Saudization and Expatriates

The Kingdom’s plans and programs to cut unemployment among Saudis by marking out different job sectors for 100 percent Saudization seem to have created, among Saudis and expatriates, an impression that what lies ahead are days of conflicting interest between the two. This is because both envisage the future scenario as Saudis taking the place of expatriates in already existing jobs. This of course will happen in certain cases, but that is not going to be the whole picture, not even the main picture. I believe that, considering the potentials of the Saudi economy, what is going to happen is not 100 percent Saudization of the existing job market, but 100 percent employment for Saudis in an ever-expanding job market. More and more job opportunities will be created as the Kingdom grows along with economic reforms and the huge investments being made in the private sector. This has created many opportunities for both Saudi citizens and expatriates. The industrial sector will continue to grow, opening more opportunities for all.

One of the most flattering things said about America is that it is a land of opportunity for its own citizens and those who make it their temporary or permanent home. The opportunities offered by the Kingdom to both its nationals and expatriates are no fewer. The Saudization program is a commendable measure aimed at finding employment for Saudi professionals. We have seen that it has not cut down expatriate presence in the job market. All nations now know that in this fast-changing world, the only way to serve and protect their interests is to focus on enhancing their economic conditions. That was the message emanating from the recent Economic Forum in Jeddah: The world has become a global village with disappearing borderlines. The cake is big for all — including guests.

Wasim J. Malik, Riyadh published 2 March 2005

Ambassadors of Good Will

Lubna Hussain’s article “Expats Can Be Our Best Good Will Ambassadors” (Feb. 24) brought up for discussion a point that is of vital importance to the Kingdom at a time when there is much misunderstanding about the country and its people all around the world. Those who could have refuted the charges convincingly with proof provided by their own experiences are the expatriates who have lived, or are still living, in the Kingdom. But they are not in a position to do so because they have had no opportunity to know what Saudis are like, as men and women, away from their office desks and shop counters.

Saudis, who are offended when they don’t feel welcome while outside their country, cause the same kind of offense when they erect a wall — of indifference or arrogance — between them and the guests in their country. The result is that when the country and its people are under attack in the media in many parts of the world, where there are a high number of former and serving expatriates, no one stands up and calls the attack a lie because, for all they know, the allegations could be true.

Unless Saudis bring down the wall and treat the expatriates the way they expect to be treated when abroad and give expatriates a chance to see Saudis as persons, the situation will not change.

Few expatriates in the Kingdom have seen anything that would make them feel obliged to defend it: They can vouch for discrimination. When they arrive at the port of entry, the first taste of the Kingdom they get is boorishness. By the time they come out after finishing immigration and customs formalities, the message they have received is that they count in Saudi Arabia for less than animals. When they take on the job they were contracted for, a vast majority do not receive the salary they were promised. They do not get paid on time. Their grievances, when taken to courts, are rarely addressed in full. What they read in the media of the actions taken against erring employers is that they have been warned, or are absconding, or are blacklisted. There are no reports of cases where the employers are forced by the courts or the government to pay employees their dues.

Further, nothing happens in their lives by way of interaction with the broader society to correct this impression. True, expatriate chief executives of multinationals do meet Saudi chief executives of Saudi conglomerates. But they are only a few — and rarely know of anything more exciting than money and are not bothered about what others say about the Kingdom — good or bad. It is the little guys who will care and defend the host country — the mechanic, the salesman, the plumber, the driver — that is, all those who are treated with utter contempt by Saudis every time they come into contact.

That there are people like Lubna who understand the situation and are aware that the Kingdom is missing God-given opportunities to create millions of ambassadors of good will is a sign that things could change. But will they change soon enough — or only after all those who have put their foot in the Kingdom have become its ambassadors of ill will?

Abid Hussein, Jeddah published 2 March 2005

Ambassadors of Good Will [2]

I commend Lubna for writing this article. It required courage to tell her people that they have to change their ways if they wish to earn good will and create ambassadors of good will. My friendship with Saudis is limited to “Assalamu alaikum.” However, I wish to say that, if Saudis happen to visit Kashmir, I would love to invite them to my home and make them meet my people and friends. They will never be made to feel that they are outsiders.

Hamidwani, Riyadh published 2 March 2005

Ambassadors of Good Will [3]

I concur fully with the sentiments expressed in the article. I am Irish and now living in Dubai. My 10 years in Saudi Arabia, mainly Riyadh, are filled with good memories — but all with other expatriates. I have two big disappointments with Saudi Arabia. One is that I did not get an opportunity to pass on my professional work experience to Saudis. The second is that I have never had any social interaction with the local population. This is not to say that I have negative opinion about the Kingdom. I am just sad for Saudis who, I’m sure, are decent people but are stuck in some time-bubble.

Donald, Dubai published 2 March 2005

Ambassadors of Good Will [4]

Great Article. Keep up the good work. The views expressed by the writer are totally true. I have been working in this country for more than five years and still can’t speak a word of Arabic — because, like the friend Lubna Hussain quoted in her article, I have had no opportunity to interact with Saudis. In contrast, a doctor friend of mine, an Indian like me, learned Arabic in a few months because he is exposed to Saudis everyday and has to communicate with them. As a result, he has developed a positive view of the Saudi people.

Joseph Koshy, Dhahran published 2 March 2005

Those Who Pontificate

This refers to Javid Hassan’s report “Neocon Mindset Main Stumbling Block: Sociologist” (Feb. 24). It is not the “mindset” of neocons, but of “educators” like this professor that is the stumbling block. Such people who believe that they understand the West is part of the problem, not the solution. Progress in Saudi Arabia will continue to occur despite the provincial rhetoric of this individual and others of his thinking who provide little or no solutions but only pontificate as to what they believe is best for the Middle East. Thank you Arab News for your wonderful publication. Your reporting really helps me stay in touch with your wonderful region of the world and adds much to my continuing education after 32 years of frequent travel and work in that important area.

Raymond J. LaLiberte, France published 2 March 2005

South Africa

Jonathan Freedland’s article “Rainbow’ Remains Elusive for South Africa “ (Feb. 24) gave me the feeling that there must be two South Africas: The one Freedland visited last month and the one with which I am more conversant. I think, with a bit more travel, Freedland would have had a completely different view of today’s South Africa.

The article reinforces what is now a stereotype of South Africa in the Western media — of abject poverty afflicting almost the entire black population. From the article, one could draw the conclusion that there are no (or only just a handful of) upper middle-class and wealthy blacks in South Africa, and that there are no whites who live in poverty. This is untrue. True, much still has to be done to redress the gross imbalances of apartheid. It has only been a decade since that system was dismantled. Further, many South Africans are still segregated in their minds. This will take at least another couple of generations to change. As for the emergence of a sizeable black middle class, it has to be remembered that certain subjects were not taught to blacks in school until about three or four decades ago, allegedly because they did not have the mental capacity to handle complex information.

It will take a while to redress the educational handicap of black South Africans to a level where they can compete with white South Africans on an equal footing in the job market. These blacks will have to rise to the highest levels of industry in sufficient numbers to be able to change the hiring and employment policies and procedures of the big South African firms, many of which are still institutionally racist. This will take time to achieve. But the change has already begun. Those who have known the country realize that there is a vast difference between the sociopolitical norms of South Africa of the early 1990s and those of the past couple of years.

Kelechi Ogbuehi, Riyadh published 2 March 2005

Occupation and Withdrawal

While the demand for Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon appears to have popular backing, the US attempt to pin the blame for the murder of Rafik Hariri on Damascus has all the appearances of an agenda-driven campaign. In her article “Lebanon, Syria and US” (Feb. 22), Linda Heard made a convincing point when she argued that Bashar Assad would have had to be stupid to do a thing from which he had nothing to gain and everything to lose. Obviously, after Iraq, America has fixed its baleful eye on Syria and Iran. The neocon America has discovered that Iran, which is yet to enrich uranium, poses a terrible threat to the US — a country that has enough nukes to destroy the world many times over. The Western position is that no country in the Middle East should even dream of developing nuclear technology — except Israel. Do these Western leaders have the courage to demand that the entire world should be nuke-free and that the process of disarmament should begin with those who have them, and not with those who don’t have them? Is it not logical to demand that those who have the biggest stockpiles are the ones who should begin the scale-down?

Bush has made it clear that he wants an immediate withdrawal of Syrian security forces from Lebanon. When is he going to demand Israel’s withdrawal from Palestine and the Golan Heights? He has also demanded that Syria withdraw its secret service from Lebanon. When is he going to ask Mossad and Shin Bet to withdraw from Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and other Arab countries?

S.M.S. Reza, Jeddah, Riyadh published 2 March 2005