Failed Justice

The story of Anista Marie, the Sri Lankan maid who was forced to work in conditions of slavery for a Saudi family for eight years without receiving any salary or any opportunity to contact her family or embassy officials, is an eloquent testimony of our hypocrisy when we speak of Islamic values.

I called it “our hypocrisy” not because I am a Saudi or an Arab; but because I am a Muslim. We, all across the world, seem to have developed an ability to swear by Islamic values while refusing to live by them.

We swear by Islamic brotherhood, and have no problem in killing “brothers” in sectarian or factional violence — in Palestine, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia or wherever. We claim to be ruled by the Shariah and our courts call themselves Shariah courts — and when a case comes before them, they judge by tribal traditions. We swear by the principles of Islamic justice, but deny wages to laborers, break contracts with foreigners and abuse basic human rights of the weak.

Arab News must be thanked for the role it played in rescuing Anista Marie. Similarly, the security forces should be commended for tracking down and freeing her from the clutches of her female sponsor. But there is nothing to commend about the “system.” The authorities should take a long look at a system that allows a sponsor to avoid paying wages earned over years by just “refusing.” What kind of a system is it that cannot force a person to pay the rightful dues of another when both are living in the same country? Such things should not happen again in this birthplace of Islam. “Adl” and “Qist” — justice and fairness — are basic to Islam.

Abdul Khader, Alkhobar published 16 January 2008

Wheat Production

This refers to the report “Kingdom to End Wheat Growing” (Jan. 9). While I can understand the rationale behind the decision, it is a case that deserves a serious rethink. The wheat-growing program has, in its 30 years, given the country self-sufficiency. Being self-sufficient in food is a great morale boost to any people. Statistics may make it appear as though it is cheaper to import food than to produce it. But, when exporting countries start dictating terms, the Kingdom will find it painful.

The Kingdom can afford to bear the monetary loss that self-sufficiency in food will cost. National interests demand it.

Mohamed Zarook, Jeddah published 16 January 2008

Bush in the Mideast

This refers to Barbara Ferguson’s report “Bush Heads to Mideast Amid Low Expectations” (Jan. 8). I am surprised that there is any expectation at all, even a low one. George Bush has caused half the problems in the Mideast. He is the last person to be ‘”solving” them.

Safoora, Riyadh published 16 January 2008

Failed Justice [2]

What happened to the Shariah, the Qazi and the concept of swift justice? It is an utter shame that such things could happen in the Kingdom and that the criminal did not have to pay.

Feroze Malik, Jeddah published 16 January 2008

Failed Justice [3]

The sum paid to the maid by her enslavers is in itself an admission of guilt. It astonishes me that charges were not pressed against the offender and the judicial system did not award compensation above the wages the maid received on her release. The sponsor should have been punished also for her inhuman treatment of a servant in an Islamic state.

A.J. Nagle, United States published 16 January 2008

Stitch for Jeddah

In her article “A Stitch in Time Saves Nine” (Jan. 9) on the poor upkeep of Jeddah and the city’s sanitary conditions, Fatin Bunndagji has asked a question that irks many of us. But the point that confuses me is this: Values such as cleanliness and respect — aren’t they the basic values that make up the foundation of religions? Islam and other faiths insist on their faithful having some kind of discipline in their lives. They also promote virtues such as public and community service. It is sad to see how quickly our governments and citizens have forgotten what these virtues signify. I thank Fatin for bringing public attention to the issue. I don’t live in Jeddah any longer. I grew up there and have fond memories of the Corniche beach where my brother and I would ride our bikes amidst the sculptures scattered along the beach. I would hate to have those memories lost to an ugly, environmentally unfriendly coastline.

Rabia Garib, Riyadh published 16 January 2008

Cricket Controversies

The second Test match between India and Australia recently played in Sydney was marred, right from the first day to the last, by controversies about umpiring. The media played a big role in tarnishing the image of the umpires. Nobody wants to give any benefit of the doubt to them. Umpires are always under pressure because of the advent of technology and the players who are superheroes in their own countries. Commentators, most of them former top-class cricketers, give their verdicts on various aspects of on-field activity, including decisions given by umpires. They sit in cozy air-conditioned cabins and watch action videos from all possible angles played and replayed umpteen times in slow motion, and then come out with their pronouncements, forgetting that the particular decision they criticized or ridiculed was given in a second’s time. Umpires are not dishonest. But human errors occur. Those who are looking for cheats in a game should, first of all, consider the batsmen who don’t leave the crease even after snicking the ball to the wicketkeeper and the fielders who claim a catch taken after the bounce.

The ICC should introduce a new code of conduct stipulating that if it is proven that a batsman did not leave the crease even though he knew that he was out, he should be banned from a number of matches. The same rule should apply to fielders and anybody else who cheats.

Steve Buckner might have given wrong decisions but one must keep in mind his illustrious career of officiating in more than 120 matches. Good and bad decisions are part of the game. A great batsman can get out without scoring, or a great bowler can play a match without taking a wicket. Similarly, umpires can have a bad day or a bad match.

Sayed Ziauddin, Jeddah published 16 January 2008

China and Taiwan

This has reference to Ken Young’s letter “Realpolitik and Taiwan” (Jan. 11). I would like to thank him for his concern about the problem of excluding Taiwan from WHO. However, I disagree with his position that the solution is to reunify Taiwan with China.

Taiwan is a democratic and free country that has just held its parliamentary elections — on Jan. 12. The process of casting and counting votes was peaceful and transparent. That reinforces democracy in Taiwan and also demonstrates to the world that democracy is a universal value. No country is an exception.

In contrast, mainland China is an autocracy, ruled by a single political party which suppresses the freedom of the media and expression and prohibits the existence of any opposition party. It is a dictatorship with a poor record of human rights. It is also a a cruel country, which does not care a hoot about the health of the people of Taiwan or whether they live or die. It prevents Taiwan from entering WHO and UN and also squeezes its international space.

When this is the reality, how can anyone imagine that the people of Taiwan will agree to their country being reunified with China?

Fareed Hwang, Jieh-Shan, Riyadh published 16 January 2008