After much pondering and soul-searching this author finally decided that it was time to seek professional help to conquer a multitude of mental sandstorms. A soon-to-be-psychologist was at hand and willing to salvage what little sense lay around in this mind. Much to this author's surprise, the hours of quasi-intellectual parodies did yield some sense in the end.
The realization is that this mind is unwilling to accept whatever little knowledge it has. It has forgotten that it is its own proprietor and that all else is secondary to the matter of its well-being. It has neglected the search for the right fodder to feed on and relented to the substandard. It has given up on dreams and ideals.
In its wanderings, this mind has made compromises which often backfired in tumultuous self-reconciliation. Oftentimes a fellow soul is hurt in the process. The storms that rage in this mind are unwittingly borne by others. It is all rather shameful in retrospect.
The final analysis? This mind needs to learn its needs and limits. It needs to realize its dreams and ideals. Most importantly, it has to start being more mindful of its fellow compatriots.
There was uproar and anger when extremists sparked the IED. There was unrest on the streets when Evan Naseem was discovered. I wonder what will happen when the one book that children have been literally feeding on (and parents have been providing with such glee), Harry Potter, has a gay Dumbledore.
Here's what will happen. One half of the parents will simply not know this fact whilst the other half will just continue to support JKR's dictation of the behavior of the modern child. Even the most idiotic knows not to entrust the minds of children unto the hands of one person so completely. Now, children trust JKR so profusely that even the most indomitable of faiths can be broken with simple words. I have nothing against gays but I would prefer my children (if I had any) to grow up faithful to the tenets of Islam. What about you?
Ref: http://www.newsweek.com/id/50787
After the recent Himandhoo debacle, the latest perturbations are over the lack of an effort to 'negotiate' with the Islamic fundamentalists (two separate links for two mutually exclusive notions). The vocal outbursts around the tables brimming with coffee cups in the various cafes of Male' are of concerns towards the captured fundamentalists.
The resounding conclusions to most of this bravado constituted the blaming of Maldives Police for allowing the situation to escalate: that with cleverer psychological tactics the standoff could have been settled without conflict. My personal wonderment is that perhaps for Maldivians the glass is always half empty: since Evan Naseem we have come a long way if the police can defuse situations without fatalities (I do not have other statistics into the extent of injuries at Himandhoo).
Here is what I think of this outcry of injustice: bull! What is truly unjust? Government offices employ fundamentalists donning any ragged attire with wiry, unkempt beards and the most repugnant odor without question or protest for fear that any of the latter could invoke the wrath of God. What is blatantly unfair is that the management of these same offices will not even falter in their breath when firing non-radicals for the lack of conformity to 'dress codes.'
The fear of God is not just confined to Government officials. Many a private-sector business employs radicals who are privileged to look haggard while their fellow colleagues are forced to be neat and presentable. All managers suffering this apprehension of fundamentalist beliefs are oftentimes bedazzled by the simplest corruptions of true Islamic lore. Unfortunately, the Constitution or Law of Maldives do not provide sanctuary from the fundamentalist threat.
Is the Constitution or Law of Maldives to blame? If management can lay off workers based on their attire the same rule should apply to radicals, not? After all, this is not discriminating against religion or sectarianism. It is simply a matter of presentable attires at work. This is the true 'root cause' for the empowerment of this extremist subgroup of our society. We helped build it by nurturing a separate set of rules for the radicals.
As echoed by 'Adam', this is not a matter of the ineffectualness of a religion but the people who practice it: us, for not having empowered ourselves with the knowledge to swat out fundamentalism and failing to act whilst those radicals exploited the teachings of Islam to meet their own malevolent ends.
The public angst is towards the government and the general administrative scheme in Maldives. Yet, the bombing (if it can be called that at all) happened in a public place, targeted at innocents. Who benefits from this? Either a right-wing political activist figured this was the right trigger (9/11?) or some left-wing idiot forgot that the fight for political plurality does not include tourists.
Whatever the political rigmarole that went awry to cause this, it is time that the government enforced better policing. After all, we are talking about a city covering no more than 5 or 7 square kilometers with under 70,000 souls. Policing a place like that cannot be that difficult, can it?
I am all for homeland security commissions and more extensive intelligence schemes. The only question is, will that help? Given that the expansions made to the existing Maldives Police (both in terms of human resources and budget) have not thwarted the rise in crime, how will this new threat be dealt with?
When I was 18 the greatest concerns in my life were dating girls, avoiding calls from my family, thinking up excuses to skip classes at college and constantly procrastinating when it came to all the important things in life. Aside from my immediate friends (and this would be for the very selfish reason of preserving the friendships I relied upon) I cared very little for others.
To be honest, I've only started to recognize my duties to my fellow-countrymen (that's meant to sound bombastic, FYI) only after articles like these started popping up in Maldivian media. What about the article, you ask? That a hitherto respected component of the Maldivian media should be so biased is what gets to me.
It is almost as if the Minivan News team has become the public relations 'boom-box' (I wanted to use a more savvy term, but none so appropriate popped into mind) for the political left wing. Why? Because I have not seen a single article on Minivan News which comprehensively presents ALL the consequences and repercussions (both pro AND con), on the matter of lowering the voting age to 18 years.
You might think me harsh, but I feel Minivan News has overlooked the fact that the overall social awareness of Maldivians are generally lower than that of other countries - let alone the populace between the age of 18 and 21. That in the last 10 years the education in the country has degraded beyond that of most regional neighbors. That, despite the latter, the country's budget has not apportioned an account for the development of educational and social development programs - while it does surprisingly SPECIFY an account of over 95 million US dollars, over 10% of the total budget, for something literally called 'expenses for economic welfare.' If I were a betting man, I would put a wager on the hunch that a thorough analysis of the adolescents (between ages 18 and 21, specifically) of the country would probably show a decline in their productivity and potential over the last 10 years. Given this, why would you endorse a bill that will put additional pressure on the most vital resources of the nation before they are prepared to undertake the task?
Dear readers, I ask you this: is it not important for the eligible voters of an institution to be aware of (and whole-heartedly welcome) their responsibilities? Should not the educational programs of a country be at par with those of United Kingdom and the United States before we follow their stead in empowering the people (after all, even in their case, education and social awareness preceded the empowerment)? Shouldn't Minivan News be crusading on the subject of education and social awareness before the age of voting? Or is it not responsible, as an entity of Maldivian media, for creating unabridged (and not propagandist) awareness amongst the people on such matters as this minimum voting age dilemma?
To no one in particular: I was surprised to see one of my articles on factmaldives.com, which wasn't altogether thrilling for me. However, this article I hope will be published by just about anyone who wants to!
The purported leader of the greater opposition, Anni, was first given an opportunity to make changes from within the government - an opportunity that few of us could ever dream of attaining. We're talking about being elected as member of parliament representing the capital city, Male', of Maldives. At his beck and call were most leading capitalists of the nation. So too were the majority of the grass-root people of the nation. How one squanders such an opportunity by jumping head-on into an obvious pitfall amazes me.
There was one missed opportunity, but that wasn't the end of it. With the emergence of MDP as the backlash to an outcry against police brutality, Anni was yet again presented with a non-statutory power gifted him by the vast majority of the country. His was the responsibility of leading his supporters into an era of 'legislative equivalence.' I have seen nothing on offer by the MDP except the semblance of a platform for free speech.
The one thing MDP did achieve were the majority of seats in parliament (at one point in time), an achievement which must, in all honesty, be attributed to the capitalists aligned in the cause (some of these capitalists were to later find MDP's stance overly aggressive causing the dilution of their initial resolve). Even with this opportunity no real efforts were made in changing the laws which sanctified the police brutality (a failure attributable to the enigmatic leader of MDP?). No efforts were made in making the public aware of the importance of changing law, rather than toppling one or two figure-heads.
Now, when all else has failed, it's back to vociferations against prime targets in the hope of engineering hatred against them amongst the public (which might certainly be a fruitful endeavor, but only to the extent of strengthening the various leaderships' collective resolve to crack down on the negative publicity). The Rodney King incident should remind us that the problem is not only lackadaisical leadership, but also the legal systems governing their efforts. With the right kind of post-arrest inquisitions and actions, I am certain the police elements who physically interface with the people will put more thought into their actions. Furthermore, the right kind of law would force the leadership to adopt a more responsible and accountable role (whether it be the current leaders or the likes of Anni at the helm).
I say more effort must go into forcing the leadership to divulge and amend the law than into trying to topple them by verbal abuse (if there has ever been such a phenomenon in the history of modern politics). MDP should eke out the various shortcomings in current law and generate awareness amongst the people with regards to these. It's not Anni's opinions about law that counts, but the public opinion. As a wannabe leader, it is Anni's job to empower the people, not to use the people's support to empower himself.
Anni, old chap. Teach the public how important it is for their representatives in parliament to be answerable to them. Teach them what legal avenues can be pursued if such accountability is not there. Teach them how to be CITIZENS!
That maybe, but I don't think each and every home makes one feel AT home by default. Since leaving Maldives a second time in the course of four months, I feel desperate to return. Not because the country is a beacon of freedom and healthy living, but because it's my land: the land where I need not feel compelled to keep my opinions to myself because they aren't welcome.
Home certainly isn't where you make it. It's where you're in your elements. It's where you're not suppressed surreptitiously by way of communal disenfranchisement. It's where I mingle with people whose collective fate I partake in. In this home I am not perturbed by my unwillingness to contribute to its betterment, but rather by the proverbial landlord's failure to recognize me and my responsibilities within the household.
What a country Maldives would be if politicians recognized the importance of empowering its people so that they may commit more vehemently to the household chores.
I just found out that Shazeen Samad has been selected as one of the hopefuls to win the Photo of the Year and Best Studio Photography awards on Photobloggies.com. Go to the Photobloggies.com site and search for shazeensamad.com.
This is the first such online nominations I've come across for a Maldivian photographer. Bravo Shazeen!
I'm back! Not necessarily to ameliorate the issues '"Maldiwians"' (doubly quoted for a reason, mind) are facing today but, in all probability, to compound them.
As the title of this post would suggest, my subject for the day is Mohamed Nashyyyydhh. This is one bloke who's always been careful about flying under the radar, maintaining an ever-present aura of mysteriousness. His mannerisms and character have never been as heavily published as those of more prominent political figures (the endlessly-cannibalized Qasim comes to mind). How did he manage to maintain such an apt veneer? More importantly, why am I interested in this man (aside from the possible 'queer' intonations)?
It's because I read this article on the hyphen.gov.mv website. Having read that, I'm starting to wonder if someone's veering away from (or plunging head-on into, depending on how you see it) the vicinity of the "Maldiwian Mentality." Regardless of whether Nashyyyydhh wrote this article or not, it's endorsed by the ministry he oversees.
[In order to ensure this article does not get 'swept under the carpet' because of 'pressure' from us idiots in the blogosphere, I'm going to put up a copy of it at the end of this post.]
First of all, there is the proposition to consider compartmentalizing and restricting the accessibility of news about Maldivez (based on whether the compartments are 'White or Black; Yellow or Colored; European or Asian; Moslem or Non Moslem'). How can someone hailing from IIUM, where a multitude of races, colours, ethnicities and religions mingle together, make such an irresponsible remark? I don't know about the rest of Maldivez, but if you ask me, I'd say let everyone be involved in the process of reforming Maldivez. Let these people be the white AND the black, the yellow AND the coloured, the European AND the Asian (and the other continents too!) and the Muslims AND the non-Muslims too. To put forth that question on a government-endorsed website speaks volumes about how haphazard the governance of this country is (let alone the mindset of one Nashyyyydhh). On the other hand, this could be a ploy by the government to attract retaliatory remarks about the statement, subsequently improving Maldivez' standpoint within international media (????????).
More thought-provoking questions the ministry's (Nashyyyydhh's?) article asks of us:
- Is it good to involve foreigners to operate within Maldivez to push the political agenda of the Maldivez for the Maldiwians?
- Is it wise that we abandon our political rights and allow those to be pursued, pushed and manipulated by foreign interests?
Without referencing the methodologies of foreigners (foreign governments, pundits, journalists, politicians, specialists, activists, gurus, etc) Maldivez will have to 'reinvent the wheel' all over again. Without actively involving them within the process of reform we'll never really get the caveats they possess. Unless of course you think you're already at par with people like Ahmadinejad.
I recall the media going bonkers over a drug bust that happened in a not-too-distant past. Some USD50 million worth of drugs were discovered at the bottom of a reef. What I know for certain is that these drugs do not belong to a Maldiwian (given that even the most flamboyant local owners of resorts cannot tie up that sort of money in a drug deal). Isn't the fact that the investigation into discovering the financiers (we all know the relative origins of the drugs, but who funded the operation?!) has yielded nothing (and possibly never will) say a lot about the influence foreign interests already have on Maldiwian politics? In this particular case it might actually be in Maldivez' best interest to acquiesce to such pressure in order to maintain its international caricature (or better still, to attain an investment).
If that is too ephemeral a parallelism, then take into consideration people like Lily's Shiva or Sonu and Eva or the likes. Don't tell me they don't contribute to this country's political journey (whether it be tangible or intangible contributions). Can you honestly tell them that they are barred from influencing the political process? Would you personally be the one to tell them so, Nashyyyydhh?
The truth of the matter is, whether we accept it or not, we are being 'pursued, pushed and manipulated by foreign interests.' Proof of this is evident in Tourism Ministry's revision of lease contracts signed with resort owners, allowing the complete sale of the ownership of such lease contracts to foreign parties. This is not a bad thing at all. On the contrary, this sort of compromise with the demands of foreign parties will ensure that this country becomes more appealing to investors from abroad.
'They also accept that their country must be reported to men and women of that country by their own countrymen.'
Have you been following the recent wars in Afqhanistan and Iraq? Did you not see the foreign journalists scurrying about getting their footage and stories? It's a different situation you say? It's a war you say?
How about the journalists that covered the conference in Iran on the Holocaust? Yet another askewed reference you say? That the news was not published in Iran itself but in foreign media you say? How many Iranians do you think would have read these foreign publications on news.google.com? I have personally met Iranians who attest that news.google.com is available from within Iran and that they keep a keen eye on the articles posted there. In fact, these articles further clarify/solidify Iranian views (whether negative or positive) on matters such as the Holocaust and their recent nuclear research debacle.
Foreign media is not only a means of reinforcing Maldiwian politics, but also an inevitable constant which will always keep publishing news about our country (whether Nashyyyydhh likes it or not). If Nashyyyydhh is smart, he should sell exclusive rights on all news about Maldivez to a major news network out there, thus making some money out of it. Even then, the chosen news network would obviously sell those stories to its competitors in order to capitalize on their investment.
'Maldiwians will not have any right to decide, form, or push a political agenda of another country.'
That Maldivez will not infringe on the politics of other countries doesn't mean Maldiwians aren't interested in reading about them. In fact, we're all gossip-mongers over here, so much so that we'd love no less than the juicy details. Are we not bigots to be denying other countries the right to find the reality within Maldivez?
'This is quite different from empowering foreign nationals to run our political agenda for us, to be the political activists of this country through the channels of media.'
Yet you say, 'media is nothing but political activism. It pursues a strong political agenda for the nation' followed by, 'We would definitely need foreign knowledge, talent and expertise. We would also need their consultancy, guidance and technology transfer.'
Who do you think these foreign blokes are? A bunch of idiots? Do you think they'd give you all the knowledge they have and not publish their deeds? Do you think a political mind like Mahathir Mohamed would help improve our nation's politics and then just wither away without recognition?
My dear Nashyyyydhh, that is my reaction to your 'green statement.' Now I expect a comment from you or one of your team emphasizing what a so-called 'green-statement' is: that it's just a very loose attempt at surveying public opinion and that the meanings inherent within are wholly speculative. The point is, once published on a website under a ccTLD wholly owned by the government, such articles become views/thoughts of the nation. As such, I suggest that these articles be very thoroughly scrutinized before being published.
HERE'S THE ARTICLE ORIGINALLY POSTED ON THE hyphen.gov.mv WEBSITE:
A “White Paper” is a draft policy statement of the Government seeking adoption or conclusion. A “Green Paper” is a pre - policy document prepared by the Government for public consultation on an issue for which a policy is just being debated or formulated. Following that line, I submit not a Green Paper but a “Green Statement” for consultation and advice.
By the way, my name is Mohamed Nashyyyydhh. I work at the Ministry of Information. I seek your reaction to this statement:
The Statement
The power to decide the future of Maldivez must belong to men and women of Maldivez birth – the children of this nation. Our political aspirations as a nation or as individuals or as groups must remain a truly Maldiwian affair. Our national debate must be run by Maldiwians for Maldiwians. It being the forum for that debate, and reflection of those aspirations, the Maldivez Media Landscape must be held by us, for us all.
The Rationale
The media is nothing but political activism. It pursues a strong political agenda for the nation.
No doubt, the people of every country have an absolute say in the political choices of their country. Every citizen of this country too has a fundamental right to take part in and actively pursue his or her beliefs and choices on the politics of this country. Each one of us has a fundamental right to take part in the choices this country makes as a nation. The journalists are the key activists in that political arena who push the agenda of the people forward, hold the government responsible on their behalf, and expose their shortcomings and design the way forward.
If we agree that, such activism is the legitimate description of the role of a free press or a free media, then the question is this? To which extent shall we allow our political agenda to be pushed by foreign interests: White or Black; Yellow or Colored; European or Asian; Moslem or Non Moslem?
This question becomes increasingly relevant in the realities of Maldivez today. It is becoming clearer and clearer that foreigners are “seriously” getting involved in our politics, through various channels. Media is very appropriately one of those channels. The question to answer is this: Is it good to involve foreigners to operate within Maldivez to push the political agenda of the Maldivez for the Maldiwians? Is it wise that we abandon our political rights and allow those to be pursued, pushed and manipulated by foreign interests?
Foreign journalists come here so that they can report Maldivez to their papers, networks and countries. They also accept that their country must be reported to men and women of that country by their own countrymen. That is so, simply because, they believe in the political significance of the media; political activism of journalists; and the acrobatism of the trade.
Maldiwians will not have any right to decide, form, or push a political agenda of another country. If that is so, should we not limit Maldiwian politics and agenda setting to children of the Maldivez soil alone?
We would definitely need foreign knowledge, talent and expertise. We would also need their consultancy, guidance and technology transfer. Foreign participation and assistance may be extremely useful in assisting Maldivez acquire the capacity to nurture a free and independent media and develop its institutions. This is quite different from empowering foreign nationals to run our political agenda for us, to be the political activists of this country through the channels of media.
Our tea boutiques, our barber saloons, our corner shops, our resorts, our imports may be dominated by foreign interests. But our media landscape is not a street barber’s saloon. Our media is the heart of our national debate; our politics; our future. The power to decide the future of Maldivez must belong to responsible men and women of Maldivez birth – the children of this nation.
You say what?