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. 

1 - Hulhumalé and the Bridge

Development of Hulhumalé and Bridge Across the Channel                       

Memo to President Dr Waheed from Rifat Afeef
(The original memo was dated January 25, 2013)

The primary purpose of this memo is to comment on government plans to develop Hulhumalé as a full-fledged satellite of Malé and build a connecting bridge.  Both these plans will be extremely damaging to the future of this nation.  Discussed below are the reasons for this statement. 

[Before reading any further, I suggest that you read Appendix first: it explains some basics of development and related issues about which the majority of people (in particular those with related degrees and who consider themselves knowledgeable of the topic) have a rather confused perception.  I would thus emphasize that Appendix is in a way equally important as the body of the memo itself, since without a sound understanding of the basics of the topic, which are treated in it in simple terms, efforts to understand the full and long-term implications of this memo is unlikely to yield its full benefits.] 

Regarding the development of Hulhumalé as a full-fledged satellite of Malé, we have to take account of important strategic aspects seemingly unrelated to Hulhumalé itself.  Our development is dependent on foreign currency, the sources of which, at the moment, are only tourism and fisheries.  And contrary to popular belief, these two industries could be expanded only to a limited extent, in spite of there being many islands suitable for such development and our having an EEZ of 90,000 square kilometres. 

There are a number of important aspects that need be considered in this regard – among them: i) the job opportunities available in the economy both currently and in the foreseeable future (at least 50% of them are now low-skilled and would be thus in the near future); ii) the lack of interest of GCE holders to work in such low-skilled jobs, and rightly so (please refer to the appendix of the attached article for detail, and my article labelled “Education Curriculum, More Effective” for further detail – the latter emailed to you in mid-2010); and iii) the long-term devastating impacts of the above two factors.  (Just like an ill functioning organ of the human body will adversely affect the whole body, a dis-eased part of the economy will adversely affect the whole economy and therefore the wellbeing of the entire nation.) 

Thus we are in great need to find: i) new sources for generating foreign currency, and ii) the kind of jobs that are more appealing to young people with GCE.  (The latter will help to get the youth off the streets, not to mention drugs, and will pay handsome dividends from both the social and economic standpoints.) 

The development of Hulhumalé as a light industry complex (relying on the competitive advantage that may accrue from that development due to both the airport and Hulhumalé being on the same land mass and close together and both being close by to Malé, the only large urban centre in the Maldives for the foreseeable future) will go a long way to achieve the two objectives identified above, namely, generating foreign currency and adding semiskilled job opportunities to the economy, both in significant numbers.  And to do so effectively, the bulk of the area has to be assigned for this purpose.  For several reasons, no other area in the nation currently has the potential to be developed to achieve those outcomes.  

It is thus clear that the currently envisaged development of Hulhumalé as an extension of Malé will permanently jeopardize the opportunity we have now to diversify our economy.  There are other areas that can be reclaimed and developed for that purpose.  Embudu Finolhu, for example, is large and about the same distance from Malé as is Hulhumalé (although it is across the Vaadhoo channel – but given the damaging potential of the envisaged bridge (see below) this is not a relevant factor) and could be easily and feasibly developed for the purpose, leaving Hulhumalé to be developed to its full potential.  

[The idea of reclaiming Hulhulé-Farukolhufushi reef (now called “Hulhumalé”) was officially proposed to the government in 1983 by OPPD in an annex of the report for developing Guraabu Thundi for Malé International Harbour, which was then located where Jumhoori Maidhaan is now and lacked the scope for expansion.  Delegating this to an annex was not due to its lack of importance but because it was not part of the Terms of Reference of the consultant who undertook the task, and which itself was part of a larger UNDP funded and UNCHS supported project to develop Malé Capital Region, and which was run under my direction.  (The design of Malé roads was a second successful subproject; it was meant to be an experimental design and yet was implemented over 30 years with hardly any improvement!)] 

A second vital aspect (following the designation of Hulhumalé for the purpose mentioned) is with whom we should partner to develop the area, since we cannot do it alone.  This is a critically important issue, not only due to the difference it can make for specifics of the project itself, but more importantly, due to the difference it would make in the long-term positive spill-off into the development of the entire nation; this can be viewed as huge positive externality.  If handled with insight and correctly, the endeavour has potential to accrue enormous benefits and may even change our whole outlook on development itself. 

[Unfortunately, the reach of the mind of those sitting behind desks in high office and have a decisive say in such important matters do not go beyond immediate concerns; interconnectedness of the economy and impacts arising thereof are beyond their comprehension.  (It was precisely this issue that was dealt with in the attached article "Viyafaari U'sool.")  Their thinking is limited to theories they have studied at college and do not realize that there is a lot more to theories in the real/practical world.  They mostly hear people talk of “commercialization” and “foreign investment” and have no awareness that those phrases represent only one side of the coin.  This is not to say that theories are wrong; only that they are just that: theories, which are simplified versions of reality, not reality itself.  Thus while they might know an architectural model, for example, is not a real building, they don’t seem to understand that the economic models they study at college are not the real thing either, but just as abstract concepts of some reality.] 

Returning to the topic at hand, I am particularly concerned about who would partner with us to develop Hulhumalé, in particular since I heard that a Turkish company may have been chosen for the job.  (When I heard the news, my immediate reaction was: “Oh my God, What kind of idiots are those taking these decisions!”)  And if there is corruption involved – that someone is getting a cut from the deal – I urge you to intervene decisively before it is too late, before a greedy official sitting behind a desk jeopardizes our future potential!  It is commendable that the Indians have been gotten rid of, if they have been gotten rid of; for they form the biggest threat to this nation (see the attached article labelled "Viyafaari U'sool" which treats the topic in detail).   But a smaller blunder by comparison is still a blunder and an expensive one at that, and is not excusable, even if going with Turks is unlikely to threaten our long-term future, which is the case with the Indians.   

The question thus becomes, whom should we take as partners for the development of Hulhumalé.  To my mind, one nation stands out when our long-term strategic goals are taken into account and the project viewed from a long-term perspective, and that nation is Singapore.  Sometime before the former government decided to give the airport to GMR, I met the official in charge of its technical aspects, and when I protested giving the airport to GMR and put forth my argument to get the Singaporeans in, his answer was that they did not respond to the international tender put forth for the purpose!  He had no clue that people do not call for any tenders, international or otherwise, regarding crucial strategic assets such as a nation’s international airport; such an endeavour calls for dialogue at the high-levels of the government! 

I believe that Singapore had a keen desire for active cooperation with us more than 30 years ago, when Mr Gayyoom visited there in 1982.  Unfortunately, he had no notion of such long term thinking; all he did was put forth a begging bowl seeking free handouts!  (This was the same behaviour he had while a graduate student in Cairo in the late 1960s; it may be the correct behaviour at the time, but he could not comprehend the fact that he was now the head of state of a nation and not merely a student!)  30 years is a long time and Singapore has made gigantic strides on the development path, and it might no longer be interested in the Maldives.  But it is worth a try.  And if it does, we would be very lucky indeed! 

It should be kept in mind that the development of Hulhulé-Hulhumalé is long-term strategic concern and involves long term and vital interests of both nations.  It is not just a commercial project and should not be treated as such.  And the issue should be discussed at the highest levels, and not via some tender! 

There are several reasons why Singapore is the ideal candidate for the purpose and Turkey (or any other nation) is not.  Again, looking at the process from the long-term standpoint, Singapore can help us in our development process on multiple fronts, not just with regard to the development of Hulhulé-Hulhumalé alone.  This has multiple aspects: i) technical know-how; ii) financial prowess; iii) transparency and lack of corruption; and iv) long-term relations.  On all these and other fronts, Singapore has overwhelming advantages over a nation like Turkey, which is basically a Third World country unable to cope with its own problems, which are plenty.  As explained, development of the area to achieve the goals identified above mandates taking account of the multiple ways in which the project will affect long-term development of the whole nation.  Envisaged is a development project, not a commercial one.  (See Appendix for the fundamental difference between development projects undertaken by a nation and commercial projects undertaken by a corporation; their goals are decisively and definitely not the same.) 

Finally, it will be a mistake to think that current ills of Malé could be tamed by designating Hulhumalé a suburb of Malé.  This was the same kind of thinking the government had in the mid-1980s regarding the overcrowding of Malé – it embraced the concept of population control, ignoring saner and far-thinking voices that argued that we are a small economy and development requires a large population; that population cannot be increased at will after it has declined.  30 years later, we are now burdened with the disastrous results of that short-term thinking!  Likewise, current problems will not go away by making Hulhumalé a residential suburb of Malé!  In fact, it will make things worse, since it will act as a bigger magnet and will draw more people from the rest of the nation in increasing numbers as long as the rest of the nation remains in a deprived state.  Easing pressure on Malé therefore requires the development of the rest of the nation at an accelerated pace.  Crucially, there is a right way of going about such development and many wrong ways; the latter will largely drain scarce resources while exacerbating the original problem.

Regarding the building of a bridge from Malé to Hulhulé, again we have to think long-term and not be preoccupied merely with solving immediate problems.  Let us take a look at the current situation of the built-environment in Malé, which trend is likely to continue into the future and at an accelerated pace.  The whole island is being built up, leaving merely the 20% taken up by the roads and just a handful of open spaces.  And this build-up is happening in a most alarming way: multistory structures are being stacked up adjacent to each other with hardly scope for proper air circulation in the city as a whole.  The island is already congested with motor vehicles, having happened over a relatively short period of time.  Exhaust fumes emitted by the variety of motor vehicles (which include numerous poisonous gases such as 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) has already made the general environment unhealthy to live.  This is the condition of the most essential element for us to be alive: the air we breathe.  Further, one can hardly find a parking place on the congested roads of Malé, and simply moving about on them has become dangerous to life and limb.  This is just a brief description of the aggravated current situation, which evolved over the relatively short period of 10 - 15 years.  The current trend will continue, and will become increasingly worse over the coming years.  No amount of tree planting can counter this increasingly hazardous and congested built-environment. 

Now, what will happen if a bridge is built?  Pressure to own motor vehicles, particularly four wheeled types will increase by leaps and bounds.  Cars, and even motor cycles, are symbols of prestige for most people, not merely a means of transportation.  (This is the case in developed nations as well, though to a lesser extent in relative terms.)  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) a bridge across the channel will be much like adding petrol to a smoldering fire.  There are those who think that all ills can be solved with more regulations.  They do not want to learn from past mistakes, and they forget the dynamic nature of the world we live in today – under the best current conditions, more regulations will get them kicked out of office! (And they can’t comprehend that opinions of those who know are not equal to those of who do not!  Even The Koran says so, explicitly!)  

It is amazing that those who talk of building bridges don’t have a presence of mind to see the situation around them right now; it does not need a leap of imagination to see what will happen in the very near future.  Thus there is good reason to wonder if they are insane not to grasp the results their actions will bring!  Individuals think about themselves and cannot be blamed for wanting comforts they perceive as desirable.  Who would not want to own a car and take the family for a drive over the bridge across the channel?  It is the role of the Government to foresee these trends and guide people in the right direction.  Instead, it is acting most irresponsibly – by planning to lead people over a bridge to their own graves! 

Appendix

As stated at the outset, understanding some of the basic concepts related to development is necessary to be able to fully understand this memo and many other aspects of everyday life; it will also allow one to meaningfully participate in many social forums – whether in informal conversations on issues or formal decision making – while enabling to weed out much of the BS we hear in such forums and hence avoid being simply misled or persuaded to lend support to or take part in making the wrong kind of decisions. 

We shall begin at the very beginning and proceed step by step, and define development simply as “the continued improvement in the access to the necessities of life, in addition to a better state of the natural and human-made environments and the scope for meaningful participation in one’s political culture.” 

And to simplify matters and outline basic principles, we shall limit our discussion to the italicized part of this definition, namely, access to the necessities of life.  (In reality, without this part being fulfilled, the remaining part will not be of much value – for example, someone who is starving or homeless will not be in a position to care much about one’s environment or be involved in any political culture.) 

“Access to necessities of life” in its turn has two sides to it: having money to buy them and their being available to buy.  These two aspects are intrinsically entwined, and (basic) development happens to the extent that those two conditions are fulfilled.  Let us take the second aspect first – availability.

Availability of goods and services to the general public happens when someone provides them, and that someone is usually the private sector.  Now, the primary motivator for the private sector is profit.  There is nothing wrong with this; selling what one can produce best (be it a good like the kind available in any shop or a service like the expertise of a physician) at a profit and buying with the money gained one’s all other necessities is the norm on which all modern economies function.  We can conclude that it is due to a well-functioning private sector that people are able to access goods and services they desire – which is one aspect arising from our definition of “development.”  The other aspect arising from this definition or money, or jobs through which money is earned, happens when the private sector functions properly and provision happens – since provision leads to employment or earnings.  And to simplify the description of the development process, we shall limit our discussion here, once again, to the provision aspect alone.  Naturally, the right policies by the government will enhance both aspects and facilitate development. 

It is obvious that if there is no scope for profit, there will not be a significant private sector to provide the goods and services that people need, in particular their more advanced kind.  Such is the case in the outlying atolls of the Maldives, as people don't have sufficient buying power, meaning money to spend, and as populations are small and lack sufficient mass to generate scale economies.  And since the people do not have access to goods and services, even the most basic ones, they are labelled “undeveloped.”

It is clear that if people in such undeveloped areas are to have access to even their basic necessities, then someone must provide them, and not on a “commercial” basis.  This someone is the government in most cases.  Recall our early schools (Majeediyya and Ameeniyya) and health services (Central Hospital – now ADK); they were financed solely from the government's budget and people had access (although limited spatially) to those respective basic necessities.  In the relatively developed Malé now, the government can gradually minimize its role in those areas where the private sector can function in a self-supporting manner, and that is precisely what today's picture shows.  But this is not the case in the outer lying areas, and the government has to play an active role if people in those areas are to have basic necessities.  (And to do so requires organizations like STO, MTCC, and BML, even at a loss commercially – as their basic mandate is more important.)  But given that the government cannot, and should not, go on doing this for ever, forced development of those areas becomes necessary.  Thus adopting right policies to rectify this deficiency and converting those areas that cannot support a well-functioning private sector to areas that can is the primary purpose of development policy – while temporarily taking the slack or filling the void arising from the lack of a well-functioning private sector.  It is clear that the perception people have about government intervention as efforts to cater people freely and indefinitely is a most misguided one.  Unfortunately, our current efforts are more like Yehya's behaviour than sensible and consistent policy – as they are not based on any sound theoretical understanding of the dynamics of the processes involved. 

The above is sufficient to show that mere “commercialization” without any thought to the complexities involved will create more problems than they solve (not to mention the suffering that such blind policy will produce) and that those who trump such dogma do not know what the hell they are talking about!  

The discussion above also makes the primary role of public enterprises abundantly clear.  The fact that such enterprises have a profit-making role is a secondary concern, though it may be an important one.  This importance arises not so much from its contribution to the government’s budget as from the fact that the government, already burdened with numerous demands, cannot continue to support them in their basic and mandated roles indefinitely.  Therefore making profit where they can is important to the extent that they can cross-subsidize and work in those areas where they cannot make a profit without burdening the government.  We saw above that this is necessary for the development of the rest of the economy.  It is well and good if they can make contributions to the government’s budget (which would help ease the burden on it due to the demands from other sectors) but the basic mandate of such public enterprises or the very purpose for which they were established in the first place should not be compromised. 

Unfortunately, this broad and important purpose of public enterprises is lost on most people, including those in government high office.  To their limited thinking, especially those who return with degrees in related fields from abroad fresh from universities (where such differences are usually not taught) public enterprises that do not make a profit have to be scraped!  Inexperienced young people who return with such degrees and are appointed for one reason or another as CEOs of those very enterprises have the same ignorant attitude!  It was not once or twice that I saw them proclaim on TV that the most important goal of the enterprises they head is increasing shareholder value, which boils down to maximizing profit.  (I believe that such people should be removed from those jobs regardless of what advanced degrees they may have or what political connections; they can cool their heels somewhere else until they gain enough experience or, more importantly, clarity of understanding of the purpose of those enterprises.)  This is not to say that bureaucracy and inefficiency, not to mention corruption, are to be tolerated, though we know that these characteristics are often associated with them.  In my opinion, such deficiencies do not arise from the inappropriateness of their basic mandates but from mismanagement; the lack of clarity of goals being a crucial reason for such mismanagement.  This in its turn arises from the fact that such guidance should have come from the government agency mandated for that purpose, but which agency itself is so confused about its own role in the national economy that it cannot even guide itself, let alone be able to guide someone else to the right path!  (See my 1998 memo labelled “Plan’g Min Role Redirection.”) 

We can see from the above discussion that there is a crucial difference between public enterprises and their commercial cousins – the primary goal of public enterprises is not just profit making above all else, whereas it is the basic purpose of commercial enterprises.  As would be clear, there is nothing wrong with profit maximization; it would also be clear that it is a well-functioning private sector that is responsible for what we call “development.”  It is, however, important to remember that there is a certain path that should be taken before an undeveloped nation can transform itself into a developed one.  Those who have studied only theories in institutions of higher education and lack the relevant knowledge and experience ought to know that this has been the most crucial factor for those nations that we now call “developed.”  For example, World War II had decimated virtually all European industries and it was the establishment of government funded, and run, public enterprises that helped those nations to get on their feet.  In the USA, it was the construction of interstate highways that enabled it to grow and be the world leader, and they were federally funded and maintained, even now!  The four East Asian “Tigers” – South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore – did not grow and catapult to world fame by relying solely on the private sector; their private industries were heavily subsidized and/or otherwise supported by their governments.  Even corporations like Airbus and Boeing (regardless of what the latter claims about its free market practices) are subsidized by huge research grants and defence contracts.  And yet while those who come with degrees fresh from universities talk loud about corporations, they do not seem to have a clue about how the real world works but keep making ignorant statements and misleading others!  

In sum, public enterprises in developing nations cannot be judged by the same standards used to judge private corporations in advanced nations; methodology of the latter cannot be applied arbitrarily to the former.  In similar vein, the primary goal of public projects in developing nations is to get the entire nation to grow, not merely to make profit; they should be viewed accordingly and not through another viewfinder.