6 - Plan'g Min Role Redirection

Adopting Modern Concepts of Planning and

Redirecting the Role of the Planning Ministry

This was a working memo I sent to Mr Gayyoom in 1998 preliminary to an unrealized discussion.  New material were added to it in 2013 to further explain the “Generic Model” and how it relates to “strategic planning,” which is indispensable to nations and businesses alike; this was besides a piece that underpins the necessity for systematic change that is vital for the survival of any entity faced with a fast-changing and complex world.  All what Mr Gayyoom did in response to the memo was to rename the then “Ministry of Planning, Human Resources, and Environment” “Ministry of Planning and National Development” and remove HR and Env functions from it – as if changing the name of the ministry would get things done; it never occurred to him that it is people with the motivation and relevant knowledge and experience who can get things done and not a mere name change – even if it is a more appropriate one. 

Most important in the process: understanding the proper role the Planning Ministry [PM] should be playing in the national economy, and understanding that it is a central ministry, and as such, that it should not be behaving like a line ministry, as it currently does. 

To understand what this means, we have to understand the nature of planning in our modern, fast-changing world. 

To achieve this understanding, we can look at planning thru a matrix that relates its two defining elements.  Define planning; explain matrix quadrants.

To date, there is a total neglect of tasks in quadrants II, III, and IV.  Let’s take a look at current tasks of PM: 

     Work of Statistics Section >> Bureau of Census/Stats

     Work of Planning Section >> Programming & Budgeting

It can be seen that the main functions of PM for the past 20 years fall within the first quadrant of the matrix.

But getting the functions of the other three quadrants moving is a necessary condition if we are to face and solve our increasing range of problems.  To do so, PM has to learn to play a facilitative role instead of a competitive one.

But instead of being facilitative and get the functions of other line ministries moving in the right direction, as it should be the proper role of PM, to date, it has chosen to compete with line agencies.  Examples: Physical Planning ... Environment... Reef Management... Human Resources...

This behaviour doesn't indicate a grasp / understanding of nature of planning, especially in our fast changing world. 

Because of this lack, to date, PM has not been able to play the vital facilitative / guiding role that it should be playing in the national economy. 

In the meantime, our problems keep increasing, unabated. 

Therefore, to begin moving in the right direction with planning in the Maldives, the starting point is a clear understanding of modern concepts of planning, which would lead to a new awareness, which would in turn help change the way we look at planning and the role of the Planning Ministry in the national economy.

The technical underpinnings of the relationships between Planning Ministry and line ministries on the one hand, and between aspects of planning on the other, thus the basis of the organizational concepts suggested, follow. 

Organizational Concepts

The starting point even here is the nature of planning.  Most important here is the inherent interconnectedness among various activities that are the realm of planning, and the ebb and flow among them over time.

Two relationships can be identified [diagram below left]:

That between PM and line ministries [radial arrows]

That between line ministries [concentric arrows]

The relationship between PM and line ministries describes two polar levels of planing: a strategic level [mainly at PM, aimed at identifying / sketching out appropriate policy to achieve our national goals in view of constraints and opportunities] and an operational level [mainly at line ministries, aimed at implementing those policies].  And neither end of the planning spectrum can be carried out by either party alone; cooperation between them is essential.  The implication is that the work of line ministries would have to fit under a framework determined by national goals rather than each performing independently and the outcomes compiled to form what is now called a “national plan.”

For effective/efficient organization we can also identify three core aspects: economic, social, and urban & regional [see: “OPPD Policy Memo: Objectives / Functions / Organization”].

These aspects in turn lead to several functional / sectoral / planning areas, each of which analyzable in terms of its goals and techniques used to achieve them [Generic Model].

Summarized diagrammatically, these relationships are:

Although the three aspects and their interrelationships are inherently interwoven, for implementing them, they've to be delegated to a number of line / operational agencies.  The lack of continuity arising from this necessary disruption should be compensated for by the needed coordination and integration. [Cf: “Integrative Planning,” p3/pa2]  Generating that coordination / integration should be a central task of PM, which currently isn’t even aware of that vital task. 

Where I Fit In

The essence of planning and its core aspects and levels are captured in above diagrams.  Taken together, they form the ideal guiding framework for the practice of planning.  But PM now lacks capability to execute such a framework.  Thus building the planning capability of PM and guiding the process in the right direction [within limits of what PM should and should not be doing] has to be the starting point to put planning in the Maldives on the right track.  It is to help achieve those ends that I've been preparing over so many years.  

The focus of my efforts would be mainly in the neglected three quadrants of the diagram above, known as innovative functions of planning; first quadrant involves allocative functions.  As the description of the functions of the work in these four quadrants shows my work will be characterized by a high level of fluidity.

Significantly, there's no strict separation between allocative and innovative functions; each flows into the other dynamically and continuously.  Moreover, it is the way the innovative side is handled that will transform the quality of the allocative side into effective outputs. 

My job has to be functionally with PM, but symbolically separate from it.  For while help build planning process [its strategic side would be mainly in PM and operational side mainly in line ministries], I have to repair the damage done and overcome the negative feelings created by the competitive attitudes of PM to date.  And most innovative functions, which is the area of my main focus, are also generally beyond current perceptions of "planning" for most people in the Government circles; their having come to understand planning as tackling the allocative functions [which lend themselves to programming and budgeting].  The redirection of the process therefore calls for a change of perceptions, attitudes, and behaviour.  Thus the issue has as much psychological connotations as it does have technical ones.  Moreover, while the fruits of innovative functions are generally realizable in medium- and long- term horizons, they should be begun at present.  This is similar to someone having to undertake lower education at present if higher education is hoped for in the future. 

It can be seen that while the task is essentially one of planning, it goes way beyond the perceptions of planning, both at present and also likely near future.  For this and above reasons, I suggest my job be located at the Office of the President while my work has to be stationed at the Planning Ministry.  Needless to say that all I do would be in full consultation with the Planning Minister. 

Explaining the Generic Model of Planning (added in 2013) 

Planning can be defined simply as the sum total of techniques used to achieve desired goals (within a given timeframe).  The Generic Model is the matrix that results when looked at these two defining elements of planning as to whether they are known or unknown.  The four quadrants of the resulting matrix describe the following four states (which can be called “planning environments” or circumstances under which the planning would take place): Q-I: in it both goals and techniques are know; Q-II: goals are unknown but techniques known; Q-III: goals are known but techniques unknown; and Q-IV: both goals and techniques unknown.  The planning function in the last three quadrants focuses on clarifying the unknown goals and/or techniques.  When goals are clarified and techniques developed, the task in question would take on characteristics of Q-I and is dealt with accordingly. 

In quadrant one (Q-I) both goals and techniques are know and the planning behaviour in it would be routine or “business as usual,” mostly involving the allocation of resources to designated purposes – including "system-maintenance" functions and extrapolating existing practices into the near future with no significant changes.  This represents the allocation function of planning.  But in the other three quadrants (Q-II, Q-III, & Q-IV) the planning behaviour has characteristics that are very different from those in Q-I, since either goals or techniques, or both, have to be newly discovered.  The work in these three quadrants would thus be characterized by innovation, and represents the innovation functions of planning. 

The Generic Model provides a framework for systematically facing the challenges of our fast-changing world, as opposed to our currently haphazard Yehya-like behaviour. 

Planning Behaviour in Quadrants II, III, & IV:    The nature of the prime planning task in these three quadrants would render the process highly dynamic and "mobilizing" characteristics, since this would involve bringing people and/or expertise together to facilitate the definition of goals and developing techniques.  It is not an easy task; it is by and large an uncertain process.  And it demands a large amount of reading and research to discover theoretical underpinnings of range of problems at hand; it calls for knowledge of similar cases in other countries and requires reading about them or going to where they originated; it necessitates discussions with professionals knowledgeable of similar cases; it needs interactions with the public to discover the social and/or political interests involved, thus help make the outcomes sustainable; and it mandates laborious search for funds to finance the endeavours.  In short, planning in uncertain environments involves much effort and time for thinking and discussions, and is pervaded by trial and error.  Therefore how haphazard or efficient the planning efforts in uncertain environments would be will depend upon a number of factors, political and/or public support being key factors in determining their success or failure. (edited)

Quoted from “On the Nature of Planning in a Changing World,” p 3 (1993)

The functions of these three quadrants constitute strategic planning – aligning the nation to the demands of a changing world; action to bring about the functioning of the nation closer to the realities of its new setting.  If it is not thus aligned, it will experience a host of problems which might endanger its very survival.  (Corporations go bankrupt for this very reason: their failure to align themselves to new realities of their business environments.)   Such alignment mandates the replacement of outdated thinking, practices, and behaviours (which would have been effective in bygone times) with those suited to the new circumstances.  And such alignment cannot be generated by individual agencies acting on their own and out of synch with each other, but only by a central agency which has the capacity to identify and set the right direction, bring disjointed elements on board, create functional harmony among them, and attain unity of purpose – in short, a well-functioning integrated system of effective planning. 

5 - A Summary ...

A Summary …

Based on Excerpt from My Recently Updated Résumé

This summary provides a glimpse into a sizable global problem that in all likelihood forms the single biggest impediment to our development process.  The solution mentioned is long-term and applicable to all nations, while what is suggested in the writings mentioned in the footnote is of immediate nature and specific to the Maldives.  (Please focus on the latter; this summary is only an overview.)  You'll find some more of my recent development-related writings on this blog. 

October 1997 – To-date

The direction of my thinking had changed following an insight of earthshaking proportions that I gained in 1997 and expanded and perfected since, and, coupled with my ongoing experience in our development setting, I had come to the conclusion that development efforts would be to a large extent in vain without overcoming, or at least minimizing, the massive ill effects of the problem underlying that insight.^***   As a result, my subsequent work had been directed towards that end.  The essence of that problem is that while our ability to understand the world and interact with others is dependant on the information bases in our brains, they are largely unique to each individual and, as a result, that there is no adequate common ground for people to smoothly interact among themselves for optimal, even satisfactory, societal functioning.  To make matters worse, people do not have a clue that such a problem even exists.  The ramifications of the problem would therefore have devastating impacts globally and make it arguably the worst enemy of human wellbeing.  The nature of this problem and a realistic albeit partial solution to it are explored in the writings on my blog aimed at international readers: www.rifatafeef.blogspot.com.  As explained there, this solution lies in a rather small but crucial improvement to the world education system, which necessitates both the awareness and the support of world academics / educators which are currently lacking.  (People cannot support a concept that they don't know exists.)  To help rectify this situation, the writings have been sent to some 35,000 of them in 103 universities in 22 nations in the core areas of education, philosophy, psychology, sociology, political science, and communication. 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

^***  For some details of the process of this transformation, please refer to the boxed account on post below labelled “4 - Rifat's Personal Mission” under the sub-title “The Evolution of My Thinking.”  For an elaboration on the central problem and what can be done about it right now in the context of the Maldives, see Part Three of the post below labelled  “2 - Positive Socio-Political Atmosphere.”  The account given in it is further elaborated in my (Dhivehi) pieces labelled “Majlis Letter One” and “Last Explanation,” which have not been uploaded to this blog yet, but given that the PDF prints of all my development-related writings have been emailed to several hundred people on my (local) mailing list, they would be already available to quite a number of Maldivians.  

4 - Rifat's Personal Mission

Rifat’s Personal Mission

The writings on this post fall into three groups: i) the evolution of what I’ve called my “personal mission”; ii) the evolution of my thinking over time; and iii) scanned material from my efforts to undertake graduate studies.  They will provide a glimpse into my efforts to put things in the Maldives on the right track.  They do not, however, include my earlier efforts in the filed of physical planning and design (Dec 1978 thru July 1989).  For a short  account of work during that period, see the doc labelled “OPPD History and Challenges”; it has not been posted on this blog yet, but was emailed to everyone on my local mailing list at the time of its writing (Aug 2008).   

The Evolution of My Personal Mission

My “personal mission” has evolved over time in response to successive challenges I found myself facing, and has gone through several stages.  It began while I was still a student of architecture in Egypt in the mid-1970s, with the awareness of my huge responsibility as an architect in a nation, however small, then without any architects or civil engineers, and reached a crucial milestone a decade ago^(***) with the awareness of the gravity of the conclusion that could be drawn from the overview of what I call the “development problem,” sketched out in “Integrative Planning” to begin with (October 1997) and later expanded in “Majlis Letter One” (April 2005) and an extended summary of it, labelled “Last Explanation.”  (Subsequently, the third part of the post titled "2 – Positive Socio-Political Climate" below (2013) and the boxed piece just below, titled "The Evolution of My Thinking," also expound on the same illusive concept.)  In a nutshell, this conclusion is that given that the world education system produces people with rather narrow specialized knowledge bases; given that national development is an all-encompassing endeavour that requires a command of a broad knowledge base; and given the discrepancy arising thereof, that there is hardly a person capable of coming up with viable, comprehensive policy in a broad, multifaceted endeavour as national development.  (This lack is one root cause of many of our current problems; another being the lack of an enlightened and effective political leadership.)  Once again I rose to the challenge (as I did way back in 1978 to the lack of a physical planning and design function in the Maldives Government, and in the Maldives in general; see “OPPD History and Challenges”) of addressing the mentioned discrepancy (also educating the political / technical cadre) by preparing myself for facilitating the formulation of viable national policy that can meet our future demands as well as solve our current problems and avert sizable hazards looming ahead – outcomes of misguided Government policies, many of which went against even basic common sense let alone any sophisticated theoretical analysis.  

The effort began by striving for (see the scanned docs below) and obtaining a masters degree with a focus on the development of small island states (many policies viable for larger nations are not suitable for smaller ones – this is another source of our inappropriate policies, since our school leavers by and large have to go abroad for college education in which the theories of numerous fields carry the implicit assumption that the economies they function in are large, and thus return home without understanding the difference) and a thesis titled Strategies for Sustained Socioeconomic Development in Small Island States.  Since then, I have come a long way on the road of preparing myself to face current challenges (but, see the last sentence of this boxed piece for the final status in this regard).  It includes efforts for expanding the scope of my knowledge base through first gaining formal backgrounds in basic economics and finance and management in the US (after completing graduate studies) followed by further efforts to gain adequate backgrounds in other core areas such as sociology, psychology, social psychology, communication, ecology, and other related fields.  In addition, I also undertook a significant amount of thinking and writing, which led to the transformation of my outlook radically.  The post “5 – A Summary …” above captures the conclusions I arrived at; it also highlights the staggering complexity of the “development problem” mentioned above.  

The role I assigned for myself and its underlying rationale is given in the post labelled “6 – Plan’g Min Role Redirection," above.  While this would sound strange, the existing conditions at the top circles in successive Maldives Govts render such self-assignment necessary; for they have/had a rather retarded understanding of where the world is headed and the need for forward thinking.  A case in point is the response I received from our government when I started studying architecture in the early 1970s after obtaining the needed qualifications through self-studies and financial support from a well-wisher, and requested financial support to supplement the meagre allowance of the scholarship provided by Egyptian Government (to the Maldives) (they call it "assistance," not a scholarship): "You were sent to study religion; we don't need architects in the Maldives; come back!" – my emphasis.  (For many, this would be unbelievable now, after a mere four decades, and I may likely be accused of right-out lying.)  Naturally, I did not return home as ordered but completed my studies, albeit under extremely difficult conditions, and went on to establish the physical planning and design function in the Maldives Government.  This was, I have to add, with a positive attitude of mind from the then newly elected President Gayyoom – which attitude did not last very long, as pressures of office which he did not know how to cope with mounted, and gradually turned into a hindering and thus destructive force.  A second case in point and reflective of my current effort is that Mr Gayyoom did not ask me to establish a physical planning and design function in the Government; it was I who suggested the idea to him and with his support (and the then favourable attitude) went about the task on my own initiative; not only that, many were sceptical of the need for the effort.  

In similar fashion, hardly anyone seems to (or even wants to) understand the nature of the "development problem" outlined above and the kind of action that it demands – if we are to successfully face the challenges of our fast-changing and complex world.  (This is, again, a situation in which existing states of mind are hard-put to comprehend what is being proposed, which state of mind may change again in another couple of decades – this is the nature of progress, to understand which one has to only contemplate the most famous of such cases: the Galileo fiasco.)  My current effort is aimed at overcoming the limitations imposed by the "development problem" and paving the way for an optimal development effort.  It can also be seen to operate on a very much larger scale than the earlier one, though both would be similar in many ways.  Crucially, the new effort also would operate in a similar sociopolitical environment in which ignorance prevails and politicians are dug-in in their self-centred and short-sighted ways.  Luckily, the current effort would also include effective measures for changing a large part of those long-ingrained destructive attitudes.  And yet, in spite of a few sporadic successes, the new effort has a long way to go to realize its potential, which is currently being laid to waste – in spite of the fact that the long-term survival of this nation will almost certainly depend on it; for the logic underlying this last statement, see third part of "2 – Positive Socio-Political Atmosphere," the top of this piece, and last part of "6 – Plan’g Min Role Redirection," beginning with "Where I Fit In" and including the quote by Michael Crichton.  In general, the top echelons in successive governments of the Maldives do not know what they should be doing, though everyone now talks loud about "development" and go about implementing action about the long-term negative consequences of which they have no idea.  This is not surprising, given the difficulty of accurately assessing the outcome of any development effort (for a glimpse into this, see last paragraph of the post labelled "3 – Yameen and the Bridge," below) which in turn arises from the very nature and complexity of the "development problem" described above. 

Outlines of viable policy can be found in numerous writings of mine – all of which were emailed to several hundred people on my local mailing list at the time of their writing.  Particular mention should be made of the following: “Spatial Policy, Effective” (which laid the foundation for our current tourism development policy); “Education Curriculum, More Effective” (identifies some of the serious flaws of our current education system, which in turn are the root source many of our current ills, thus require urgent attention); “Viyafaari U’sool” (dwells on some of the serious downsides of indiscriminate leasing of our strategic infrastructure to foreign concerns); Habitat-II Report: Strategy for Sustainable and Equitable Development” (The Maldives National Report for Habitat-II Conference, Istanbul, 1996) which outlines an effective development strategy for the nation, little of which had been implemented to-date and the downsides of which failure can be seen in many of our current ills; and “OPPD History and Challenges” (OPPD is the acronym of  Office for Physical Planning and Design).  In addition, the articles on this blog to-date also must be mentioned; apart from this post, they are: “1 – Hulhumalé and the Bridge” (dwells on the meaning and dynamics of the development process and the role of the public and private sectors in it, in addition to the health and environmental hazards of building the said bridge); “3 – Yameen and the Bridge” (elaborates on the bridge aspect of the previous article); “2 – Positive Socio-Political Atmosphere” (underscores need for policies beneficial to the nation as a whole rather than those in the service of idiosyncrasies of the ruling elite); “5 – A Summary …”; and “6 – Plan’g Min Role Redirection (outlines theoretical basis of a guiding framework for effective national development in lieu of the currently prevalent haphazard and ineffective practices).    

Importantly, the path for initiating an effective development process also became clear in 1997 with the crystallization into a sharp focus of a long-standing dense fog of perceptions regarding the nature of the “development problem,” namely, the realization that people with specialized education (not to mention those without any formal background in any relevant field, as is often the current practice) cannot by themselves, and without a clear and overarching guiding framework, generate effective national development policy; for the logic of this statement, see the documents cited at the beginning of the first paragraph above. 

Although the direction we should be taking – especially the first critical/vital steps towards a more effective development process – has been clear for a decade now ^(***) and in spite of the evident and dire need of the nation for adaptive changes to face our complex world, Mr Gayyoom has been adamantly blocking the path to progress and turning a blind eye to our very real problems – as if they are non-existent or as if tackling minor headaches can take precedence over the long-term wellbeing of the nation.  For the past eight years (since 1999) I have been trying, through explanations and clarifications, to get him to understand the logic of the situation outlined above and to get him to act on it – but to no avail.  As a result, I have been forced to take this issue to the Majlis (Parliament) (to members individually) in April 2005; see "Majlis Letter One."  (It should be mentioned that this latter effort also was in vain, akin to “drawing lines on a watery surface,” as goes our old adage.)  It could be stated with fairness that it was the cumulative outcomes of such inappropriate and inflexible behaviour on the part of Mr Gayyoom that was largely responsible for the subsequent massive public unrest, which ultimately led to his downfall – much like the gradual build-up of pressure and final blow-up of a steam engine when all pressure-release valves are blocked.  

It would be appropriate to mention here that in view of the foregoing behaviour on the part of the elected representatives of the nation, namely, the head of state and Majlis members (in fact, successive heads of state and successive rounds of Majlis members) and also a significant number of young people with higher education, plus several elderly statesmen and an article to the general public – to all of whom various facets of the case had been put forth, and after having tried to put things on the right track for the better part of my adult life, in particular over the past 20 years on a purely voluntary basis, there is nothing further I can do if the short-sighted indifference about the future continues to be the behaviour of our rulers – even if the nation goes under, which will most likely be the case the way things are going.  (And once critical mass is achieved in the momentum in that direction, absolutely nothing we do can stop it.)  This process of destruction will be vastly and irreversibly accelerated by the farce of a bridge currently under construction – its hugely negative impacts will keep mounting over the years and decades to come, and in all likelihood will push the nation to the brink of collapse.  And given this, the inevitable futility of any efforts to remedy the situation practically and effectively precludes any of my future involvements with any Maldives governments.   

 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

^(***) This piece was originally written in September, 2007; updated several times, latest being March 2016.  

The Evolution of My Thinking

[Regarding Societal Interactive Processes]

Ever since I returned home after my first degree and started working in the Maldives government in December 1978 (see OPPD History and Challenges), I have been experiencing a growing unease for the lack of meaningful / constructive dialogue among my colleagues, myself included, that lead to positive outcomes.  For years, I had no clear idea of the underlying reasons for this failure.  Then, in 1997, I did some systematic thinking, which lifted the fog from my mind. 

I began with a physician – how he/she manages to achieve positive results, ie, cures an ill patient.  Obviously, the answer lies in his/her ability to understand the intricacies of the functioning of the human body and how outside agents intervene to disrupt the physiological functions of its systems.  It is therefore the theoretical knowledge and practical experience acquired by the physician via academic education and training that enables him/her to solve the problem of the patient’s illness.  The same basic/simple logic is applicable for professionals in other fields of specialization. 

Given that it is the high-level knowledge we gain that enables us to unravel the complexity of any situation at hand, it follows that a person without the appropriate knowledge will not be able to bring about such positive outcomes.  As a result, persons versed with knowledge in one field also cannot apply it to other fields to bring about positive outcomes.  Stretching this logic further, it should be now clear that there would be significant barriers, at the very least, for people knowledgeable in specialized fields to engage in meaningful / constructive high-level dialogue that are necessary for effective cooperation among themselves to solve complex problems of today’s world, since each person’s knowledge would be limited to his/her specialized area and since their over lapping areas would be hazy for most of them – as they are usually unlikely to have knowledge of those areas. 

This thinking was dwelt-on in my 1997 paper labelled “Integrated Planning” – in it I likened the behaviour of specialized people trying to unravel a complex problem (in that paper, “planning”) to that of seven blind men trying to describe an elephant after each one touches only one part of it.  This is a global problem in today’s world in which education transcends national and geographical boundaries.  Thus a large part of the problem has its roots in world education, which currently lacks the awareness that such a problem even exists, let alone its devastating global impacts – for more on this topic, see my blog aimed at world educators www.rifatafeef.blogspot.com. 

How world education is at least partially linked to this problem is spelt-out in that paper.  Notwithstanding this awareness, and in spite of the awareness of the psychological connotations involved (also explicitly dwelt-on in that paper) in the earlier years following the paper, my efforts were limited to the local context, in trying to convince the local political cadre as well as an increasing number of people with college degrees from abroad of the nature of the problem we have at hand.  An assumption implicit in that effort was that when the nature of the problem was spelt-out explicitly and in irrefutable terms, people would begin to see the light of the day.  Not so, definitely!  Further, in spite of the psychological and socio-psychological nature of the problem, both psychologists and sociologists with whom I talked were not cognizant of the fact that a significant part of the problem falls into their domain, thus that it is their responsibility as well to find a solution to the problem. This failure in turn led me to delve into psychology, and also sociology, with handsome dividends. 

It began to be clear that our problem has much deeper roots than it appears.  More specifically, it became clear that the problem, although much aggravated by specialized education, is fundamentally rooted in the way the human mind works.  (But let's keep in mind that specialization is a necessary condition for human advancement, in spite of the increasing drawbacks as the world is becoming more complex and holistic thinking is increasingly called for – my complementary blog addresses this issue.)  Given that what is in the third paragraph above can be generalized further to state that humans make sense of the world based on the information bases in their brains, the implications at societal/global level become staggering.  Not only are we born into different cultures and sub/microcultures with wide variations among them and thus with different information bases due to them alone, each of us is also different by virtue of our brains being structurally unique in spite of many broad similarities.  These structural differences in turn lead to truly unique experiences; no two person’s subjective experiences of a given event are thus likely to be the same.  And such subjective experiences in their turn become an integral part of one's information base, and so on ...  The sum total of the variations among information bases arising from these process lead to unique human beings and thus unbridgeable mental gaps among people.  I can think of no way to counter the downsides arising from these mental gaps than to equip people with the tools needed to narrow those gaps in their encounters with fellow humans.  This aim can be achieved to a significant degree by instilling in young children an attitude to communicate with their fellows and adults with empathy and by teaching the youth the basics of both communication and associated psychology – both process are complementary; thus they are highly unlikely to work in isolation, that is, when one or the other is implemented alone. 

[But I’m not suggesting that the Maldives pursue this line of action at this juncture – for the simple reason that currently we don't have the capability.  Instead, we should wait for the more advanced nations to come up with the formula, and we could then adapt it to suit our needs – in the same way we adapted (rather adopted wholesale which, given their inconsistency with numerous realities of the local setting, forms the root cause of a significant number of sizable social problems, thus are in urgent need to be rectified – see my paper labelled "Education Curriculum, More Effective") virtually the whole of our education system from the world education system.  (This is an area I am actively involved in currently; for details, see my blog that targets world educators  www.rifatafeef.blogspot.com.)] 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This piece was originally written in April, 2012, and modified a bit subsequently.

Scanned excerpts from my letters to the US Government and the East West Center in Honolulu in trying to obtain a scholarship to undertake graduate studies at the University of Hawaii: 

Scanned excerpts from my application forms to the University of Hawaii and the East West Center:

Better legibility of the scanned material can be achieved by enlarging the webpage by pressing the “+” key on the keyboard while holding down the “Ctrl” (control) key; this can be repeated several times to achieve the desired magnification.  The original size of the webpage can be reverted to by pressing the “-” key with the “Ctrl” key as many times as was done for enlargement.

It would be clear from these documents that I embarked on graduate studies (and continued with subsequent studies mentioned above) in order to be able to face the dire conditions in the Maldives and not merely to obtain a master's degree – for which I was in no need to practice my initial profession of architecture.  Too bad all that efforts and knowledge and skills and experience – which I doubt anyone else in the world would have, especially as relates to the Maldives – are to be laid to waste.  

3 - Yameen and the Bridge

Yameen and the Bridge: Disaster in the Making

It is very sad that none of the members of the media or the several hundred educated people of this nation to all of whom my article about this topic has been sent are not uttering even a whimper of protest against the national disaster currently in the making – building a bridge between Malé and Hulhumalé, which by any standards will be an unprecedented and irreparable disaster.  

The article pointed out the following extremely alarming facts in four overlapping areas:

1)  the built-environment of Malé (total area less than 3/4 of a square mile, some 80% of which is built-up and the remaining 20% being taken by roads and a handful of open spaces) is currently congested to the brim by structures and motor vehicles (nearly 42,300 in 2012, of which 85% were motor cycles; current population figure stands at more than 185,000); one can hardly find parking space on the mostly narrow roads and moving about on them is becoming increasingly dangerous;
2)  increasingly tall structures (up to 10 stories) are being built adjacent to each other without any space in-between and, as a result, severely limiting air circulation across the whole island;

3)  motor vehicle exhaust fumes are toxic and dangerous to health, and contain the poisonous gases of carbon monoxide and dioxide, and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, not to mention heavy metals such as lead, which have long-term retarding effects on children’s brain development, in addition to the potentially cancerous particulate matter; air pollution has already made the air we breathe, the most essential/basic element for sustaining life itself, highly unsuitable; this is not to mention the noise pollution and ground water contamination from an increasing number of vehicle repair shops sprinkled indiscriminately all around the island; and, importantly, 

4)  much of this had happened in the relatively brief period of only 10-15 years. 

It does not require one to be expert in anything to realize that this dangerous trend will continue at a very much accelerated pace if a bridge was built.  Cars, and even motor cycles, are symbols of prestige for most people, not just a means of transportation.  (This is the case in the developed nations as well.)  Given people’s self-image and a mindset of comparing themselves with others, this situation will worsen at an increasing pace over time as they see more people having better symbols of prestige, thus a bridge across the channel will be like adding petrol to a smoldering fire.  Individuals can be excused for thinking about themselves and cannot be blamed for wanting comforts they perceive to be desirable.  Who would not want to own a car and take the family for a drive over the bridge and across the channel?  It ought to be the role of the government to foresee these trends and guide people in the right direction.  Instead, it is forging ahead most irresponsibly with what will be the biggest disaster the nation has ever seen – apart from losing our independence. 

In this regard, I applaud Dr Waheed (who had made the bridge a campaign slogan in his election bid due to its appeal to an unaware public) for his courage to drop the issue after learning from my article its disastrous consequences and choosing the nation’s best interest over personal gain.  And Mr Nasheed also, after having made an issue of the bridge early in his campaign, had dropped the issue later on, probably having wised-up about the damage such a bridge will cause. 

But this does not seem to be the case with the Mr Yameen, who seems to be unconcerned about the damage building the bridge will inflict on the nation.  This is in spite of having sent my article to him, and his deputy Dr Jameel (who wrote to me earlier of his appreciation for my writings) together with many others in his camp.  Winning municipal/parliamentary elections, now that he is elected President, at any cost to the nation seems to be Mr Yameen’s only goal.  

I am not in the least surprised at this irresponsible behaviour of Mr Yameen – he campaigned on a platform to carry on Mr Gayyoom’s policies (policy? – sic!) which were in large part damaging to this nation over the thirty years of his reign; many of them were no more than about bolstering his hollow “’izzaiytherikan,” despite repeated reminders of their damaging impacts on the nation! 

All this is besides the stupidity of it all!  To allow tall ships to pass under across the existing short spans would make the “bridge” look more like an arch, and would dwarf the entire existing cityscape and make it totally out of scale to the existing surroundings, which would make it the biggest eyesore in the entire nation!  If a scheme of an openable span is employed with an eye to reducing this downside, the risks associated with it is huge: any mishap to the mechanism may take days or weeks to repair, in part due to our poor technological and organizational capabilities, and disrupt our very livelihoods and bring the nation to a standstill or suffocate us to death; for we import virtually everything from abroad, from all types of food and medications to supplies to the tourism industry on the incomes from which the nation depends on its survival, and that is the only reasonable route for supplies to reach us.  If that route is blocked, only Allah would know the extent of the very dire consequences we'll face!   

And we are in urgent need to invest heavily in the rest of the nation to generate equitable growth – where would the money come from?  If foreigners are to be involved, does that mean we allow ourselves to be practically enslaved, given the huge weight of the bridge in relative terms?  This, again, is an aspect that only a few people have any inclination or mind to think about, let alone being simply aware of.  

Cost-benefit analysis of any project can take account of only calculable costs and benefits; it can say absolutely nothing about the multitude of non-monetizeable downsides arising from the project – which are devastatingly huge in our case, given our tiny and fragile islands.  (To get a better idea, go to Google Earth, locate Malé – 4°10' N, 73°35' E – and magnify the view.)  This can be clearly seen from the account given above: none of the downsides mentioned – which are the more significant costs of the bridge to us, namely, the cost to human health and impacts on our fragile physical environment – have been taken into account at all!   And mentioned above are only what I could foresee with certainty!  There is much else I could only feel intuitively but cannot grasp, thus are not mentioned.  (It was similar / equivalent downsides of leasing our Int'l Airport to Indians that my article "Viyafaari U'sool" was about, but downsides that are sociopolitical in nature rather than health-environmental; moreover, while the impacts of the bridge are easy to visualize given their immediate nature and our being currently immersed in their general environment, those of the former are stretched over time and therefore almost impossible to imagine, not to mention the illusiveness of sociopolitical issues.)  Businesses that undertake such projects are mostly interested in their bottomlines, not much else; these "else" are lumped together under the benign-sounding rubric of "externalities," which is a convenient and "politically correct" but misleading term.  This is not to say that they are out there to deceive people; given the intangibility of externalities, most people, including those businesses that come forward to undertake the tasks, often have little or no idea of these illusive aspects and thus it is easy for them to downplay their ill effects or disregard them altogether and still have a clear conscience.  (This, let it be noted, is usually the case, although I doubt very much that the negative impacts of our building a bridge would escape their notice – for it would be clear to even a blind person, literally – which means that those at the Government high office would also have sensed it, but such is the power of self-deceiving psychology that in view of the ass-kissing behaviour ingrained in them, the fact would not most likely have even surfaced to their conscious minds: their blindness is a direct outcome of perpetuating ass-kissing behaviour ; if not blindness, then a self-imposed desire to abide by that behaviour to both avoid repercussions for a dissenting view and curry favour***; see my article on importance of a positive sociopolitical atmosphere for effective national development, below.)  It is abundantly clear that we at the receiving end of such projects are burdened with a huge moral responsibility bordering on sacred to be vigilant about all costs, and not be taken in by just the monetary costs of projects handed over by the contractors.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
***  Generally speaking, ass-kissing behaviour is the norm in totalitarian nations, portrayed by a favourite example, “Napoleon is always right”; Napoleon being the pig depicting Stalin in George Orwell’s Animal Farm.  In the Maldives, apart from being influenced by a culturally-politically induced and perpetuated ass-kissing behaviour, the problem is also embedded in the simpleton mindsets arising in large part from the inability of people with specialized education to understand complex situations, which is the current global norm and involve a multitude of diverse & entwined aspects.   As such, this part of the problem is also a global phenomenon, the root causes of and a partial solution to which is outlined in some detail in the articles on my complementary blog: www.rifatafeef.blogspot.com.  

2 - Positive Socio-Political Atmosphere

A Positive Socio-Political Atmosphere:

A Necessary Condition for Effective Development

(An Open Memo to the New Maldives Government of 2013)

People are excited about the outcome of the election and it is easy to forget that effective development can happen only in an atmosphere conducive for meaningful action that enables positive outcomes.  I believe that most blunders of our recent past have been largely the result of: i) the lack of courage and foresight on the part of the person elected to the Office of the President to choose the right path/action; ii) sacrificing the interest of the nation to cater for personal egos, the craving arising from a feeling of insecurity and lack of self-confidence; and iii) the lack respect for the spirit of the times and behaviours arising from that lack. 

Three interrelated areas can be identified that encompass the above shortcomings:

### policy and/or action that will increase the chances for jeopardizing our independence;

### lack of respect for the spirit of people’s choices in 1932 and 1968, and behaviour thereof; and

### basing public policy on one’s limited thinking and not facing the responsibility to improve.

Elaborated below are aspects of these areas and policy conducive to rectifying these failings. 

One: Policy/Action That Can Jeopardize Our Independence in the Long Term:  Effective action in the realm of development cannot take place if policies pursued by the Government lead to jeopardizing our independence, which is a long-term outcome of current action.  Leasing strategic infrastructure of the nation to foreigners, particularly the Indians, is among such policy/action.  My article labelled “Viayafaari U’sool” treats the topic in detail and is attached for your convenience, although it has been sent to you earlier. 

Taking refuge in Indian Embassy by those who hope to hold high office (Yameen, Nasheed, others) during the disturbances in our political milieu is also among the kind of action that will lead to similar undesirable outcomes – for such action will invariably obligate a price for the services rendered, and given that most of those who undertook such action don’t have own assets to make payments, the easiest path would be (as is usually the case) to give concessions on our strategic interests!  The nation should not be made to pay with its independence for benefits received by individuals for any reason!  Under the circumstances, given that currently there is such an obligation which would in all likelihood be paid by such concessions that would endanger our long term independence, I suggest, however unpleasant the proposal may come across, that the debt be paid by a means that will not jeopardize our independence in the long term – as leasing an island on the usual terms for resort development.  This is a better option than deceiving ourselves by pretending that a price that would otherwise endanger our independence will not be paid for that deplorable lack of foresight!  

For those in the know, engaging in the development process while the nation is headed for its virtual demise is like trying to arrange deck chairs of Titanic while the Captain is adamantly keeping its bearing towards an immense ice berg; their outcomes being foregone conclusions.    

Two: Lack of Respect by Those in High Office for the Spirit of the Times – represented, in particular, by the declarations by the people in both 1932 and 1968 to forego the hereditary monarchy and to let “their affairs be conducted among themselves by mutual consultation” (The Koran 42:38).  Yet the elected heads of state and senior officials appointed by them are deliberately disrespectful to those declarations!  A good example of this attitude is the policy by the Government, which has become sacred standard for our media: those even in the lowest rungs of Government would “vidhaalhuvaanee” while anyone outside it, even those scientists respected globally such as Albert Einstein, would “bunaanee” (to maintain the pretence of fairness and thus help instil the idea in the public mind, it is applied to anyone in any government).  This self-serving scheme of belittling those not working in governments and thus by inference bestowing upon themselves a “hollow haibathufulhu” was begun by Mr Gayyoom, which his successors, both Mr Nasheed and Dr Waheed, pursued with zeal, since it benignly served their psychological needs, which has to do with covering up their inability to perform their jobs satisfactorily, as if a “hollow haibathufulhu” is a substitute for incompetence!  I reminded Mr Gayyoom repeatedly of the damage self-serving/aggrandizing behaviours (which blatantly violate the spirit of the declarations by the people in 1932 and 1968, and, importantly, spirit of the times we live in today in which getting thing done calls for participation of a wide range of people, be they in or out of the Government) beget the nation, but to no avail!  (See attached “Preamble” and “Attitude Change”)  The flattering image such behaviour creates seems more important than pursuing the nation’s best interest! 

We should understand that such self-aggrandizing attitudes belonged to a past bygone era – the era of the hereditary monarchy. An essential difference between then and now is that then everything in the nation was at the disposal of “Radhun” or “Ranikamanaa.”  Accordingly, values systematically inculcated in the public were characterized by servitude; ass-kissing behaviour being a core element of this milieu.  Even a strange dialect was invented to set them apart from the rest!  Such policies were easy to implement in the prevailing poor conditions then, as the means of survival for many were thru Government.  The importance of people’s declarations of 1932 and 1968 is that they have made the past era obsolete.  And economic development has loosened the grip of the Government, reducing its control over the masses.  Yet it is those self-serving values that are being instilled in the public thru the media by our democratically elected Governments – as if we’re still in the days of the monarchy and getting elected/appointed to office gives them similar rights!

Even the root cause of incidents of “police brutality” can be traced to this self-aggrandizing attitude of the Government.  Humans are by nature aggressive, which tendency is kept under automatic check by the societal values inculcated in them aimed at living in a harmonious society.  We should remember that values influence attitudes and behaviours at subconscious/unconscious levels, and thus it will be in vain that one can try to pursue a behaviour that is in conflict with one’s values.  Thus when values instilled in the members of the police force in effect say “those in the government are the important people and the rest are nobody,” it is those values that become internalized in them, and their behaviour would reflect those values.  Thus the motto “Protect & Serve” that decorates the uniforms of the members of the police force becomes just a decoration, and a misleading one at that.  High moral standards implied by “Protect & Serve” cannot be inculcated in members of the police force while the Government is adamant on inculcating contradictory values in the public at large, of which individuals of the police force are members, and thus the police force will not be able to pursue its moral responsibility as it ought to.  Inappropriate and undesirable values instilled in people would inevitably lead to correspondingly inappropriate and undesirable behaviours.  

Building a better society (which is what development is all about) cannot happen if the prevailing socio-political atmosphere is characterized by inappropriate self-serving policies.  At a basic level, development implies the pursuit of a condition that is perceived to be better.  This cannot happen if people, particularly those in the Government responsible for getting things moving in the right direction, are unable to talk about the situation frankly, without being apprehensive of damages that might occur to them if they did.  The way things are now in our volatile circumstances created by party politics and insecure rulers, the focus of most of those at senior levels of the Government is to adopt behaviours that will secure their jobs, and with good reason: recent events have shown that there is no guarantee to job security.  Adopting a self-preserving stance would not be difficult at all for a people brought up in an ass-kissing culture!  Actually, it is nothing new, but has been much aggravated recently by our new-found “democracy” and party politics.  Guess what happens to their performance if they are unable to think beyond holding onto their jobs, if the path for their productive interaction with colleagues and others is choked by the system!  This is the new reality in our fast-changing world when we are in urgent need to find solutions to conditions that are fast becoming obsolete! 

It is clear that the sociopolitical atmosphere pervaded by self-serving/aggrandizing attitudes by Government is not conducive for meaningful development to take place.  Therefore, if such development is desired, it is necessary for the Government to bring the values and behaviours it pursues and propagates in line with the realities of the times, not to mention declarations made by the people in both 1932 and 1968. 

Three: Basing Public Policy on One’s Limited Knowledge and Adamant Refusal to Learn:  Part of this problem lies in that public/development policy is broad, multifaceted, and intertwined on the one hand, and on the other that the specialized education one can obtain through the world education system is only partial and thus limited.  Add to these limitations the intricacies arising from the local context and the complexity of policy formulation becomes enormous.  (This problem is not limited to the Maldives but manifests globally; an account of roots of this problem and action to counter some of the downsides arising from it on a global scale is given in my writings online at www.rifatafeef.blogspot.com.)  The other part of the problem is that the Government is oblivious to the challenges arising from this situation and goes about adopting any surmise by anyone as valid policy; this behaviour being much aggravated if those involved have university educations, making them feel that “they know it all,” much like the “frog in the well.”   In spite of repeated explanations of the impossibility of devising valid policy the way they go about now (see below) there has been little inclination to date to face reality and adopt the right methodology of formulating policy.

Given the many areas comprising of development policy, the flawed conclusion most people jump to is this: “If policy involves so many specialities, then we’ll get people knowledgeable in those areas to discuss the issue among themselves and they’ll come up with the right policy.”  It may sound like systematic thinking, but the approach will not work (even if adopted, which people usually don’t but rely on some person’s self-proclaimed pseudo-knowledge).  To understand why it will not work, we need some facilitative background. 

We all understand that the ability of a physician (as medical doctors are called nowadays) to cure an illness depends on how well he or she had mastered the profession of medicine, besides the availability of required facilities and medications.  Similarly, the ability of a structural engineer to do a good job depends on his or her mastery of that profession.  The physician understands his/her profession and the engineer understands his/her profession.  We all know that much.  Here is the tricky part most people find difficult to comprehend: neither the physician nor the engineer has any meaningful knowledge about the other’s specialized area, thus neither can speak meaningfully with the other about either medicine or engineering.  And it is the same story with, say, an economist and a sociologist, or a financier and a psychologist, and so on.  In short, those specialized in all areas are in the same boat: they don’t have a common language to talk meaningfully with another person of a different specialization.  Thus getting people of different backgrounds together is a useless endeavour.  In fact, it is a highly misleading endeavour, as we are usually under mistaken belief that gathering people of different specializations can produce viable development policy and thus go about adopting the outcomes of such processes as valid policy.  We are faced with a difficult dilemma here: those of different specializations cannot converse meaningfully with others in a different field, while policy making involves many specialized fields and is highly complex. 

But the problem can be overcome if a single individual has mastered, or at least has acquired the basics of, the central areas of development planning; this will enable the integration of fragmented and disjointed info into a coherent and meaningful synthesis.  And that is precisely what I had done over the past 24 years, by sacrificing, basically, all else.  Having gained sufficient background by 1999, I suggested to Mr Gayyoom that I acquaint those involved in the Government policy process (those at technical levels of the ministries involved and Cabinet and Parliament members – those involved both in formulating/implementing plans and in deciding on them) with the basics of development.  But he could not see the need for such an endeavour.  Having tried repeatedly to convince him of the crucial importance of that endeavour to get things moving in the right direction, and failing, I took the issue to the Parliament, with equally deplorable results.  Attached is the letter I sent to the MPs, individually, in April 2005, labelled “Majlis Letter One”; attached is also a summary of that letter which I later sent to Mr Gayyoom, labelled “Last Explanation.” 

To help move policy in the right direction, I am willing to undertake such an explanation to the members of the new government, along with those of the Parliament; not that it will make them experts on development (in any case, I can provide only the basics of the most central aspects) but it will help guide their discussions along technically viable lines; current discussions being not only ineffective but actually misleading.  If the endeavour is deemed worthwhile, two vital points need be noted: i) for best results, the presentation should take place before people get busy formulating any kind of plans; for changing the direction (insights gained through the presentation will make a real difference to their thinking; it is not just a talk show) after efforts start gaining momentum will be most frustrating and thus unwelcome; and ii) the presentation overheads are in need of a major revision, which will take at least three weeks to complete, and I must start revising them ahead of that time, which requires my being informed of a decision in time so that that schedule can be kept. 

It should be clear that neither adopting surmises nor getting people of different specialities together can produce valid policy; some such “policy” being worse than none at all – for reasons given, such policy is likely to lead us in the wrong direction, as can be seen by past blunders that resulted thru similar processes.  Therefore if better outcomes are desired, those engaged in the process (both in formulation/implementation of plans and in decision making) must have an understanding of the basic concepts; otherwise they will not do any better than blind Yehya trying to catch crows!  (By the way, some of the basic concepts dealt with in my presentation are not at all clear to those who have been engaged in teaching development for a lifetime!)  

Conclusion

The preceding has made it abundantly clear that the attitude and mindset of the person elected to the Office of the President, and those of the senior officers appointed by that person to high office as well as members of the Parliament, are crucial factors that can hinder (or facilitate) development.  Rather than adopting right policies, the trend to-date has been to wipe successive blunders under the carpet and eye-wash the public.  

For example, economic growth happens when money coming from outside a region facilitates creating new economic activities in the region.  Thus growth in the Maldives is a direct result of those activities that bring in foreign currency from abroad, namely, tourism and fisheries, currently; these are activities undertaken by the private sector.  This makes clear the extent to which the Government’s claims to our growth are false. What did the Government do to help develop the most important sector in our economy?  The airports are, of course, important; so is the Hotel School, to a lesser extent.  But did the Government, for example, help get finance for the development of any resort (apart from Sun Island) which is the most important factor in that sector’s growth?  This is when local developers have to beg for finance from foreign sources, putting themselves in hugely disadvantageous positions!  And yet the Government is quick to take all the credit for our development!  Politicians shamelessly boast: “Alhugandumen midhekey thara’q’qeege sirrakee …”  What a load of (self-serving) crap!  Just because someone happened to be sitting in the right chair at the right time does not mean that that person can take credit for outcomes that others had achieved with their hard work!  

More importantly, we are all aware of the damage done by politicians’ misguided actions – like the growth of foreign workers to more than a third of our population within just 20 years due to wrong dual policies of the Government regarding both population and education, when the right policies were clear; the continued congestion of Malé arising from the repeated wrong policies (thinking in every round “This time we’ll catch the crow!”) when the right policies are clear; leasing strategic assets to foreigners, particularly Indians, which will most likely jeopardize our independence; and so on.  Current “policy making” is more akin to the age-old adage “moyaehge athah kandieh dhinun …” – they just don’t know what the hell they are doing!  

On the positive side, the above also has given us a good idea of the improvements that can happen if those in high office acquired the courage to change their attitudes and behaviours – by being aware of the damage they are inflicting on the nation and learning to behave responsibly, than being driven by self-interest above all else.  Mustering such courage will most likely lead to opening the door for adopting the right policies. 

On reflection, since the urge of the rulers to set themselves apart from the people and control them by placing them under their thumbs arises from their craving for respect, it is ironical that they can't comprehend that by respecting people as human beings and citizens with inalienable rights, they can achieve that end!  This is not only the spirit of the declarations of the people in both 1932 and 1968, it is also the spirit of the times we live in.  In today's complex world in which education is specialized and without any common language for discussing issues, betterment can happen only if people can interactively surmount limitations arising from it by exchanging ideas without the fear of persecution; measures to create barriers and perpetuate ass-kissing attitudes will certainly stifle such efforts and force them to regress to destructive self-preserving behaviours.  

********************************************
Preamble

(From personal letter to President Gayyoom on November 16, 2002)

Please recall: In the first letter I wrote to US Government trying to obtain a scholarship (Oct 1987) I stated two sides to the development equation: a technical/practical/pragmatic side and a personal/political/leadership side, as follows:

The specific sequence of actions that could be taken towards making it happen (getting the situation moving on a positive track towards desired goals) starts with an awareness of intricacies and dimensions of the situation (the technical side of the equation) together with a sincere and strong political will (the leadership side). 

Central to leadership is that it is different from mere ruling.  Positive leadership is backed by technically viable thinking.  It leads people towards national goals, not self-destruction.  (That’s where we are headed, on a roller-coaster.)  Leadership is based on the reality of the world we live in (it has its built-in nature/rules; it’s not dependant upon what someone might think it is).  In SE & EAsia, for example, it is positive leadership that is behind every success story, while in South Asia it is the lack of such leadership (“democratic” or otherwise) that keeps peoples in misery.  It’s leading, not merely ruling (by consensus or not), that makes the difference.  

Significantly, it is the thinking that is not rooted in the nature and realities of both the epoch we are living in and our small and fragile country that blocks the path of viable policy, and thus constitutes a prime cause of why things go wrong.  And the more things go wrong, the more important appearances tend to become.  This is a never-ending vicious circle.   Correcting current political thinking is therefore vital if we are to break this vicious circle and put things on the right track.  

Correcting the current thinking has two sides: a technical side (which is addressed by my presentation) and a personal or leadership side.  The following focuses on the personal side.  It is only when the personal side is addressed constructively that there is a likely chance for a real leadership to emerge. .............  

********************************************
Attitude Change

(From personal letter to President Gayyoom on December 16, 2006)

................................................  

To reiterate what has been said many times over, I believe that we cannot get things on the right track before we manage to get the basics/fundamentals right. 

Among the basics is respect for the spirit of the twin declarations made by the people of this country – in 1932 to adopt a parliament and a constitutional monarchy in lieu of a hereditary monarchy, and subsequently, in 1968, to adopt the republican form of government.  But I believe such respect is not reflected in the behaviour of a person holding the Office of the President going in front of the Parliament whose members are elected by a direct vote of the people of this country, and addressing them in the “ahuren bunaa” language.  And, as I have mentioned sometime back, such behaviour reflects a blatant lack of respect not only for the people of this country but also for the very office you are holding – this is not to mention its reflecting a lamentable lack of awareness of the nature of the world we are living in today.  This deplorable state is further aggravated by the demand for respect for one’s own self, forgetting the fact that respect for a person holding your job is deserving to the extent of one’s doing a commendable job, which includes, among other things, facilitating the nation to tread the right path, instead of neglecting a long-deteriorating situation and refusing change.  

As can be inferred from the above paragraph, among the basics are also, on the one hand, understanding the nature of the world we are living in (and that we are only at a juncture on a timeline continuum) and, on the other, adopting attitudes and behaviour that are in harmony with that reality.  Aspects of this reality include the facts that we are a nation of small and fragile islands; that our population is a small and dispersed one; that we have a very small economy; and due to these (and other related factors), that we cannot adopt attitudes/behaviours that we see elsewhere.  But these realities cannot be faced while the foremost priority of the head of state is about building a personality cult!!  Take a second example: that of TVM and VoM reciting “Raeesul Jumhooriyya” immediately after the mention of Allah!!  Is this a proclamation of your quasi-divinity!?  There is no scope for feigning innocence here, if only for the many times I pointed out that you choose what is more important: either your own grandeur or interest of the nation (interests of one are in conflict with those of the other), and you have very clearly shown by your behaviour what your choice has been to-date!! 

Changing such improper attitudes/behaviour is, therefore, a necessary condition for the situation to be able to transform in the right direction.  And without changing such misguided attitudes/behaviour as a starting point and restoring the spirit of the above-mentioned twin declarations towards creating a sociopolitical climate conducive for positive/fruitful outcomes, we just cannot realize the much-needed policy changes integral to setting the situation right on the path of achieving broader national goals. 

Most societal problems don’t resolve by themselves.  When neglected/ignored (wiped under the carpet), they tend to manifest in other forms, each feeding on others; current unrest is illustrative of this.  Each situation thus tends to expand in scope and intensity – with the ultimate result of the collapse of the whole system.  And things just don’t happen automatically when committees or new ministries are created and fancy (but irrelevant) names are given them every other year, or when lofty speeches are made from stages – as if Allah Almighty is commanding from on high!!  For an insight into how things get done in today’s dynamic world (identifying root causes of problems, and finding viable and holistic solutions that are sustainable), see p #3, pa #2 of the paper titled “On the Nature of Planning” – on the mini-CD I sent you. ........…

                                                                           ********************************************

                                                                          ********************************************

Anyone skeptical of my concerns about Indian territorial interests in the Maldives might want to examine the coin below and compare it with the map below that.  A nation as paranoid about territory as India would not issue coins with maps that violate other nations’ territories just “by an innocent mistake.”  To the benefit of the unaware (or feel comfortable being ignorant), it might be mentioned that the inhabitants of the south western part of what is now "India" (there was no unified "India" then) occupied the Maldives in the mid eighteenth century but were driven out just after three months.  That the present nation of India would be interested in the Maldives is not surprising, given its strategic location in the Indian Ocean.  The Maldives was a British protectorate from 1887 to 1965 (which in fact might have saved it from the recurrence of the earlier fate, namely, being reoccupied by the inhabitants of south western "India," in which case there would not be an independent Maldives today); the Portuguese occupied the Maldives in mid sixteenth century for 17 years before driven out; the Dutch, who replaced the Portuguese in the region, also had an interest in the Maldives but did not occupy it directly.  Currently, the US also has an interest in the Maldives, but of a different kind; given that it now has a military presence just south of the Maldives in Diego Garcia, its basic concern is in keeping the Maldives neutral and preventing it from falling under the influence of another power, global or regional, thus to that extent at least, there is shared interest between the Maldives and the US.  It is also worth mentioning to the unaware of / uninitiated to the nuances of international politics that today, more often than not, bigger nations influence smaller ones not by direct occupation, especially if there are other thugs around and with bigger sticks, but by a slow process extended over the years of gradual socioeconomic strangulation with an ever tightening noose until their lives as independent nations are wholly squeezed out.  Thus fighting / resisting after the fact instead of far-thinking and wise policies will be futile.  The tragic stories of Palestine and Hawaii are just two of the many instructive cases, for both of them went under primarily by their own stupidity and the simplistic thinking of their own rulers.  Thus if the Maldives wants to continue as an independent nation, it better have the brains both not to be trapped into any of the many fatal pitfalls and be able to plan ahead wisely so that it can continue to exist as an independent nation.  But based on the bird-brained policies of successive recent governments in the Maldives, our prospects are anything but bleak.  

The line separating the northern territory of the Maldives from India is indicated by the dotted line highlighted in purple above the label "Eight Degree Channel."  Compare this with the extent to which to which the dots on the coin protrude down into the territory of the Maldives.  (Also please note the coin's top area: the Kashmir region as well as the area bordering China: it is what India considers to be its territory.)  (I also have several atlases that came through Indian sellers stamped with proclamations to the effect that the maps in them are "neither correct nor authentic.")  A nation as obsessed with its borders as India and makes a fuss about any map that does not conform to its version of the borders does not go about doing this kind of things by mistake.  It is possible that the guilty party is the Indian Mint and that the authorities merely turned a blind eye to the issue.  And there are coins bearing dates of numerous years, not only 1998, in current circulation.