Maid in Coma

After banging her own head against a wall. Umm hmm. Sure. What is the point of even reporting crap like this? Does someone honestly think that a report that says, "The housemaid of Asian nationality reportedly did not wish to return to her homeland, and resorted to banging her head against a wall, resulting in being admitted to hospital [sic] in a coma" is going to be believed? Someone must or it wouldn't be taking up a single paragraph in the paper. But come one. Really. Seriously. WHO bangs their own head against a wall so hard that they put themself into a coma?!? Never mind. It is just another disposable maid. Move along folks. Nothing to see here...

Nothing to see, here, either. Just another India worker who plunged to his death from a high-rise building. Disposable. Get another worker.

A young man [nationality? guess!] has been sentenced to 15 years and 40,000 lashes for having an illicit relationship with a "non-Saudi" girl which resulted in her "accidental" death when she jumped out of the vehicle she was in with him and was run over by a truck. 40,000 lashes. Not a typo, on my part. 15 years in prison. Quick math. 40,000 lashes, divided by 15 years, equals 2,666.66 lashes per year. How will they be doled out? Monthly? That's 222.22 a month. Weekly? That's 52.28 a week. Daily? 7.30 per day. How can that even be possible? The death penalty was being sought by the prosecution. I'm guessing the young man, whoever he is, might be wishing for the death penalty. [If there is a typographical error in the paper's article, and it is corrected, I'll make sure to post it.] The young man is appealing the sentence [if it is reported, you'll read it here]. Must have been some super-duper really, really prominent and important non-Saudi girl for the sentence to have been this severe.

You know, for all the times I make light of PCRC, truly I do feel some compassion when a child is killed. It is not the innocent child's fault. It is the parents' fault. Parents who do not put their little children in safety seats and who do not stop to consider what the consequences of their actions might be. Like in this instance, where a father left his three-year-old daughter [unattended?] in a vehicle with the motor running so that he could run into a restaurant to pick up lunch. Dumbass. Yes, it was an accident. But that should not absolve you - the dumbass father - from blame. You left your little girl in a car with the motor running. Who does this?!? [Happens in America, too, so not directing this at any particular nationality. Stupidity is endemic world-wide.] If she was in a child-safety seat, chances are pretty good that she would have remained in the seat while you ran to get your lunch and she wouldn't have been hanging out the window and able to somehow operate the electrical function that allowed the window to be raised to the point where she suffocated. I remember struggling with the fasteners of child safety seats. They are not manufactured to be operated by little three-year-old hands. Child safety seat? Here? They are a rare sight - and I do mean rare! You'd be more likely to see flying pigs in this part of the world than child safety seats. Was your little girl in the front seat of the vehicle - hanging out the window - when she was somehow able to operate the electric window that caused her suffocation? If she was in the back seat, why didn't you have the "child safety" mechanism turned ON that prevents children from being able to "play with the buttons?" It is sad when any child dies. But this is an accident that could have been prevented with just a teeny tiny iota of common sense. Never mind...

Shocking. Just shocking. "Religious police accused of torture." Hmmm... Whodathunkit? A report by the Saudi Society for Human Rights "has presented a long and detailed list of accusations against the religious police in its 100-page report to the Shoura Council, the highest advisory body in the kingdom." The report "essentially charges the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice... of 'exercising excessive powers that are actually not in its jurisdiction.'" The media is being blamed. Um-hmm. "There were several complaints abou tthe torture and even custodial deaths against the members of the commmission," says the document. "Often these incidents ended up in the newspapers, but 'in such cases, the commission officals have resorted to blaming the media and playing down the reports as exagerated ones.'" Well. Okay, then. Now we know.

Oh. Some good news. That little eight-year-old girl who was married off to a pedophile by her father to "settle his debts" IS going to be allowed a divorce! Well. Kind of. Apparently that the child has won an appeal of the verdict that she would NOT be allowed to "divorce" the pedophile actually means "that the controversial [ya think?] marriage is still in effect, but a challenge to the marriage by the girl's mother is still alive." Huh? "The appeals court action now sends the case back to the earlier judge, who will decide whether to stand by his original decision... If the judge upholds his verdict and refuses to grant the child a divorce annul the marriage, then the case will again go to the appeals court... If the judge changes his decision, then the case is effectively over." Let's hope, for the sake of this child, that the judge clearly sees that NO little EIGHT-YEAR-OLD GIRL should be allowed to marry a pedophile who is 39 YEARS HER SENIOR! Sanity needs to prevail.

Extra Outrage, Today!

Man-oh-man I don't even know where to start. Outrage abounds!

This will upset many - it has upset the mothers and that is a good start. Is there any good reason why an eight-year-old girl has to go to school fully covered in head-to-toe black? Don't most of the schoolgirls already wear uniforms? And, since the schools are fully segregated - girls go to girls' schools and boys go to boys' schools - why would it even be necessary for little girls to wear abaya's with full head and face coverings?

While shopping at the Commissary yesterday, I saw a little girl - probably about ten years old, maybe a little younger, in a long [very, very long!] gray jumper. She was skipping down the aisle in a happy-go-lucky manner with her arms at her side and her little hands clenching the long fabric of her uniform - under which she had brand-spanking new bright white sneakers on. The skirt of her jumper was so long that she had to hold it up to do her skipping or she surely would have tripped on the fabric and fallen to the floor flat on her face. It was one of those sights that I had to stop and watch - and I did. Part of me was smiling with her that she could so nonchalantly be skipping in the aisle - as though she had not a single care in the world [um-hmm, sure - she is a little girl here, a child - and she, no doubt, is clueless that her carefree life in just a few short years will be over!]. The other part of me, realizing that the little thing had a skirt so long it was dragging around her and thus the reason she was clenching fabric at her sides, wondered what kind of childhood little girls here in the Sandbox have that is dictated by such strict societal constraints that they cannot even run and play freely without worry of being tripped up by fabric. As much as I smiled with her, I was also sad for her.

These are children - these little eight and nine and ten-year old girls - and they should be outside playing tag and riding their bicycles or skipping rope. Normal "kid" things. And those normal "kid" things are about impossible to do in skirts that drag on the ground. What about recess at school? Do little girls have recess at school, here? Exactly HOW are they going to be allowed to play - anything - if they are covered from head-to-toe in black. Somehow I just can't picture a class of little girls outside playing tag in their abayas and head-coverings. It certainly would take the challenge out of the game, though, that's for sure. You simply run up behind a classmate and grab hold of a handful of black fabric and "tag, you're it!" How do you play kickball if you are dressed like that? You don't.

Some of the mothers are standing up to the authorities and questioning the new rule for the little girls at the school in Asir and want to know why their daughters are being ordered "to dress in ways that go far beyond the demands of Islam." Good for them, I say! School authorities, however, "justified their stand by saying that the practice would help develop the culture of Islamic dress at a very early age in girls. A school principal, speaking on [the] condition of anonymity, said young girls who wear [a] full abaya and veil throughout the year are awarded prizes as encouragement to other girls." The little girls are obeying the order of wearing the full covering "because they [are] afraid of punishment."

Interestingly enough, one school officials says "that the practice was not an obligation from a religious perspective. Instead, that "the new dress code was an effort to make girls get accustomed to the idea of wearing the complete veil in advance of the time it was actually required." Kind of like playing dress-up then, I guess. [Hmmph. If that is how "dress-up" is played, here, then it is played a whole lot differently than it was from the side of the world which I grew up on!]

The article is here. Read the whole thing. But even if you don't read the whole thing, let your blood boil on this statement, "The school official added that this would prevent the more attractive girls from being harassed by men." [Emphasis, mine.] WTF?!? What kind of man harasses an eight or ten-year old little girl??? I'm not even going to go there...

A young Saudi male nurse who attempted to rape a woman patient by posing as a doctor has been arrested. This is just scary, on two levels. Scary on one level that the Saudi nurse attempted to rape a woman. Scary on a second level because the woman was so gullible. The article says that the "male nurse, an employee at the hospital, told the woman, a teacher, that he was a specialist doctor and needed to carry out a detailed examination to diagnose whether she had an abdominal disease. The nurse asked the woman to come for an examination the next day and to come alone and send her driver away as he would drop her off at home." Hello! Didn't red flags go up all over?!? And, bells and whistles and sirens, too? Are there women "out there" that are so sheltered by life that their naivety knows no bounds? Apparently there are.

The Saudi nurse "told the woman that she was suffering from a rare and serious disease, and that he had the correct medicine for her but that it was at home. He then asked the woman to come to his apartment where he tried to rape her." Thankfully, he wasn't successful, but not for lack of trying on his part, and lack of brains - or something - on her part. After the failed attempt to rape the woman, the Saudi nurse "then contacted the woman and tried to blackmail her into starting an illicit relationship." Unbelievable. Well, no, it isn't. But, still... "The woman then contacted the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice and explained her situation. Commission members asked the woman to arrange to meet the man at an apartment. As soon as the woman entered the apartment, commission members entered and arrested the nurse." Yes, entrapment at the very least, but probably more than worth it to get the man out of the medical profession and save the rest of the women out there from falling prey to his advances no matter how flimsy.

I want to know why it is that the names and nationalities - along with photos - of rape victims can be printed in the newspapers, here [and no, I cannot find the specific example I was looking for] but that the name and photo of a Saudi man who has been arrested for rape is not being published? Why is it that some people - men and women, alike - are afforded the shroud of secrecy, but others are not? Double standard, perhaps? Glaring!

Justice does prevail in this matter. Some justice... A father who tortured his nine-year-old daughter, along with his wife, the child's step-mother, has been sentenced to death. I thought I had blogged on the story - and I still think I did - but I can't find it. No matter. A father - and the term "father" should be used in the very loosest sense of the word as a real "father" doesn't do this - has been convicted of torturing his nine-year-old daughter to death; the man was sentenced to death by a court yesterday. The little girl's stepmother was sentenced to five years in jail for taking part in the murder. The little girl's real mother is appealing the five year jail sentence - which does seem rather minimal under the circumstances. The nine-year old died last year. "Officials from the Red Crescent Society discovered her body outside her home and, suspecting she had been tortured, informed police." Kudos to the officials from the Red Crescent Society for being so keen and aware! The father and stepmother were arrested and later confessed to torturing the girl to death and said that they had beaten her and pressed a hot iron on different parts of her body. Why?!? What could the little girl possibly have done to deserve such horrific torture? I will never understand. [Child abuse is rampant, worldwide. It knows no boundaries...] The "couple confessed to throwing the little girl from an upper-floor window of their home. It was suspected that the girl was already dead at the time."

The father originally denied torturing his daughter and said she "had committed suicide by jumping from the building." WHAT NINE-YEAR OLD CHILD COMMITS SUICIDE!?!? The police, as well, deserve commendation for not allowing the father and this wicked stepmother to explain away with a snow-job and excuses the "signs of torture" found on this little girl's body and for interrogating the couple in whatever manner and method they deemed appropriate in getting the couple to admit that they "had tried to hide the cause of death." The "Police say they recovered items used to torture the girl, including hoses, a heavy stick and spoons that were heated over a fire."

Now that the father has been sentenced to death, we can only hope that this little girl's real mother is successful in appealing the trivial five-year sentence which was handed to the wicked stepmother who deserves nothing less than twenty years in jail with a lifetime of suffering to follow.

I'd say that is enough outrage for one day...

Twins, Say "Goodbye" to Mommy and Daddy

This is too bad, really. Sad. And, unfair.

Kesiya and Albert are 19-month-old twins whose parents are sitting in jail waiting to go to trial for committing murder. The Nepalese maid, allegedly, tried to run away from the twins’ parents, Roy Joseph and Biji Thomas, and now she is dead. Apparently, the couple was “detained after the police found the mobile phone” which belonged to the maid.

The twins “who were separated from their lactating mother for more than a month” have left The Sandbox [Riyadh] to join their grandparents in Kerala, India. In the meantime, Mommy and Daddy are languishing in separate lock-ups, and have not even had the benefit of “receiving any counselor access” [talking to a lawyer!].

The Embassy of India is doing everything they can as it is “bound by its duties to represent its nationals when they are in legal disputes in Saudi Arabia.”

“Muraleedharan, general convener Federation of Kerala Associates in Saudi Arabia [Fokasa] has met with Indian Ambassador M.O.H. Farook” and they have “submitted a memorandum.” The memorandum, signed by Muraleedharan, says, in part:

“Since the Kingdom is a country which recognizes and respects the rights of individuals the detained couple should be considered as innocent until proven guilty.”

I recall seeing the original article in the Arab News, but only just glanced at it so I am short on details, i.e., the maid’s death – was a body found? And, do officials know the cause of death? Now, inquiring minds want to know how it is that the “Indian couple was detained after the police found the mobile phone.” Did the police have a search warrant and find the phone in the “Indian” couple’s home? Did the couple get stopped in a vehicle? Was the phone found on the maid [and she was found, where?] with the “camera” on? What evidence is there that the “Indian couple” are to blame for the death of the maid? I’ll try to follow the details.

One thing is for certain. It will be sometime before the parents are reunited with Kesiya and Albert and that is too bad. Sad. And, unfair.

Abused Maid Paid $8,042.89

We have a winner!

“Rosie who survived seven months of torture at the hands of her sponsor and his wife” is going to be paid 30,000 Saudi Riyals [$8,042.89] in compensation. Rosie tells her story to The Saudi Gazette, and states that her “employers had subjected me to the harsh beating when I asked for my salary. The beating became a ritual and escalated when I asked the help of the mother of my woman employer.”

A [poor, or she would not have come here] young woman from the Philippines, Rosie came to Saudi this past February to work as a maid for 750 Saudi Riyals a month, or whopping $201.07 U.S. Dollars! This measly amount went unpaid, a saga all to familiar here in The Kingdom, for some six months. On August 8th Rosie received what was her last and “the worst” beating and the next day she “managed to escape and made it to the King Fahd Hospital” where her compatriots called the Philippine embassy to report her condition.

Philippine embassy welfare officer Danilo P. Flores said, “Her condition was heartbreaking. She had contusions on her head and had developed hematoma all over her body.” Flores reported the incident to Captain Fahd Saad Al-Dossari of the Udulliyah Police who investigated the case, summoned Rosie’s sponsor and “locked him up.” It is reported that Rosie’s sponsor “confessed to his crime before police and agreed to settle the case by paying Rosie seven months of unpaid salaries and other damages.”

It is in this regard that we have a winner… In the almost four years that I have been here in The Sandbox, not ONCE have I read that a sponsor has admitted to the crime of abusing domestic help. Not. Once. It goes without saying that NO ONE should have to suffer abuse at the hands of their employer, and it should go without saying that no one should go unpaid for any length of time, and certainly not for seven months.

“The embassy had initially asked for SR50,000.” “Rosie’s sponsor settled at the police station and agreed to pay SR30,000 after negotiations . . . That settlement includes SR18,000 representing 24 months worth of salaries, SR800 for the destruction of Rosie’s personal belongings, SR1,200 for air tickets back to the Philippines, and SR10,000 in blood money for the beatings.”

Broken down, the sums Rosie received for being abused by her sponsor, are:

SR50,000 – the initial amount requested – is $13,404.82 U.S. Dollars;

SR30,000 – the amount the sponsor agreed to pay – is $8,042.89 U.S. Dollars;

SR18,000 – representing two FULL years of salary – is $4,825.73 U.S. Dollars;

SR800 – for personal belongings – is $214.47 U.S. Dollars;

SR1200 – for airfare – is 321.71 U.S. Dollars; and

SR10,000 – payment of blood money – is $2,680.96 U.S. Dollars.

Colonel Al-Harbi states, “We would like to emphasize that such treatment – such abuse – will not and is not tolerated in our society. This is a warning to all employers to respect the rights of their workers.” This rhetoric has been the subject of diatribe for so long that there was never a resultant action came as no surprise. It is enlightening, to say the least, that we have come upon an official who truly means what he says. Let’s hope that someone, somewhere, seriously considers promoting Chief of Al-Ahsa Police, Colonel Ibrahim Muhammad Al-Harbi, to the head of whatever government agency oversees labor abuses and disputes!

Women's Shelters

Monday’s Arab News puts “the spotlight once again on the increasing number of incidents involving abused women.” Perhaps it is true that the number of such incidents is increasing, but I am more inclined to think that the abuse has always existed and is only now coming out of the proverbial closet. Kudos and thanks go to Rania Al-Baz, a former announcer at a Saudi television station, who suffered a brutal attack at the hands of her husband – an attack and beating so horrendous Miss Al-Baz was unrecognizable. Raina Al-Baz’s story was followed by Arab News, in a heretofore unprecedented public milieu, from the beginning to the end.

Purportedly over the weekend a woman escaped from a Riyadh hospital and made her way to a shelter in Jeddah. According to the article, had she not made it to the shelter she was afraid the police would return her to her abusive family, which is not an uncommon dilemma for abused women. The article says, “Even after they have escaped, the usual “option” presented to them [abused women] is to return to their abusers.” [If this is the “usual” option, it really rather negates the point of escaping.]

“Thinking that their ordeal will be over once they are in the shelter, these women are subjected to further insults and neglect.” [This is ONE of the options? Not the “usual” option, outlined above.] “Their problems are not solved and they are more often pressured to return to the place they escaped from,” a social worker pointed out. [The “usual” option, above.]

“The shelter should be able to provide women with psychological treatment, social support and empowerment programs…” The supervising charitable organization consulted an expert who suggested help in this regard but the government entity chose instead to implement “its own plans that are bureaucratic, unsympathetic and not supportive of women.” Due to the “unyielding and inflexible procedures, many women who came to the shelter were eventually returned to the very places where they had been abused.” Amazingly, a case is cited where a “woman who had been sexually assaulted by her brother and then escaped . . . was then returned to the care of her brother for lack of evidence.”

According to the director of the women’s department at the Ministry of Social Affairs, Nora Al-Asheikh, “if there are no obvious signs of physical or psychological abuse, the woman is returned to her family because some of these women are falsely accusing their family of abuse to escape strict rules.” Fortunately, despite the many shortcomings these shelters have, “If there is evidence of abuse, the woman is cared for.”

What IF there was a spider?

The woman who was locked in her house [What IF there was a fire?] – to all who commented – I agree, surely there is more to the story. But, who knows… In the meantime, on the same day, I missed this one in the paper, Arab News, it was just a couple paragraphs, buried on the bottom of a page.

It certainly would give one reason to believe that people just are not taking care of their mother’s here, in The Sandbox. This poor old woman – she’s 90! – has been forced to live in the stairwell of a building – without light, ventilation and a toilet, “because her children do not want to take care of her.” So, instead, she’s been resigned to have to live in what sounds to me like an ultimate spider habitat! Looking at the bright side [ha! there is no light!], her eyesight is deteriorating so if there ARE spiders she probably can’t see them.

The article sheds a little light [ha! there is no light!] on the lack of hygienic facilities, and why the woman is not getting charitable help.

Really, not to make light [ha! there is no light!] of the situation, because it truly is sad that anyone would be forced to live like this – but especially when you’re 90 years old – the woman has two sons and four daughters… Apparently the sons are “financially secure,” and one of the daughters living nearby said that she did not want to help her mother because she was “wicked.”

I have one son. I can assure you that through many years – those terrible teenage ones – he thought I was wicked – probably worse than wicked. I know I won’t end up living in a stairwell. My son wouldn’t do that to me. No, he’ll be putting me in a nursing home, instead. Probably one of those “homes for the aged,” you read horror stories about – abuse, lack of food, care, etc. Just as long as there aren’t any spiders…

What IF there was a fire?

I saw this Haunted House headline in yesterday’s Arab News, and glanced at the first sentence or two,

“People living in a residential suburb of Jeddah had no doubt that the empty house in the area was haunted.”

“Strange sounds could be heard coming from the house…”

and I turned the page.

Last night I received an e-mail from a young lady telling me that she had read a story about domestic abuse that neighbors knew of but had done nothing about… I thought, “another maid has been abused,” as if so common it elicits less of a response than a yawn… Ho-hum… Not this time.

Apparently there is a woman in Jeddah who lives in a house, alone, where she has been locked in by her three brothers, because, for whatever reason, “she [can’t] live with them.” After the death of her father, five years ago, the rest of the family – these brothers – moved away. Not before, however, putting a chain on the door and bars on the windows – where this unnamed woman has since remained, as a prisoner. Umm Samar, a neighbor says that when the brothers were still living there she could hear “them beating her almost every day.”

Pardon me? Did you say you could hear this happening almost every day? And it didn't occur to you ever - not even once - to call the police or some other authority to report this?

A few generous souls, the aforementioned Umm Samar, among them, have tried to help her and “slip food to her.” Umm Samar says that last Ramadan she “received a telephone call from the woman asking if she could have some food. The poor girl told me that she was starving and that there was no food in the house, no money and worst of all she had been locked inside deliberately.”

When was Ramadan last year? Didn’t it start in October? It is now going on the end of June! Eight months have passed, and still no one has called an authority to investigate the situation of a woman who you know is locked in a house, with bars on the windows, with no way to escape and no way to communicate with the outside world?

[The phone call the young woman made to Umm Samar was done on the borrowed phone of a passer-by.]

The article says,

“The young woman, who is in her early 30s and has more gray hair than a 60-year-old, refused to talk to Arab News fearing that her brothers might harm her. It seems that she has accepted her life the way it is and is unwilling to share it with the world.”

Certainly there must be some law against imprisoning someone! Does this young woman any idea how fortunate she has been for the past five years that she has been safe and sound and that there has been no fire, or equally tragic emergency, from which she would be unable to escape? And now, now that the world does know about this – can – or will – this situation just continue on, status quo, as reported? Shouldn’t one – if not all three – of the brothers be called upon to respond to the authorities in some way? Brothers!?! What kind of “brother” would let his own sister live like this…

Umm Samar says,

“She is a good girl, we all know her but it seems she has been unlucky.”

Unlucky?!? Yeah. I'd say so...

A Breath of Fresh Air

Sabria S. Jawhar is new – relatively new – to The Saudi Gazette. She writes a weekly column called, “Out of the Box.” Today she addresses an issue that many of us have addressed – I have, The Religious Policman has, Hypnotic Verses and Silly Bahraini Girl have addressed it, and without a doubt, a slew of others that I just am not quite familiar with yet: Abuse of domestic workers.

If someone has had the courage to take some responsibility for the issue in black and white as direct and succinctly as Sabria has, I’ve not yet seen it. I do believe the column she wrote today will cause just a bit of flack.

Sabria, if everyone out there that employs domestic help shared your philosophy, many of us would no longer have an issue to address with regularity, as abuse of domestic workers would be obsolete! And if everyone out there just shared part of Sabria’s philosophy toward mankind in general, what a wonderful world this would be!

The specific situation, Sabria writes of, involves a man who fills an apartment building’s water tank. The man got sick and was unable to fill the tank one night. The next day, a tenant of the building, upset because there is no water, beats the man beyond recognition. When did any of us – not just those of us with domestic help – stop caring about our fellow human beings so much that instead of saying, “I’m sorry you weren’t feeling well,” we respond to the absence of some deed or promise with anger?

Sabria says,

“. . . few expatriates go home with good memories about their stay in the Kingdom.”

“. . . I felt truly ashamed and I was lost for words. I was speechless and could barely utter a word, other than to say “sorry brother,” for the behavior . . .”

“. . . what made the inherent dignity and humanity so cheap to us, that we thought we could enslave and humiliate them? How could we be so mean and cruel to these people, people who had crossed oceans to serve us and raise our children?”

“. . . give them more human working conditions, where they have a proper day off and come and go freely to see their friends and relatives, and even celebrate holidays like we do. They are human beings, who have feelings . . .”

“Why do we dare to impose our values on others? Why do we always think badly of people, who are simply different from us?”

Yes, why, indeed…

“We need to encourage them to address the authorities and complain when their rights are violated, without the fear of reprisal or losing their jobs.”

Sabria, reading your column was truly a breath of fresh air – long overdue – to anyone gasping for breath in an environment of effluence!

Haya, YOU need to – no, no – you MUST read this!

[I do hope this young lady will not mind my addressing her by her first name – it was done out of admiration and not disrespect – S a b r i a. Why, I could almost be her twin!]

Here's a First!

Well, okay, so maybe not THE very first, but the first I can recall seeing this, that the Minister of Labor has

“. . . issued a decision to deny a Saudi woman, accused of abusing her sponsoree, the right to recruit a replacement.”

“It is indeed a commendable thing that the Minister of Labor has started implementing the new disciplines for recruitment of house help.”

“The new regulation protects all the financial and humanitarian aspects, foremost ascertaining a family’s actual need for house help and that a Saudi recruiter will indeed be able to financially afford and HENCE PAY the wages of these house workers.”

[Emphasis added, is mine.]

“Moreover, any case of abuse towards these helpers will be referred to security authorities and to the regions’ emirates, the violators will then be denied the right to recruit any other help and will also be required to pay the travel expenses of their sponsorees.”

This is ALL good. Someone truly does have the welfare of these imported domestic helpers in their sights and is actually willing to put into practice AND enforce new regulations.

There is, of course, the usual backlash, and the author of the article states,

“I would have very much liked for the new regulation to give Saudi sponsors rights.”

You, see, Nawal [I do not know if this is a man or a woman], therein lies what has been the problem up until now. The sponsors had all the rights and the sponsorees had none. That the sponsors have lost the “right” to abuse their sponsorees doesn’t mean that the sponsors no longer have “rights.” Nawal also believes that the new regulation

“should have stipulated strict sanctions against all those who on the other hand commit violations against their sponsor, or harm them, or commit a crime, or run away before the legal contract period lapses.”

Here’s an idea, Nawal – why doesn’t everyone give the new regulation “a good old college try” and see how it works by not abusing the sponsorees. I’m willing to go out on a limb here and bet that if the sponsorees are not abused and are paid their wages [on a timely basis] that they won’t react with committing violations against their sponsors, they won’t want to harm them, and they won’t need to commit crimes [in order to merely exist and survive]. If this works out and everyone seems to be “living happily ever after” probably a whole lot fewer sponsorees are going to want to be running away.

Unfortunately, Nawal doesn’t really seem all to willing to give it that “old college try,” wanting the regulation to provide for “justice to be fully served” by the sponsorees for committing violations and harming sponsors, etc. According to Nawal,

“The problem with these disciplines is that they have failed so far to solve the issue of the runaway house help, who once they reach the country use the first chance they get to run away.”

Probably this does occur, occasionally, but I, for one, would be hard-pressed to believe it happens as frequently as Nawal would like for us to imagine it does.

And, the math you show us to back-up your facts, Nawal, is this “new math?” The math I learned is “old math” and this just doesn’t add up for someone from the “old school” who learned "old math."

You tell us that SR41* million is spent on recruitment “of house labor.” Then you tell us that Saudi families incur losses of “approximately” SR 38 million as a result “of the running away of maids,” but factoring into this is that “citizens are required to pay SR6,000 before a maid arrives.” [Yes, the “word” problems ARE the hardest, aren’t they!?!]

First we divide 41,000,000 by 6,000; this equals 6,833.33 maids imported per year. Now, divide 38,000,000 by 6,000; this equals 6,333.33 maids. Using “new math” this means that of the 6,833.33 maids that come here to work 6,333.33 run away.

This leaves ONLY 500 maids – or sponsorees – who remain with their sponsors – that don’t run away. Nawal, you are right. If there are ONLY 500 maids that are not abused, that are paid, and that are content to stay with their sponsors, this really IS a HUGE problem – certainly a much, much larger problem than I ever imagined!

Gratefully, you’ve clarified a part of the problem for us by telling us that,

“It is a known fact that gangs were formed to recruit the services of these runaway maids for higher salaries, particularly in Ramadan and the holiday seasons.”

Then Nawal says that

“Recruitment of labor has risen by 14 percent even though the new regulation is now enforced.”

If I use Nawal’s “new math” these gangs now have an additional 95.66 maids to lure away from their sponsors. And, this, irrespective of the fact that sponsors have lost the right to abuse the sponsorees. Hmmph. Who knew…

Nawal sums it all up – perfectly – wrapped in a pretty little package and tied with a bow – by finally – finally – answering for us that ever-nagging, age-old question as to whether the chicken or the egg came first – and states,

“As for why some maids run away, that is simple to answer, why not?”

Why not, indeed…

*SR = Saudi Riyals
SR41,000,000 = $10,991,957.10 [U.S. Dollars]
SR38,000,000 = $10,187,667.56 [U.S. Dollars]
SR6,000 = $1,608.57 [U.S. Dollars]

Another Maid Abused

This poor Indonesian woman was dumped in front of a hospital, in an unconscious state, after being burned and beaten by her employer. The police say that her employer thought she was dead. She was covered in cuts and bruises, had fractures, head injuries and was suffering from internal bleeding. The article in today’s Arab News, says “the maid gave no indications why she was beaten in such a way. Police are currently investigating the case.” Another case of abuse that was investigated by the police comes to mind, Nour Miyati. If you are not familiar with Nour, this is but just a sampling of the articles her case generated.

I suspect the “maid saga” in some way, shape or form, will continue to be an issue for many years to come. Sad, but true. However, the “blame” for the situation cannot be put squarely on the shoulders of this Country, or any of the other Gulf countries where domestic help is considered to be a necessity versus a luxury. The countries from which the domestic help is imported must make drastic changes to their own dire economic conditions to prevent these people from having to seek the mere means of survival somewhere else.

Update: Today, the man who dumped this maid admits to doing so and offers an answer to the question “why.” It will be interesting to see how this plays out, and whether or not charges will eventually be brought against the maid, calling for punishment more severe than her employer’s.

What is “domestic help” abuse

This article "Punishment is OK, But..." can’t go without comment. Sorry. Well, not sorry in the “true” sense of the word, but, it’s THESE types of articles that make me want to just grab someone – let’s start with the author – by the throat and start shaking them. What? Are you for real? WTF is wrong with you?!? Let’s assume, for the purpose of me ripping this person’s viewpoint to shreds, that “Haya” is a woman. Sounds like a woman’s name to me.

Haya begins by saying that she respects the Ministry of Labor’s decision to ban citizens found to abuse their maids and drivers from employing domestic workers. We’re both on the same page, so far. We’re not very far down the page, but we’re on the same page. This, however, is where Haya loses me – and we’re only on the very first paragraph! Haya “just wish[es] the ministry would identify the types of abuse such workers suffer so that others can learn and realize that maids and drivers are human beings with rights as well as needs.” Haya, if the Ministry doesn’t identify “the types of abuse” for you, does this mean that you think it is probably okay to beat them with a stick? Not pay them? Force them to work to 140 hours a week? Not let them eat? Chain them up so they can’t “escape?” What, Haya, would constitute abuse in your simple little mind? And, did you not ever think that they were “human beings” to begin with? They are not animals [let’s not even go here!], but they are not robots or clones, either. Do you think that just because they are imported from another country that, unlike you, they wouldn’t have any needs? As far as “rights,” well, this is an issue that I don’t think many employers of domestic help will ever be able to rationalize, so for time and length’s sake, we’ll pass over this, too.

Haya next says that she thinks that the ministry should “support” these employers in cases where “they suffer financial loss or any other harm by the misbehavior of employees or agencies.” But of course. As if the scales of justice weren’t tilted in favor of the “employer” over the “employee” so badly, now, that they about topple over now, let’s just throw the damn “scale” over on its side and get it over with then.

She substantiates this by saying, “when a maidservant [her word, not mine] or driver runs away from a household, no one reimburses the employer for the financial losses.” Haya continues to whine about how the employer might have to give the employee a travel ticket, blah, blah, blah. And, then, says, “There are many problems associated with drivers. Sometimes the police arrest them after car accidents, which often lead to paying…” Haya, honey, if this is a concern of yours – don’t get a driver. Take a cab. The only place you need to go anyway is the mall and your husband can take you on the weekend or when he gets home from work at night. And, until someone, here, does something about the driving, your chances of getting in an accident are better than not. But, for you to be concerned about the driver getting arrested, Haya, well – this isn’t the attitude I expect from you – so far you didn’t know that these workers were human beings or that they had rights and needs – why are you worried about a driver being arrested? Ahh, of course. It will cost somebody something. Here’s an idea: Since you’ve withheld this person’s pay for the last three or four years, why don’t you use that money to pay the fine? Surely you aren’t concerned about this person languishing in jail… And let’s just for a minute, take a look at why it is that the driver got arrested to begin with. Three words: He’s a foreigner. Everybody knows that only foreigners ever get arrested – they are the only ones ever at fault! It’s never a “local’s” fault! [Forgive me for even thinking so.] We’re still only on this third paragraph, and Haya has about exasperated me! She says, “The running away of employees is a growing and serious problem.” Yes, Haya, it is. The employees are wising up just a bit and realizing that they truly are human beings with rights and needs and that you can no longer abuse them – work them to the bone – lock your food up so they can’t eat – lock them up so they can’t get to the food – and NOT pay them! Goodness gracious. Why would anyone want to flee a situation as idyllic as that? Haya thinks it would be best if “rules and regulations were put into place that punish perpetrators [she is referring to the runaway maids and drivers, here, not the employers!] of such misdeeds.

I honestly don’t know if I can continue with this or not. It is just too unbelievable to me that there has been space in the paper allocated for this article where a large advertisement for our “World’s Largest Hypermarket” could be. I do believe I would much rather know how much a kilogram of carrots costs this week than read what Haya has to say. Certainly the advertisement would be a much more judicious use of newsprint.

Haya says that “we need to protect the rights of domestic employees; especially because some people abuse them by not paying them, overworking them day and night, physically attacking them and forcing them to work in different homes in a single day to collect salaries from different sources. Some people want servants to do multi-role[s] simultaneously as nannies, cooks and maids. I imagine such people are in the minority because in general Saudis by nature are soft and kind.” [You see why I wasn’t sure I could continue?] Haya, in the first paragraph of this article you didn’t know what “abuse” was. And, here, really I’m not quite sure if she believes this is abuse or not. Her last sentence, “I imagine such people are a minority…” She is probably correct. I doubt there are too many more “people” that are abusing their domestic help any more than what is stated here. How could they? I mean, really, what else could they possibly do to them? Amazing that she believes that some of this domestic help should do multiple jobs, i.e., nannies, cooks and maids. Speaking only for me, but when I grew up this was called “my Mother.” When I had my one and only son, it was “me.” I was THE nanny, THE cook and THE maid! [And I worked a full-time job, too!] The very last sentence, where it says, “… by nature are soft and kind.” They are soft, alright. Soft, as in dim, pathetic…

“Problems with employment are increasing and solutions are not forthcoming. There is a necessity to protect different involved parties, especially the citizen who spends an average of SR7,000 to SR8,000 to recruit a domestic servant or driver, an amount that is almost double the salary of a middle class Saudi [this IS monthly salary, not yearly]. So when a maidservant runs away people suffer financially.” Haya, if your income is only SR7,000 to SR8,000 a year, you CANNOT afford domestic help! You don’t have any extra money, so why would you employ a driver to take you to the mall where you can’t afford to buy anything?!? What, then, exactly are you doing with your time while the “maidservant” is cleaning, cooking and tending to your children???

Haya “assumes the implementation of a fingerprint system has become compulsory for the safety of all. This is especially the case since many maids are forced to leave the Kingdom because of acts of crime, immorality and even jeopardizing children’s safety.” [Yes, and they join gangs and take part in sorcery, the females “have babies on the streets” and they create “smelly areas.”] Well, Haya, if these people were given a decent wage, they probably wouldn't have to resort to any crime – hell, never mind given a decent wage! How about just paying them the measly wage you promised them!?! And, at some future point, I will address some of the other aspects of crime – I touched on it ever so briefly with the “supply and demand” theory, yesterday. I am, however, convinced that if all of the husbands of these women who are home abusing “maidservants” and “drivers” weren’t so busy with the other runaway maids that are involved in “immorality,” then there wouldn’t be any immorality! [For goodness sake, you’re allowed more than one wife! And that’s not enough for you? You have to find runaway maids to serve your needs on top of several wives? {Yeah, okay, maybe not the best choice of wording there.}] As far as jeopardizing children’s safety – let’s save this one for another time, also.

“I believe that it is every citizen’s right to protect himself and his wealth, which are being wasted in the employment of such people.” Once again, Haya, and I don’t know how many times I need to explain this to you, if you didn’t have this help, you wouldn’t be “wasting” your money. And, with a salary as you earlier stated, you need to be doing everything you can to protect your wealth. Oh, wait, you are. You don’t pay the help! Well, then, how can the money be wasted? And, Haya, as to “How can an employee return to the Kingdom after being forced out because of criminal convictions, immoral behavior and child abuse?” Oh, I don’t know, let’s just venture to guess that maybe there’s a bit of a pay-off system taking place. The same pay-off system that is used when people like you, as the “employer” are NOT supposed to be able to hire other household help after you’ve been caught abusing the help you had prior. Silly me – we have to wait to have “abuse” defined for us.

“Saudi citizens must be protected from cracks in the system so they don’t continue recruiting more maids each year because the last one ran away and others rebelled after arriving only three months ago.” Haya, I can’t take it anymore! You just don’t get it. And, apparently you never will. This is like a friggin’ hamster wheel! The system is one that will continue in one big never-ending cycle until the end of time here. No sense trying to explain to some people. It is just a waste of time. There is a bit more to the article. Let me know what you think.

It is probably a very, very good thing that I am virtually locked in a gilded cage – locked in! I hate to think how I might conduct myself if ever given the opportunity to confront one of these women and use all my might to make them see the light of day.

[I get this mental picture of a woman lying face down on the ground – no, not me – with another woman pinning the woman on the ground down – that would be me – holding on to the hair of the pinned down woman’s head, slamming it back and forth, back and forth, into the pavement, muttering through clenched teeth, “how can you NOT understand this, WHAT the FUCK is wrong with YOU?!?” over and over and over again… Ahh, now that’s idyllic…]