensive component should be retained by non-government personnel while only the control (the check and balance mechanisms) of it should be exercised by the government.

So, my government of choice shall comprise of the following:

• the executive component, which is responsible for the daily operations of the government and its governance

• the legislative component, which makes the law

You might ask, 'what about policing the people?' To answer that question one has to scrutinize the parties responsible for curbing the crimes of the society. Crimes are a result of weak ethics and morals, thus it is a social factor. Managing social factors should be the responsibility of the respective departments within the executive component. These departments are often referred to as law-enforcement bodies, and are sometimes categorized into specialties and/or levels of responsibilities in order to manage various types/levels of crimes. That law-enforcement bodies often mandate special uniforms is inconsequential (it holds no more significance than the jerseys of the referees of a football match, worn in order to signify their purpose in the game). These bodies should be no more important than customs, planning, human resource development, financial, etc bodies of a nation.

The poignant question at hand is 'do I choose a parliamentary system or a presidential system?' To answer this I will now have to use the above reflections to define the two systems, thus enabling the differentiation between them which will hopefully lead to a coherent choice.

In a parliamentary system, the parliament holds sway over various/all aspects of the empowerments endorsed upon the executive component. You might ask why this is a case for concern if the parliament comprises representatives of the people. The answer to that would be that when the representatives of the people are responsible for the composition of a governing coalition there are two degrees of separation between the executive component and the people. In such a case, the executive component becomes irreproachable by the people.

An additional cause for quandary that a parliamentary system provides is that in most institutions the parliament, or a portion/portions of it, is also responsible for or part of the legislative component. One might wonder that the intermingling of the executive and legislative components will provide for a more efficient government. That possibility can hold true, but no more truer the possibilities of corruption.

Given my unfavourable definition of parliamentary systems, why is there still a debate to promote it? That is because there are ways of implementing such a system with the people's interests in mind. The two prerequisites for a benevolent parliamentary system are, 1) empowering the people for the direct ratification (through elections) of the final coalition which shall comprise the executive component and 2) electing a separate body of representatives of the people which will become the legislative body.

With a presidential system, the executive component and the legislative component is segregated as either body is elected by independent elections. Once certain key offices of the executive body are elected, either these electorates select the coalition members, the parliament/parties nominate coalition members, or the people predetermine the number of representatives each party or the various constituencies represented in the parliament shall contribute to the coalition (through means of confidence/popularity votes).

The issues to be faced with regards to a presidential system are, 1) the executive component and the legislative component will need clear segregation between them especially in the case of smaller countries where constituencies are easily misled and 2) the executive component (and indeed the other two components too) may take advantage of its executive powers if powers beyond law are bestowed.

Now I can finally answer the question of which system would be best suited for my nation (only my reckonings here, mind you). The short answer is, ANY system! The long-winded descriptive conditions upon which that answer titillates on are:

• The defensive component of the nation should be an autonomous body under a command uninfluenced either by the executive component (except in enforcing adherence to law) or the legislative component, but held in check by law and prohibited from partaking in civil affairs

• Lack of any relationships between the executive component and the legislative component, unless under the direct scrutiny of all the people of the nation

• Only one degree of separation between the people and either the executive component or the legislative component

• No individual of the nation, whether a part of the executive, legislative or defensive component shall be exempt from the law

Someone ('you' know who you are) asked me today:

• 'What does it mean to be Maldivian?'

I replied (per my narrow-minded reckoning):

• 'To be responsible for the future of the people of Maldives... That is to be responsible for every aspect of their lives: the environment they live in, the economy they thrive in, their health, their beliefs, their offspring, their culture, etc'

What does it mean to be a Maldivian to you, dear reader?

Dear reader,

I have recently been accused of certain 'indiscretions' by one of the most powerful (and popular, esp. in Ari Atoll) ministers and, despite lack of proof to the effect, is out to publicly crucify my integrity. Since disovering this, without the slightest hesitation I gave the fellow two days to settle accounts with me. Should this not happen I have vowed to go public with his own indiscretions.

War!
Huh-yeah!
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing (yeah right!)

I write this to hold you as a witness should the worst befall upon me.

Am I not born to your nation?
Are we not brethren?
Is mine not your constitution?
Do you live beyond repercussion?
Are we not judged even?
Or wield you contracts from heaven?
Be you minister or minor, friend or foe
You're still Maldivian
Your contract surpasses not mine
Read beyond the headline

• Total number of students in Malaysia: 5.7 million.
• Total number of students in Maldives: ~50,000.

• Malaysia spends 17.5% of their annual budget on education resulting in an annual per capita (students only) budget of about 450 dollars for 2006.
• If the Maldives were to spend 17.5% of their annual budget on education, the per capita budget amongst students will be well over 2,000 dollars for 2006.

• Why then does Malaysia have more than 60 colleges (of which 6 are state universities)?
• Why does Malaysia have their own primary, secondary and higher-secondary level accredition systems?
• Wait! Why do Maldivians go to Malaysia at all for their studies?

Were Maldives spending 17.5% of their budget on education, the problem with the education system of the country should be surmised as one of lackadaisical engineering and limitation of experience on the part of the people in charge. However, the discretional funds budgeted for education through 2006 is only 5% of the annual budget, which amounts to about 33 million dollars. Is this enough?

5% of the annual budget results in more than 650 dollars per capita amongst the students of the Maldives. This is still 200 dollars more than the per capita budget apportioned for the students of Malaysia. Why then are the Maldivian schools suffering from the lack of budgets and mismanagement? Why is the education system deteriorating year by year?

If more money is needed the Maldives can contribute another 12.5% from its budget before it exceeds the education budget of Malaysia in proporation.

I say there is enough money! I say the government apportioned more than enough of a budget for education in 2006! I say the Ministry of Education (is that what it's called now? - I can never tell) is sleeping on the job!

When it comes to commodities Maldivians have very little restraint as to how much they are willing to spend - regardless of the quality of the merchandise. Businesses know this all too well, and they are ready to exploit the hottest commodity coming to town: the FIFA World Cup.

I have learned that the World Cup is so hot that the nation's only TV channel is able to sell the advertising rights to each game at a price of nearly USD 7000. That's almost a total of half a million dollars for the whole tournament. The only return for enterprises investing this money is the potential growth of their respective businesses. Yes, my eager reader; USD 500,000 blown on a football competition for no monetary benefits whatsoever.

What can half a million dollars do, you ask?

• Half a million dollars can set up a decent school for teaching a (single) bachelor's programme in computing with the capacity of 20 classes of 10 students each, AND cover all overheads incurred through a period of one year
• It can cover the current overheads of any secondary school in Male' (Maldives) through a period of 2 years
• It can account for a month's payroll for all government staff of the Maldives along with a 50% increase in all salaries
• It can buy two Porsche Carrera GTs (one of the fastest, most expensive cars in the world)
• It can buy two 3-bedroom suburban properties in Australia

I just wonder what percentage of people of the World buy Porsche Carrera GTs. From when two (or was it three?) Jaguar R Types (what about the Corvette, BMWs, Mercedes, etc?) were brought into this country, the indigenous buying-power ratios went topsy turvy.

When will Maldivians learn to prioritise (ie. education before Porsches)?

From what little I know of my country, it has implemented the following approximate annual budgets over a five-year term starting 2002:

• Year 1 - 800 mil
• Year 2 - 1.5 bil
• Year 3 - 2 bil
• Year 4 - 4 bil
• Year 5 - 8 bil

Thankfully the figures are in the local currency. The trend is an average annual increment of about 100%. Consequently, the following questions come to mind:

• Has the economic welfare improved doubly?
• Has the destructive political distention decreased doubly?
• Is health care doubly effective?
• Has education been fortified doubly?
• Is social welfare faring doubly as well?

I am only asking these questions in general. What if we put to scrutiny every two consecutive years with regards to these questions?