This refers to the column “Who cares for Myanmar’s Muslims (July 19).” We seem to have arrived at a point where no crime is too big, no violence too gross and no cruelty too obnoxious. Everywhere, one sees the loss of humanity, the massacre of brotherhood and the complete disregard for those ties which would bind us together. Earlier, we would blame the instrument of political propaganda, which causes the wars and which ensures that the tenuous borders between countries remain stoically in their place; later we chose to blame the effects of the hawkish foreign policies of certain Western powers; then we decided that religious and cultural differences were tearing us apart; and now it seems that we have simply given up on everything, and mostly ourselves. The darker skinned Burmese are victims of our collective neglect whom we have silently and very conveniently relegated to the blind spot of our conscience.
Will India provide the much needed succor to this dwindling and down-trodden section of humanity? A lot depends on whose advice it is taking these days. Until then, the fate of the Rohingyas lies in the balance. (Ozma Siddiqui, Jeddah)
Pathetic situation
I have full sympathies with the pathetic situation of the Indian national, Mohammed Nasar, who has been staying in the Kingdom without a valid iqama for over 13 years and had to send his daughter without knowing when they would meet again. However, the story in Arab News (July 23) raises many questions than it answers. I believe, there is much more than what meets the eye in this seemingly traumatic episode.
Firstly, why did he not approach or was referred by the Governorate of Baha to the Labor Commission which has the jurisdiction over contractual relations between the employer and the employee? It could have determined the whole issue and even if the employer were not to cooperate or attend the hearings, it would have ruled in favor of Mohammed Nasar obliging the employer to put exit-only visa besides making the employer pay all of the amounts due to him including the end-of-service benefits. Needless to add, an employer cannot be obliged to transfer the sponsorship of his employee and if Mohammed Nasar waited or expected such a situation, he was ignorant and totally mistaken.
Secondly, in the case of deliberate attempt by the employer to evade releasing the passport, why did not he approach the Indian Embassy or consulate requesting for issuance of a duplicate or replacement passport on the basis of the Royal Order canceling the escape report? This would at least have enabled him to try with the local authorities to have exit-only visa under special circumstances.
Thirdly, I wonder how could he survive and sustain a family without work for all these long years? Again, very troubling and painful, his daughter was denied proper education and also very disturbing that he was denied to earn his livelihood for this long time. Further, he must have missed attending many important events (both happy and sad ones) within his family.
I am aware of one case where the sponsor is holding two of his employees who had resigned more than two years ago and evading to execute the decision by the Labor Commission to repatriate them on exit-only visa.
It is really unjust and unfair to punish employees to satisfy personal egos or undue materialistic interest. In fact, not releasing any employee against his will without a well justified reason is like holding him as a hostage and the guilty be given the same punishment as prescribed for the kidnappers. (Safi H. Jannaty, Dammam)
Outrage at Spanish king
The Spanish branch of World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has sacked Spanish King Juan Carlos as its honorary president over an elephant safari he undertook in Botswana in Africa, which prompted a public outcry. The 74-year-old monarch broke a hip on this trip. The conservation group, WWF in Spain, has removed the king as its honorary president for going on an elephant hunting trip to Botswana. The vote to remove him was overwhelming and supported by 94 percent of those who attended the meeting. Why should he hunt an elephant? Elephants are docile and hardly a challenge to shoot with a rifle.
This notion of hunting an elephant is appalling and I think that there should have been more anger directed at the Spanish king for what he was hunting while serving as the president of an organization supposed to conserve wildlife. I find it utterly incomprehensible that anyone could possibly get some thrill or entertainment out of killing an animal just for fun. What on earth goes on in these people's heads? I believe they have sadistic personalities — really not the sort you want representing WWF. (S.H. Moulana, Riyadh)