It looks like this link on the BML website is still resourceless after a year from the post about it on this blog.
IT in Maldives has a lot in common with its politics. Namely, the proponents are quick to shoot down the forerunners and they have a niggling need for frequent teas (aka coffees - go figure).
The people have been made to believe that everything works at their pace. There is no respect for planned milestones and the potential domino effects of failing the time frames. Anyone who raises the alarm on noticing wayward project trajectories are considered traitors. Anyone who refuses to go down with the ship is considered a coward (especially since everyone else is looking forward to a ritual sacrifice).
There are reasons for this. One of these is the unwillingness to accept inherent flaws. The key to adjusting a person's attitude is identifying its existence. This is the principle of unfreezing, as suggested by Kurt Lewin.
The other reason for the continued depravity of Maldivian IT is the general precociousness. It is always good to be proud of one's own achievements. However, this pride should never go to one's head. The only way to remain objective throughout one's growth is to respect the advice offered by forerunners. Always remember to learn before teaching.
Bank of Maldives needs to stop pretending to be capable of providing proper e-banking services. More than half their links on their website do not even have a target resource!!! Like this one:
http://ebanking.bankofmaldives.com.mv/st/services/tradeAndForeignRelated/internationalMoneyTransfer/outwardSwiftTransfer.php
It would seem that NCIT are not the only ones with a lethargic IT team.
The ominous return of Maumoon's former accomplices has already begun. This is what was being veiled by the smokescreen of debates over threats that Maumoon still posed.
The Maldivian people need to be aware that names like 'Abdulla Shahid' were considered in the same vein as Maumoon or Yameen. If Shahid and co. are to be given a free pass, so too should Maumoon and Yameen.
A deliberate agenda can be gleaned from the sequence of events following Dhiyana's castration. In the latest installment of the saga, Anni suggests that the attorney general's (AG) office is no longer involved in 'criminal prosecution or drafting legislation'. It is surprising then that clause (g) of article 133 of the constitution states:
'The Attorney General shall have power to issue general directives to the Prosecutor General on the conduct of criminal proceedings.'
Furthermore, clause (c) of article 220 of the constitution states:
'The Prosecutor General (PG) is independent and impartial, and he shall not be under the direction or control of any person or authority in carrying out his responsibilities and the exercise of his powers. He shall carry out his responsibilities and exercise his powers without fear, favour or prejudice, subject only to the general policy directives of the Attorney General, and on the basis of fairness, transparency, and accountability.'
These two clauses certainly indicate that the AG has some purview over the work of the PG. What of 'drafting legislation' then? The sources of new legislative bills are the people (as per article 4 of the constitution), the parliamentary members/committees and the government. Where government bills are concerned, according to clauses (a), (b) and (c) of article 133 of the constitution, the AG should be responsible for drafting them.
The whispers of conspiracy and propaganda arise from these ill-informed remarks made by the government. One might be inclined to think that Anni's intention of constricting the AG's office, despite the constitutional provisions, arises from a need for greater control (is that not the road to autocracy?).
Readers would be interested to know that the responsibilities of the AG of Maldives (as per the constitution at least) are similar to those of the AG of the British government. Given this in conjunction with Anni's new intentions for the AG's office, the MDP's purported affiliations with the British Conservative Party is a little amusing.
On Dhiyana's interview:
She should also have cited clause (e) of article 133 of the constitution, which states:
'The Attorney General shall promote, protect, uphold and defend the rule of law, the public safety, the freedoms of the public and the public interest.'
Maumoon's cabinet can now claim that they 'tried to criticize the government in private' for 30 years but never got the old man to listen. That the code of loyalty demanded the cabinet's collective silence despite the Maldivian people's sufferings.
It would seem that Anni's vision of governance is not so far removed from Maumoon's. However, Anni's dismissal of Dhiyana's advice was not followed by submission on the latter's part (unlike some former attorney generals). Dhiyana was at least rebellious enough to escalate the issue (involve the 'public sphere'). The Maldivian people should be proud of her. After all, President Eisenhower's quote was not in admonition of rebellion but in defence of it.
This is Anni at his best. What can one presume but the influence of cronyism in the president's decision-making? Why else would he appoint an individual who has had no legal training (in the slightest) to undertake the duties (albeit temporarily) of the most demanding legal job in the country, whilst primarily serving the role of Finance Minister?
This is not the first time Anni has shut out critics within his administration. That Anni gave her the boot despite Dhiyana's letters containing sound advice is all the more amusing. If political appointees were illegally influencing the elections (or seemed to be doing so), is it not the attorney general's prerogative to escalate the issue to the president?
During the post-MDP years of reform the police service was separated from the national defense force in order to do justice to the phrase 'separation of powers'. Allowing the defense minister to serve as acting home minister was initially politically counterproductive. Letting the situation fester was worse and warranted advice from the government's leading legal counsel (which does not happen to be Husnu Suood).
In no way did either letter demand Anni's resignation. Neither did any of the letters demand immediate action. They advised the president on matters that concerned the attorney general and why they should be addressed. If the attorney general gets canned every time this happens then why have one at all? Why not contract a yes-man like Husnu Suood to hang from the puppeteer's threads? It has certainly not been that long for Maldivians to forget that the attorney generals of Maumoon's era were considered puppets in the public's eye?
It is high time politicians caught a glimpse of the impending dystopia materializing on the fuel of Anni's stubborn singlemindedness. If his autocracy is this acute just months into his presidency, consider what awaits Maldives 4 years from now.
It is disconcerting that Minivan News keeps publishing highly biased propagandist articles. This article tries to justify 'civil disobedience' as a means of effecting deliberative democracy. It coins the phrase 'government by discussion' to describe this.
John Stuart Mill's (from whom the phrase was borrowed) book, On Liberty, does not endorse civil disobedience. In fact, he delimits any civil actions by saying:
'...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.'
To describe deliberative democracy Joshua Cohen writes in his essay Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy, the following:
'The notion of a deliberative democracy is rooted in the intuitive ideal of a democratic association in which the justification of the terms and conditions of association proceeds through public argument and reasoning among equal citizens. Citizens in such an order share a commitment to the resolution of problems of collective choice through public reasoning, and regard their basic institutions as legitimate in so far as they establish the framework for free public deliberation.'
Although governing through opinions gleaned from the public sphere is participatory governance (the extent to which the current government would consider public discourse remains to be seen), it does not fulfill the definition of deliberative democracy. In the case of Maldives as a country, deliberative democracy should be the direct involvement of every individual in debating the 'terms and conditions' under which they are citizens. Where any such debate fails to reach a consensus Cohen recommends '...voting, subject to some form of majority rule' and not 'civil disobedience'.
Mr. Zahir's article does nothing more than justify anarchist ideals (violation of civil order) as a means to achieving the government's agenda. The type of democracy the article presents will probably fall under militant democracy, which is 'an answer to secure the transition to democracy after decades under just one party authoritarian Government.'
After reading this article one would think Minivan News was no more than a little blog where its employees vent their frustrations, write opinion pieces and divulge unsubstantiated conjecture. Facts and figures be damned.
Someone (anonymous) has made a comment in reply to the previous post to the effect that Anni is a vaccine intended to get rid of Maumoon's 'kingdom.' This is no more than a diversionary mantra fed to MDP loyalists to keep the Maldivian people from realizing the truth.
The truth is that the leadership ranks of the incumbent government is frilled with Maumoon's former henchmen. The slightest scrutiny will show that the minorities who were marginalized during Maumoon's era are still being marginalized by Anni's government. Only those who have been marginalized will realize that nothing has really changed.
Those who long for religious freedom (or even freedom from religion) are oppressed by MoIA. The folks from the north and south extremes of Maldives are still underrepresented in the government. The oligarchs who ruled during Maumoon's tenure are still there, still wielding the greater powers of the country.
What the people do not realize is that Anni is not willing to change anything. If he wished to, he could reduce the income polarities which see the poor sinking into debt and the rich profiting from it. If he chose to, he could give the islanders opportunities equal to those enjoyed by Male' residents.
The reality is Anni has taken over the reigns from Maumoon. There is no more Maumoon to be feared from. He can never again become the president of Maldives. The fears about his possible return have been concocted only to divert the public's attention from what is imminent: the depravation of the country's government. As for the return of Maumoon's aides, this is nothing new (Ibrahim Hussein Zaki and Dr. Shaheed for instance). Then again more than a hefty majority of people who served in Maumoon's government is serving in Anni's. Party affiliations do not turn people into enemies of democracy unless MDP truly has divine blessings and DRP an alliance with the devil.
Anni did not get himself elected to eradicate any disease. He intended to be the disease all along. Maldivians are the unwitting and gullible hosts he is gorging on. Bon appetit.
Anni who oft-decried forceful police tactics seems to have no qualms about endorsing them now that he is the one in the throne.
There is no doubt that the promises of good governance and institutional reform was only used to gloss his candidacy in last year's presidential race. Now that he is comfortably nestled into the throne he has completely washed his hands of all his campaign promises. Anni is exactly the caricature he used to accuse Maumoon of being.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
