Amorphous

Wherein the Country Gives Me a Headache

2012-01-28T21:25:00.000+05:00

There is a crisis in this country and that crisis is a crisis of language. Of course, there are constitutional issues concerning the judge held in military prison, but the true crisis can be located in the inability of the ruling party - MDP and its supporters - to articulate its message in a meaningful and authentic manner. Often their actions are simply interpreted and reduced to acts that attempt to grapple with power, but let’s take their message at face value and assume that there indeed is a progressive agenda to their actions, and that truly they wish to see social progress. If we assume that then there seems to be a dissonance with their intended actions and the result. The result is inauthentic when viewed within the background of liberal democratic values. Their actions do not conform to the constitution neither with widely accepted notions of `rights`. When human rights advocates start to ridicule a person held in military jail, it should be described as nothing else but inauthentic. How then can they come up with a framework that explains to the society at large, on holding back of MNBC assets, the arrest of the judge and other similar actions that they have taken recently that contradicts with the constitution?

To understand the problem we have to begin with a brief story that Slavoj Zizek often tells -

In an old joke from the defunct German Democratic Republic, a German worker gets a job in Sibera; aware of how all mail will be read by the censors, he tells his friends:

'Let's establish a code: if a letter you get from me is written in ordinary blue ink, it's true; if it's written in red ink, it's false.'

After a month, his friends get the first letter (written in blue):

Everything is wonderful here: The shops are full, food is abundant, apartments are large and properly heated, cinemas show films from the west, there are many beautiful girls ready for an affair - the only thing you cant get is red ink.

One starts by agreeing that one has all the freedoms one wants - then one merely adds that the only thing missing is the 'red ink':

We 'feel free' because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom.

- Welcome to the Desert of the Real, Slavoj Zizek

Isn't this the exact condition that we find ourselves in? We have largely democratic institutions that govern by democratic principles, but in the background there is the nasty ordour of things remaining the same as they were before the constitution was created, and yet we do not have the language to articulate our conundrum. We have freedom of the press, but the papers write about what they have always written. We have a free justice system, yet it gives special treatment to the rich and powerful (I’m of course referring to Nazim). How then do we go about talking about these issues?

With regards to the justice system, there has been two attempts to challenge it within the established framework, once posed by Vel and then by Ibra. Vel constantly refers to article 285 and the silent coup by which the Supreme Court has been usurped. This becomes problematic only because for two years MDP accepted the rulings of Supreme Court as valid and she was marginalized by her own friends. The knife attack was never investigated conclusively, and she was removed from her JSC position shortly afterwards. So then the whole issue of taking up the problems of Supreme Court now, can be framed as merely a ruse to cover the unconstitutional actions that Anni took recently. With Ibra, he voiced some concerns, and there were a few meet ups and everything fizzled a few months back. There certainly weren’t any voices calling for the immediate arrest of a senior judge. But, of course, all of us know that there are serious & grave problems with the judiciary, even when they are draped with the constitutional overcoat and smile down at us from their high chairs. Nevertheless, how do we explain it? How do we explain the problems with the media, the judiciary, the parliament, and even the government, especially when they are acting within constitutional limits?

To understand our unarticulated (perhaps ineffable) unfreedom we have to resurrect a much-vilified dead man whose ideas have been buried for about twenty years - Karl Marx.

Marx sought to show that the Rights of Man as they were established in his time were a crucial part of capitalist ideology that exploited man instead of liberating him. He wanted to show how liberal theory and actual socio-economic relations between men were never in harmony; that they exploited man instead of offering emancipation.

Isn’t this how our rights are being used? Freedom of the press gives the rich & powerful a pulpit and bullhorn to espouse their views, and the silenced remains silent. A free judiciary should not mean a judiciary that is free to act for the moneyed interests. This is the line of thinking that can be used by MDP and it's supporters to show that in essence there is no substantial improvement in press practices despite having freedom of the press, nor is there any improvement in the rule of law despite a free judiciary. Constitution limits should not be the only criteria by which we judge actions. We should be able to question the dynamics of power and money, and criticize them as unfair in a just and free society. It really is not fair for two of the richest members of society to dominate media, rather it should be `democratized` - owned by more people of diverse backgrounds. Viewed from this light, it should now be possible to see why the government is reluctant to `free` MNBC, and understand Anni’s concerns.

Simply put, ridiculing an individual like Abdulla Ghaazee is absurd, especially when he is held against his will and in contradiction to the constitution. Neither is that a trivial matter to be summarily discarded. I sincerely do not believe that Anni should have acted in contradiction with the constitution, and it poses significant problems to the established order of conducting politics. Yet, there remains much that we can talk about constructively with regards to the media and judiciary.

Mutual Recognition

2011-12-22T21:44:00.000+05:00

Maldives seems to be on the brink of a showdown between the ruling MDP and a coalition of opposition parties. That sounds very dramatic but, what it's most likely to happen is that there will be two rallies, at two different locations, some fiery speeches and everyone will go home to watch whatever TV series that they watch these days. Or get tear-gassed. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that Maldives is at a crisis point. Partly manufactured, partly the result of idiocy and the crisis is not going away. It needs to be addressed, methodically, with precision and with calm fortitude.

As the Chinese saying goes "in every crisis there is opportunity", we should use this to advance and improve understanding and relations among people. To make society an inclusive space for all Maldivians, a space for a happy, fulfilled and flourishing life - or we can leave this to the current crop of money hungry politicians, who will take advantage of it for political gains, without consideration for possible negative outcomes and exacerbate tensions within our society.

I will use the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' in order to distinguish between the two differing worldviews that define current political thinking. I use these terms in highly generalized form, and would have little relation to liberal or conservative ideas as they are understood in the West. I use the term liberal to describe a person who stresses on 'law', 'right' or 'human rights', 'rational', 'science' and 'economy' as core to their understanding of society. I use the term conservative to describe a person who stresses on 'tradition', 'culture', 'religion', 'faith', 'identity' and 'nation' as the core building blocks on which society is structured.

Liberals, as I use the term, may or may not be religious and may or may not value tradition, culture and nation, but how it differs from conservatives is in their reliance on 'right', 'law' and 'economy' as the final end-point through which they understand the problems of society. I do not believe that the current crisis is between a small number of anti-religious radicals and a group of extremist Salafis. I believe that there exist a fundamental tension between these two worldviews, and the silent protest by secularists and 23 December rallies are momentary outbursts as this grand event unfolds. Using these terms makes more sense to me than using other terms that contain negative connotations.

At various points in my life, I have described myself as humanist, anti-humanist, libertarian, objectivist, anarchist, communist, existentialist, but rarely as a liberal. Nevertheless, that is the camp where I find myself in, as a reluctant liberal. Reluctant, because that worldview reduces the social relations to very economical and regulated terms, which I do not think is fully capable of describing the varieties of human relations. In addition, I believe that conservatives are on to something, which I have not figured out yet.

To understand this situation, liberals (I am generalizing to the extreme here) have relied on a very popular narrative of how things came to be and it goes something like this: "Gayoom, Dictator of Maldives, promoted his own twisted version of Islam, suppressed minority voices, along with his stamp down on political rights, and promoted this fascist idea of a 100% Muslim nation (which is false statistically speaking), and ultimately leading to a condition where the new constitution was incorporated that refused to give a minority of the population rights as Maldivian citizens. Then Anni was elected to power and he being a jerk, or a bumbling idiot, or both gave the keys to the kingdom to a vocal Salafi minority, which then enabled them to organize and mobilize."

True and false. Individual actors in positions of power can bear significant influence on the course of events, but they themselves are a part of larger global currents, with sands shifting below their feet. Gayoom is a product of events that occurred in the Middle-East with whom many Maldivians sympathize with, and the imagery he created was so potent because they appealed to some very core aspects of our identity (or our identity in the 80's). I am not a Gayoomee apologist, and I am not going to defend his brutal history. However, when MDP liberals raise the spectre of Gayoom, it carries the risk of isolating liberals in the PPM camp, who can aid in alleviating this situation. So goes for liberal members of PPM, DRP and others who have joined in the coalition. They have to recognize that there truly is a crisis that when politicized, could clear the path for 'purification' of society - ethnic cleansing. Fascist states are often described by how ethnically pure they are. In a manner of speaking the fascist state that existed remains, after Gayoom, and after the new constitution, even if we proudly declare ourselves 'democratic'. State in this sense refers to the people, their ideas and the relations between people. This idea of who is 'rightfully' a Maldivian have been shaped over several generations, and has more to its making than Gayoom.

Liberals blamed Nasheed when Adhaalath and their Salafi allies secured positions of power, but they had forgotten how close that election victory was. Essentially, Nasheed's victory would not have been possible without the support of every member of the opposition - including Adhaalath. The electoral system of the Maldives is structured in a way that tends to favour broad consensus seeking parties. Combine this fact with the rise of Salafi thinking and it was surely unavoidable that they would have secured seats of power. The rise of Salafi thinking does have some relation to the rise of democracy and democratic ideals, such as freedom of speech. Ironically, we often hear conservatives bemoan, and despise the very freedoms that gave them the space to express themselves and organize themselves.

The conservative narrative of how these events unfolded goes like this - "Maldives, a Muslim country for centuries is being radicalized by a few rogue elements, who under the influence of the West, is trying to bring western ways of living to the Maldives. This can be considered 'fitna' in Islamic terms and carries the death sentence for these apostates or a lesser punishment of being revoked his or hers citizenship".

There is a kernel of truth to this; but it is false as well. Secular Maldivians have been living beneath the surface of society for generations, and have enjoyed protection from the rulers, because they themselves belonged to this same ruling class. Their number is few, but they too are Maldivians in every sense of the word, and trying to portray them as rogue or outside, the larger society is problematic. The '100% Muslim nation' statement stopped being a statistic a long while ago, and has morphed in to an aspirational statement. It is what we want Maldives to be. It sounds desirable, but it was never true. Nevertheless, is it necessarily what any Muslim should want? Is it among the virtues of Islam to have a 'pure' Islamic state? Certainly, the prophet had no issues with the practice of other religions in Medina or Mecca. The idea that says 'we must have a purely Islamic state' is unique to our times, and unique to our own history. It has no precedent in Islam itself. I can understand the anger that conservatives feel. It was one of those few national trophies that we had as a small fledgling nation; something we could be proud of. Then there is the sense of violation we feel, when someone attacks this national trophy. Because our whole being is tied to the symbols and language that tell us who we are, to attack that statement is an attack on us. It feels intolerable, especially when your entire life is spent believing and being proud of that statement, considering it part of your identity. For liberals then, the question is how do you make the intolerable, tolerable.

Liberals have framed this entire issue on the basis of human rights and have resorted to using their rich repertoire of political tools, such as peaceful protests, international pressure and so on. The essential nature of the problem denies us any alleviation if we look at this issue from the strictly legal point of view. Law regulates our lives to a great extant, but we do not encounter 'law' all the time in our everyday lives. In fact, it is possible to create great harm to each other within the interstices of law. Securing these 'fundamental rights' does not guarantee liberals of Maldives a normal flourishing life. It is merely the conditions for mutual hatred, and the conditions for living in a divided society A liberal may face peer pressure, pressure at work, and so on, that can be hard to challenge through formal institutions. The life of a liberal may not be better off even after securing these fundamental rights.

We, as liberals, cannot use the language of human rights, rights and law, if we are to communicate our needs with conservatives. The language of human rights as they exist, cannot be understood within the worldview (frame) of conservatives. It also carries with it the pungent smell of being foreign. The terms need to be re-articulated in their language. Religion itself provides us with a rich history of persecuted minorities struggling against hegemonic and cruel majorities.

It is difficult to secure rights in the short term through hard-hitting, manufactured 'events'. To be honest, certain events do foster debate, and help to create conditions for dialogue. The Pillay event was, I believe, in that category. However, the silent protest was not. To throw ourselves under the Salafi bulldozer is tantamount to suicide. There is a certain romantic notion of one standing against the world, proud at the moment of death, steadfast and full of resolve, even as the guillotine's blade cuts through his or her neck. It is a powerful image of how strong belief (or the belief in non-belief) is, and can be inspirational, to his or her followers. These images can be a source of strength and courage to the persecuted minority. It, of course, is the timeless archetype of the fallen hero; resurrected, immortalized and glorified in death. Nevertheless, the pragmatist in me demands to know, was that all his or her life was worth? You could have done more alive. The lesson in all of the hero myths is that the hero should struggle and wage on, until the story is ready for his sacrifice. The author is cruel.

Liberals will protest that meaningful debate is impossible, and they simply refuse debate on religious issues. The sticking point is the interpretation of Quran and the Salafi belief that only a certain class of 'scholars' can reliably interpret issues. Unfortunately, this belief is not substantiated by either hadees or the verses of the Quran. In fact, the Quran was first revealed to the prophet with the words "Read". "Read" said angel Gabriel, not "repeat after me". Reading is an interpretive exercise where you bring your faculties of knowledge, experience and imagination, to bear on the words in the hope that these words will illuminate your life. All reading is interpretation. Unless, of course, like most Maldivians we just utter meaningless foreign sounds. I do not think that particular activity is in the spirit of the Muslim duty to "read" the Quran - one of the five pillars of Islam. Therefore, if each person is different, the only way to establish commonality and norms in an Islamic society is through debate and discussion on the verses of the Quran.

Politicization of this issue carries risks of further dividing the country along these lines, creating a condition where a state of permanent animosity exists. It does not resolve the issue. It does not alleviate tensions. Liberals thinking of the long term effects of this crisis should be, ought to be worried, because the gains, if any, that they make in this brief election cycle will be rapidly washed away, when a different political party comes to power. Moreover, the chances of this happening are very real, as I can attest to the amount of dissent on the streets of Male. Of course, politicizing this issue plays to MDP’s advantage in that, this sticking issue will become the rallying cry for liberals who may ally themselves to the party, regardless of their stance on other important issues. This is myopic. Elections depend on economics and social situations as much as they depend on ideology. Conservatives should be, ought to be, worried because it creates the conditions where Maldivian identity is under constant pressure, aided by the political muscle of the largest party in the country. It gives strength to vitriolic comments against traditional values, instead of respect. Politicization leads to framing this issue in zero-sum terms where either has to win or lose, and is not beneficial to either groups, simply because elections are competitions. Tolerance and respect cannot be won in a competition.

Liberals often rally under the banner of tolerance, and conservatives under respect. Perhaps Liberals should learn to tolerate religiosity and conservatives should learn to respect a different type of Maldivian, and give them the respect they deserve as human beings.

Death of Civility

Street harassment has been a problem in the Maldives for a long time. Recently, it has mutated in its form from improper sexual gestures and verbal attacks to targeted verbal attacks that single out females that are deemed to be dressed inappropriately, aided by religious zeal. This particular attacker is different from the more sexually perverted types in that he feels rightly justified in doing what he does, and comforted by his colleagues in his conduct. This destruction of the social space by this impropriety is merely the surface of a growing culture that refuses to respect people different from them, and at times seems to be part of an 'agenda' of willful coercion, to make people submit to their culture.

Radicals on the liberal side, also at times, seem to take on the fervent zeal of a fanatic, in trying to humiliate simple and humble religious devotees in their mocking and making fun of tradition, religion and culture.

This overall decline of civility is perhaps just a symptom of the brewing tensions within the fractures of our society, but I believe one way to defuse these tensions, just might be through expanding the notion of civility - instead of simply demanding abstract concepts that sounds alien to an ordinary Maldivian - like human rights. Slavoj Zizek in his book "In Defence of Lost Causes" describes the importance of civility thus -

"Civility is crucial here; multicultural freedom also functions only when it is sustained by the rules, which are never abstract, but always embedded within a Leitkultur [dominant culture]... Freedom of speech functions only when all parties follow the same unwritten rules of civility telling us what kind of attacks are improper, although they are not legally prohibited; civility tells us which features of a specific ethnic or religious "way of life" are acceptable. If all sides do not share or respect the same civility, then multiculturism turns in to legally regulated mutual ignorance or hatred".

Our society too is experiencing a clash of cultures. However, Zizek warns that civility is not mere politeness or putting on a 'screen of civility'. Indeed, there needs to be resistance toward transgressions. Rights are important and there needs to be space for demands. There exists real difference in opinions and real disagreements that needs real dialogue. We cannot politely smile and rollover for the majority. How do we do that? Here Zizek makes a distinction between mere politeness and true civility, and describes excessive politeness as 'brutal insensitivity'.

"... in this universe where tact reigns supreme, where the open explosion of one's emotions is considered as the utmost vulgarity, everything is said, the most painful decisions are made, the most delicate messages are passed over - however, it all takes place in this guise of a formal conversation. Even when I blackmail my partner, I do it with a polite smile, offering tea and cakes..."

What then is this civility (as different from politeness)? Zizek describes it as -

"... all the acts that display the basic subjective attitude of respect for others as free and autonomous agents, equal to us, the benevolent attitude of transcending the strict utilitarian or "rational" calculation of costs and benefits in relation with others and engaging in trusting them, trying not to humiliate them, and so forth. Although measured by the degree of it's obligatory character, it is more than kindness or generosity (one cannot oblige people to be generous), but distinctly less than a moral or legal obligation".

In a world where values are so diverse as to be incomprehensible I believe, civility is so fundamental to society that it just might be universal (even though it is expressed in a variety of different forms). Perhaps, we should consider this "basic subjective attitude of respect for others as free and autonomous" as the starting point to building bridges in a divided society, which is to say that liberals should begin to rightfully recognize that conservatives too are "rational" and "human" (equal to us), that religion is able to address actual problems of the human condition, and conservatives should recognize liberals as "human" and "free" (autonomous), not a mold of clay to be shaped in to whatever form, idealized by a majority.

Note: Now that I have ticked off everyone in the country I can go back to doing what I should be doing on the 23rd. Ignoring the noise. Thanks for reading.

The App Economy of Late 2010

2010-10-03T19:59:00.001+05:00

So there were a couple of big stories in the news recently, related to the mobile industry. One was about Android opening its developer platformfor international developers, and opening its Android Market to more countries. This means that paid apps for the top selling smartphone platform - Android - will finally be available to Android users outside the US. The other was Nokia Ovi Store hitting 2.3 million app downloads a day. Compare that to estimates that say that Apple sells about 16 million downloads a day. Which probably means that Nokia isn’t that far behind at all. Apple hit its 2.2 million mark back in December 2008.

I decided to write this piece because I’m might be leaving the mobile industry for good. By writing a broad overview of the entire industry, it would provide a good reference point for me to come back and compare. Where do I begin? The iPhone of course.

This slab of steel and glass launched a thousand new ventures. It has created an entirely new industry giving jobs to thousands of programmers, designers, marketers, salesman, managers, producers, etc. Apple announced that it has paid out $1 billion dollars in revenue share to App Store developers, which is almost the equivalent of the entire Maldivian budget. The app industry seems like a whirlwind out of control, but let us put things in to perspective.

We all know the story. Apple released the iPhone in 2007. This was the first phone that came with a huge screen and WANTED it’s users to browse. It sounds so simple, but it is not. Back then everyone assumed that the only function of a phone was to make calls. Now we have phones just for browsing
(iPad 3G), SMSing phones, facebook phones(iNQ) and more. When Apple released the original iPhone, it converged a decade of research in one single device, and created a market condition that could best be described as an inflection point as Andy Grove would put it. Since then the mobile industry has gone in to shock and three years later, we still have handset manufacturers trying to play catch up. In January 2008, the App Store came in to existence, and Apple started accepting apps developed by 3rd party developers.

The apps proved to be extremely popular and a flood gate opened as apps started pouring in. According to the latest Distimo report 55% of these apps are games. iPhone users loved them, and they can’t seem to have enough. Nielsen reports that on average an iPhone user has 40 apps installed on his phone, that is 60% more compared to the next best platform, Android. The total iPhone sales figures up to the end of Q3 2010 as reported by Apple is 59.6 million iPhones sold. Even if 60% of these are active, that’s about 35.7 million iPhones active in the world. Recent statistics indicate that
6.5 billion apps in total have been downloaded by these iPhone users. With 70% of them being free, and 30% of these being paid apps.

The iPhone can be described as a paradigm shift from all previous phones or sometimes called a ‘super phone’, because where most previous phones were used for voice calls, iPhones are being used for other activities, primarily data driven usage - like downloading apps, music, games, browsing the
mobile web etc.

iPhone is not the only ‘super’ phone in the market. Just coming up behind Apple is Google, with the Android platform. The Android platform is very similar in concept to the iPhone, with almost all using a big touch screen and apps to go with it. With Android sales already surpassing those of iPhones (as reported by Gartner) the total sales is forecasted to hit 47 million by the end of 2010. However, Android had failed to monetize its platform for a long time and failed to provide world-wide developers the publishing capability that the Apple allows. But with the recent announcements it seems Android is finally moving in the right direction.

Total smartphone sales in the world is expected to top 268 million with 17% of this being Android and 15% of sales being Apple iPhones. The sales of Android being driven by multiple devices - HTC Desire, Samsung Galaxy S etc. In total 111.1 million super phones will be sold this year. Whereas Apple is intent on vertical control of the entire iPhone value chain, Google is trying to be more of a platform on which other smartphones, and other app stores could integrate with. Nokia has a totally different strategy where, it is trying to get mobile operator integration with as many mobile operators as possible for payments. This is a very smart move, but very difficult to implement, and may take years to complete. However, in the long run, this is better because there are only 1.5 billion credit and debit cards in the world, compared to 4.6 billion mobile accounts. Nokia has already integrated with over 70 mobile operators to date. That said, Nokia have a long road ahead in improving its developer SDK, and its mobile phone OS.

The estimated CAGR for smartphones between 2010 and 2015 is expected to be 22%, with estimates having the total number of smartphones sold in this period to be 2.3 billion. Which means there’ll probably be tons of money being made by app developers by then. Analysts predict that in the coming years, these ‘super phone’ features would have found their way to feature phones, and mobile phones would be primarily used for data. This is a huge opportunity for mobile app developers, and the potential for revenue is enormous.

But right now, app sales figures are depressing for most developers. Tomi Ahonen did a piece on
this a while back. But Why? Because this is a classic example of a Long Tail, where most of the money is being made by platform providers. Sure, there are hits like Hipstamatic, Angry Birds, and others. And in the coming years, there’ll surely be a lot more. But the true winners of these markets
are platforms - advertising platforms like mobclix, gaming enablers like ngmoco, openfeint and so on. It’s like the gold rush, where most money was made by people who provided the shovels. This is not to say that there isn’t any opportunity, there is, but it is very hard to get apps exactly right for consumer tastes. Few companies have been prudent enough to do this. Developers like TapTapTap come to mind. The future for developers is bright, with more phones selling every day, they’ll start seeing significant revenue in 1-2 years, when handset manufacturers get their act together, and
when almost everyone users a super phone.

Overwhelming Choice

2010-09-15T07:14:00.001+05:00

Asia Cafe in Subang Jaya provides food from a few dozen stalls and seating for hundreds of people. The variety of food on offer is overwhelming. Asia Cafe seems to get their revenue from drinks. Payment for food is made directly to stall operators. Asia Cafe serves both stall operators and customers looking for food. For stall operators they provide one of the best venues in Subang Jaya, and an almost endless stream of customers. For customers looking for food or a place to hang out Asia Cafe gives them an enormous variety of food for great prices. All this works because they are situated near three colleges.
Filed under Interesting Business Models

Amorphous

Wherein the Country Gives Me a Headache

Mutual Recognition

The App Economy of Late 2010

Overwhelming Choice

Modern Superstitions

Bookmarks

Free Newspapers in Malaysia

Going up?

The sacrificial goat

Everybody's fine

Welcome Aik Xavier

Measures of confidence

Organizational Boundaries

An Etiquette for Disposing Waste

Meaning in use

I come home and ...

Anni and the Power Distance Index

Day rooms for rent

Nationwide ferry system or public transportation in Male

Black Tea, the only coffee takeaway place I know of

Off to Hulhumale on the ferry

Sub-economies

Wataniya Broadband - Internet access, finally a reality for all Maldivians

Out of Darkness

More videos from the Roadshow