Rule of Law

In his letter “Qatif Rape Case” (Nov. 29), Paul D. Callister wrote extensively about the concepts of the rule of law and how they did not apply in the case of the Qatif rape victim. He wrote: “The basic elements of the rule of law have been divorced by some scholars from commitment to Western notions of democracy and human rights into what is known as the “Thin Theory” of the rule of law. For instance, some legal scholars have used the Thin Theory to understand China’s commitment to the rule of law, while at the same time continuing to reject democracy.”

With all respect to Callister, the Americans are the last people who can speak about the rule of law and miscarriage of justice.

Justice in the KKK crimes took over 40 years to be served in the cases of James Ford Seale, Edgar Ray Killen, Bobby Frank Cherry and Ernest Avants in racially motivated murders and terrorist attacks against blacks in the 1960s. In our own time, 635 “unlawful combatants” were held indefinitely and tortured by the Bush administration in legally unstipulated Guantanamo Bay for over four years. Many have been released since without charge. Hundreds of Afghan and Arab fighters were slaughtered by the US Army when it bombed Bagram Prison from the air when the prisoners staged an uprising against US torture and mistreatment in 2003

The O.J. Simpson case is a prime example of how, with money and a brilliant attorney, you can get away with murder in America. Humaidan Al-Turki’s conviction in the Indonesian maid’s case brought forward by the FBI who offered the girl the Green Card, money and lifelong protection in return for testifying against him can hardly be described as conforming to the rule of law. The Palestinian peoples’ suffering under Israeli oppression and the destruction of an entire nation’s livelihood is mainly attributed to US bigotry and unequivocal backing for the Jewish state’s apartheid-like regime. This is a case of US racial discrimination against the Palestinian people.

I think Callister wrote his letter to vent his hatred for us and our judicial system. We may misapply the rule of law sometimes. However, the US judicial system is riddled with racial prejudices and miscarriages of justice. I hope when Callister visits Saudi Arabia next, he may want to write about the US Patriot Act and how it infringes on Muslims’ civil rights and singles them out from all other American groups.

Nizam Addien B. Yagoub, Dhahran published 4 December 2007

Top 100

Congratulations. You have redrawn the commercial map of Saudi business and Industry far more than even the Chambers of Commerce and Industry using the almighty “pen” of the media.

The new methodology gives distributed importance to “sales, assets and equity” instead of just sales as in earlier years. This is not only fair, but also the better-established methodology of internationally recognized Fortune & Financial Times Lists. Further, at a stroke, you have improved the “transparency” of financial information in Saudi markets. Out of the Top 100, only a few companies have not disclosed their assets, owner’s equity, profits or total capital. With a fast-expanding economy and increasing number of listed companies, there is a need for better financial instruments. These are only possible with “transparency” of financial information of those in public domain. There is also a noticeable change in editorial thinking as evident in the wide coverage given to the East with more articles on Saudi Arabia, China, India and Japan reflecting a worldwide shift in manufacturing capacities and educational aspirations.

Of course, as mentioned in the headline, the thinking is still West as shown by the methodology adopted in ranking, being that of Forbes and Financial Times from the US and the UK. There is nothing wrong with that. Think West, go East. Well done.

P.B.V. Raajan, Riyadh published 4 December 2007

Qatif’s Lessons

The message the Qatif judges have sent out to us women in Saudi Arabia is very clear: “If you get raped, don’t bother to report it to the police; just shut up and accept it.” The lawyers too have got a message: “Don’t you dare question our decision, even though you may be right and we may be dead wrong.” Our Prophet (peace be upon him) was directed by Allah and yet he let people speak their minds. Remember the treaty of Hudaibiyah? Remember how he used to consult his wife Umm Salma? We have gone astray because we have distanced ourselves from our faith. The Prophet warned us that extremism would destroy us — and it has. The judges should remember that they themselves will be judged by Him one day.

Zaina Kazi, Dammam published 4 December 2007

Water Scarcity in Jeddah

Even though Jeddah has been facing acute water scarcity for a long time, the authorities have taken no action to improve the situation. We have been hearing for several years that an additional plant is being installed at “Shoaiba” and that it will solve the problem for good. However, nothing has been done so far and the shortage still continues. By the way, what baffles me about the situation is that if there is a real shortage, how is that there is an abundance of water with the commercial owners of water trucks who can supply it anywhere, any time.

The Kingdom possesses surplus funds and we hope top priority will be given to providing this basic amenity.

Rizwan Saleem, Jeddah published 4 December 2007

Dollar Peg

The downward trend in the value of the US dollar will continue due to the global situation and the impact of America’s wars on the global economy. The Saudi Monetary Agency’s watch-and-see policy will do no good to the riyal. The euro is the world currency of the future. Kuwait and the UAE have taken bold steps to deal with the situation. They have made the right decision and acted before the situation spins out of control.

Fida Khan, Riyadh published 4 December 2007

Time to Look Ahead

I agree with almost every observation in your editorial on Pakistan, “Time to Look Ahead” (Nov. 30). However, you missed something very important in democracy: an independent judiciary. By firing the Supreme Court judges, Musharraf crossed the red line. He added insult to injury by packing the court with handpicked judges. I doubt if Pakistani citizens will ever forgive him for that, even if politicians get along with him. The people will never be happy with a Supreme Court for which they have no respect. I never thought Musharraf could do something so insensitive and dumb. Now, his presidency is tainted.

Hiranmay Biswas, United States published 4 December 2007

Time to Look Ahead [2]

I agree with the central thrust of your editorial “Time to Look Ahead” (Nov. 30) on he current political situation in Pakistan. Politics, it is well-said, is the art of the possible, not of chasing goals and wishes in unrealistic ways. True, the Musharraf regime has not won any laurels as a true democracy; neither have many of those who were in power in the past and now do not get tired of chanting slogans of democracy to raise their political capital.

Any talk of boycotting elections and insisting on a return to pre-Nov. 3 judiciary structure will not be productive. We have to deal with the reality of the present. All political parties must take part in the election and prove their weight, rather than leaving the field open for opportunists and political pawns. After all, Gen. Musharraf has “won” his next term of presidency through “democratic” means from a Parliament, regardless of what its real position is. The goals of a sovereign Parliament and independent judiciary have to be achieved in a constructive way, through democratic means and not by bringing down whatever we have now. Pakistan’s history is laced with disruptive toppling of governments. We cannot afford yet another one in the current precarious conditions the country is passing through. Disruptive politics may end up in bringing in another strongman, pushing the country deeper into an abyss.

The announcement that the emergency will be lifted by Dec. 16 should be taken positively by all who want to see the Jan. 8 elections held in a free environment. Finally, all political parties must use the general elections for the good cause of our nation. Their approach should be constructive, not disruptive.

Shaukat Ali, Dhahran published 4 December 2007

Freedom for Some?

The way India’s Hindu fundamentalist party, BJP, is going overboard in supporting Taslima Nasreen, the Bangladeshi novelist who is seeking refuge in India, has nothing to do with freedom of expression. What is Taslima known for other than writing against Islam? BJP workers are in the forefront of those demonstrating against M.F. Hussain for his paintings which they describe as anti-Hindu. They once prevented him from entering India although he is an Indian. But they are all for supporting a Bangladeshi, only because she is anti-Muslim and has hurt the sentiments of millions of Indian Muslims. How do you explain such double standard? Why do they want freedom of expression only for Taslima? Why not for Hussain? BJP has only one political agenda — anti-Muslim — and nothing else.

Javed Khan, Mumbai, India published 4 December 2007