Minivan News journalist Olivia Lang should retract the article 'DRP Campaign Admits Using State Funds' if the claim is based on the the DRP-issued statement 'certain rights the president of Maldives receives and his rights as commander-in-chief.' Consequently, Emily Reed should retire from professional (questionable) journalism for defending Olivia Lang.
Olivia Lang contorts the DRP statement to a point where the casual reader would actually believe that the incumbent President of Maldives is not entitled to the rights of his office. Ms. Lang cleverly draws the inference that the DRP statement implies additional privileges being endowed upon the president for use in the elections. This inference is clearly an incorrect one. All that the statement implies is that as long as the President of Maldives (whoever that maybe) holds his/her office, he/she will be accorded the necessary instruments for conducting his/her affairs. If endowment of such instruments were deemed as misappropriation of national resources then any remedial will leave the country with an ineffectual presidency from now till election's end.
In Emily Reed's article Olivia Lang is quoted as having said, in her defence, 'I stand by the accuracy of my article and condemn any party that makes a personal attack against journalists whilst also claiming to uphold free speech.' Free speech amongst the masses includes all forms of gripe and gossip. Journalists distinguish themselves by becoming the bearers of accurate, unbiased information (ie. not drawing conclusions based on whim). Journalists do not base their judgments on purposefully distorted inferences from clearly straightforward statements.
The Emily Reed article also published a statement made by the site's editor, Judith Evans. Ms. Evans demanded that 'If the Maumoon 2008 campaign wishes to clarify the situation regarding funding, it should publish its accounts.' What is interesting is that by making this statement Ms. Evans is making her (and indeed her charges') intentions incessantly clear. That is, Olivia Lang originally wrote her article in the hopes of pressuring DRP into publishing their financial accounts. When DRP made a statement to this effect, Emily Reed is now defending Olivia Lang in the hopes of demonizing the former.
What is most surprising is that the existence of an agenda ('interests') within the Minivan News team has been established. The agenda is being promoted (insofar) by three foreign journalists (after all, Maldives Law will not endorse names like Olivia Lang, Emily Reed and Judith Evans). Finally, this author is an indigenous Maldivian who clearly disputes Olivia Lang and her interpretations. Thus, DRP's claim that 'There is a band, a gang, indeed a tribe of foreigners who would like this country managed in a manner more beneficial to them, than to the interests of Maldivians' is no more than a literal statement of fact.
Read this article and you will know what I meant by 'change for the sake of change' in my last post.
Simon is willing to hand the reigns of Maldives to any old joker as long as it is not Maumoon. He blames all the corruption and injustice on one man. If it were not for people like his father (and their cohorts) Maumoon would not have been allowed to reap undue benefits. As it stands, Maumoon has benefited from corruption only as much as the rest of the country's leading capitalists (including people like Qasim, ADK Nashid, Simon's dad, etc). Maumoon has benefited from injustice no more than people like Umar Naseer (who's mandate of brutality whilst serving the NSS certainly did not demand breaking people's backbones).
The time for blame-placing has passed. We all know that Maumoon's willing followers (current as well as former) are no less to blame than Maumoon himself for the government's corruption and injustice. Let us now focus on the change than the reprimanding. Now is the time to assess the propositions made by all the proponents of change and determine which is the best.
Years into this pretentious reform 'movement', the Maldives has yet to score big on real change. Sure there is a new constitution. There is a purported multiparty political system. Yet, nothing has changed.
The amendment of the old constitution was inevitable given that Maumoon would want his exit to be marked by a great political success. He will forever be known as the president who gave Maldives a party system and a brand new constitution to boot whether anyone likes it or not. He will forever be written in the books of history as the purveyor of democracy in Maldives.
The party system itself is just for namesakes. It is through that the system helps potential political figures to rise up through the party ranks into the top two offices. Thereafter the parties are simply ineffectual. The parties do not serve in constituting a greater oversight body (such as the senate in the US, which is responsible for separating the judicial concerns from the constitutional concerns) which acts as a check-and-balance against the government. The party system is not even involved in the constitution of the parliament (and this is compounded by the parliament's indirect involvement in the composition of the judiciary). All this aside, the parties are doing nothing to apply pressure on existing governments to make changes.
Pressure is not all about demonstrating on the roads under banners and invisible clouds of hatred. Demonstrations are only tools for asserting predetermined theses. Why theses you ask?
Has any party published a study of the financial situation in Maldives in terms of inflation, income, expenditure and loss/corruption? Sure, we hear the term 'corruption' being tossed around like so many tuna from the richest schools out their in the oceans of Maldives. However, has anyone quantified this term? Has anyone embarked on a study to determine the level of corruption and the possible prevention mechanisms? Furthermore, has anyone published any such studies?
With regards to the economy, the research of the purported think-tanks of Maldives yielded such money-guzzling, corruption-inducing plans as creating ever-widening infrastructure. Anni with his transportation infrastructure, Hassan Saeed with his decentralizing infrastructure and Umar Naseer with his residential infrastructure. All these plans will only consume money that we do not have, resulting in ever-increasing debt.
The proposed societal development schemes fare no better. Every politician is hell-bent on gaining more support by promising freebies. Free education, free medical care and free recreational infrastructure. All these promises will only result in further borrowings, allowing capitalists to reserve their pounds of flesh.
It seems that the philosophy of borrowing for development has been imbued in all Maldivians. Why else would these so-called leftist parties be adopting such congruent principles as those of the government when it comes to development? Why have political discourse at all?!
Borrowing can be lessened only through streamlining expenses and working towards a break-even. This means delving into the budgets and determining wastage first. For instance, do you ever wonder why each ministry deploys a whole barrage of computers and internetworking equipment in their offices each year? This is not because the existing ones are obsolete. It is because they have become tech-junkies combined with the procurement officers' desires for continuous commissions. Why else would each department purchase more equipment a year on average than competitive service providers like Dhiraagu?
As for financing development, if these leftist parties are truly concerned about Maldives they would empower the citizens with the country's financial concerns. The simple means for this is a taxation system. At least then the people will truly gain the ownership of various disputes.
Taxing is also the simple means of solving housing problems too. A rental tax graded across rent bands (lower rents having lower taxes and prorating upwards) will help maintain lower rents and prevent realty values from sky-rocketing.
Taxing will also be the ideal route to a quick resolution to the current housing problems. If a land rent were charged in Male', people would be less willing to own land there. Thus, the value of land in Male' would be less likely to continue escalating (of course, I do not have the exact projections to determine the type of taxation or grading). Furthermore, if land taxes in places like Addu, Haa Alif, etc were considerably lower than Male', that land there would obviously be more attractive to new families. Taxation would also help leverage basic infrastructure development such as schools and hospitals (which addresses your doubts about people living in Addu or Haa Alif on grounds of the lack of infrastructure).
Finally, no one has substantially published on reducing income polarities. Everyone knows about the earnings of the few hugely outweighing the earnings of the many. However, no one has truly stated the numbers, and no one is willing to study the possible alternatives to these income polarities.
Why these studies are not conducted, or if conducted not published is the failure of the leftist parties. It is not enough to simply lay blame on the government and idle by. When I queried one of the leaders of these leftist parties he excused his inaction as being a strategy to prevent the government from adopting their plans to enact preemptive change. This can only be interpreted as the leaderships' desires for returns on their political investments. It would seem that their philosophies are not all that different from those of the present government's. These people are only out to attain benefits from their politics: not to empower the people.
What I want as a voter is a change in the leftist philosophies. If these leftist parties are too concerned about gaining power I will simply vote for Maumoon. Especially given that the rest of the leaderships are rife with incompetents. I do not want change for the sake of change. I want change that reflects a sustained improvement in the conditions of life in Maldives. Prove that and I will reconsider.