Job Discussion Forums

[CANDLES]

Ironic thing is that some Western women seem to cope better in KSA than men. I've wandered around by myself, getting into taxis at night (not very late), walked to the nearest mall and didn't feel particularly vunerable. I've see more of KSA than the Saudis themselves.

The reason most Muslims feel an affinity with KSA is obviously to do with Mecca and Medina, otherwise they are there to make money, same as the rest of the expats. The Jordanians, Syrians, etc dislike KSA mainly because they're not treated in a respectful manner, plus the Saudis think of them as the 'poor relatives'.

The Saudis are mystified as to why women choose to come over and teach there; they are all waiting to escape to USA given half the chance, either by getting married, or going with their brothers, or by getting a scholarship to the Western world. They know what the political situation is and will be in a few years time- too many voices- even though they are being surpressed- are being raised- albeit not in a dramatic way, but slowly and eventually the time will come when their society will change. Talk to an average student and you'll find that in her/his grandparents time what the KSA was like and now- within 40 years how much has changed. Seeing it through Western eyes, it's a slow process and still medieval, but look through the eyes of the Arabs, a lot has changed.
Eventually every nation has to change - has to look outward, rather than inward, otherwise it collapses- KSA is no different.

[fledex]

[johnslat]

Dear fledex,

Are you in luck - I've been in Indonesia AND in Iran - in BOTH countries the vast majority of the population at the time of the upheavals was living is poverty.

What were they driving in Iran in 1979? I can tell you because I was IN Iran in 1979, and every time I left my apartment, I would have to stuff my pockets with small bills because I knew I would be besieged by multitudes of the poor.


Repression? What drives revolutions throughout history is economic repression


"H. Ritonga, director for social resilience statistics at the BPS, said that although the number of poor was declining, poverty wasn�t significantly reduced. This is due to the fact that Indonesia is in a situation of chronic hardcore poverty. In this condition, the rich obtain most benefit from the economy�s rapid growth, while the poor, without sufficient access to capital, become relatively poorer."

"JAKARTA, Jun 29 2012 (IPS) - If in the words of Gandhi �poverty is the worst form of violence,� then the Indonesian government is accountable to some 120 million citizens who live on less than two dollars a day.

Living without basic necessities like clean water, proper nutrition, healthcare, education, clothing and shelter, 29-year-old Parwan fits the dictionary definition of absolute poverty. But not that of the Indonesian government, which sets the poverty line at 7,800 rupiah (about 86 U.S. cents) per day � less than half that of the World Bank, which defines poverty in Indonesia as living on less than two dollars a day.

In the south Jakarta slum of Ciliwung that stretches along a fetid river bank, Parwan survives in a one-room shack shared with his wife and baby girl. He supports his family on a little more than 700,000 rupiah a month (75 dollars) which places him just above the government�s poverty line.

But he and tens of millions like him � in a country of 240 million which boasts Southeast Asia�s largest and fastest growing economy � are unlikely to get a helping hand from authorities who do not even acknowledge their poverty.

�Our National Poverty line since September 2011 is 243,729 rupiah per capita per month (25.76 dollars or 0.86 cents a day),� welfare ministry spokesman Tito Setiavan told IPS.

That neat bit of arithmetic has wiped out tens of millions of poor from the slate: according to government statistics from September 2011 about 30 million people � or 12 percent of the population � lives below the poverty line. The World Bank contends that half the population lives on less than two dollars a day, in line with the Asian Development Bank.

Binny Buchori, senior adviser for The Centre for Welfare Studies in Indonesia, told IPS that frequent government claims that poverty is in decline does not take into account people living on the very margins of the poverty line.

�Whenever prices rise many more people fall in the category of the poor,� said Buchori.

In a country where rice � the must-have staple of the Indonesian diet � costs the equivalent of 85 U.S. cents per kilo, even this basic commodity is out of reach of the myriad poor. A cheapest meal of rice egg and vegetable at a roadside food stall, or warung, costs 10,000 rupiah (one dollar).

�Many low income workers in Indonesia are only able to eat once per day. They will have fried banana for breakfast and a simple meal of noodles for lunch and maybe another banana for dinner,� said Buchori.

Indonesia�s malnutrition has resulted in moderate to severe stunting in 40 percent of children under age five, according to a report by the Save the Children."

The Saudis, with a MUCH smaller population that Iran in 1979 have also been MUCH smarter in letting the oil wealth "trickle down."

"Saudi Arabians generally enjoy a decent standard of living, due in large part to government programs designed to minimize poverty. Saudi citizens are given free education (although enrollment is not required and has historically been low, accounting for relatively high illiteracy rates) and health care, and all adult Saudis are entitled to a plot of land and a loan of US$80,000 with which to build a house.

The GDP per capita in Saudi Arabia reached its peak in the late 1970s and early 1980s, when elevated oil prices were generating high levels of revenue. In 1981, GDP per head reached US$16,650. Slumping oil prices and declining production in the ensuing years caused the per capita GDP to fall. By the end of the decade the figure dropped to US$5,500. Rising oil prices following the Gulf War coupled with increased Saudi production helped raise the per capita GDP once again. In 1999 the figure stood at US$9,000."

Oh, there's a VAST disparity between the really rich Saudis and the man,/woman in the street, but the average Saudi isn't doing too badly.

In economic terms, comparing Indonesia 15 year ago and Iran in 1979 to Saudi today is not a good choice for making your point.

Regards,
John

[fledex]

So as I understand you, the repression in Iran in 1979 was far worse than in Saudi, mainly because most people didn't share any of the oil wealth. In Indonesia, basically, it's always been the same old poor country and remains so. Indonesia just had a small bubble the helped a few people and burst in the late 90s. So, since most Saudis are not comparatively poor, they are not repressed, and they won't demand change.

You might be right about this, I would say that greater poverty, like in Egypt, might lead to a quicker revolution. My hope is that there won't be violent revolution in Saudi, but just a slow withering of the old regime and conversion into something more sustainable, such as what happened in the 90s in China. From what I observed in KSA, though, they don't seem to be poised for this kind of change. I saw a lot of construction there, but not the drive and initiative that one sees in the far East.

[johnslat]

Dear fledex,

Are Saudis "repressed?" Certainly some, perhaps even many, (though I doubt it's that high) feel "repressed" with regard to what could be called "personal freedom."

But I think history tends to show that it's economics that is the major cause of revolutions.

I very much doubt that there will be any "Arab Spring" in the Kingdom. Too high a percentage of the native population is too "comfortable" economically speaking. Oh, there are certainly poor Saudis. but the number, I'd say, is very far from the "tipping point" necessary to ignite an uprising.

King Abdullah has been VERY slowly making some changes, but whether the pace of change is TOO slow is the question.

A society, like a large ocean liner, can't be "turned around" quickly. However, my guess is that none of the Royals are packing their bags (although I'm sure they've got fortunes stashed away in distant banks).

Of course, I could be quite wrong. but I think that it's highly unlikely that the Royals will be tossed out in a violent rebellion.

Regards,
John

[scot47]

Of course there are low-income Saudis. "The poor are always with us." However, there are also large numbers of Saudi citizens who are doing okay. In Nigeria ALL the wealth has been concentrated ion the hands of a few. Thjis is NOT the cae with Saudi. Of copurse there are some very wealthy Saudis but there is also a large middle class.

In KSA free education, free health care and government-financed housing have actually spread well-being through a large part of the poulace.

[fledex]

[johnslat]

Bahrain differs from Saudi in one very important aspect; only about 10% of the population in the Kingdom is Shia, almost all of whom inhabit the Eastern Province.
In Kuwait, the percentage of Shia is between 30 and 40%

"First, Bahrain is a Shiite island. You won�t see it described that way, but it is � 70 percent of the population, more than the percentage of Shiites in Iraq. And like Iraq under Saddam Hussein, these Arab Shiites have been systematically discriminated against, repressed, and denied meaningful roles by a Sunni tribal government determined to maintain its solid grip on the country. The emergence of real democracy, as in Iraq, will push the country over into the Shiite column � sending shivers down the spines of other Gulf rulers, and especially in Riyadh.

Appearances are deceiving. Go to Bahrain and on the surface you won�t feel the same heavy hand that dominates so many other Arab authoritarian states. The island is liberal in its social freedoms. Expats feel at home � you can get a drink, go to nightclubs, go to the beach, party.

But if you look behind the Western and elite-populated high-rises you�ll encounter the Shiite ghettoes � poor and neglected, with high unemployment, walls smeared with anti-regime graffiti.

Free market? Sure, except the regime imports politically neutered laborers from passive, apolitical states that need the money: Filipinos, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans and other South Asians who won�t make waves or they�re on the next plane out.

The regime also imports its thugs. The ranks of the police are heavily staffed with expat police who often speak no Arabic, have no attachments to the country and who will beat, jail, torture and shoot Bahraini protestors with impunity.

Like other Shiite populations, clerics figure heavily among the leaders. But many are liberal and open, reflecting the culturally open character of the island. Most Bahraini Shiites would look to Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq rather than to Iran for religious guidance.

Typically, however, just like most other tyrants across the region, the al-Khalifa regime in Bahrain will whip up anti-Shiite, anti-Iranian fears to gain Western backing � and they usually get it.

It�s not just that the majority is Shiite. From a Saudi perspective, the Bahraini Shiites maintain close family and cultural ties with Shiite families across the water in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Shiite minority, probably even more oppressed, is already restive and would be responsive to Shiite political unrest nearby. This is Riyadh�s ultimate nightmare � a further strengthening of Shiite political power in this oil-rich region.

The Sunni minority of Bahrain is in a difficult position. The Sunnis worry about the rise of the Shiite majority that makes up the oppressed class. But liberal Sunnis are also highly discontent with the al-Khalifa regime and seek political reform. Many work with the Shiite leadership to attain secular reforms, but the regime has repressed them as well and fans fear of Shiites to help keep them in line.

There has been relatively little actual blood shed � at least compared to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and other neighboring states � in the decades-long story of Shiite resistance to the authoritarian ruling family. If the al-Khalifa thugs are let loose, that could change quickly. The temperature is rising."

For more:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/opinion/17iht-edfuller17.html?_r=0

Regards,
John

[veiledsentiments]

Pretty good analysis of the long-time issues in Bahrain. Kuwait is a different mix yet again. Added to a sizable Shia minority, it also has a large minority group of "bedoon" who are stateless citizens who have lived in this geographical area for generations, but for various reasons never received Kuwaiti citizenship and benefits. Probably a small majority of Kuwaitis receive the financial benefits of Kuwait's oil wealth... free medical and education... along with other government largess.

It also has a semi-freely elected government structure whose powers ebb and flow... a press that has been freer than the other areas.

Of the two... IMHO Bahrain is the most likely to get worse... probably much worse than Kuwait. But, we on the outside (even if we live there) rarely know the real situation.

VS

[plumpy nut]

[johnslat]

Dear plumpy nut,

"In another vein, the American revolution occurred not because of poverty and repression. It occurred because the British leaders were haughty and because they trampled the Americans right to privacy."

Hmm, being "haughty" and trampling "the Americans' right to privacy" sounds to me a little like repression.

However, that aside, economics was certainly one of the major causes of the American Revolution. Remember the Boston Tea Party and "no taxation without representation?"

"Starting with updates to the Navigation Acts, the British government began imposing increasing levels of taxes on the colonists. The Stamp Act of 1765, in addition to the Townshend Acts was designed to increase revenue to the British.

When the Colonists became upset at such taxation without sufficient representation in Parliament, they began to rebel. In return, the British passed the Declaratory Act and d a series of acts later known as the Intolerable Acts, all designed to punish and reshape the colonial governance system to make it easier for the British to reign in.
Tensions rising on both sides, the Colonists could not tolerate any more what they felt was British economic and social repression, while the British could not tolerate continued defiance from an ungrateful Colony, leading the two sides into a state of war over economic and social independence."

http://wiki.dickinson.edu/index.php/The_Economic_Causes_of_the_American_Revolutionary_War

"THE ECONOMIC CAUSES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

1. MERCANTILISM

One big factor that led to the colonists� discontent is Mercantilism. Mercantilism was the idea that colonies were an important source of raw materials. A lot of the raw materials were taken from America and sent to Britain to help the mother country manufacture goods to trade with other countries. It was thought that by increasing exports and collecting precious metals in return, that it would improve the national wealth and power.

2. THE NAVIGATION ACTS

The Navigation Acts channeled the flow of colonial raw materials into England and kept foreign goods and vessels out of colonial ports. The Navigation Acts incorporated multiple laws that were created over a period of time. The Acts were passed with the theory of mercantilism, which restricted free trade. They were intended to keep foreign goods and vessels out of colonial ports. The Navigation Act of 1651 banned imported goods from other countries, unless the ship or cargo had an all-British crew. The second Act was extended to exports in addition to imports. Four more Acts were passed between the years of 1662 and 1773, which proposed even more restrictions on trade. The Molasses Act in 1773 forced the colonists to purchase the more expensive sugar from the Britain because they had raised the tax on all sugar and molasses products coming from anywhere else. Smuggling was also a huge result of these Acts.

3. THE COERCIVE ACTS

The Coercive Acts was passed in the spring of 1774. It was also known in America as the Intolerable Acts because they felt the Britain�s answer to the current problems was coercion. The Americans thought it was intolerable and unendurable. Some of the laws under the Coercive Acts which have economic repercussions for the colonists were: The Boston Port Act, The Quartering Act.

The Boston Port Act closed the harbor of Boston to all commerce until its citizens paid for the tea that were destroyed in the Boston Tea Party. This was not fair because the British government was punishing the whole state of Massachusetts for a crime committed by a few of its citizens from Boston.

The Quartering Act required that towns provide the needs for British Soldiers; they were required to house and feed new British troops sent to the colonies. They considered this a form of indirect taxation in which the Americans were forced to use their money for the benefit of the monarchy. The soldiers were also particularly unwelcome because they took odd jobs after work hours, competing with unemployed colonists.

4. THE TEA CRISIS ACT

The Tea Act passed in 1773 was Britains attempt to help the East India Company from their almost nonexistent sales of their teas. The East India Company had millions of pounds of tea that they were unable to sell. Britain decided to help them by letting them sell their tea in North America without the colonial tax and lowered the price so there wouldn't be any competitors. Americans became angry over this because American tea traders still had to pay taxes to Britain. Their prices were so low that the American traders could not compete. The Tea Act led to boycotts of tea and later on led to the Boston Tea Party.

5. THE TOWSHEND DUTIES

The Townshend Acts of 1767 was named after Charles Townshend. He came up with the idea to place tax on imported glass, paper, paints, and tea. The British land tax had been cut, so Townshend decided to make it up by taxing the Americans for the goods. Townshend thought that Americans were �ungrateful children� and he wanted to reinforce the control of the British government on them. These taxes all went to earnings of the British officials. Many were against these taxes, which led to boycotts of English goods.

6. THE SUGAR ACT

The Sugar Act was passed by British Prime Minister, George Grenville in 1764. His main concern was to reduce government spending. This law placed tax on imported items that came into America in large amounts such as sugar, coffee, dyes, and wines. Most imported wine and rum was banned. This Act also reduced the tax on molasses from six cent to three cents. It was thought that this Act would help pay for the expenses of colonial administration. Those who were found going against the Sugar Act were tried before British naval officers in court."

http://american94565.tripod.com/theamericanrevolution/id2.html

And, of course, there were no Hondas or Toyotas back then, either

Regards,
John

[scot47]

6 months in the region, the acquisition of 20 words in Arabic and a subscription to a local English-language newspaper, and HEY PRESTO, even a nut can be an expert on Saudi Arabia !

[corniche]

30% of the people in Saudi Arabia are not eligible for the perqs mentioned above.

[johnslat]

Dear corniche,

Source, please.

"Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has announced unprecedented economic benefits worth tens of billions of dollars and warned against any attempt to undermine the kingdom.

Friday's announcement, thought to be aimed at appeasing Saudis calling for Egypt-style protests that forced the president out of power, came as unrest rocked Gulf countries where protesters are demanding political reforms.

In a speech broadcast live on Saudi television, the ageing Abdullah - who returned home in February after months of treatment in a New York clinic - read the announcement in a soft trembling voice and rarely looked up from his notes.

The numbers announced were large: $66.7bn would be spent on 500,000 housing units and $4.3bn on more medical facilities.

The sweeteners also include an additional two months' wages for all government workers and two extra payments for university students worth around $500.

King Abdullah raised the monthly minimum wage to $800 and announced a monthly payment of around $260 to the country's unemployed.

Unemployment in the world's biggest crude exporter was 10.5 per cent last year, but was as high as 30 per cent in the 20-29 age group with an estimated 450,000 Saudi citizens without jobs.

The monarch promised millions more capital for the government's housing loan fund and raised the maximum loan for homes to around $130,000."

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/03/2011318174117916648.html


Thanks,
John

[johnslat]

This seems to me to be a pretty good article:

"Although much has changed in Saudi Arabia since the country�s founding in 1932, the Saudi government has remained remarkably consistent with regard to its policymaking vision. It seeks to improve the economic welfare of the country�s citizens while also enforcing (sometimes ruthlessly) the country�s customs and traditions. The first half of this policy has been rigorously pursued through the reforms described above, but the latter half has manifested itself in repressive laws and a closed political system that are always justified on the basis of protecting Saudi Arabia�s Islamic heritage.
But this still does not explain why Saudi Arabia has bucked the prevailing consensus on the integral link between political and economic reforms. It does not explain the paradox of why, as Saudi Arabia�s populace has become richer, better educated, and more diversely opinionated, there has been almost no internal pressure for political liberalization. But, in the end, almost every trend in Saudi society can be explained by the single most important factor that has shaped the Saudi state�oil. And the complacency of the new Saudi middle class is ultimately no exception. The government, through its pet company Saudi Aramco, controls virtually all oil extraction and refining in the country and maintains its profligate social and economic spending through revenues from this oil production. The result is an economic welfare state of the most bizarre type, so bizarre that it has been given its own name by experts in the region�a rentier state. In such a state, rather than imposing taxes on its populace to raise the necessary cash for public projects, the government relies on a system of continuous revenues to fund not only economic development projects, but also a unique �welfare� program that tends to manifest itself in the form of simple public handouts. As long as the government can maintain these handouts, most citizens simply ask no questions�with no taxation, they demand no representation.
This system has been the primary factor behind the Saudi regime�s ability to maintain the same closed structure and enforce the same oppressive laws since its inception, guaranteeing the Al Saud family almost full carte blanche as they shape the country�s future and insulating them against the ramifications of poor or careless economic decisions. The resulting paradox is that as Saudi Arabia gets richer, its rulers find it easier to guarantee absolute rule. Prosperity in this case does not breed democratic change, but rather pushes Saudi society in precisely the opposite direction."

For more:

http://arabia2day.com/reports/a-modernization-paradox-saudi-arabias-divided-society/

Regards,
John