In 2006, it cost the people of Maldives a whopping Rf 288,000/- per inmate per year to house, feed, medicals etc until the Department of Penitentiary brought in major changes. This is roughly USD 62.26 per inmate per day, and current cost being about USD 46.70 per day. The cost to the US tax payer per inmate was USD 62.05 per day in 2001. Hence the amount we spend to imprison and rehabilitate prisoners is as good as developed nations.

The Stanford Prison Experiment led by Prof.Emeritus of Psychology (Stanford University) Philip Zimbardo is until today the most extensive research done by psychologists to study the effects of imprisonment and also the effects of working as prison guards.

Mistreatment of prisoners is common in every country of the world. There is no distinction from the most developed country to the least developed when it comes to mistreatment of prisoners. The prisoner abuse by US Troops in Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq was committed by personnel of the most disciplined force in the world.

Prof. Philip Zimbardo’s study used the basement of Stanford University converted as the Prison and the guards and well as the prisoners were chosen from volunteer. The researchers selected normal, healthy, good kids that they found through ads in the papers. They were not Stanford students, but kids from all over the United States who were in the Bay Area finishing summer school. A hundred kids applied, the researchers interviewed them, and gave them personality tests. They picked the two dozen who were the most normal, most healthy kids.

Within a few days, those that were assigned to the guard role, became abusive, red-necked prison guards. Every day the level of hostility, abuse, and degradation of the prisoners became worse and worse and worse. Within 36 hours the first prisoner had an emotional breakdown, crying, screaming, and thinking irrationally. The researchers had to release him, and each day after that they had to release another prisoner because of extreme stress reactions. The study was supposed to run for two weeks, but they ended it after six days because it was literally out of control. Kids chosen because they were normal and healthy were breaking down. Kids who were pacifists were acting sadistically, taking pleasure in inflicting cruel, evil punishment on prisoners. That study has legs even today, especially because of the recent exposure of abuses in the Iraqi prison, Abu Ghraib and others around the world.

The study also showed that it was the “good guards” who maintained the prison. It was the guards on the shift where you had the worst abuses who never did anything bad to the prisoners, but not once, over the whole week, did they ever go to one of the bad guards and say, “What are you doing? We get paid the same money without knocking ourselves out.” Or, “Hey, remember those are college students, not prisoners.” No good guard ever intervened once to stop the activities of the bad guards. No good guard ever came a minute late, left a minute early, or publicly complained. In a sense, then, it’s the good guard who allows this to happen. It’s the good parent who allows a spouse to abuse their children without opposing it. That’s something that’s really important for us to consider.

Above are just a few lines from the study. For those of you who are really concerned in our prison system, and want to contribute to improve it would find the link in the first paragraph extremely useful. Though this study was done in 1971, every single fact is being repeated around the world, including this nation.

Crime is on the rise, and we cannot be blind to the fact that the prison population in Maldives will only grow. We as citizens forget about the people who commit crimes once they are off our turf. However, it is a fact that these people are being held off our faces by being locked up in a limited space, often for long periods with nothing much to do. At the same time, there are those from within us who work to run the prison system. They face each and every one of them who we do not want to see even once, every single day. The prison staff from guards to doctors faces daily verbal abuse and other harassment from inmates as part of their jobs. Slowly but surely even the “normal” man will start showing sadistic behavior.

There are steps that can be taken to improve the situation. Reducing inmates per cell, preferably to one or two per cell, minimizing contact with prisoners and guards could be a first step. This first step will not be easy as we do not have a prison built with this in mind, and most nations do not. The success of North Brach Correctional Institution is the United States which houses some of the most dangerous criminals in US, should be something worth looking at. The first phase of the prison is now complete and inmates who used to spend 23 hrs in single cells can now enjoy more freedom. The guards are also under watch due to 24 hrs surveillance of the whole facility, and with hardly any contact with guards and prisoners, chances of abuse or mistreatment are minimized.

In order to live in a society free from crime, the community has to pay a price. We need a modern facility to house convicted people where they can be rehabilitated and able to join the society as decent people. In order to achieve this, no price is too high to pay. To build a modern new prison and train guards, counselors will cost a lot, but wouldn’t it be worth the investment to get back the youth of this country?

The issue of 8 nominated members in our Parliament was as still is one of the most debated issues in Maldives. The main argument against such appointments has been that the 8 members give an undue advantage to the sitting President, against what may be the stand of the elected members.

A nominated Member of Parliament is not something which has been practiced by Maldives alone. It is still practiced in a lot of democracies around the world. What is the reason that brought so much negative thoughts to this practice?

The practice of Nominated Members of Parliament has been completely misused through out the rule of both President Nasir and Prsident Maumoon. The theory of giving a limited number of seats for nominated MPs was to enable representation of the most underrepresented part of the community in any Parliament, and also to ensure there were sufficient technocrats in the Parliament. However this had not been the use it was utilized for. In addition, countries which practice the system have a number of checks to ensure that these seats cannot be misused.

Singapore had Nominated Members of Parliament which was increased to nine in 1997. The nominees are selected by a Parliamentary select committee headed by the Speaker of Parliament. It is also a requirement that Nominated members do not belong to any Political Party.

In India, 12 MPs are nominated by the President, from people having special knowledge in literature, science or social services.

In both examples, these Members while being nominated MPs, cannot be sacked by the Executive, just like elected MPs. This enables them to take part in an unbiased manner, and not toe the Government line. From the next Parliament, Maldives will not have nominated MPs, hence any under represented people will continue to be so. A good example is Adhaalath Party. While having a considerable membership in total, they may not have sufficient in a single constituency to win a seat. However, in total they represent a significant percentage of the electorate to deserve representation in Parliament. The negative aspects which played in our nation was the main factor which resulted in Nominated MPs from being removed in the New Constitution. Sadly this is something which could have been used for the people and rather than removing it, there could have been strict guidelines for nominations, so that we will have a better represented Parliament.

The (New) Constitution is silent on the issue of the remaining Nominated MPs during the transition and both sides (MDP and DRP) are taking opposing views. The Constitution clearly does not give authority of appointing an MP to the President, however he has done it. The President’s nominations seem to have followed the old guard in nominating people who are from his Party and Alliance. I expected a well read person of Nasheed’s caliber to do better. While being a controversial issue, he could have won the respect of many if he had nominated 8 prefessionals who were Independents. During a period when our Parliament is undertaking some of its most important Bills, this action shows that President Nasheed also gives more priority to his Party than the People.

My heartiest congratulations to our new President. Today we are seeing what was said by some as impossible. There were quite a number of our fellow citizens who vehemently believed that a peaceful transfer of power in this nation was impossible. Our good fortune is that a vast majority believed that it was and have shown the power of the people by their vote.

Nasheed has an uphill task in front of him. He inherits a Government which is still full of officials at all levels used to doing favours and getting favours in return. He also gets a Civil Service which is still in its infancy, but created from the old bureaucracy where services and efficiency was not their first priority. The world is in recession as we who depend on European tourists for our main source of income, are facing one of the biggest challenges since the tourism industry’s beginning. While there is an apparent calm after the elections, he also helms a nation which is almost divided in half.

Nasheed has just over 75 days to win over the public before the nation goes to poll again. This election is as important as the Presidential Elections if not more. The excesses during Maumoon’s Presidency and all its shortcomings continued not because we did not have a Constitution, but because the Parliament was merely a rubber stamp for the Executive. Most of what we see today was indeed within reach had our elected Members of Parliament were willing to serve their electorate instead of their own selves. Nasheed’s performance and policies will determine how MDP will do in the polls. If MDP does not win a majority in the Parliament, the President will find himself under more pressure from his partners of convenience.

Maldivians have by a vast majority chosen a Presidential system of Government. However the current system, (even prior to Nasheed’s inauguration) looks as though a Parliamentary System is being followed. The common goal of changing Maumoon’s Government is a good enough reason for the Opposition Parties to support Nasheed during the run off, however the “Alliance” may not be the best idea. Once elected, the Consitution gives full executive power to the President and it is not acceptable to a lot of the voters that the President be pressured into making appointments. One of the reasons why Maldivians chose a Presidential system, was to enable the President to be able to select his Cabinet and Political appointees based on merit and capability rather than a person’s political beliefs. The day we see appointments like these, would be the day we see maturity in our politicians.

I wish President Nasheed success in his endeavor to give the people of Maldives a better tomorrow. I also believe that he is politically mature enough to know who are with him to back his beliefs.

I have been on this subject for sometime. I sent the article published earlier today, to Minivan News on the 29^th of July 2008. It is obvious that my writing is not up their standards, or the content is not considered important as it was not published. I have also written several comments on Haveeru, hoping one of the reporters will follow up.

When Ibra’s blog came out, I made a comment on the subject in his entry “Hypocrisy Defined” .My basic question was:

“Article 116 is one which I have noticed that is not high lighted in yellow, but the Article has changed very much from advising the Parliament, to approval from the Parliament.”

He referred me to his reply under a separate entry “Cabinet Debacle and 116”. However, I could not agree to Ibra’s interpretation hence wrote another comment.

Dear Ibra,

Thanks to “Cabinet Debacle and 116″, which you have directed me as your answer to my question.

You are not very straight forward here.

Quote:

the wording of which was very ambiguous (in the context of the constitution), because on the one hand it said the President had the power to create Ministries, but he should submit the decision to parliament.

Unquote

The version passed is not ambiguous, it is still available for down load, and it is not the decision to be submitted. 116(h) clearly gives the power to create a Ministry and allocate its work to the President. It required the President to submit the INFORMATION (Mauloomaath) to the majlis, not the decision.

The problem with most of our MPs is they have taken this as a vendetta against Maumoon. I respect that you have the honesty to admit it, few will. This is one reason that there are so many short comings of the Constitution which took 4 years in the making.

The way I see it, this was more of Qasim’s doing than anyone else. If amendments which changed the substance of any Article were voted for this debate would not have been there.

The Hansard shows that Riyaz did take a Point of Order but was asked to sit in the middle of what he was asking. These are all in the public archive, and while I believe that this was wrong, I am willing to let history judge the participants.

July 30, 2008 4:22:00 PM MVT

For this comment included in his reply was :

“By the way, your interpretation of 116 is exactly what the drafting committee wanted to avoid. Besides, you asked me about the yellow highlight, and now you are twisting the argument on to something else!”

I have to respectfully say, no Ibra I am not the one twisting the argument. My original comment was about the change in substance of the Article 116 due to the amendment.

In the last reply, Ibra also wrote :

However, let me put to you this question. If the President had the unfettered power granted in the constitution to create any number of Ministries, and the same Constitution also granted unfettered power to the Majlis to approve or strike down proposed budgets for each Ministry, and the Majlis decided not to allocate any funds for a given Ministry because the Majlis did not agree with the existence of such Ministry, in which institution’s (the President’s or the Majlis’s) favour should the Supreme Court rule?

This clearly shows that the change is substantial and was made because there were some Members who believed that this is the better way.

Article 116 when first submitted to the Special Majlis gave the power to create Ministries to the Parliament and it was not accepted by the Majority. This was changed to give that power to the President and the Article was passed.

In addition, the information of the two systems of Government which were distributed to the public made it very clear that in a Presidential System, this power will be with the President. The Presidential System was accepted by an overwhelming majority of the people. Hence the change made is also contrary to the System (Presidential) the Special Majlis was empowered by the people to follow.

The way I see it, the change to Article 116 was not done properly. The argument is not about whether the change is for the better or worse, it is the way it was done. DRP members who command the majority of the Special Majlis have a big burden on their heads. Why did they participate in a block vote if there were changes which they were against? Had they not taken part in the vote, it would not have passed. The excuse of not being aware of the change is not sufficient. It is the duty of the Members to scrutinize the document before voting, and if the time was not enough, they have to demand for more time rather than voting for something which they have not gone through.

“Fact is, a number of decisions made by the President to destroy the Amended Constitution, implemented by those who are so willing to do his bidding, were turned around by us through carefully thought out strategies on the Majlis floor, complemented with direct action by the people.” Hypocricy Defined 25/5/08, Ibra’s Blog.

Whether by error or on purpose, Ibra has written the true fact here. There is more to the pressure for ratification of the new Constitution than which meets the eye. The whole drama, it seems is a well planned act, to ensure the change of power in the next elections is cemented to a certain individual. Both DRP and MDP seem to have been played out by better strategists. This reminds me of the story of the hare and tortoise story which I read in one of the Dhiveh readers when I was in school. Am I paranoid, or is there something going on which somehow seems to be missed by all the media on both sides.

The People’s Special Majlis (PSM) assembled on the 19^th of July 2004, finally managed to complete the work of the new Constitution on 24^th June 2004. The proceedings of the sitting should be written in Maldivian History. Let me track back a little.

On 22^nd May 2008, the President sends the draft Constitution back to the PSM with seven recommendations.  The Drafting Committee was given the task of checking for dictation, language errors and to correct conflicting Articles. The Drafting Committee completed its work and handed over a comprehensive list of the changes in tabular form, with keys indicating the changes. The document is available for download at PSM website http://www.majlis.gov.mv/specialmajlis/final%20draft%2020%20June%202008.pdf

In the key, it is indicated that any Article which due to the editing, may have changed in substance is highlighted in yellow. There are quite a few such amendments. This was also confirmed by (Male’ Member) Mr.Ibrahim Ismail’s when he gave a summary of the procedures followed by The Drafting Committee. The Hansard for the sitting of 26^th June 2008 is also available for download and the Speaker made it clear in no uncertain terms that he was not going to allow any Points of Order. This is where my suspects start. Was he aware, that there may be trouble ahead?

Even though the Speaker said he will not allow Points of Order, he did give the opportunity to a handful of members to raise their concerns and every one of them pointed out that going for a block vote for all the amendments may not be fair. Their argument was, while they may support some of the changes, there were others that they may not support. It is worth noting here that the protests were from MDP and DRP members. It went to the extent that some Members threatened to boycott the vote. The Speaker already had a solution for this. While I cannot confirm the next line, I quote a Member of the Special Majlis. “If there is a boycott of the vote, I am going to send this (Constitution) as it is to the President and let him return it back”, I have no reason to doubt the Member, who is among the people who voted Yes.

The questions which arise are:

Can the Drafting Committee given a specific task, make amendments which were not within its mandate?

If such amendments change the substance of the Article (which was voted by the members), isn’t the Speaker obliged to get the majority of the Members to approve such amendment?

If this is such a simple matter why did we waste public money over 4 years? Why didn’t the Drafting Committee members just let the Articles fly through as most members wanted, voting with the majority? They can make the changes which they really want anyway during the final editing and let the Speaker call for a block vote.

One of the carefully thought out strategies may be Article 116 among others.

Article 116 refers to the Government Ministries. The Original draft which was passed by the Special Majlis gives the power of creating Government Ministries to the President.  He is required to give the relevant information regarding the Ministries and their work to the People’s Majlis.

The amendment here is a sentence added (instead of requiring to give the information) the President has to submit such required Ministries and their responsibilities to be passed by the People’s Majlis.

I believe this changes the substance of the Article, however the yellow highlighting is not present, hence Members would see the amendment as typo or grammatical changes only. There are similar changes not marked.

President Maumoon has found himself in a dilemma. He is now practically in a situation where is either be in the frying pan or jump into the fire. It was his man at the helm of the People’s Special Majlis or was he?

PS : Except for the quote referred, all the information here can be verified by Peoples’s Special Majlis Hansard of 26^th June 2008, the copy of Constitution sent to the President for ratification, and the table of amendments. All these documents can be downloaded at www.malis.gov.mv/specialmajlis

I wrote this article on 28th Nov 2005, and it was published in a few websites. The contents are still valid hence I start off with this.