Dr. Khaled Batarfi
Arabnews.com (30 July 2006)
My pro-Israel reader was giving me a history lesson. He had most of his facts right but, like many of Israel's defenders, he was putting the events of the current Middle Eastern crisis in the historical order that fits his biased position.
Hamas and Hezbollah, according to him, started this war by capturing three Israeli soldiers. "Hamas" he asserts, "conducted a cross-border raid which resulted in the death of three soldiers and the capture of one. Israel then responded to them and only them. Then Hezbollah conducted a cross-border raid that resulted in the deaths of eight soldiers and the capture of two. Are these not acts of war?"
In my response I said: This is exactly our problem with Israel's allies and supporters. They choose the most convenient point of history to start from. No, please, let us start from the beginning of the episode.
In the case of Hezbollah, there are more than ten thousand Arab abductees rotting in Israeli prisons, most without trial for twenty-seven years. Five hundred of them are women. Some were born in prison.
In the case of Hamas, thousands of Palestinians have been killed, not to count the injured; all of them, except a few are civilians. More are imprisoned, many without trial, including ministers and legislators in the Palestinian government. All this is forgotten history, thank you very much, what is remembered is one Israeli hostage in Gaza and two in Lebanon. For them millions in Lebanon and Palestine had to be collectively punished. How much cheaper could we go before we could respond in kind?
Another reader asked me if I have Jewish friends, and went on to declare: "A basic assumption these days is that it is preventable to have civilian casualties. This is stupid and inane, especially when Hezbollah chooses to use their populace as shields. You should be writing an article on the restraint the Israelis have had so far."
I e-mailed him back assuring him that I do have Jewish friends. Some are writers and journalists; others are teachers and classmates during my graduate studies in America. Many are against Israeli aggression and ashamed of its recent actions.
Israel is targeting civilians after failing to find soldiers in the hope of using the tragedy to force a political solution. Hezbollah's soldiers are underground on the border area, not in children's schools, hospitals, mosques and refugee buses heeding Israeli warning to leave. To find soldiers, Israel must invade with ground troops. Now that they have done, they are finally finding Arab soldiers - the hard way.
A third reader wrote: "I think you have been caught up in the Al-Jazeera hype. Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist organizations. They have been condemned by just about every civilized country in the world. The UN has called for the disarmament of Hezbollah, but Lebanon has been unable to do this. After weeks of random missile attacks and armed incursions into undisputed Israeli territory, Israel was forced to respond. Israel has no territorial ambitions in this conflict, but they are risking their citizens' lives and security to clean up a mess that other Arab countries are powerless to address - terrorism.
"Granted, there have been civilian casualties. When Hezbollah hides in residential areas and launches missiles from apartment complexes, those are the consequences. Israeli bombs and shells have been carefully aimed at known hide-outs and launching sites of Hezbollah, but I don't think the same can be said of the missiles launched by Hezbollah. Rather than condemn Israel, we should compliment them for doing what is right under the circumstances. Chris."
I wrote back: Chris, I believe you are caught up in the Zionist hype. No civilization in the world regards freedom fighters as terrorists except Israel and its allies. Strange enough, your buddy, Britain, once regarded the American freedom fighters as terrorists. According to your standards, which I don't agree with, they were right and we now have a terrorist "civilization".
Please, check the latest count on who is with and against an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon. Only the "civilizations" of US, UK and Israel are against. The rest of the world "civilizations" are for an immediate stop of the killing machine.
Four hundred were killed in Lebanon - only a handful are soldiers. The clearly marked and isolated UN base was shelled fourteen times, four observers were killed. Then their rescuers were shelled. All calls to Israeli Army didn't help.
Inside Israel, those killed by Hezbollah's primitive rockets number less than 20 - half were soldiers. No hospitals, schools or refugee buses were hit. How come a guerrilla group with no smart weapons or super intelligence can be more accurate than the world's best-equipped army and the third best intelligence agency? Go figure.
Another problem with most comments I received so far is the lack of sympathy for Arab victims - like we don't count - so much for civility and civilization, Chris.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Hezbollah’s Script and Israel’s Play
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
War is hell, explained Yankee Gen. William T. Sherman as he burned Atlanta during the American Civil War. Today, the Israelis are saying the same thing as they burn Gaza and Lebanon. They have been in this hell-making business for ages and have forgotten what it is like to be at the receiving end.
This time, it is different, for a change. Israelis are feeling the heat they used to export, just like the Serbs did at the end of the Kosovo War. And like the Serbs, they kept brutally pushing to advance their gains, until the tide finally turned against them.
So what happened here? The Israelis pushed Hamas to a corner. Put simply, they didn’t like what democracy brought — a government they hated to do business with. Characteristically, they tried to change the environment to their liking. As they overran the democratically elected Arafat government, they sought to overrun its successor too. The Palestinians are punished once more for making the wrong choice. According to Israeli rules, Arabs must elect not those who serve their best interests, but those who serve the interests of the Israelis. Hamas definitely didn’t fit the bill.
According to another Israeli rule, no rules, moral or legal, are applicable to the Jewish state. And since Hamas arrogantly refused to accept the role of yes, sir, they may all go to jail or hell, ministers and legislators included. They get killed or kidnapped until they agree to Israeli terms. This was easier done with the under-the-thumb Palestinian Authority. Hezbollah, however, is another story.
You see, the Israeli Army has got so used to flex its muscles on civilians that it has lost its ability to wrestle with soldiers. Operating missiles and jet fighters to bomb cities and villages from far and above is not the same thing as going down and dirty to fight real men. The surrounding environment helped. In the largely unarmed Lebanon and Palestinian territories, they could hit anywhere and fly over any place without even the pretense of a resistance. The Arabs also got used to being at the receiving end of the death and destruction assembly line. This changed a little bit with Hamas, and more so with Hezbollah. Escaping a humiliating war in south Lebanon, Israel had to withdraw in shame and shambles. The lesson they learned the hard way was: Stick with aerial bombardment and never try your super army with Arabs carrying primitive guns and superior determination. Your soldiers end up bleeding and running.
So, it was inevitable that Israel would want so badly to disarm and dislodge the unyielding, disobedient and out of control armed group from the inconvenient location it occupies. And since Israel is never alone, it uses its political capital and connections to get the big powers of the world to back it up in its quest.
Hezbollah and its backers, Syria and Iran, were acutely aware of these maneuvers. After the dislodging of Syria from Lebanon, time was dangerously short for the group. Disarming Hezbollah would have demoted it from its prominent position as the one and only militarily capable unit to a toothless political party. With West-backed government in Lebanon and collaborating Arab governments, the grip was tightening. So a script, like the one Osama Bin Laden wrote for the West, had to be executed in the hope that Israel will play along, as the West did.
The insulted and agitated Israeli government eager to show that its civilian leader is no less war criminal than his predecessors easily and eagerly complied. In the hasty and overkill response they weakened the same force they relied on — the Lebanese government — to neutralize the group. However, Hezbollah has escaped, so far, safe and sound. In fact, they became politically stronger in the Arab and Muslim world. Like other radical groups, they become more popular and credible with every outrageous action from the enemy camp. When forced to choose, no true Muslim or Arab will ever choose Israel over a brethren.
Armed with its military and political successes, Hezbollah will be a more important player in the region. All they need to do in this test is to survive. With their vast stocks of missiles and tested expertise in guerrilla warfare, this is almost a given.
The question Israel and its allies and friends must ask themselves, as they should have in Iraq and Afghanistan is, how they could complain and claim to be mystified about the rise of radicalism and Iranian dominance in the Muslim world if they serve them so well with such inhuman and barbaric actions as targeting civilians from Kandahar to Haditha to Beirut? The ignorant and arrogant, says an Arab proverb, is his own worst enemy.
War is hell, explained Yankee Gen. William T. Sherman as he burned Atlanta during the American Civil War. Today, the Israelis are saying the same thing as they burn Gaza and Lebanon. They have been in this hell-making business for ages and have forgotten what it is like to be at the receiving end.
This time, it is different, for a change. Israelis are feeling the heat they used to export, just like the Serbs did at the end of the Kosovo War. And like the Serbs, they kept brutally pushing to advance their gains, until the tide finally turned against them.
So what happened here? The Israelis pushed Hamas to a corner. Put simply, they didn’t like what democracy brought — a government they hated to do business with. Characteristically, they tried to change the environment to their liking. As they overran the democratically elected Arafat government, they sought to overrun its successor too. The Palestinians are punished once more for making the wrong choice. According to Israeli rules, Arabs must elect not those who serve their best interests, but those who serve the interests of the Israelis. Hamas definitely didn’t fit the bill.
According to another Israeli rule, no rules, moral or legal, are applicable to the Jewish state. And since Hamas arrogantly refused to accept the role of yes, sir, they may all go to jail or hell, ministers and legislators included. They get killed or kidnapped until they agree to Israeli terms. This was easier done with the under-the-thumb Palestinian Authority. Hezbollah, however, is another story.
You see, the Israeli Army has got so used to flex its muscles on civilians that it has lost its ability to wrestle with soldiers. Operating missiles and jet fighters to bomb cities and villages from far and above is not the same thing as going down and dirty to fight real men. The surrounding environment helped. In the largely unarmed Lebanon and Palestinian territories, they could hit anywhere and fly over any place without even the pretense of a resistance. The Arabs also got used to being at the receiving end of the death and destruction assembly line. This changed a little bit with Hamas, and more so with Hezbollah. Escaping a humiliating war in south Lebanon, Israel had to withdraw in shame and shambles. The lesson they learned the hard way was: Stick with aerial bombardment and never try your super army with Arabs carrying primitive guns and superior determination. Your soldiers end up bleeding and running.
So, it was inevitable that Israel would want so badly to disarm and dislodge the unyielding, disobedient and out of control armed group from the inconvenient location it occupies. And since Israel is never alone, it uses its political capital and connections to get the big powers of the world to back it up in its quest.
Hezbollah and its backers, Syria and Iran, were acutely aware of these maneuvers. After the dislodging of Syria from Lebanon, time was dangerously short for the group. Disarming Hezbollah would have demoted it from its prominent position as the one and only militarily capable unit to a toothless political party. With West-backed government in Lebanon and collaborating Arab governments, the grip was tightening. So a script, like the one Osama Bin Laden wrote for the West, had to be executed in the hope that Israel will play along, as the West did.
The insulted and agitated Israeli government eager to show that its civilian leader is no less war criminal than his predecessors easily and eagerly complied. In the hasty and overkill response they weakened the same force they relied on — the Lebanese government — to neutralize the group. However, Hezbollah has escaped, so far, safe and sound. In fact, they became politically stronger in the Arab and Muslim world. Like other radical groups, they become more popular and credible with every outrageous action from the enemy camp. When forced to choose, no true Muslim or Arab will ever choose Israel over a brethren.
Armed with its military and political successes, Hezbollah will be a more important player in the region. All they need to do in this test is to survive. With their vast stocks of missiles and tested expertise in guerrilla warfare, this is almost a given.
The question Israel and its allies and friends must ask themselves, as they should have in Iraq and Afghanistan is, how they could complain and claim to be mystified about the rise of radicalism and Iranian dominance in the Muslim world if they serve them so well with such inhuman and barbaric actions as targeting civilians from Kandahar to Haditha to Beirut? The ignorant and arrogant, says an Arab proverb, is his own worst enemy.
Monday, July 03, 2006
What Choices Our Divorced Women Have?
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
Arabnews (July 3, 2006)
My last article “What is It Like to Be a Saudi Woman” evoked many responses, positive and negative.
Some thought I was generalizing, and claimed that Lila’s story was either exaggerated or unique.
Most women, they asserted, are happy and content with their role and position in society. But since most respondents are men, I wasn’t too surprised.
Women, on the other hand, were overwhelmingly in agreement. Some related their own tragic stories. I had to do some investigation to confirm the basic facts. To protect their true identities, I won’t use their real names.
Suha is the daughter of a prominent merchant — very beautiful, sweet, and smart. Her mother used harsh methods to bring up her daughters as obedient and respectful girls.
When a young man from a prominent merchant family came along, Suha welcomed him without asking too many questions. She was barely seventeen and had just finished high school. Her unhappy experience at home made her think that it won’t get any worse. It sure did.
The husband was cruel, self-centered, womanizer and distasteful. While she continued her college education, he was busy building up his family business empire. She didn’t mind his absence; what she dreaded was his presence.
So harsh were his methods, she longed for her mother’s cruel ways.
But one child after another made her hesitant to opt for divorce. She was so attached to her five children that she couldn’t bear to leave them behind.
Finally, she decided to end her misery. After a year without her kids, she was granted divorce, but custody of the children went to her husband. Another year passed without getting the court-set access to her children. Her ex-husband decided to punish her by denying her what she needed most.
She described how she used to hide in her car every morning outside their school to watch them go in and out. And how it tore her to pieces not to be able to hug and kiss them.
Finally, with the help of her father’s connections, she managed to get back custody of her kids. In the meanwhile, she finished her university, found a good job and established herself as a women’s rights activist.
Hanaa is another intelligent, sophisticated beauty queen. She was forced into a marriage she hotly refused.
Her suitor of choice was accepted at first, then refused because the rest of the family thought he was of a lesser class. Her father was adamant that she accept her cousin.
The boy was so stupid that he couldn’t understand that she wasn’t kidding when she told him to look elsewhere.
After the marriage, she tried to make it work, but couldn’t. Her husband had no character, no education, no sensitivity, no romance, not even a mind of his own.
His family controlled him completely. He couldn’t stick to any promise he made, like letting her finish her college.
Fourteen years and four children later, her psychiatrist gave her two options: Either to get divorce or be treated indefinitely for depression and related illnesses. When she finally divorced, her sister, married to a man of similar personality, “congratulated” her. She might follow suit, soon.
Roeda was in love with an airline captain. Her father refused him because flying would take him away from his wife so often. To escape the immense pressure they put on her, she took the first suitor they chose for her on two conditions: She would be allowed to finish her college studies and invite her divorced mother to the wedding party. She got both wishes, but for a romantic girl of eighteen, the man was too vulgar, insensitive and cruel.
After a year of increasingly unhappy life, she decided enough was enough. Against enormous resistance, she got what she asked for — divorce. Her punishment was movement restriction for eight years. This means she could hardly see a friend, attend a party or go out. All suitors were refused for one reason or another. Now 28 years old, she finally got married to a married man with wife and children.
He is kind and considerate, but too shallow and primitive for her taste. Why accept him? She was escaping her torturing at home and a cruel father. What choices did she have?
To those who felt I was generalizing and exaggerating, please look around you. We have enough cases to regard the situation as quite normal. Without protected and enforced rules and regulations, we cannot claim that all our women have their rights.
Leaving it to the conscience of society and the kindness of male guardians is not fair. Justice can only be upheld with law and authority.
Arabnews (July 3, 2006)
My last article “What is It Like to Be a Saudi Woman” evoked many responses, positive and negative.
Some thought I was generalizing, and claimed that Lila’s story was either exaggerated or unique.
Most women, they asserted, are happy and content with their role and position in society. But since most respondents are men, I wasn’t too surprised.
Women, on the other hand, were overwhelmingly in agreement. Some related their own tragic stories. I had to do some investigation to confirm the basic facts. To protect their true identities, I won’t use their real names.
Suha is the daughter of a prominent merchant — very beautiful, sweet, and smart. Her mother used harsh methods to bring up her daughters as obedient and respectful girls.
When a young man from a prominent merchant family came along, Suha welcomed him without asking too many questions. She was barely seventeen and had just finished high school. Her unhappy experience at home made her think that it won’t get any worse. It sure did.
The husband was cruel, self-centered, womanizer and distasteful. While she continued her college education, he was busy building up his family business empire. She didn’t mind his absence; what she dreaded was his presence.
So harsh were his methods, she longed for her mother’s cruel ways.
But one child after another made her hesitant to opt for divorce. She was so attached to her five children that she couldn’t bear to leave them behind.
Finally, she decided to end her misery. After a year without her kids, she was granted divorce, but custody of the children went to her husband. Another year passed without getting the court-set access to her children. Her ex-husband decided to punish her by denying her what she needed most.
She described how she used to hide in her car every morning outside their school to watch them go in and out. And how it tore her to pieces not to be able to hug and kiss them.
Finally, with the help of her father’s connections, she managed to get back custody of her kids. In the meanwhile, she finished her university, found a good job and established herself as a women’s rights activist.
Hanaa is another intelligent, sophisticated beauty queen. She was forced into a marriage she hotly refused.
Her suitor of choice was accepted at first, then refused because the rest of the family thought he was of a lesser class. Her father was adamant that she accept her cousin.
The boy was so stupid that he couldn’t understand that she wasn’t kidding when she told him to look elsewhere.
After the marriage, she tried to make it work, but couldn’t. Her husband had no character, no education, no sensitivity, no romance, not even a mind of his own.
His family controlled him completely. He couldn’t stick to any promise he made, like letting her finish her college.
Fourteen years and four children later, her psychiatrist gave her two options: Either to get divorce or be treated indefinitely for depression and related illnesses. When she finally divorced, her sister, married to a man of similar personality, “congratulated” her. She might follow suit, soon.
Roeda was in love with an airline captain. Her father refused him because flying would take him away from his wife so often. To escape the immense pressure they put on her, she took the first suitor they chose for her on two conditions: She would be allowed to finish her college studies and invite her divorced mother to the wedding party. She got both wishes, but for a romantic girl of eighteen, the man was too vulgar, insensitive and cruel.
After a year of increasingly unhappy life, she decided enough was enough. Against enormous resistance, she got what she asked for — divorce. Her punishment was movement restriction for eight years. This means she could hardly see a friend, attend a party or go out. All suitors were refused for one reason or another. Now 28 years old, she finally got married to a married man with wife and children.
He is kind and considerate, but too shallow and primitive for her taste. Why accept him? She was escaping her torturing at home and a cruel father. What choices did she have?
To those who felt I was generalizing and exaggerating, please look around you. We have enough cases to regard the situation as quite normal. Without protected and enforced rules and regulations, we cannot claim that all our women have their rights.
Leaving it to the conscience of society and the kindness of male guardians is not fair. Justice can only be upheld with law and authority.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
What Is It Like to Be a Saudi Woman?
Dr. Khaled Batarfi,
June 25 2006
Lila is the daughter of a brand-name family. This is important in the marriage market, but she has other important qualifications too. She is beautiful, smart, cute and moderately religious. In the beauty section, she is golden dark, tall with thick, long, flowing hair. In school, she had always been top of her class. Her friends and family love her for her good nature, optimism and sense of humor. She never misses a prayer or a religious duty, and lives a modern life with sophisticated attitude. In short, she is a poster-wife.
Her first shocking lesson came at an early age. The family promised to send her to medical school if she achieved A+ grade in high school. She did, but they changed their mind. That was her life’s dream and it was brutally shattered. Instead of becoming a heart surgeon, as she hoped, she is now a high school teacher. Why? Because this is a job where she doesn’t have to mix with men!
Later, there were more shocking lessons. Her suitors were turned away, one after another. Reasons varied, but mostly it was about their social and economic class. Since she inherited a fortune from her father and has a good salary, her brothers suspected that any man with lesser fortunes was after her money.
By the time the “right” suitor arrived, they had already soaked most of her savings. With promises of profitable investment and wiser management they divided her inheritance as well as that of their mother and sisters among themselves. If persuasion didn’t work, they applied social pressure. A woman who refuses to accommodate her own sons and brothers is called names and denied peace of mind.
Finally, they agreed to a suitor. She wasn’t given enough time to check him out, let alone love him. He turned out to have no merits except coming from a brand-name family. He has a shallow, childish personality, who lets his mother run all his affairs and make all his decisions. She couldn’t communicate or meet at any intellectual or emotional level with him from day one.
No one understood her reasons to demand divorce. Her family, tribe, the court and the whole community were against her. As long as he provides for her, and doesn’t mistreat her physically, there were no acceptable legal, logical or social grounds for divorce. She was lucky, because her husband gave up on her, and his mother agreed. They demanded compensations and got them. Gladly, she paid them back the dowry, gifts, jewelry, and whatever cost them for the wedding party and other events.
After divorce, she was socially punished for her rebellion. Her male guardians still wouldn’t accept suitors of lesser class. Suitable ones wouldn’t marry a divorced woman with rebellious attitude. And she wouldn’t accept silly, shallow, old and expired men just because they happen to come from the right tribe.
Now in her mid-thirties, her chances and choices are increasingly limited. The few suitors who trickle now are mostly in their fifties and sixties with wives and kids. In this range they are usually too traditional for her taste. Some are looking for self-financing, salary-earning wives. Others want to escape busy wives and noisy kids to spend some time every now and then with a young, light and lonely woman. Who needs that?
Lila is still waiting. There are many like her — some in a worse situation than hers. At least, Lila can work — a good investment of energy and time. She can go on the net and communicate with people like me. But others I know are not permitted even to leave home, unless really necessary. More decided to accept the hell they know, rather than try the terrible life of the divorced. Then, there is the problem of kids. Mothers have to stay the course with unpleasant husbands and continue to lead unhappy lives so their children won’t be taken away from them.
A lot has to be reviewed, changed and improved: Laws, rules and customs. Islam gave women their due rights and traditions took them away. Since we claim to be Muslims, we should abide by Islamic rules and follow the noble example set by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
June 25 2006
Lila is the daughter of a brand-name family. This is important in the marriage market, but she has other important qualifications too. She is beautiful, smart, cute and moderately religious. In the beauty section, she is golden dark, tall with thick, long, flowing hair. In school, she had always been top of her class. Her friends and family love her for her good nature, optimism and sense of humor. She never misses a prayer or a religious duty, and lives a modern life with sophisticated attitude. In short, she is a poster-wife.
Her first shocking lesson came at an early age. The family promised to send her to medical school if she achieved A+ grade in high school. She did, but they changed their mind. That was her life’s dream and it was brutally shattered. Instead of becoming a heart surgeon, as she hoped, she is now a high school teacher. Why? Because this is a job where she doesn’t have to mix with men!
Later, there were more shocking lessons. Her suitors were turned away, one after another. Reasons varied, but mostly it was about their social and economic class. Since she inherited a fortune from her father and has a good salary, her brothers suspected that any man with lesser fortunes was after her money.
By the time the “right” suitor arrived, they had already soaked most of her savings. With promises of profitable investment and wiser management they divided her inheritance as well as that of their mother and sisters among themselves. If persuasion didn’t work, they applied social pressure. A woman who refuses to accommodate her own sons and brothers is called names and denied peace of mind.
Finally, they agreed to a suitor. She wasn’t given enough time to check him out, let alone love him. He turned out to have no merits except coming from a brand-name family. He has a shallow, childish personality, who lets his mother run all his affairs and make all his decisions. She couldn’t communicate or meet at any intellectual or emotional level with him from day one.
No one understood her reasons to demand divorce. Her family, tribe, the court and the whole community were against her. As long as he provides for her, and doesn’t mistreat her physically, there were no acceptable legal, logical or social grounds for divorce. She was lucky, because her husband gave up on her, and his mother agreed. They demanded compensations and got them. Gladly, she paid them back the dowry, gifts, jewelry, and whatever cost them for the wedding party and other events.
After divorce, she was socially punished for her rebellion. Her male guardians still wouldn’t accept suitors of lesser class. Suitable ones wouldn’t marry a divorced woman with rebellious attitude. And she wouldn’t accept silly, shallow, old and expired men just because they happen to come from the right tribe.
Now in her mid-thirties, her chances and choices are increasingly limited. The few suitors who trickle now are mostly in their fifties and sixties with wives and kids. In this range they are usually too traditional for her taste. Some are looking for self-financing, salary-earning wives. Others want to escape busy wives and noisy kids to spend some time every now and then with a young, light and lonely woman. Who needs that?
Lila is still waiting. There are many like her — some in a worse situation than hers. At least, Lila can work — a good investment of energy and time. She can go on the net and communicate with people like me. But others I know are not permitted even to leave home, unless really necessary. More decided to accept the hell they know, rather than try the terrible life of the divorced. Then, there is the problem of kids. Mothers have to stay the course with unpleasant husbands and continue to lead unhappy lives so their children won’t be taken away from them.
A lot has to be reviewed, changed and improved: Laws, rules and customs. Islam gave women their due rights and traditions took them away. Since we claim to be Muslims, we should abide by Islamic rules and follow the noble example set by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Are We Treating Our Guest Workers Right?
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
"Arabnews" Sunday, 18, June, 2006
Let me begin by quoting a letter from an expatriate:
“We were talking about the stock market crash when my Arab friend suddenly said: Many Saudis are trying to figure out why Allah is punishing them so hard. Of the reasons they came up with, moral decadence tops the list. I agree, but not from the same perspective. By moral decadence, they mean materialism, commercialism, dating, indecent entertainment, and less religious devotion and mosque going.
I see it from a different perspective. As a long-term expatriate, I can testify to how tough it is for foreigners to work and live in your country.
I can talk from now to the wee hours of the morning about what many employers are doing to their ‘sponsored’ employees and how the system is less than just to us.
Take me as an example. I signed a contract with a company for a certain salary and benefits. After the company became my sponsor, the contract was suddenly changed, duties were increased and rewards reduced.
I could have gone to the Labor Bureau, but I’d need an expensive lawyer. Besides, I’d have to stay home for a while without any source of income. In addition, in retaliation, my sponsor could accuse me of any number of things, from laziness to theft. He has all the power, connections and tools, and I don’t. So I decided to accept the new terms and stay on.
Like me, thousands get their salaries late, sometimes after months. Others are sent home without compensation or left in the street to find jobs and then pay part of their wages back to the sponsor for keeping them sponsored. And don’t tell me they should complain. You know what it is like when they do it. Their employer could report them to the authorities as absconders. Once captured, they get sent home after staying for a while in the infamous ‘deportation facilities’.
In conclusion, I say: To please Allah, Saudis must re-evaluate the way they treat their guest workers.”
I was ashamed to say much in defense. While, I hope, the majority of Saudi employers are decent and just, too many are not. We have heard stories about the abuse and harassment of nurses, maids and domestic servants. However, we didn’t hear of major changes to labor laws that would prevent such abuses. I understand that the government cannot enter every house, know about every case and protect every expatriate. The authorities cannot, by their nature, interfere in a dispute if the parties didn’t ask for interference. But nongovernmental organizations concerned with human rights can actively seek and find these cases. On behalf of the victims, they should sue the offenders and collect compensations. Hot lines to concerned authorities and organizations should be established, publicized and given to every expatriate on arrival. Random checks on work places and interviews with employees should be conducted. Recently allowed, labor committees in private companies should be activated and given more powers and authority to look after members, like any decent union would.
In addition, we have to be strict with abusers. Punishment must fit the crime. Long prison terms and hefty financial penalties should apply to serious cases of abuse, for males and females alike.
Our media should extensively cover these cases, and publish the proceedings and penalties. Offenders should know what awaits them if they misbehave; we should make it crystal clear to potential abusers that we have a zero-tolerance policy for such crimes.
Major changes to the sponsorship laws are long overdue. So are better facilities and higher capacities for the offices of the Labor Ministry that deal with labor disputes. A worker cannot wait forever without a source of income hoping for a verdict in his favor. Many are driven to despair because it takes too long, sometimes years to get justice.
The human rights body should focus more on the problem. We should encourage them and charity organizations to facilitate and provide services to guest workers under stress, including safe havens, social, medical and psychological consultations and legal representations.
This is much more important than fixing the stock market. If we do that, we could assure our position as the Kingdom of Humanity, the moral authority and leading inspirer to the Muslim world.
"Arabnews" Sunday, 18, June, 2006
Let me begin by quoting a letter from an expatriate:
“We were talking about the stock market crash when my Arab friend suddenly said: Many Saudis are trying to figure out why Allah is punishing them so hard. Of the reasons they came up with, moral decadence tops the list. I agree, but not from the same perspective. By moral decadence, they mean materialism, commercialism, dating, indecent entertainment, and less religious devotion and mosque going.
I see it from a different perspective. As a long-term expatriate, I can testify to how tough it is for foreigners to work and live in your country.
I can talk from now to the wee hours of the morning about what many employers are doing to their ‘sponsored’ employees and how the system is less than just to us.
Take me as an example. I signed a contract with a company for a certain salary and benefits. After the company became my sponsor, the contract was suddenly changed, duties were increased and rewards reduced.
I could have gone to the Labor Bureau, but I’d need an expensive lawyer. Besides, I’d have to stay home for a while without any source of income. In addition, in retaliation, my sponsor could accuse me of any number of things, from laziness to theft. He has all the power, connections and tools, and I don’t. So I decided to accept the new terms and stay on.
Like me, thousands get their salaries late, sometimes after months. Others are sent home without compensation or left in the street to find jobs and then pay part of their wages back to the sponsor for keeping them sponsored. And don’t tell me they should complain. You know what it is like when they do it. Their employer could report them to the authorities as absconders. Once captured, they get sent home after staying for a while in the infamous ‘deportation facilities’.
In conclusion, I say: To please Allah, Saudis must re-evaluate the way they treat their guest workers.”
I was ashamed to say much in defense. While, I hope, the majority of Saudi employers are decent and just, too many are not. We have heard stories about the abuse and harassment of nurses, maids and domestic servants. However, we didn’t hear of major changes to labor laws that would prevent such abuses. I understand that the government cannot enter every house, know about every case and protect every expatriate. The authorities cannot, by their nature, interfere in a dispute if the parties didn’t ask for interference. But nongovernmental organizations concerned with human rights can actively seek and find these cases. On behalf of the victims, they should sue the offenders and collect compensations. Hot lines to concerned authorities and organizations should be established, publicized and given to every expatriate on arrival. Random checks on work places and interviews with employees should be conducted. Recently allowed, labor committees in private companies should be activated and given more powers and authority to look after members, like any decent union would.
In addition, we have to be strict with abusers. Punishment must fit the crime. Long prison terms and hefty financial penalties should apply to serious cases of abuse, for males and females alike.
Our media should extensively cover these cases, and publish the proceedings and penalties. Offenders should know what awaits them if they misbehave; we should make it crystal clear to potential abusers that we have a zero-tolerance policy for such crimes.
Major changes to the sponsorship laws are long overdue. So are better facilities and higher capacities for the offices of the Labor Ministry that deal with labor disputes. A worker cannot wait forever without a source of income hoping for a verdict in his favor. Many are driven to despair because it takes too long, sometimes years to get justice.
The human rights body should focus more on the problem. We should encourage them and charity organizations to facilitate and provide services to guest workers under stress, including safe havens, social, medical and psychological consultations and legal representations.
This is much more important than fixing the stock market. If we do that, we could assure our position as the Kingdom of Humanity, the moral authority and leading inspirer to the Muslim world.
Thursday, June 15, 2006
A Call for West-Islam Open-Doors Policies
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
(Arabnews) Sunday, 11, June, 2006
I was in the middle of an interesting debate about why and how the fanatics on all sides are winning while the project for repairing and extending the bridge of understanding between the West and the Muslim world is slowing. Suddenly, I received a call. It was from a friend I hadn't heard from for ages. Once the best of friends, we broke off on a sour note.
As I explained to members of a visiting German parliamentary delegation last week, my friend and I were too angry, arrogant and impatient to offer explanations and ask for answers. Pain was buried in anger, and anger fueled by pain. A vicious circle that led us so far away from each other, that we couldn't even meet or talk. Jealous, ignorant and unwise friends didn't help. To one side or another, they offered sympathy, support and undying loyalty. That helped us through our psychological turmoil, but reduced the need and motive to solve our disagreement.
Many years later, my friend called. It was so unexpected and pleasant a surprise. In the first call we didn't discuss our differences. Later, we aired them and found they were so trivial and silly. We couldn't believe we had so much energy and focus invested in so unimportant issues while a lifetime of good and beautiful relations and feelings were sacrificed and forgotten. Misunderstanding, miscommunication, misinformation, acting on haste and jumping to wrong conclusions are mostly the reasons why so many good and prosperous relations go sour and keep that way.
I told Joachim Horster and his colleagues that mistrust and fear come out of ignorance and divide. When we meet and talk, a simple smile and hello go a long way toward solving complicated issues. The rest will melt away with enlightened discussions and civilized interaction.
The best way to achieve harmony between civilizations is to open doors and encourage people-to-people exchange. When I was invited to America as part of a Saudi press delegation shortly after Sept. 11 my beloveds were horrified. My mother almost prevented me from going. I wasn't as sure as I pretended, but I won my case and went.
Yes, at the airport there was some "special" treatment for Arab citizens. I was lucky but others had to endure hours of wait to fill forms and prove they were what their passports claimed they were. Once out of the airport all went as normal as it could be.
The Arabs and Muslims I met in that visit reported few, if any, inconveniences, mostly from overzealous or racist FBI agents and citizens. But there was no general trend or policies. No public hatred, closure of mosques, mass arrests of Muslims, or biased laws and regulations against them.
If only my fellow Arabs and Muslims could see that! If more of us could visit America and the rest of the Western world and experience first hand how untrue and unfounded their worst suspicions and misgivings were! But, alas, gates are tight for most, closed for so many. Millions of Muslim students, merchants, tourists and patients were denied US visas in recent years. Visas to other Western nations are becoming more difficult to obtain. Denial doesn't always come with explanation, which makes the denied feel rejected. Some were returning students, visiting parents, vacationing families and seriously ill patients.
In the meanwhile, the media and fanatics are busy feeding negative messages to both sides. No day is lost without stories aired and published about mistreatment of Muslims in the West, and Westerners in the Muslim world. Sermons, speeches, comments and op-eds exaggerate and inflame what is already an aggravated state of mind.
The only way out of this bad-to-worse situation is for governments to design and encourage all kinds of people-to-people visitation such as exchange programs, tourism, educational and cultural cooperation.
I know I have said this over and over again in the years since the breaking point of 9/11, but it is worth it. And as nerves cool down, anger is abated and wisdom birds return home, the call to welcoming and cooperation policies may find more sympathetic hearing and supportive attitudes.
I bet on this overdue outcome for the sake of humanity, civilization and our best interests.
(Arabnews) Sunday, 11, June, 2006
I was in the middle of an interesting debate about why and how the fanatics on all sides are winning while the project for repairing and extending the bridge of understanding between the West and the Muslim world is slowing. Suddenly, I received a call. It was from a friend I hadn't heard from for ages. Once the best of friends, we broke off on a sour note.
As I explained to members of a visiting German parliamentary delegation last week, my friend and I were too angry, arrogant and impatient to offer explanations and ask for answers. Pain was buried in anger, and anger fueled by pain. A vicious circle that led us so far away from each other, that we couldn't even meet or talk. Jealous, ignorant and unwise friends didn't help. To one side or another, they offered sympathy, support and undying loyalty. That helped us through our psychological turmoil, but reduced the need and motive to solve our disagreement.
Many years later, my friend called. It was so unexpected and pleasant a surprise. In the first call we didn't discuss our differences. Later, we aired them and found they were so trivial and silly. We couldn't believe we had so much energy and focus invested in so unimportant issues while a lifetime of good and beautiful relations and feelings were sacrificed and forgotten. Misunderstanding, miscommunication, misinformation, acting on haste and jumping to wrong conclusions are mostly the reasons why so many good and prosperous relations go sour and keep that way.
I told Joachim Horster and his colleagues that mistrust and fear come out of ignorance and divide. When we meet and talk, a simple smile and hello go a long way toward solving complicated issues. The rest will melt away with enlightened discussions and civilized interaction.
The best way to achieve harmony between civilizations is to open doors and encourage people-to-people exchange. When I was invited to America as part of a Saudi press delegation shortly after Sept. 11 my beloveds were horrified. My mother almost prevented me from going. I wasn't as sure as I pretended, but I won my case and went.
Yes, at the airport there was some "special" treatment for Arab citizens. I was lucky but others had to endure hours of wait to fill forms and prove they were what their passports claimed they were. Once out of the airport all went as normal as it could be.
The Arabs and Muslims I met in that visit reported few, if any, inconveniences, mostly from overzealous or racist FBI agents and citizens. But there was no general trend or policies. No public hatred, closure of mosques, mass arrests of Muslims, or biased laws and regulations against them.
If only my fellow Arabs and Muslims could see that! If more of us could visit America and the rest of the Western world and experience first hand how untrue and unfounded their worst suspicions and misgivings were! But, alas, gates are tight for most, closed for so many. Millions of Muslim students, merchants, tourists and patients were denied US visas in recent years. Visas to other Western nations are becoming more difficult to obtain. Denial doesn't always come with explanation, which makes the denied feel rejected. Some were returning students, visiting parents, vacationing families and seriously ill patients.
In the meanwhile, the media and fanatics are busy feeding negative messages to both sides. No day is lost without stories aired and published about mistreatment of Muslims in the West, and Westerners in the Muslim world. Sermons, speeches, comments and op-eds exaggerate and inflame what is already an aggravated state of mind.
The only way out of this bad-to-worse situation is for governments to design and encourage all kinds of people-to-people visitation such as exchange programs, tourism, educational and cultural cooperation.
I know I have said this over and over again in the years since the breaking point of 9/11, but it is worth it. And as nerves cool down, anger is abated and wisdom birds return home, the call to welcoming and cooperation policies may find more sympathetic hearing and supportive attitudes.
I bet on this overdue outcome for the sake of humanity, civilization and our best interests.
The Twisted Logic of the Fanatics
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
Arabnews (June 4, 2006)
It is awfully hard to persuade someone who is convinced he is right. No matter how persuasive your logic, you will find them immune to persuasion with a locked logic of their own. I found this is true with fanatics of all kinds. Ours are no different. Examples are plenty.
Let’s take the latest. The Labor Ministry has given a year’s notice to shops selling women’s clothes to employ Saudi women only. They later had to extend the deadline to an as yet unspecified date.
This was an overdue move. Most shops today employ men to sell women’s stuff, such as lingerie. It is embarrassing, to say the least, for a woman to take advice on what nightclothes to wear for her husband or on the latest panties and swim dresses.
Besides, our women need jobs and the system is not helping. The girls’ curriculum is not geared for work. Graduates, therefore, have few work options, mostly as teachers, doctors or nurses. If a girl wants to be a civil engineer, a lawyer, a pilot or a diplomat, she will have to study abroad.
After graduation come other obstacles. Women must work in women-only environment. Except for hospitals, mixed work environments are forbidden by law. This means the overwhelming majority of job opportunities, by default, go to men.
So, while more than half our graduates are girls, few can work. The rest hang their certificates at home and stay there. What a waste!
As expected, the fanatics threw a fierce fight against the Labor Ministry for suggesting the new law. Their logic is absurd. Women working in shops are vulnerable. Male shop owners and shoppers may take advantage of salesgirls. In their paranoid view, only by staying home could women be safe. And if at all necessary, they can work as teachers in girls-only schools or at home and in women-only businesses.
The underlying assumption here is that our women are weak and cannot be trusted. They are easy prey and can easily fall to temptation. Men are wolves lurking outside looking for any chance to jump on them, as soon as they leave their castles.
With such conviction, no logic in the world may help. You tell them that many women are poor and need to support their families, and they say they should go to charities. You remind them that dire circumstances may lead some to immoral ways, and they say, “the free die of hunger rather than sell themselves to the Devil.”
Another example of twisted logic and locked mentality is the reasoning behind banning women driving. Again, fanatics talk about protecting women. They liberally use the “what if” logic: What if a car broke down in a deserted area? What if men followed a girl or tried to attack her where no help is available? What if she broke a law and policemen had to take her to a male-dominated station? You give them solutions. You tell them: Let’s agree first on the principle, and then study how we solve expected problems. You remind them of a million or more male drivers working in our homes. You list the dangers that are not mere “ifs” but solid reality. You point to the contradiction of worrying about males in the street and accepting males in the driving seat. But you can’t get anything across.
What is really frustrating in their logic is their insistence on forcing the rest of us to follow it. A girl may opt to study Home Improvement in college, but it is not her or her family’s business if my daughter chose to study home building, instead. A woman may choose not to work, but she is not entitled to tell other women not to. Another may insist she won’t work in a mixed environment, but she shouldn’t object if others choose to. She could opt to have a man driving her around, but why would she care if other women choose to drive themselves?
The problem with fanatics is not that they force their logic on their families and dependants — and that’s bad enough — but they insist the whole society follow their lead. All of us should wear as they wear, eat what they eat, study what they study, work and live according to their rules. Not that we are following a different religion.
This has nothing to do with Islam, but with a certain school of thought that belongs to a certain sect. Islam has never forbidden women working or driving, but certain cultures and traditions did.
Good for them, if they choose to but they should not, may not intervene in other peoples’ choices — people from other cultures and with different ways and thoughts. Your freedom must end where others’ starts.
Arabnews (June 4, 2006)
It is awfully hard to persuade someone who is convinced he is right. No matter how persuasive your logic, you will find them immune to persuasion with a locked logic of their own. I found this is true with fanatics of all kinds. Ours are no different. Examples are plenty.
Let’s take the latest. The Labor Ministry has given a year’s notice to shops selling women’s clothes to employ Saudi women only. They later had to extend the deadline to an as yet unspecified date.
This was an overdue move. Most shops today employ men to sell women’s stuff, such as lingerie. It is embarrassing, to say the least, for a woman to take advice on what nightclothes to wear for her husband or on the latest panties and swim dresses.
Besides, our women need jobs and the system is not helping. The girls’ curriculum is not geared for work. Graduates, therefore, have few work options, mostly as teachers, doctors or nurses. If a girl wants to be a civil engineer, a lawyer, a pilot or a diplomat, she will have to study abroad.
After graduation come other obstacles. Women must work in women-only environment. Except for hospitals, mixed work environments are forbidden by law. This means the overwhelming majority of job opportunities, by default, go to men.
So, while more than half our graduates are girls, few can work. The rest hang their certificates at home and stay there. What a waste!
As expected, the fanatics threw a fierce fight against the Labor Ministry for suggesting the new law. Their logic is absurd. Women working in shops are vulnerable. Male shop owners and shoppers may take advantage of salesgirls. In their paranoid view, only by staying home could women be safe. And if at all necessary, they can work as teachers in girls-only schools or at home and in women-only businesses.
The underlying assumption here is that our women are weak and cannot be trusted. They are easy prey and can easily fall to temptation. Men are wolves lurking outside looking for any chance to jump on them, as soon as they leave their castles.
With such conviction, no logic in the world may help. You tell them that many women are poor and need to support their families, and they say they should go to charities. You remind them that dire circumstances may lead some to immoral ways, and they say, “the free die of hunger rather than sell themselves to the Devil.”
Another example of twisted logic and locked mentality is the reasoning behind banning women driving. Again, fanatics talk about protecting women. They liberally use the “what if” logic: What if a car broke down in a deserted area? What if men followed a girl or tried to attack her where no help is available? What if she broke a law and policemen had to take her to a male-dominated station? You give them solutions. You tell them: Let’s agree first on the principle, and then study how we solve expected problems. You remind them of a million or more male drivers working in our homes. You list the dangers that are not mere “ifs” but solid reality. You point to the contradiction of worrying about males in the street and accepting males in the driving seat. But you can’t get anything across.
What is really frustrating in their logic is their insistence on forcing the rest of us to follow it. A girl may opt to study Home Improvement in college, but it is not her or her family’s business if my daughter chose to study home building, instead. A woman may choose not to work, but she is not entitled to tell other women not to. Another may insist she won’t work in a mixed environment, but she shouldn’t object if others choose to. She could opt to have a man driving her around, but why would she care if other women choose to drive themselves?
The problem with fanatics is not that they force their logic on their families and dependants — and that’s bad enough — but they insist the whole society follow their lead. All of us should wear as they wear, eat what they eat, study what they study, work and live according to their rules. Not that we are following a different religion.
This has nothing to do with Islam, but with a certain school of thought that belongs to a certain sect. Islam has never forbidden women working or driving, but certain cultures and traditions did.
Good for them, if they choose to but they should not, may not intervene in other peoples’ choices — people from other cultures and with different ways and thoughts. Your freedom must end where others’ starts.
Why Change Business Rules All Too Frequently?
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
I asked the Honda dealer for a car with window shades, and was told they don't have them. Why not? After years of strict no, the government finally allowed cars to be shaded in the back windows. The dealer smiled sweetly and teased: And what if they changed their minds, again?
He is right. I remember when they changed their minds before and car windows were smashed at the customs before they were allowed in. Luckily, the shaded Chrysler minivan I brought home after I finished my Ph.D. studies in the US was spared such a fate because the law had just changed. Since then, it has changed twice. Each time car and shopowners had to cope with a hefty price. Shades were pealed off cars, and inventories in shops and warehouses were confiscated or wasted with no compensation.
Abrupt rule changes are not new. In the late 1990s, shops in Jeddah had to close down in many areas because the newly appointed mayor revised the commercial zone system. Owners were given until the end of their contracts to move out. If that happened to be only days away, so be it! Many went bankrupt because they had invested their capitals in decorating and establishing their businesses. They couldn't afford to lose all these investments and just move on. "It isn't like a tent you fold and carry," I told the mayor. He wouldn't listen. Nobody cared then, nobody does now.
Today, we have three glaring examples of such arrogant and ignorant bureaucratic attitude. The Shoura Council has just approved a law that prohibits shops remaining open beyond 9 p. m. The committee that designed the law had already listened to representatives of shopowners who explained why a law that works for a village may not work for a city, or what suits school season may not be good for the holidays. The bureaucrats who might never have been in business decided that closing shops earlier will provide jobs for Saudis. How? I understand that more shifts mean more opportunities. But the way they see it is this: Saudis can only work eight hours a day, and if businesses are forced to stick with this time limit then more citizens would be encouraged to work for them.
They forgot that we, Saudis, especially in our typically hot summer, prefer to get out and about only at night. Closing shops earlier deprived both merchants and customers of the best time for conducting business.
While we encourage local tourism, mindless laws like this make it very hard for the industry to thrive and compete with the more alluring regional and international destinations. In Dubai and Bahrain, for instance, malls can stay open as late as past midnight. In hot and humid weather, where else, if not in air-conditioned malls, people can spend their leisure time?
Another example is the order to close live-bird shops. I understand the concern about bird flue, but the question is: Who should shoulder the burden? The shopowner, who may have invested his life's savings in the business or the government? If it is absolutely necessary to close these shops, then the government should compensate the owners or make it up for them by finding ways to recoup their losses and change course. The ever-modified law of furnished apartments is another case in point.
To just make laws, implement them, then wash your hands off the dire consequences for the affected parties is not fair.
The reason why laws had to be changed back and forth is that they were not well studied and conceived.
A good case is the limousine Saudization law. After issuing a decree that forced limousine companies to be fully Saudized within six months, the implementation was first delayed, then forgotten. For a start, there weren't enough Saudi drivers to fill the gap. The King Fund that gives interest-free loans to Saudis to buy taxis has not generated enough interest.
Besides, taxi companies were not consulted. In many instances, even after the concerned parties are consulted regarding a new law, their views are not always taken into account. When the universal rent contract was finally approved by the Shoura Council, the concerns of building owners were not heeded.
For businesses to prosper, we need stable laws and regulations. Investors must be quite sure that their investments won't be spoiled all on a sudden because some smart bureaucrats thought of changing the rules in the middle of the game. If this happens, then the government should shoulder the losses, not the players. This is only fair.
I asked the Honda dealer for a car with window shades, and was told they don't have them. Why not? After years of strict no, the government finally allowed cars to be shaded in the back windows. The dealer smiled sweetly and teased: And what if they changed their minds, again?
He is right. I remember when they changed their minds before and car windows were smashed at the customs before they were allowed in. Luckily, the shaded Chrysler minivan I brought home after I finished my Ph.D. studies in the US was spared such a fate because the law had just changed. Since then, it has changed twice. Each time car and shopowners had to cope with a hefty price. Shades were pealed off cars, and inventories in shops and warehouses were confiscated or wasted with no compensation.
Abrupt rule changes are not new. In the late 1990s, shops in Jeddah had to close down in many areas because the newly appointed mayor revised the commercial zone system. Owners were given until the end of their contracts to move out. If that happened to be only days away, so be it! Many went bankrupt because they had invested their capitals in decorating and establishing their businesses. They couldn't afford to lose all these investments and just move on. "It isn't like a tent you fold and carry," I told the mayor. He wouldn't listen. Nobody cared then, nobody does now.
Today, we have three glaring examples of such arrogant and ignorant bureaucratic attitude. The Shoura Council has just approved a law that prohibits shops remaining open beyond 9 p. m. The committee that designed the law had already listened to representatives of shopowners who explained why a law that works for a village may not work for a city, or what suits school season may not be good for the holidays. The bureaucrats who might never have been in business decided that closing shops earlier will provide jobs for Saudis. How? I understand that more shifts mean more opportunities. But the way they see it is this: Saudis can only work eight hours a day, and if businesses are forced to stick with this time limit then more citizens would be encouraged to work for them.
They forgot that we, Saudis, especially in our typically hot summer, prefer to get out and about only at night. Closing shops earlier deprived both merchants and customers of the best time for conducting business.
While we encourage local tourism, mindless laws like this make it very hard for the industry to thrive and compete with the more alluring regional and international destinations. In Dubai and Bahrain, for instance, malls can stay open as late as past midnight. In hot and humid weather, where else, if not in air-conditioned malls, people can spend their leisure time?
Another example is the order to close live-bird shops. I understand the concern about bird flue, but the question is: Who should shoulder the burden? The shopowner, who may have invested his life's savings in the business or the government? If it is absolutely necessary to close these shops, then the government should compensate the owners or make it up for them by finding ways to recoup their losses and change course. The ever-modified law of furnished apartments is another case in point.
To just make laws, implement them, then wash your hands off the dire consequences for the affected parties is not fair.
The reason why laws had to be changed back and forth is that they were not well studied and conceived.
A good case is the limousine Saudization law. After issuing a decree that forced limousine companies to be fully Saudized within six months, the implementation was first delayed, then forgotten. For a start, there weren't enough Saudi drivers to fill the gap. The King Fund that gives interest-free loans to Saudis to buy taxis has not generated enough interest.
Besides, taxi companies were not consulted. In many instances, even after the concerned parties are consulted regarding a new law, their views are not always taken into account. When the universal rent contract was finally approved by the Shoura Council, the concerns of building owners were not heeded.
For businesses to prosper, we need stable laws and regulations. Investors must be quite sure that their investments won't be spoiled all on a sudden because some smart bureaucrats thought of changing the rules in the middle of the game. If this happens, then the government should shoulder the losses, not the players. This is only fair.
Helping the Stock Market Victims
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
You hardly join a discussion these days without dwelling on the stock market Big Bang. People are confused, astonished, and angry.
When three to four million Saudis out of 13 are hurt you don't need a whistle-blower to tell you that something is worth keen attention. Unfortunately most discussions are focused on the market itself, less time is devoted to the social effects of the crash.
What do you do to help millions of affected people? Some sold all their worldly possessions to "gamble" in the bourse. Others left their secure jobs to find time and energy to invest in high-flying stocks. Many sold their homes, cars, shops and businesses below market prices to raise some reasonable capital. Women used their life savings, jewelry and dowry to get on board.
The crash was worse still for those who bought cars at installments and then sold them at much less than the original price. Also for those who got long-term bank loans and the workers who took advanced salaries from their companies. They all hoped to pay debts and make a fortune in a market that doubled in value for two consecutive years. They all turned into players in stock trade. Even the likes of my illiterate poor mother-in-law suddenly became proud shareowners, keen readers and armchair analysts of market trends.
A person I know was typical of many. He resigned a good position, collected retirement compensation, as well as the jewelry of his wife, daughters and sisters, plus some friends' savings. Then sold his farm and three loaned cars and put all proceeds in a bank portfolio. Against his three million riyals, the bank gave him three more. After the crash, he lost half the portfolio and the bank reclaimed the other half. He came out from this business with huge loans and debts and no revenue to pay them back or even to live on. He is now in deep depression after some heart and other health complications.
Like him, people of limited means and huge losses, are struggling to make ends meet. Imagine the short- and long-term effect of this shocking experience on them socially, psychologically, mentally and politically. How are they going to feel about those "fat cats", who stole the market? How are they going to evaluate the performance of the government agencies that were supposed to well manage the market and protect the weak and the unaware? And where will they go to pay huge debts and to cover daily expenses?
When crises hit, you need strong crisis management. We urgently need a high commission made of highly professional representatives of all concerned authorities and parties. Their mission should be to study and manage the social calamity and to provide solutions to affected people.
After the New York Stock Exchange crash of 1929, millions went broke and hungry, until President F. D. Roosevelt sponsored the congressional bill that created the Social Security Act of 1935. The new system provided a safety network for the needy and unemployed. It also helped spur the economic recovery in the 1940s and 1950s.
What we need is urgent steps to help people cope with their losses and challenges. For example, we should reach an understanding with loaners such as banks, government loan funds and car companies, to reschedule loans to market victims. We ought to make it easier for those who resigned jobs to reclaim them. And we must give more support to charities to help them provide food, shelter, medical and social services to the deprived.
We also need more good economic news - more business and job opportunities, greater investments and projects, higher public spending, lower rates on services (electricity, natural gas etc.) and salary bonuses. For the unemployed, we should provide social security benefits.
When the stock market crisis hit Asia in the mid-1990s, most governments were financially ill prepared to deal with the aftermath. Fortunately, our finances are in good shape with oil prices hovering around $70 a barrel and we could afford to deal with this situation.
Fixing the stock market is top national priority; so is helping the victims and providing for the most affected.
You hardly join a discussion these days without dwelling on the stock market Big Bang. People are confused, astonished, and angry.
When three to four million Saudis out of 13 are hurt you don't need a whistle-blower to tell you that something is worth keen attention. Unfortunately most discussions are focused on the market itself, less time is devoted to the social effects of the crash.
What do you do to help millions of affected people? Some sold all their worldly possessions to "gamble" in the bourse. Others left their secure jobs to find time and energy to invest in high-flying stocks. Many sold their homes, cars, shops and businesses below market prices to raise some reasonable capital. Women used their life savings, jewelry and dowry to get on board.
The crash was worse still for those who bought cars at installments and then sold them at much less than the original price. Also for those who got long-term bank loans and the workers who took advanced salaries from their companies. They all hoped to pay debts and make a fortune in a market that doubled in value for two consecutive years. They all turned into players in stock trade. Even the likes of my illiterate poor mother-in-law suddenly became proud shareowners, keen readers and armchair analysts of market trends.
A person I know was typical of many. He resigned a good position, collected retirement compensation, as well as the jewelry of his wife, daughters and sisters, plus some friends' savings. Then sold his farm and three loaned cars and put all proceeds in a bank portfolio. Against his three million riyals, the bank gave him three more. After the crash, he lost half the portfolio and the bank reclaimed the other half. He came out from this business with huge loans and debts and no revenue to pay them back or even to live on. He is now in deep depression after some heart and other health complications.
Like him, people of limited means and huge losses, are struggling to make ends meet. Imagine the short- and long-term effect of this shocking experience on them socially, psychologically, mentally and politically. How are they going to feel about those "fat cats", who stole the market? How are they going to evaluate the performance of the government agencies that were supposed to well manage the market and protect the weak and the unaware? And where will they go to pay huge debts and to cover daily expenses?
When crises hit, you need strong crisis management. We urgently need a high commission made of highly professional representatives of all concerned authorities and parties. Their mission should be to study and manage the social calamity and to provide solutions to affected people.
After the New York Stock Exchange crash of 1929, millions went broke and hungry, until President F. D. Roosevelt sponsored the congressional bill that created the Social Security Act of 1935. The new system provided a safety network for the needy and unemployed. It also helped spur the economic recovery in the 1940s and 1950s.
What we need is urgent steps to help people cope with their losses and challenges. For example, we should reach an understanding with loaners such as banks, government loan funds and car companies, to reschedule loans to market victims. We ought to make it easier for those who resigned jobs to reclaim them. And we must give more support to charities to help them provide food, shelter, medical and social services to the deprived.
We also need more good economic news - more business and job opportunities, greater investments and projects, higher public spending, lower rates on services (electricity, natural gas etc.) and salary bonuses. For the unemployed, we should provide social security benefits.
When the stock market crisis hit Asia in the mid-1990s, most governments were financially ill prepared to deal with the aftermath. Fortunately, our finances are in good shape with oil prices hovering around $70 a barrel and we could afford to deal with this situation.
Fixing the stock market is top national priority; so is helping the victims and providing for the most affected.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Advocating the Rights of Women and Minorities
Dr. Khaled Batarfi,
Last Saturday, our weekly diwania was very tense. A prominent Saudi columnist was disappointed that his paper wouldn't publish one of his articles. In the article, he had criticized a prominent family for not announcing the name of their daughter in the wedding invitation card. Most people only print the name of the groom. His conclusion was: If the leading families of the country, who happened to be liberal, are afraid of breaking this custom, then who will dare to free us from Dark-Ages ways?
The rest of us were divided. Nobody disagreed that traditions, mostly accumulated in the last 30 years, insult women by hiding their names. We disagreed on explaining the tradition.
The writer who came from the tribal South assured us that it didn't use to be like that 30 years ago. The men in his village knew all women by the face and name. Today, thanks to the neo-Islamists, they all cover their faces and hide their names.
Instead of referring to your wife, sister or daughter by their given names, you say my folks or dependents, he noted. "Last week, I was called to my son's school because he was in a fight. Why? His classmate kept telling him his sister's name. Yes, she is my sister; my son's response was every time. Finally, my son told his friend: I know your sister's name, too. The boy went bananas and into big fight. What my son didn't know in the beginning of this episode was that the boy meant it as an insult. This was common. It shouldn't, and we, opinion and society leaders, should fight it. The least we could do is to announce our daughters' names in their wedding invitation cards."
I supported his position and reminded the others that names of the Prophet's mother, wives, daughters and female members of his extended family were not kept secret. We also know the names of the greatest women in our Islamic history. King Abdul Aziz, the founder of modern Saudi Arabia was proud of his sister Nora, to the extent that he gave himself the nick name "Akho Nora" (the brother of Nora). Names of King Abdullah's wife and daughters are announced when they participate in or sponsor public events and charity works.
No one disagreed with our position, but some wondered whether it is the responsibility of prominent families and opinion leaders to advocate such a position. The argument goes like this: "While it is absolutely right to announce the female names in any event or invitation cards, we should also respect the right of those who choose not to. Leading families or not, every group has its traditions, and every person has his/her convictions. We should respect, if not celebrate, cultural diversity."
Then, we debated another point: Should the government advocate changing wrong customs and how? The writer insisted we should use schools, media and all available platforms to promote positive changes in our society.
Women's rights, respect for other religions, sects and thoughts, for example, are not subject to disagreement.
Therefore, the government, media and intellectuals should design public education and awareness programs to promote these rights and principles, starting with kindergarten and children's books.
The movement that took our society to where it is now should be overturned.
Others disagreed. They argued that societies develop in their own way, at their own pace without intervention from governments or other organized forces. No one group or authority has the right to direct social attitudes, traditions and convictions.
My stand was: Since "organized forces" were allowed for ages to take society to where it is now, we should allow others from different schools of thought with noble principles (like rights for women and minorities) to do the same.
The curriculum has to be changed in accord with these values. To reach acceptable level of national consensus on these issues, we could simply follow the recommendations of our national dialogue forums.
This way, we could avoid siding with one group or another. This way, we legitimize the campaign for positive change. And this way, we help society move forward - the least we could do for the majority, our women plus minorities.
History is a train that can only go forward. And it won't await us forever.
Last Saturday, our weekly diwania was very tense. A prominent Saudi columnist was disappointed that his paper wouldn't publish one of his articles. In the article, he had criticized a prominent family for not announcing the name of their daughter in the wedding invitation card. Most people only print the name of the groom. His conclusion was: If the leading families of the country, who happened to be liberal, are afraid of breaking this custom, then who will dare to free us from Dark-Ages ways?
The rest of us were divided. Nobody disagreed that traditions, mostly accumulated in the last 30 years, insult women by hiding their names. We disagreed on explaining the tradition.
The writer who came from the tribal South assured us that it didn't use to be like that 30 years ago. The men in his village knew all women by the face and name. Today, thanks to the neo-Islamists, they all cover their faces and hide their names.
Instead of referring to your wife, sister or daughter by their given names, you say my folks or dependents, he noted. "Last week, I was called to my son's school because he was in a fight. Why? His classmate kept telling him his sister's name. Yes, she is my sister; my son's response was every time. Finally, my son told his friend: I know your sister's name, too. The boy went bananas and into big fight. What my son didn't know in the beginning of this episode was that the boy meant it as an insult. This was common. It shouldn't, and we, opinion and society leaders, should fight it. The least we could do is to announce our daughters' names in their wedding invitation cards."
I supported his position and reminded the others that names of the Prophet's mother, wives, daughters and female members of his extended family were not kept secret. We also know the names of the greatest women in our Islamic history. King Abdul Aziz, the founder of modern Saudi Arabia was proud of his sister Nora, to the extent that he gave himself the nick name "Akho Nora" (the brother of Nora). Names of King Abdullah's wife and daughters are announced when they participate in or sponsor public events and charity works.
No one disagreed with our position, but some wondered whether it is the responsibility of prominent families and opinion leaders to advocate such a position. The argument goes like this: "While it is absolutely right to announce the female names in any event or invitation cards, we should also respect the right of those who choose not to. Leading families or not, every group has its traditions, and every person has his/her convictions. We should respect, if not celebrate, cultural diversity."
Then, we debated another point: Should the government advocate changing wrong customs and how? The writer insisted we should use schools, media and all available platforms to promote positive changes in our society.
Women's rights, respect for other religions, sects and thoughts, for example, are not subject to disagreement.
Therefore, the government, media and intellectuals should design public education and awareness programs to promote these rights and principles, starting with kindergarten and children's books.
The movement that took our society to where it is now should be overturned.
Others disagreed. They argued that societies develop in their own way, at their own pace without intervention from governments or other organized forces. No one group or authority has the right to direct social attitudes, traditions and convictions.
My stand was: Since "organized forces" were allowed for ages to take society to where it is now, we should allow others from different schools of thought with noble principles (like rights for women and minorities) to do the same.
The curriculum has to be changed in accord with these values. To reach acceptable level of national consensus on these issues, we could simply follow the recommendations of our national dialogue forums.
This way, we could avoid siding with one group or another. This way, we legitimize the campaign for positive change. And this way, we help society move forward - the least we could do for the majority, our women plus minorities.
History is a train that can only go forward. And it won't await us forever.
Monday, May 01, 2006
The American Culture Shock Works for Sure
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
“Would Osama Bin Laden have ended up so anti-American if he had the chance you had to live and study in the US?” the American journalist wondered.
I gave him a long answer (sorry it wasn’t an easy question): “Many Muslims went to America conservative and came back liberal. Others only became conservative, even radicals, after their American experience. A few remained uninfluenced either way.
Said Qutub, the godfather of Islamic radicalism, was a romantic poet before he lived for a short while in Colorado, one of the most beautiful places on earth. Still, he wrote later about his discovery then and there of the Western decadence and how he decided to change course to fight the US influence on the Muslim world. His books persuaded many Muslim generations and led them on the way of confrontation with Western values and with Muslim regimes that do not strictly adhere to the Shariah.
On the other hand, most people I know, young and old, returned from America positively impressed. A prominent anti-US leftist told me after his first visit: I discovered that America is not just pro-Israel Congress and White House. It is also the hospitable, friendly, open and generous people.
During the cross-Atlantic flight from London to New York, my American neighbor told me all about his life and family, showed me their pictures, and discussed everything from the environment to US foreign policies. We agreed and disagreed, but he never showed any anger, arrogance, stubbornness or hostility. Before we parted ways, he gave me his card, invited me home, and ... presented me with a medal of honor he received in the US Army.
Are all Americans like that? I didn’t live enough in the States to judge, but all the people I met from the steward on the airplane, to the passport officer, to the man in the street, were so nice to me. How could I hate a country with such lovely attitude? How could I ever hate America the country, the people and civilization? No, from now on, I’ll just hate their foreign policies.
Going to America right away from a conservative society is usually a huge culture shock. Many cannot cope, but most do process the change and absorb the different lifestyle, in time. America, as an immigrant society, more than most Western nations, has the capacity of accommodating and welcoming strangers. Depending on the place you happen to visit or live in, you may get easier or harder transit experience. Young and liberal get on faster than the older and conservative, but somehow, almost all manage to manage.
Back to the original question, I don’t think Osama, who did shortly visit America in the 1970s for medical treatment for his son, would have changed fundamentally. His stand is more political than social. His criticism is directed at US foreign policies, not at American social attitudes. But knowing how friendly the average American is, I’d bet that would have made a good impression on Osama.
I was lucky to have known American expatriates since childhood. The kids in the nearby compound were my playmates. This allowed me to see the different other not as a stranger or an enemy but as a friend. After years of study in the US, the positive image was enforced. My professors, classmates and neighbors of all faiths, races and colors showed me that no matter what a person’s background maybe it is how he treats you and what ethics and values he upholds that matters.
I would imagine that for the anti-Americans of the world to live in such a liberal, friendly, and civilized environment as I did in Eugene, Oregon would have made them more tolerant and friendly and less suspicious and hostile. It would moderate their anger toward the public who elected a government they despise. It would make them understand that electing a president doesn’t necessarily mean supporting all his foreign policies.
That is one reason I encourage our students, professionals and opinion and community leaders to have such experience and exposure.
It defeats our best intentions and purposes to encourage studies in the States and then find it so difficult and humiliating to get a visa. It would very much help if we expand on Saudi-American visitor exchange programs, workshops, conferences and scholarships. We need more of face-to-face, people-to- people meetings.
Only by building a direct bridge between our peoples and cultures will we get to know each other, and care for each other. Love doesn’t grow in abstention.
“Would Osama Bin Laden have ended up so anti-American if he had the chance you had to live and study in the US?” the American journalist wondered.
I gave him a long answer (sorry it wasn’t an easy question): “Many Muslims went to America conservative and came back liberal. Others only became conservative, even radicals, after their American experience. A few remained uninfluenced either way.
Said Qutub, the godfather of Islamic radicalism, was a romantic poet before he lived for a short while in Colorado, one of the most beautiful places on earth. Still, he wrote later about his discovery then and there of the Western decadence and how he decided to change course to fight the US influence on the Muslim world. His books persuaded many Muslim generations and led them on the way of confrontation with Western values and with Muslim regimes that do not strictly adhere to the Shariah.
On the other hand, most people I know, young and old, returned from America positively impressed. A prominent anti-US leftist told me after his first visit: I discovered that America is not just pro-Israel Congress and White House. It is also the hospitable, friendly, open and generous people.
During the cross-Atlantic flight from London to New York, my American neighbor told me all about his life and family, showed me their pictures, and discussed everything from the environment to US foreign policies. We agreed and disagreed, but he never showed any anger, arrogance, stubbornness or hostility. Before we parted ways, he gave me his card, invited me home, and ... presented me with a medal of honor he received in the US Army.
Are all Americans like that? I didn’t live enough in the States to judge, but all the people I met from the steward on the airplane, to the passport officer, to the man in the street, were so nice to me. How could I hate a country with such lovely attitude? How could I ever hate America the country, the people and civilization? No, from now on, I’ll just hate their foreign policies.
Going to America right away from a conservative society is usually a huge culture shock. Many cannot cope, but most do process the change and absorb the different lifestyle, in time. America, as an immigrant society, more than most Western nations, has the capacity of accommodating and welcoming strangers. Depending on the place you happen to visit or live in, you may get easier or harder transit experience. Young and liberal get on faster than the older and conservative, but somehow, almost all manage to manage.
Back to the original question, I don’t think Osama, who did shortly visit America in the 1970s for medical treatment for his son, would have changed fundamentally. His stand is more political than social. His criticism is directed at US foreign policies, not at American social attitudes. But knowing how friendly the average American is, I’d bet that would have made a good impression on Osama.
I was lucky to have known American expatriates since childhood. The kids in the nearby compound were my playmates. This allowed me to see the different other not as a stranger or an enemy but as a friend. After years of study in the US, the positive image was enforced. My professors, classmates and neighbors of all faiths, races and colors showed me that no matter what a person’s background maybe it is how he treats you and what ethics and values he upholds that matters.
I would imagine that for the anti-Americans of the world to live in such a liberal, friendly, and civilized environment as I did in Eugene, Oregon would have made them more tolerant and friendly and less suspicious and hostile. It would moderate their anger toward the public who elected a government they despise. It would make them understand that electing a president doesn’t necessarily mean supporting all his foreign policies.
That is one reason I encourage our students, professionals and opinion and community leaders to have such experience and exposure.
It defeats our best intentions and purposes to encourage studies in the States and then find it so difficult and humiliating to get a visa. It would very much help if we expand on Saudi-American visitor exchange programs, workshops, conferences and scholarships. We need more of face-to-face, people-to- people meetings.
Only by building a direct bridge between our peoples and cultures will we get to know each other, and care for each other. Love doesn’t grow in abstention.
What is Wrong with the Stock Market?
What is Wrong with the Stock Market?
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
John D. Rockefeller was once asked why he decided to sell all his stocks just months before the 1929 Wall Street Crash. He explained: One morning, I was on the way to my office and stopped to have my shoes polished. The guy asked my advice about the shares he bought. If people with this kind of talent were now playing the market, I knew there was something wrong.
The limousine driver who took me home from Jeddah airport announced happily that this was his last trip. He was retiring. The young, high school graduate, explained to me that he was now a good broker. For months now, he sits on the computer at home, buying and selling in the stock market. Starting with a few thousands, he is now making more than he gets from his limousine, without the headache. Like Rockefeller, I knew then there was something wrong. But unlike Rockefeller, I haven’t sold my stocks. I am stuck with it now. In fact, we should have seen it coming long time ago. There are lots of things that have been wrong, persistently.
Let’s start with the imbalance of liquidity and availability. While the first is increasing, reaching historical heights of over half a trillion riyals in private accounts alone, few shares and investment avenues are available. For some reason, giant companies, like petrochemical SABIC, petroleum ARAMCO, telecom STC, Saudi Arabian Airlines, Saudi Arabia’s biggest banks Al-Ahli and Samba, among others, are mostly or completely in government hands. Take SABIC for example. When it was partially privatized (30 percent) the promise was more percentage to follow. This was some 20 years ago, and until now there is not even a hint of what to expect. Therefore, lots of money is chasing few shares and investment opportunities. The bubble market was a sure result. Bursting was a question of when not if.
Another “wrong” is the absence of transparency. The overseers of the stock market are not talking. The overseers of the whole economy are not talking either. The movers and shakers, nicknamed hamoors after the big fish, are hardly known. The media has no clue. And only the hamoor-connected analysts are talking to the masses. Of course, their advice is self-serving, leading buyers toward one company’s stock or another.
Three million Saudis, out of 13 million, went wild in the wild market. Few have any clue. They buy and sell on rumors and instinct, with little or no idea about the solidity of the company they buy in. Therefore, bankrupt and small-time businesses’ shares are sold at higher rates than that of market leaders. Bisha’s shares, the small agricultural company with a few thousands date trees, reached over SR2,400, much higher than SABIC’s SR1,800. Why? Because a few “hamoors,” who own most of the shares, artificially inflated them. When the time was right, they sold all, and let the price fall to the range of a few hundred.
What was the penalty, if any? Only a few people were punished. Their identities were not revealed. And the punishment didn’t include imprisonment. Their response? Driving the market from around the point of 21,000 to bellow 13,000! The government response? In the first interview ever with Jammaz Al-Suhaimi, chairman of the Capital Market Authority, we were told that 50 percent of the liquidity was invested in the weak companies and that this has to be corrected. What is new in the most important matter of transparency and strong rules against cheaters? Nothing. Business will continue to run as usual.
The huge drop goes against market fundamentals. Corporations are making tons of profits. Banks are doubling their earnings. Business thrives and projects are plenty. In short, we have no shortage of good news.
I would understand that weak companies are losing much of their inflated values — this is called correction. But the big question is: Why every company, good and bad, beautiful and ugly, rich and poor is losing, too? And if the hamoors are doing it, and we already know them by name and address, why can’t we “correct” them, as well? The banks are now turning down loan requests to invest in the stock market. This takes out much of the liquidity. Can’t we do something about that?
I don’t know how much “correction” we need, and what we can do without interfering too much in a free market phenomenon, but what worries me is that no one else seems to know. And if those who are supposed to know are not telling or doing something about it, then we all should worry. At stake here is not only the state of a trillion-riyal market, but the economy train this engine is driving. Crash seems to be the one conclusion I can see.
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
John D. Rockefeller was once asked why he decided to sell all his stocks just months before the 1929 Wall Street Crash. He explained: One morning, I was on the way to my office and stopped to have my shoes polished. The guy asked my advice about the shares he bought. If people with this kind of talent were now playing the market, I knew there was something wrong.
The limousine driver who took me home from Jeddah airport announced happily that this was his last trip. He was retiring. The young, high school graduate, explained to me that he was now a good broker. For months now, he sits on the computer at home, buying and selling in the stock market. Starting with a few thousands, he is now making more than he gets from his limousine, without the headache. Like Rockefeller, I knew then there was something wrong. But unlike Rockefeller, I haven’t sold my stocks. I am stuck with it now. In fact, we should have seen it coming long time ago. There are lots of things that have been wrong, persistently.
Let’s start with the imbalance of liquidity and availability. While the first is increasing, reaching historical heights of over half a trillion riyals in private accounts alone, few shares and investment avenues are available. For some reason, giant companies, like petrochemical SABIC, petroleum ARAMCO, telecom STC, Saudi Arabian Airlines, Saudi Arabia’s biggest banks Al-Ahli and Samba, among others, are mostly or completely in government hands. Take SABIC for example. When it was partially privatized (30 percent) the promise was more percentage to follow. This was some 20 years ago, and until now there is not even a hint of what to expect. Therefore, lots of money is chasing few shares and investment opportunities. The bubble market was a sure result. Bursting was a question of when not if.
Another “wrong” is the absence of transparency. The overseers of the stock market are not talking. The overseers of the whole economy are not talking either. The movers and shakers, nicknamed hamoors after the big fish, are hardly known. The media has no clue. And only the hamoor-connected analysts are talking to the masses. Of course, their advice is self-serving, leading buyers toward one company’s stock or another.
Three million Saudis, out of 13 million, went wild in the wild market. Few have any clue. They buy and sell on rumors and instinct, with little or no idea about the solidity of the company they buy in. Therefore, bankrupt and small-time businesses’ shares are sold at higher rates than that of market leaders. Bisha’s shares, the small agricultural company with a few thousands date trees, reached over SR2,400, much higher than SABIC’s SR1,800. Why? Because a few “hamoors,” who own most of the shares, artificially inflated them. When the time was right, they sold all, and let the price fall to the range of a few hundred.
What was the penalty, if any? Only a few people were punished. Their identities were not revealed. And the punishment didn’t include imprisonment. Their response? Driving the market from around the point of 21,000 to bellow 13,000! The government response? In the first interview ever with Jammaz Al-Suhaimi, chairman of the Capital Market Authority, we were told that 50 percent of the liquidity was invested in the weak companies and that this has to be corrected. What is new in the most important matter of transparency and strong rules against cheaters? Nothing. Business will continue to run as usual.
The huge drop goes against market fundamentals. Corporations are making tons of profits. Banks are doubling their earnings. Business thrives and projects are plenty. In short, we have no shortage of good news.
I would understand that weak companies are losing much of their inflated values — this is called correction. But the big question is: Why every company, good and bad, beautiful and ugly, rich and poor is losing, too? And if the hamoors are doing it, and we already know them by name and address, why can’t we “correct” them, as well? The banks are now turning down loan requests to invest in the stock market. This takes out much of the liquidity. Can’t we do something about that?
I don’t know how much “correction” we need, and what we can do without interfering too much in a free market phenomenon, but what worries me is that no one else seems to know. And if those who are supposed to know are not telling or doing something about it, then we all should worry. At stake here is not only the state of a trillion-riyal market, but the economy train this engine is driving. Crash seems to be the one conclusion I can see.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
It Is Time for New Saudi-US Bridges
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
Communication is both art and science. You may be born with the gift, but you need to work on it. Certain tools that come with education and experience are needed. You should know what you are talking about and whom you are talking to, master the language preferred by your audience, and prepare well with information and training.
We all need good communicators. You need to sell your convictions, products, and messages to all kinds of people at all levels for so many purposes. At home, shop and government, whether you are selling a new budgetary system, a new toothbrush or a political candidate, good communication skills are essential.
Saudis and Americans found themselves in dire need of outstanding communicators after Sept. 11, 2001. Unfortunately, there was shortage of such talent on both sides. Somehow, we couldn’t communicate well for many years. Things are improving, but still ... a lot needs to be done before we declare victory.
Needless to say, we were totally taken by surprise. In the beginning, we, Saudis, couldn’t believe that some of our own committed such horrible and sophisticated crime. We were stuck in the denial mode for too long.
Some still are. This cost us very precious time. By the moment we moved, it was almost too late to repair the damage, let alone improve the image of our nation, culture and people. Our enemies, on both sides, used the stall to further the damage and their agenda. Religious radicals, Christian, Jewish and Muslim, crossed interests and locked moves to break all bridges between Islam and the West, Saudi and American.
Where have all of us, Saudi and Americans, gone wrong? First, we should have seen it coming — not necessarily at the same magnitude. The omens were plenty. Radicalism on all sides was increasing. Israel was pushing the envelope. Peace projects — UN-sanctioned, US-guaranteed deals — were ignored. Arab and Muslim anger was boiling.
From our ivory towers, we were watching. Some of us tried to understand. Many were happy with their packaged explanations. Little was done to contain the phenomena. Our priorities were different. Economic woes, domestic politics and other distractions took our eyes away from the ball. When it finally hit us, we were poorly prepared to act — except in anger. Our actions were actually reactions. Our audience was mostly domestic.
Second, we were in the denial mode for too long. This is natural human behavior, but hardly wise. When faced with an ugly truth, we tend to disbelieve, refuse admittance, and return fire with fire: Criticism with criticism, accusations with accusations. Lots of valuable time and effort are wasted in the process. In the meanwhile, the bad guys are working round the clock to boost their gains and increase our losses.
Third, in time of perceived danger, people tend to ignore their differences and stick together. Right or wrong, they retreat to the siege mentality. In such a mode, no mistake is admitted, and not even an inch is given away. That might be understandable or excusable, if, at least, you search your soul then admit and fix your problems. Staying the course, no matter how wrong, is suicidal.
Still, it is not too late. Communication, in my opinion, is the key. We started in the last couple of years to build and rebuild some bridges. To increase the momentum and speed up the pace, we should improve our tools.
We come from different cultures and speak different languages, but that is a challenge, not an obstacle.
Many Saudis studied in America, and many Americans worked in Saudi Arabia. They lived in their host countries for years, made friends, explored the culture, and some even intermarried.
Most feel depressed about the post-9/11 state of our relations. They are fired and ready to do something about it. All we need is some training, organization and support.
Let’s imagine we start some sort of Saudi-US friends clubs here and there, link them tighter, and provide them with channels and avenues to communicate with media and public.
Sponsored visits, conferences, visitor and student exchange programs and so many other activities and events can spring out and spread around. In time, we will win, because, when given a choice, people prefer peace and cooperation to hate and confrontation. This is especially true when the storms of anger and confusion pass, as they did. It is now time for reflection, reassessment, repair and reconnection. It is now time for educated, enlightened, well-thought and organized action. It is now time for the good guys to prevail.
Communication is both art and science. You may be born with the gift, but you need to work on it. Certain tools that come with education and experience are needed. You should know what you are talking about and whom you are talking to, master the language preferred by your audience, and prepare well with information and training.
We all need good communicators. You need to sell your convictions, products, and messages to all kinds of people at all levels for so many purposes. At home, shop and government, whether you are selling a new budgetary system, a new toothbrush or a political candidate, good communication skills are essential.
Saudis and Americans found themselves in dire need of outstanding communicators after Sept. 11, 2001. Unfortunately, there was shortage of such talent on both sides. Somehow, we couldn’t communicate well for many years. Things are improving, but still ... a lot needs to be done before we declare victory.
Needless to say, we were totally taken by surprise. In the beginning, we, Saudis, couldn’t believe that some of our own committed such horrible and sophisticated crime. We were stuck in the denial mode for too long.
Some still are. This cost us very precious time. By the moment we moved, it was almost too late to repair the damage, let alone improve the image of our nation, culture and people. Our enemies, on both sides, used the stall to further the damage and their agenda. Religious radicals, Christian, Jewish and Muslim, crossed interests and locked moves to break all bridges between Islam and the West, Saudi and American.
Where have all of us, Saudi and Americans, gone wrong? First, we should have seen it coming — not necessarily at the same magnitude. The omens were plenty. Radicalism on all sides was increasing. Israel was pushing the envelope. Peace projects — UN-sanctioned, US-guaranteed deals — were ignored. Arab and Muslim anger was boiling.
From our ivory towers, we were watching. Some of us tried to understand. Many were happy with their packaged explanations. Little was done to contain the phenomena. Our priorities were different. Economic woes, domestic politics and other distractions took our eyes away from the ball. When it finally hit us, we were poorly prepared to act — except in anger. Our actions were actually reactions. Our audience was mostly domestic.
Second, we were in the denial mode for too long. This is natural human behavior, but hardly wise. When faced with an ugly truth, we tend to disbelieve, refuse admittance, and return fire with fire: Criticism with criticism, accusations with accusations. Lots of valuable time and effort are wasted in the process. In the meanwhile, the bad guys are working round the clock to boost their gains and increase our losses.
Third, in time of perceived danger, people tend to ignore their differences and stick together. Right or wrong, they retreat to the siege mentality. In such a mode, no mistake is admitted, and not even an inch is given away. That might be understandable or excusable, if, at least, you search your soul then admit and fix your problems. Staying the course, no matter how wrong, is suicidal.
Still, it is not too late. Communication, in my opinion, is the key. We started in the last couple of years to build and rebuild some bridges. To increase the momentum and speed up the pace, we should improve our tools.
We come from different cultures and speak different languages, but that is a challenge, not an obstacle.
Many Saudis studied in America, and many Americans worked in Saudi Arabia. They lived in their host countries for years, made friends, explored the culture, and some even intermarried.
Most feel depressed about the post-9/11 state of our relations. They are fired and ready to do something about it. All we need is some training, organization and support.
Let’s imagine we start some sort of Saudi-US friends clubs here and there, link them tighter, and provide them with channels and avenues to communicate with media and public.
Sponsored visits, conferences, visitor and student exchange programs and so many other activities and events can spring out and spread around. In time, we will win, because, when given a choice, people prefer peace and cooperation to hate and confrontation. This is especially true when the storms of anger and confusion pass, as they did. It is now time for reflection, reassessment, repair and reconnection. It is now time for educated, enlightened, well-thought and organized action. It is now time for the good guys to prevail.
A Tale of Three Cities
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
Dr. Basim is a prominent Saudi lawyer. At one time he worked for the World Bank in New York. We all envied him. What a position he held in the capital of capitals of world capitalism!
But then he suddenly returned and sat a law firm in Jeddah. Now don't get me wrong; I expect our brightest to come back home after they finish their studies abroad. We need them. But for a Saudi to represent us in such a great institution is an honor to be upheld.
Thinking he was just homesick, I was critical. He should have stayed longer to get more experience and prominence, I told him.
It wasn't homesickness that brought me back, he calmly explained. "One day I was hurrying down a Manhattan street on my way home. Then I realized that there was no reason to hurry. I had no family waiting for me, no date or appointment and wasn't hungry. I slowed down and was pushed over by the guy behind. He was cursing at the sudden slowness. When I asked him why the hurry, he was disgusted. Only oldies, handicapped and tourists would walk the way I did, he snapped.
I put my back to the wall and stopped to watch the human traffic. It was 5.30 p.m, and most people seemed, just like me, on their way home. They all hurried. They all ran. Why? I asked myself. Because that is the rhythm of life in New York. We chase our tails to survive.
We run in vicious circles, until it becomes the norm. You compete with yourself if you don't have a competition.
Do I need this? Can I survive with a slower rhythm of life? Not in such a capitalist city, I decided. Then and there I realized I must go home."
In three weeks I had been to three different cities. London, a favorite of mine, showed me how we can be modern, capitalist and preserve a unique culture, all at the same time.
Dubai, tries hard to follow on the same footsteps. Problem is, like most Gulf states or cities, they jumped from tents to towers without the necessary progressing trip in between.
Then I went to Tunis. Even though a French colony for centuries, they progressed much earlier. Still, they haven't gone down as far in the capitalism and consumerism road as have London and Dubai.
The rhythm there was refreshingly relaxed. I spent most of my money in seawater and mineral springs spas-much less in the elegant but relatively few, small and expensive shops and malls.
The Tunisian heritage is very much preserved. The social life is largely intact, even in cities. People are going about their lives with much easier breath. They have plenty of time to chat with you on the street, to take you home for dinner or to sit with you at a cafe for sweets and a cup of tea.
Here, in Jeddah, where I live, things are changing ... fast. Malls are erupting everywhere. Materialism and consumerism, symptoms of free market and capitalism, are gaining ground even with conservatives. More and more, we measure people and achievements by numbers rather than merit. Less and less we find time to reflect, enjoy our gifts of family and friends and take breaks.
It doesn't have to be one way or another. We don't have to live in tents or work half a day. We don't have to live in jungles of cements and asphalt, either. What we need is a balance. Once we decided on that, we could formulate a vision-as a nation and as individuals. Our cities, our homes, our lives could be built upon that.
One thing we can't afford: To rush down the road without an objective, without a plan, without even a map.
Dr. Basim is a prominent Saudi lawyer. At one time he worked for the World Bank in New York. We all envied him. What a position he held in the capital of capitals of world capitalism!
But then he suddenly returned and sat a law firm in Jeddah. Now don't get me wrong; I expect our brightest to come back home after they finish their studies abroad. We need them. But for a Saudi to represent us in such a great institution is an honor to be upheld.
Thinking he was just homesick, I was critical. He should have stayed longer to get more experience and prominence, I told him.
It wasn't homesickness that brought me back, he calmly explained. "One day I was hurrying down a Manhattan street on my way home. Then I realized that there was no reason to hurry. I had no family waiting for me, no date or appointment and wasn't hungry. I slowed down and was pushed over by the guy behind. He was cursing at the sudden slowness. When I asked him why the hurry, he was disgusted. Only oldies, handicapped and tourists would walk the way I did, he snapped.
I put my back to the wall and stopped to watch the human traffic. It was 5.30 p.m, and most people seemed, just like me, on their way home. They all hurried. They all ran. Why? I asked myself. Because that is the rhythm of life in New York. We chase our tails to survive.
We run in vicious circles, until it becomes the norm. You compete with yourself if you don't have a competition.
Do I need this? Can I survive with a slower rhythm of life? Not in such a capitalist city, I decided. Then and there I realized I must go home."
In three weeks I had been to three different cities. London, a favorite of mine, showed me how we can be modern, capitalist and preserve a unique culture, all at the same time.
Dubai, tries hard to follow on the same footsteps. Problem is, like most Gulf states or cities, they jumped from tents to towers without the necessary progressing trip in between.
Then I went to Tunis. Even though a French colony for centuries, they progressed much earlier. Still, they haven't gone down as far in the capitalism and consumerism road as have London and Dubai.
The rhythm there was refreshingly relaxed. I spent most of my money in seawater and mineral springs spas-much less in the elegant but relatively few, small and expensive shops and malls.
The Tunisian heritage is very much preserved. The social life is largely intact, even in cities. People are going about their lives with much easier breath. They have plenty of time to chat with you on the street, to take you home for dinner or to sit with you at a cafe for sweets and a cup of tea.
Here, in Jeddah, where I live, things are changing ... fast. Malls are erupting everywhere. Materialism and consumerism, symptoms of free market and capitalism, are gaining ground even with conservatives. More and more, we measure people and achievements by numbers rather than merit. Less and less we find time to reflect, enjoy our gifts of family and friends and take breaks.
It doesn't have to be one way or another. We don't have to live in tents or work half a day. We don't have to live in jungles of cements and asphalt, either. What we need is a balance. Once we decided on that, we could formulate a vision-as a nation and as individuals. Our cities, our homes, our lives could be built upon that.
One thing we can't afford: To rush down the road without an objective, without a plan, without even a map.
The French Approach to Muslim Discontent
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
France has been a strong supporter of Arab causes after King Faisal’s state visit and crucial meeting with President Charles de Gaulle days before the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.
France’s stand against the war on Iraq and the larger US-led campaign to fight terror with terror won it lots of credit in the Arab and Muslim world. However, the pretty image was stained lately by a couple of major events: The law prohibiting hijab in public schools, and the recent riots in its poor Muslim neighborhoods. Both exposed the deep-rooted racism toward the French of Arab origin and Muslim background. As public polls showed, most French applauded the hijab ban and don’t think highly of their Muslim fellow citizens. This hurts.
Dr. Pascal Boniface is the founder and director of the Institute for International and Strategic Relations. He is also a consultant on strategic issues for the French defense and foreign departments.
I met him recently with members of the International Relations Committee of the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
He was mostly on the defensive during our exchange. The majority of French people, he insisted, are not racist. Only a small minority thinks of Islam as a problem and considers French Muslims inferior. The hijab issue was taken out of context and blown out of proportion. Most French believe in multicultural and multiracial secular society. In fact that is why they supported the hijab law!!
On the recent riots, he advised not to believe the American media. Yes, a majority of the rioters happened to be Muslims; the rest were black. But the issue was about social problems, not Islam. Solutions are on the way to address all causes of discontent, like unemployment, inequality and racism.
I asked: If Muslims form 10 percent of the population, what is their representation among decision-makers in all branches of power, including the media? And are they consulted when it comes to decisions affecting their lives?
To be honest, he said, Muslims are not represented well in the corridors of power. When Boniface was a professor in the university, few Muslims were among his students. Most joined the workforce as soon as they finished high school if not earlier. Poverty might be a reason, but there might be other causes.
The same absence can be noted among the elite. This is a real problem that needs to be addressed, urgently. Boniface said the French authorities are working on quick fixes for the social problems that produced such anger and unhappiness among the Muslim population. But we also need to look at the larger picture and work at the strategic level, he said. In a way, the riots were a blessing in disguise. Now, no one can ignore the obvious and delay actions any more. The danger is clear and present to all.
Consultations are going on with the leaders of the Muslim community on how to face radicalism and fanaticism. The same debate is going on in the elite circles. Intellectuals and experts are looking at ways to give more education, empowerment and representation to all minorities, especially the biggest, Muslims. Actions are already being taken, Boniface said. In the next election, for example, Muslims figure in the list of liberal candidates. One of them is already heading a list. In public TV and media, we are looking for better representation. Muslim and black producers, actors and presenters should get more and better opportunities. Now we have Muslim scholars appearing on public TV. More windows of opportunities are on the way ... soon.
But of course these steps are not without resistance, Boniface conceded. As you know, there are groups who feel that greater presence means stronger influence. In a democracy, governments can’t just take actions without considering all voices and opinions. Let’s hope that justice and sensibility prevail. It is high time we gave Muslims fair representation in education, government and media.
I wrote last week about how the British try to solve the problems of their Muslim minority in cooperation with Islamic councils. Meeting with Dr. Boniface was a good opportunity to check what is going on on the other side of the Match Canal.
We all have minority issues. The first step is to come out clean about them. We can’t solve a problem no matter how small if we don’t admit its existence. Thorough study must follow, involving all concerned parties, giving them equal access and respect.
Solutions are mere paperwork if not executed. This is the hardest part and it needs a strong and determined leadership to work it out.
There is no simple solution to complex problems. But the easiest and most obvious first is to communicate with the right people, the right way. Great ideas and thoughts will flow from there.
France has been a strong supporter of Arab causes after King Faisal’s state visit and crucial meeting with President Charles de Gaulle days before the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.
France’s stand against the war on Iraq and the larger US-led campaign to fight terror with terror won it lots of credit in the Arab and Muslim world. However, the pretty image was stained lately by a couple of major events: The law prohibiting hijab in public schools, and the recent riots in its poor Muslim neighborhoods. Both exposed the deep-rooted racism toward the French of Arab origin and Muslim background. As public polls showed, most French applauded the hijab ban and don’t think highly of their Muslim fellow citizens. This hurts.
Dr. Pascal Boniface is the founder and director of the Institute for International and Strategic Relations. He is also a consultant on strategic issues for the French defense and foreign departments.
I met him recently with members of the International Relations Committee of the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
He was mostly on the defensive during our exchange. The majority of French people, he insisted, are not racist. Only a small minority thinks of Islam as a problem and considers French Muslims inferior. The hijab issue was taken out of context and blown out of proportion. Most French believe in multicultural and multiracial secular society. In fact that is why they supported the hijab law!!
On the recent riots, he advised not to believe the American media. Yes, a majority of the rioters happened to be Muslims; the rest were black. But the issue was about social problems, not Islam. Solutions are on the way to address all causes of discontent, like unemployment, inequality and racism.
I asked: If Muslims form 10 percent of the population, what is their representation among decision-makers in all branches of power, including the media? And are they consulted when it comes to decisions affecting their lives?
To be honest, he said, Muslims are not represented well in the corridors of power. When Boniface was a professor in the university, few Muslims were among his students. Most joined the workforce as soon as they finished high school if not earlier. Poverty might be a reason, but there might be other causes.
The same absence can be noted among the elite. This is a real problem that needs to be addressed, urgently. Boniface said the French authorities are working on quick fixes for the social problems that produced such anger and unhappiness among the Muslim population. But we also need to look at the larger picture and work at the strategic level, he said. In a way, the riots were a blessing in disguise. Now, no one can ignore the obvious and delay actions any more. The danger is clear and present to all.
Consultations are going on with the leaders of the Muslim community on how to face radicalism and fanaticism. The same debate is going on in the elite circles. Intellectuals and experts are looking at ways to give more education, empowerment and representation to all minorities, especially the biggest, Muslims. Actions are already being taken, Boniface said. In the next election, for example, Muslims figure in the list of liberal candidates. One of them is already heading a list. In public TV and media, we are looking for better representation. Muslim and black producers, actors and presenters should get more and better opportunities. Now we have Muslim scholars appearing on public TV. More windows of opportunities are on the way ... soon.
But of course these steps are not without resistance, Boniface conceded. As you know, there are groups who feel that greater presence means stronger influence. In a democracy, governments can’t just take actions without considering all voices and opinions. Let’s hope that justice and sensibility prevail. It is high time we gave Muslims fair representation in education, government and media.
I wrote last week about how the British try to solve the problems of their Muslim minority in cooperation with Islamic councils. Meeting with Dr. Boniface was a good opportunity to check what is going on on the other side of the Match Canal.
We all have minority issues. The first step is to come out clean about them. We can’t solve a problem no matter how small if we don’t admit its existence. Thorough study must follow, involving all concerned parties, giving them equal access and respect.
Solutions are mere paperwork if not executed. This is the hardest part and it needs a strong and determined leadership to work it out.
There is no simple solution to complex problems. But the easiest and most obvious first is to communicate with the right people, the right way. Great ideas and thoughts will flow from there.
Wise British Moves to Tackle Domestic Radicalism
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
What distinguishes the experienced former empires from the new immature ones is wisdom. The wise do not act on instinct. They thoroughly investigate before they make a finding, then fully analyze before they formulate a judgment. They do hit and miss, like the rest of us, but they self-correct when they find out.
The British always strike me as wise. They have known through their long colonial history how to make the best of what they had. Of the many lessons they learnt and taught is don't jump to conclusion, don't burn bridges you may need to use, and don't sour your words less you have to eat them.
After 9-11, they made a strategic decision to ally themselves with the Americans in what came to be known as the War on Terror. They tried to moderate lots of decisions but at the end they dutifully followed in US steps, and did what they felt they had to do.
Still, their actions were always calculated to maximize benefit and minimize loss. Their profits from Iraqi contracts are high; while their domestic troubles in the areas they rule are low. They tried understanding, respect and self-discipline. Relatively speaking, they made many successes in their management of post war Iraq.
Domestically, they were wise in their relations with Arab and Muslim communities. Even after the metro bombings of 7-7, their reactions were reasonably moderate. Arab and Muslim phobia was kept at minimum. Their relations with local Islamic communities were of cooperation not confrontation. From the Royal family to the Prime Minister to concerned government officials and most media editors there were a good level of understanding and appreciation of the situation.
I just came from an organized visit to London. The Foreign Office took us, three Saudi journalists and writers, to meet with a number of officials in governmental and non-governmental organizations dealing with interfaith relations. They explained to us how they try to make sense of the participation in the metro attacks of second generation, educated and clean-record young Muslim citizens.
Instead of relying on paranoid police tactics, they went to Muslim leaders and asked for assistance. A number of councils were created to study the phenomenon. They thoroughly and patiently studied the political, social, economic and religious dimensions. The study is not over yet, almost a year after the attack, but many recommendations are already implemented. Social, educational, racial and religious discrimination that produced unemployed, unqualified and unhappy generation are now being tackled.
According to Tony Heal of the Faith Communities Unit in the Interior Ministry, many corrective steps are taken to insure better schooling, fairer treatment, and higher representation in government including the police and other security agencies.
Further wise steps include screening local and foreign imams. All had to get approval from recognized Muslim councils. Foreign and visiting imams must speak fluent English to get visas. The Council monitors mosques for immoderate teaching and radical views. They encourage the public to collaborate with the government and the Council in fighting radicalism and terrorism by avoiding and reporting suspicious activities.
All the people I met, and they were many, agreed that there are valid reasons for the problem. No one claims that terrorism is an illegal import. The relation between Al-Qaeda and the attackers is minimized, while the focus is mostly on the provoking policies like the war on Iraq and the perceived crusade against Islam and Muslims. They asked us and many others for advice and encouraged us to criticize, analyze and recommend. In searching for accurate answers you have to act humble, respectful, keen and sincere. Our hosts certainly did.
Those are wise and positive steps. Communicating, even with your enemies, is the only way to find out the whys and hows of their actions. Nobody sacrifices his life to punish the people he hates just for fun. Regardless of the validity of their anger, your enemies must have a reason. Finding out the correct answers is the first step towards understanding and resolution.
Such steps do tend to be tedious and last longer. They won’t satisfy public anger or make a leader instantly popular, but … they are the right thing to do.
I salute those who are working hard and smart on this problem. I hope the rest of us do the "same thing", the "same way."
What distinguishes the experienced former empires from the new immature ones is wisdom. The wise do not act on instinct. They thoroughly investigate before they make a finding, then fully analyze before they formulate a judgment. They do hit and miss, like the rest of us, but they self-correct when they find out.
The British always strike me as wise. They have known through their long colonial history how to make the best of what they had. Of the many lessons they learnt and taught is don't jump to conclusion, don't burn bridges you may need to use, and don't sour your words less you have to eat them.
After 9-11, they made a strategic decision to ally themselves with the Americans in what came to be known as the War on Terror. They tried to moderate lots of decisions but at the end they dutifully followed in US steps, and did what they felt they had to do.
Still, their actions were always calculated to maximize benefit and minimize loss. Their profits from Iraqi contracts are high; while their domestic troubles in the areas they rule are low. They tried understanding, respect and self-discipline. Relatively speaking, they made many successes in their management of post war Iraq.
Domestically, they were wise in their relations with Arab and Muslim communities. Even after the metro bombings of 7-7, their reactions were reasonably moderate. Arab and Muslim phobia was kept at minimum. Their relations with local Islamic communities were of cooperation not confrontation. From the Royal family to the Prime Minister to concerned government officials and most media editors there were a good level of understanding and appreciation of the situation.
I just came from an organized visit to London. The Foreign Office took us, three Saudi journalists and writers, to meet with a number of officials in governmental and non-governmental organizations dealing with interfaith relations. They explained to us how they try to make sense of the participation in the metro attacks of second generation, educated and clean-record young Muslim citizens.
Instead of relying on paranoid police tactics, they went to Muslim leaders and asked for assistance. A number of councils were created to study the phenomenon. They thoroughly and patiently studied the political, social, economic and religious dimensions. The study is not over yet, almost a year after the attack, but many recommendations are already implemented. Social, educational, racial and religious discrimination that produced unemployed, unqualified and unhappy generation are now being tackled.
According to Tony Heal of the Faith Communities Unit in the Interior Ministry, many corrective steps are taken to insure better schooling, fairer treatment, and higher representation in government including the police and other security agencies.
Further wise steps include screening local and foreign imams. All had to get approval from recognized Muslim councils. Foreign and visiting imams must speak fluent English to get visas. The Council monitors mosques for immoderate teaching and radical views. They encourage the public to collaborate with the government and the Council in fighting radicalism and terrorism by avoiding and reporting suspicious activities.
All the people I met, and they were many, agreed that there are valid reasons for the problem. No one claims that terrorism is an illegal import. The relation between Al-Qaeda and the attackers is minimized, while the focus is mostly on the provoking policies like the war on Iraq and the perceived crusade against Islam and Muslims. They asked us and many others for advice and encouraged us to criticize, analyze and recommend. In searching for accurate answers you have to act humble, respectful, keen and sincere. Our hosts certainly did.
Those are wise and positive steps. Communicating, even with your enemies, is the only way to find out the whys and hows of their actions. Nobody sacrifices his life to punish the people he hates just for fun. Regardless of the validity of their anger, your enemies must have a reason. Finding out the correct answers is the first step towards understanding and resolution.
Such steps do tend to be tedious and last longer. They won’t satisfy public anger or make a leader instantly popular, but … they are the right thing to do.
I salute those who are working hard and smart on this problem. I hope the rest of us do the "same thing", the "same way."
Do We Need Al-Hiaa?
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
Members of the Human Rights Committee are visiting Sheikh Algaith President of the Commission for the Prevention of Vice and Promotion of Virtue (known as Hiaa) to check some disturbing complaints.
According to Ms. Suhaila Zein Alabedeen, The newly-found nongovernmental organization is checking stories of human rights abuse by zealot commission members.
Cases include beating, imprisonment and verbal abuse of innocent couples because of unfounded suspicions of improper relations. Others complain that the commission members hunt for such relations in family sections of public places. If single men are not allowed into these areas why these members are the exception? they protest. Many were taken from malls, restaurants and streets just because they couldn't prove they were relatives.
A South African nurse was caught in a supermarket with her Lebanese boyfriend. Both were Christians shopping for Xmas. The "Hiaa" put them in its private prison for 14 days. Both were denied phone calls and access to their lawyers, embassies and companies.
It took their relatives and friends a couple of weeks to find and bail them out.
A Filipino maid with her husband and infant were caught in another market for similar suspicion. Even though the husband proved their relations, his wife was kept in prison and he was let out with the infant. A prison officer insisted she should return to her sponsor not husband. She left her sponsor because he had not given her a single salary for six months. Apparently, this wasn't enough reason to let her go, so the husband's lawyer enlisted the help of the Human Rights Commission and the media. Prince Salman, the Governor of Riyadh intervened and ordered her release.
A Saudi Doctor with his sister was leaving the market with a couple of traveling bags when an angry Hiaa member approached them. Why, he wanted to know, was the lady half covering her hair, and that under her abaya the lower parts of her legs were not covered. (How could he tell? He must have been a keen observant!) Besides, the brother must prove that she was his sister. Both should go to the Hiaa offices for further investigation and proper Islamic teaching.
To make a long story short, the brother was strong enough to insist on taking his sister home first then went to their offices to go through unforgettable confrontation. It would have been even worse if she wasn't his sister or he wasn't Saudi!
Engaged couples, colleagues, relatives and friends are caught everyday in very open, very public places on their own or in groups because the Hiaa regards this as "Khelwa". Al-Khelwa in Islam means that a man and a woman are meeting alone where no one can see them. To be in a public place automatically means you are not alone, and therefore not in Khelwa.
The problem is a matter of basic principles. Either you believe in human rights and dignity or you don't. Either you presume the best in people or the worst. Either people are innocent until proven guilty or they are all guilty until they prove their innocence. Either all people are equal under the law, foreigners of all nationalities included, or they are not. Either you take Islam as is, or you make your own version and enforce it on others.
Besides, how can one be the accuser, judge, juror, jailor and executor at the same time? How could a Hiaa member make the accusation, take the accused to his private court, judge him without the presence of a lawyer and imprison him in Hiaa jail? This is too much authority in one hand. Justice cannot be served this way even if the Hiaa members were angels, and they are not.
In the reform mode we are in, it is about time we fix this problem. I don't advocate the scrapping of Hiaa. We do need them. They do a lot of good work in promoting Islamic values and preventing vice, as they are supposed to do. But these duties have to be regulated, and performed in civilized manner. Human rights and due process have to be observed. Thos who cross the line and abuse their authority must be disciplined. Punishment should fit the crime—no exceptions allowed.
Members of the Human Rights Committee are visiting Sheikh Algaith President of the Commission for the Prevention of Vice and Promotion of Virtue (known as Hiaa) to check some disturbing complaints.
According to Ms. Suhaila Zein Alabedeen, The newly-found nongovernmental organization is checking stories of human rights abuse by zealot commission members.
Cases include beating, imprisonment and verbal abuse of innocent couples because of unfounded suspicions of improper relations. Others complain that the commission members hunt for such relations in family sections of public places. If single men are not allowed into these areas why these members are the exception? they protest. Many were taken from malls, restaurants and streets just because they couldn't prove they were relatives.
A South African nurse was caught in a supermarket with her Lebanese boyfriend. Both were Christians shopping for Xmas. The "Hiaa" put them in its private prison for 14 days. Both were denied phone calls and access to their lawyers, embassies and companies.
It took their relatives and friends a couple of weeks to find and bail them out.
A Filipino maid with her husband and infant were caught in another market for similar suspicion. Even though the husband proved their relations, his wife was kept in prison and he was let out with the infant. A prison officer insisted she should return to her sponsor not husband. She left her sponsor because he had not given her a single salary for six months. Apparently, this wasn't enough reason to let her go, so the husband's lawyer enlisted the help of the Human Rights Commission and the media. Prince Salman, the Governor of Riyadh intervened and ordered her release.
A Saudi Doctor with his sister was leaving the market with a couple of traveling bags when an angry Hiaa member approached them. Why, he wanted to know, was the lady half covering her hair, and that under her abaya the lower parts of her legs were not covered. (How could he tell? He must have been a keen observant!) Besides, the brother must prove that she was his sister. Both should go to the Hiaa offices for further investigation and proper Islamic teaching.
To make a long story short, the brother was strong enough to insist on taking his sister home first then went to their offices to go through unforgettable confrontation. It would have been even worse if she wasn't his sister or he wasn't Saudi!
Engaged couples, colleagues, relatives and friends are caught everyday in very open, very public places on their own or in groups because the Hiaa regards this as "Khelwa". Al-Khelwa in Islam means that a man and a woman are meeting alone where no one can see them. To be in a public place automatically means you are not alone, and therefore not in Khelwa.
The problem is a matter of basic principles. Either you believe in human rights and dignity or you don't. Either you presume the best in people or the worst. Either people are innocent until proven guilty or they are all guilty until they prove their innocence. Either all people are equal under the law, foreigners of all nationalities included, or they are not. Either you take Islam as is, or you make your own version and enforce it on others.
Besides, how can one be the accuser, judge, juror, jailor and executor at the same time? How could a Hiaa member make the accusation, take the accused to his private court, judge him without the presence of a lawyer and imprison him in Hiaa jail? This is too much authority in one hand. Justice cannot be served this way even if the Hiaa members were angels, and they are not.
In the reform mode we are in, it is about time we fix this problem. I don't advocate the scrapping of Hiaa. We do need them. They do a lot of good work in promoting Islamic values and preventing vice, as they are supposed to do. But these duties have to be regulated, and performed in civilized manner. Human rights and due process have to be observed. Thos who cross the line and abuse their authority must be disciplined. Punishment should fit the crime—no exceptions allowed.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Lessons of Riyadh Book Fair
(Islam is about freedom and choice. To drive the entire faith into the narrow interpretations of a single school is simply un-Islamic.)
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
This year's Riyadh Book Fair was eventful—mostly unwelcome events, though. Somehow, the fundamentalists found it an opportunity to flex their muscles and prove a point. They wanted all to know that no matter how far we progress on the road of women and minority rights, speech and press freedoms, democracy and all, they are still in a strong position of influence. But they went too far, this time.
According to press reports, members and volunteers of the Institution of Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice were in force everywhere. In the family days, where single men are not allowed, they were the exception. Carrying sticks and wielding religious authority, they went around telling women to cover their faces, wear "abaeas" (black cloak) over their heads in one piece, rather than two—head scarf and body cover. In some instances, they told salesmen in book stands not to smile or joke when talking to women. A man holding the hand of his half-blind wife was told not to show affection in public.
When people tried to argue, in peaceful way, (there was no alternative anyway!), they were harshly told to just follow orders. Women were telling them that in Islam there are different schools of thoughts. Only one says women should cover their faces. Salesmen were trying to explain that they are supposed to be nice to customers. A husband argued that he was holding hands with his wife, not a girl friend. Besides, he explained, with her eyes troubles, she could easily lose her way in the crowded place. Nothing worked with these people. They felt they were there to perform a strict divine duty not to convince people or convey messages.
During the same event, a number of Saudi intellectuals were harassed, verbally, and almost physically. The fundamentalists came early on, occupied most of the hall, and went on the offence as soon as the lecture started.
In the main lecture hall, two ministers and a number of intellectuals were attacked for their known liberal or Sofi views. Then a tensed aggressive group surrounded them threateningly. They had to be saved by security. In the women section, another intellectual was threatened and verbally abused. Writer Fawzia Albaker was taken home in tears.
These people didn't come to listen, learn and discuss. They came to teach lessons and make statements. They were not prepared to take other views into consideration, or allow for the possibility of misunderstanding, miscommunication or even errors on their side. Many came from positions of authority and influence. They include university professors, school teachers and mosques' imams.
This can't be good, especially in such event. In this time and place, when the whole country is moving towards modernity, globalization, democracy and reforms, we still have people going around with sticks and divine authority to enforce their narrow view of the world. They only represent a minority of the Muslim World and behave like there is no Islam but theirs.
As a result we get people doing what they are told regardless of what they believe: women wearing what they must at home and extremely different abroad, youth following the strict rules when watched, and breaking all when alone; and a whole society in a state of schizophrenia. We don't have cinemas but our satellite dishes can bring us the world's best and worst. We can't mix in public, but many go from one liberal party to another. Single men cannot enter malls, but they find ways to meet with girls behind closed doors. Banned books and intellectual materials can always be had via the net and from neighboring countries, such as Dubai, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt and Yemen. It is an indication that most visitors of book fairs in Arab countries come from Saudi. We hunt books that should have been available to us, without having to travel around to get them.
We can't go on like this. You can't drive down two crossed road at the same time. Either you decide to open your windows to the winds or to live in a closed underground cave. You are part of this world or you are not. Since you don't have an option anyway, better be serious and sincere about it.
Islam is about freedom and choice. You become Muslim with your own free will. Then you choose to understand the message according to any interpretation of the multiple mathhabs and their different schools of thought. To drive the entire faith into the narrow interpretations of a single school is simply un-Islamic.
The experience of Riyadh Fair Book should alarm us. These people crossed the most revered Islamic lines and should be punished. We should also make sure that no one else dare to cross them again.
Dr. Khaled M. Batarfi
This year's Riyadh Book Fair was eventful—mostly unwelcome events, though. Somehow, the fundamentalists found it an opportunity to flex their muscles and prove a point. They wanted all to know that no matter how far we progress on the road of women and minority rights, speech and press freedoms, democracy and all, they are still in a strong position of influence. But they went too far, this time.
According to press reports, members and volunteers of the Institution of Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice were in force everywhere. In the family days, where single men are not allowed, they were the exception. Carrying sticks and wielding religious authority, they went around telling women to cover their faces, wear "abaeas" (black cloak) over their heads in one piece, rather than two—head scarf and body cover. In some instances, they told salesmen in book stands not to smile or joke when talking to women. A man holding the hand of his half-blind wife was told not to show affection in public.
When people tried to argue, in peaceful way, (there was no alternative anyway!), they were harshly told to just follow orders. Women were telling them that in Islam there are different schools of thoughts. Only one says women should cover their faces. Salesmen were trying to explain that they are supposed to be nice to customers. A husband argued that he was holding hands with his wife, not a girl friend. Besides, he explained, with her eyes troubles, she could easily lose her way in the crowded place. Nothing worked with these people. They felt they were there to perform a strict divine duty not to convince people or convey messages.
During the same event, a number of Saudi intellectuals were harassed, verbally, and almost physically. The fundamentalists came early on, occupied most of the hall, and went on the offence as soon as the lecture started.
In the main lecture hall, two ministers and a number of intellectuals were attacked for their known liberal or Sofi views. Then a tensed aggressive group surrounded them threateningly. They had to be saved by security. In the women section, another intellectual was threatened and verbally abused. Writer Fawzia Albaker was taken home in tears.
These people didn't come to listen, learn and discuss. They came to teach lessons and make statements. They were not prepared to take other views into consideration, or allow for the possibility of misunderstanding, miscommunication or even errors on their side. Many came from positions of authority and influence. They include university professors, school teachers and mosques' imams.
This can't be good, especially in such event. In this time and place, when the whole country is moving towards modernity, globalization, democracy and reforms, we still have people going around with sticks and divine authority to enforce their narrow view of the world. They only represent a minority of the Muslim World and behave like there is no Islam but theirs.
As a result we get people doing what they are told regardless of what they believe: women wearing what they must at home and extremely different abroad, youth following the strict rules when watched, and breaking all when alone; and a whole society in a state of schizophrenia. We don't have cinemas but our satellite dishes can bring us the world's best and worst. We can't mix in public, but many go from one liberal party to another. Single men cannot enter malls, but they find ways to meet with girls behind closed doors. Banned books and intellectual materials can always be had via the net and from neighboring countries, such as Dubai, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt and Yemen. It is an indication that most visitors of book fairs in Arab countries come from Saudi. We hunt books that should have been available to us, without having to travel around to get them.
We can't go on like this. You can't drive down two crossed road at the same time. Either you decide to open your windows to the winds or to live in a closed underground cave. You are part of this world or you are not. Since you don't have an option anyway, better be serious and sincere about it.
Islam is about freedom and choice. You become Muslim with your own free will. Then you choose to understand the message according to any interpretation of the multiple mathhabs and their different schools of thought. To drive the entire faith into the narrow interpretations of a single school is simply un-Islamic.
The experience of Riyadh Fair Book should alarm us. These people crossed the most revered Islamic lines and should be punished. We should also make sure that no one else dare to cross them again.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Civilized Dialogue Starts at Early Age
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
Civilized dialogue is better taught at early age. Dr. Sami Angawi agreed. But unlike most of us, he decided to do something positive about what he believes in.
In his weekly “diwania”, called “Makkia” (after the holy city of Makkah), members can be as young as five years old. As part of a concentrated effort, they get training during the week on how to present themselves, and how to argue a case without getting personal. On Tuesdays, they practice, real-time, in the Makkia.
In a mixed but creatively segregated environment, women and men, young and old, sit together to talk, listen and discuss.
I attended last week’s meeting as a moderator. The discussion guest, Rajaa Al-Sanae, writer of the controversial novel “Girls of Riyadh”, couldn’t like it more. For the first time, she was surrounded by readers of all ages and sexes to discuss her book in an open, but professionally organized environment.
Evenly divided, the hall was occupied at the dimly lighted back by our better halves, wearing hijab. The other part was the men’s section. Men and women faced each other, but women could see us in the more lighted section better than we could see them. In addition, those who were men-shy could sit behind some sort of parting curtain. Rajaa sat in the middle.
We started by fielding comments from the older members and guests, but quickly turned the platform to the younger crowd. They were beautiful. Their comments and questions were well studied and prepared.
The kids came for training a couple of days earlier. They all had to read the book as homework. It showed. The younger people were even better than the older ones in the way they articulated their thoughts, built up their arguments, and presented their questions and comments.
I was impressed. This is exactly what I have been calling for. Our schools should do better, providing classes in dialogue and forums for debate. More important, we must allow them to speak up their minds. At home, class, mosque, they should be given the chance to formulate their own opinion, make up their own stand and decide for themselves what they want to achieve and be.
We shouldn’t interfere in every part of their lives. We can’t keep telling them from childhood to adulthood what to think, read, study, what future to choose, and whom to marry. If we do, we end up with followers but no leaders. Those who only know how to follow orders can’t hope for a bright future.
I was happy to see these kids differ in what they thought of a novel. Then remembered that the same book was published abroad, sold all over the world, but not where it really matters. Even in Riyadh Book Fair, this month, where all censored books of Ghazi Al-Gosaibi and Turki Al-Hamad were released for the first time, the book was taken off shelves. Four hundred books were permitted but then confiscated without explanation!
Banning books is widespread. Even in academic libraries, books are banned. Reasons, vary. The ban not only includes what is regarded as ideologically incorrect, but also the politically, socially and literally imperfect. With such a wide net, even our college students are not allowed self-determination. That’s why they shy away from scientific research and prefer, if not demand, textbooks at all levels, including doctoral.
Professors, including graduates of Western universities, have to oblige.
As a result, we get carbon copies of future leaders. They study the same thing, the same way, and reach the same conclusions. When they study abroad, they carry their package with them. It confuses them when asked to look for information and make up their minds about it. They find it hard to argue with their professors. Where they came from, it is one-way street dialogue. They sat at the listening end, respectfully, and trustfully — no argument allowed.
Then comes the really hard part — debate. This is what Dr. Sami, an American schools graduate, found lacking and tried fixing. To find yourself in a multicultural environment is hard enough. To have to make a constructive dialogue with men and women of all ages, thoughts, and background is too much for many.
What to do about it? The next National Dialogue Forum is about our outdated curriculum, and how to improve it. I suggest we transform the entire system to be based on free thought, open research and civilized dialogue. We have wasted ages and generations; we can’t afford to waste any more.
Civilized dialogue is better taught at early age. Dr. Sami Angawi agreed. But unlike most of us, he decided to do something positive about what he believes in.
In his weekly “diwania”, called “Makkia” (after the holy city of Makkah), members can be as young as five years old. As part of a concentrated effort, they get training during the week on how to present themselves, and how to argue a case without getting personal. On Tuesdays, they practice, real-time, in the Makkia.
In a mixed but creatively segregated environment, women and men, young and old, sit together to talk, listen and discuss.
I attended last week’s meeting as a moderator. The discussion guest, Rajaa Al-Sanae, writer of the controversial novel “Girls of Riyadh”, couldn’t like it more. For the first time, she was surrounded by readers of all ages and sexes to discuss her book in an open, but professionally organized environment.
Evenly divided, the hall was occupied at the dimly lighted back by our better halves, wearing hijab. The other part was the men’s section. Men and women faced each other, but women could see us in the more lighted section better than we could see them. In addition, those who were men-shy could sit behind some sort of parting curtain. Rajaa sat in the middle.
We started by fielding comments from the older members and guests, but quickly turned the platform to the younger crowd. They were beautiful. Their comments and questions were well studied and prepared.
The kids came for training a couple of days earlier. They all had to read the book as homework. It showed. The younger people were even better than the older ones in the way they articulated their thoughts, built up their arguments, and presented their questions and comments.
I was impressed. This is exactly what I have been calling for. Our schools should do better, providing classes in dialogue and forums for debate. More important, we must allow them to speak up their minds. At home, class, mosque, they should be given the chance to formulate their own opinion, make up their own stand and decide for themselves what they want to achieve and be.
We shouldn’t interfere in every part of their lives. We can’t keep telling them from childhood to adulthood what to think, read, study, what future to choose, and whom to marry. If we do, we end up with followers but no leaders. Those who only know how to follow orders can’t hope for a bright future.
I was happy to see these kids differ in what they thought of a novel. Then remembered that the same book was published abroad, sold all over the world, but not where it really matters. Even in Riyadh Book Fair, this month, where all censored books of Ghazi Al-Gosaibi and Turki Al-Hamad were released for the first time, the book was taken off shelves. Four hundred books were permitted but then confiscated without explanation!
Banning books is widespread. Even in academic libraries, books are banned. Reasons, vary. The ban not only includes what is regarded as ideologically incorrect, but also the politically, socially and literally imperfect. With such a wide net, even our college students are not allowed self-determination. That’s why they shy away from scientific research and prefer, if not demand, textbooks at all levels, including doctoral.
Professors, including graduates of Western universities, have to oblige.
As a result, we get carbon copies of future leaders. They study the same thing, the same way, and reach the same conclusions. When they study abroad, they carry their package with them. It confuses them when asked to look for information and make up their minds about it. They find it hard to argue with their professors. Where they came from, it is one-way street dialogue. They sat at the listening end, respectfully, and trustfully — no argument allowed.
Then comes the really hard part — debate. This is what Dr. Sami, an American schools graduate, found lacking and tried fixing. To find yourself in a multicultural environment is hard enough. To have to make a constructive dialogue with men and women of all ages, thoughts, and background is too much for many.
What to do about it? The next National Dialogue Forum is about our outdated curriculum, and how to improve it. I suggest we transform the entire system to be based on free thought, open research and civilized dialogue. We have wasted ages and generations; we can’t afford to waste any more.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Saudi Women, Opportunities and the Road Ahead
Dr. Khaled Batarfi
The 20-member group of intellectuals who went before the visit of King Abdullah to China consisted mostly of women. One of them, Aljohrah Alsodairy (23), spoke fluent Chinese. They made waves and charmed the Chinese with their excellent quality and positive attitude.
Reem Al-Faisal, world-class photographer, was in China three months ago, hobbling from one town to another, six in all, in the Yunnan Province, south of China to show her Haj photo collection. In the last decade, she showed her talent in at least ten cities in Europe, Asia and the Arab world. Her work was published and praised in prominent journals like Le Monde, Le Figaro, The Guardian, Liberation, Canvas and Marie Claire.
•••
The Seventh Jeddah Economic Forum has just ended. More than 2,700 delegates attended. About a fourth were women, mostly Saudi. Most organizers and welcoming committees were college girls. The presence of women in business, media and academia was very much felt and appreciated. Effat College for girls alone provided tens of young organizers.
Etimad Abdulaziz Al-Noaim is a young Saudi journalist. This was her first assignment. She did extraordinarily well. In a matter of three days she was transformed from a shy girl to a confident professional woman. Her writing and communication talents shined all of a sudden. Her enthusiasm was contagious. She will never forget this opportunity.
Ranya Bajsair is the coordinator of the Foreign Relations Committee at the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry (JCCI), the forum organizer. Trained in Swiss schools for eleven years, fluent in three languages, and a holder of a Master’s degree in business administration, Ranya was responsible for the VIP stage room. Ranya prepared note speakers before they faced the audience and made a great impression.
•••
Rajaa Alsanae, the young girl who wrote the controversial, best-seller novel, “The Girls of Riyadh,” was in town discussing her book with readers, men and women, old and young. She was treated like the respected intellectual she is, not a scandalous novelist, as some critics depicted her for describing the secret lives of four high-class young girls. All characters, of both sexes, were shown as victims of the known but adamantly denied ills of our society.
These ills include the way we regard and treat our better halves as dependents, not equal partners. Because of such an attitude, too many of us have not cared much to let our girls independently develop their character, education, skills and careers.
Our social, educational, legal, political and civil systems were designed in a way that made it harder for talented, aspiring and independent women to make their presence, contribution and partnership in the development of their nation. How could a woman make it to the top, if her education and training options are so limited, work environment so restricted, and job opportunities so few?
Rajaa visited the Khadija bint Khuwailed Women Center at the JCCI. She was warmly greeted and encouraged by three elected and appointed female board members: Madawi Alhasoon, Lama Al-Suleiman and Olfat Al-Kabbani. Dr. Nadia Baeshen, the center’s founder and manger, explained to us how education and training figured in their pioneering project. In the job market of today, only the better skilled and well prepared can compete. Computer, foreign languages, communication skills are among the highest in demand. It was not by chance that the center provides intensive, updated and advanced training courses in these areas.
What do these events have in common? They are all about women empowerment. I am more optimistic today than any time in our recent history about women’s place in our society. We made surprisingly smooth and successful steps down this road. King Abdullah made it a mark of his reign to give women their voice, space and opportunities. They seem to get the message and move ahead in sure, if not fast, steps to claim their rights. We have been waiting for the opening of this window for a long, long time. Wasting it is not an option.
The 20-member group of intellectuals who went before the visit of King Abdullah to China consisted mostly of women. One of them, Aljohrah Alsodairy (23), spoke fluent Chinese. They made waves and charmed the Chinese with their excellent quality and positive attitude.
Reem Al-Faisal, world-class photographer, was in China three months ago, hobbling from one town to another, six in all, in the Yunnan Province, south of China to show her Haj photo collection. In the last decade, she showed her talent in at least ten cities in Europe, Asia and the Arab world. Her work was published and praised in prominent journals like Le Monde, Le Figaro, The Guardian, Liberation, Canvas and Marie Claire.
•••
The Seventh Jeddah Economic Forum has just ended. More than 2,700 delegates attended. About a fourth were women, mostly Saudi. Most organizers and welcoming committees were college girls. The presence of women in business, media and academia was very much felt and appreciated. Effat College for girls alone provided tens of young organizers.
Etimad Abdulaziz Al-Noaim is a young Saudi journalist. This was her first assignment. She did extraordinarily well. In a matter of three days she was transformed from a shy girl to a confident professional woman. Her writing and communication talents shined all of a sudden. Her enthusiasm was contagious. She will never forget this opportunity.
Ranya Bajsair is the coordinator of the Foreign Relations Committee at the Jeddah Chamber of Commerce and Industry (JCCI), the forum organizer. Trained in Swiss schools for eleven years, fluent in three languages, and a holder of a Master’s degree in business administration, Ranya was responsible for the VIP stage room. Ranya prepared note speakers before they faced the audience and made a great impression.
•••
Rajaa Alsanae, the young girl who wrote the controversial, best-seller novel, “The Girls of Riyadh,” was in town discussing her book with readers, men and women, old and young. She was treated like the respected intellectual she is, not a scandalous novelist, as some critics depicted her for describing the secret lives of four high-class young girls. All characters, of both sexes, were shown as victims of the known but adamantly denied ills of our society.
These ills include the way we regard and treat our better halves as dependents, not equal partners. Because of such an attitude, too many of us have not cared much to let our girls independently develop their character, education, skills and careers.
Our social, educational, legal, political and civil systems were designed in a way that made it harder for talented, aspiring and independent women to make their presence, contribution and partnership in the development of their nation. How could a woman make it to the top, if her education and training options are so limited, work environment so restricted, and job opportunities so few?
Rajaa visited the Khadija bint Khuwailed Women Center at the JCCI. She was warmly greeted and encouraged by three elected and appointed female board members: Madawi Alhasoon, Lama Al-Suleiman and Olfat Al-Kabbani. Dr. Nadia Baeshen, the center’s founder and manger, explained to us how education and training figured in their pioneering project. In the job market of today, only the better skilled and well prepared can compete. Computer, foreign languages, communication skills are among the highest in demand. It was not by chance that the center provides intensive, updated and advanced training courses in these areas.
What do these events have in common? They are all about women empowerment. I am more optimistic today than any time in our recent history about women’s place in our society. We made surprisingly smooth and successful steps down this road. King Abdullah made it a mark of his reign to give women their voice, space and opportunities. They seem to get the message and move ahead in sure, if not fast, steps to claim their rights. We have been waiting for the opening of this window for a long, long time. Wasting it is not an option.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)