My recent article in the Arabic press on the private sector should not be construed as an unpatriotic attack on the sector. I did not urge, as some seem to think, that we should open up the country to foreigners. Nor do I think this is the occasion to prove my patriotism. And if anyone doubts my loyalty to the Kingdom, let him search his own heart and find out what his real motive is in doubting mine.
I have discussed the issue of the school building contract with several businessmen. They admitted that they did not bid on the contract when it was offered to them because it necessitated the investment of large sums of money in advance when returns on the investment would be a long time in coming. They also feared — and this comes from the contractors with whom I spoke — that they might never receive full payment just because they were Saudis. On the contrary, non-Saudi contractors will be paid in full, the contractors said.
If the contract were offered to foreigners after being rejected by the Kingdom’s contractors, what is the problem? The Kingdom’s businessmen had the first opportunity and turned it down. What then is the point in making all this fuss? Why should our contractors feel disappointed if they knew that there was little profit in it for them? Ironically enough, these contractors complain that they are unfairly denied their rights which in fact are the rights to cheat their own compatriots for generations. These Saudi contractors do not care if the young generation is deprived of a relevant scientific education. We no longer need to wait for another occasion to show us the real motives of some domestic investors who think only of their fat profits and care nothing for the welfare of the people in their own country. The real issue is whether the Saudi private sector has an obligation to protect the interests of citizens.
If the local contractors feel that they have been discriminated against if foreigners were invited to bid on the school project, every citizen in the Kingdom should think that he or she had been doubly cheated when the contractors refused to cooperate with the government’s efforts to offer an improved education to Saudi students.
Foreign investors are given an opportunity because they will do their best to complete the project and fulfill all the conditions and specifications. We can set the conditions and make the foreigners adhere to them. On the other hand, nobody can dictate terms to a Saudi contractor or tell him to leave the country if he fails in his contractual obligations. The Saudi private sector loathes conditions of any kind. The problem with the sector is that the Kingdom has pampered it. Like all spoilt children, private contractors believe that they have the right to everything simply because they are Saudi. Is being Saudi itself a virtue? Such a situation allows a contractor to do as he chooses — not forgetting of course to pocket the maximum profit. Since his aim is to make the highest possible profit, he employs an unskilled workforce which costs him virtually nothing. He is also careful not to appoint Saudi workers who would demand decent pay which would in turn diminish his profit. Such contractors unashamedly stake their claim to the school contract, saying that since they are Saudis they are more eligible.
The General Investment Authority (GIA) should see that the foreign investor, when he wins the contract, fulfills all the conditions. The GIA need not fear such statements as “I am not bound by any condition” which a local contractor would say. The GIA can dictate terms such as the employment of Saudi manpower at a decent salary and the use of locally-produced raw materials. The Saudi authorities will be in full control. On the other hand, everybody is well aware of the practices of many contractors in the Saudi private sector. They receive the contract on the understanding that they will employ only expatriates. Saudi workers are thus discriminated against. Qualified Saudis are not appointed, even at administrative levels. And even worse, there are other Saudi businessmen who sell their contracts to foreigners at a profit and then leave the country. They take their capital with them, looking for profitable investments abroad, perhaps in Beirut.
If the GIA is powerless to stop such unsavory practices in the private sector, there is no reason for its existence. It should rid the sector of corruption, kickbacks and meaningless promises. Though painful and difficult, that is what is essential if we are to make the sector strong and healthy.
Nobody should think that the school-building project is a scheme suggested by the American companies themselves — or even drawn up by the GIA. The Ministry of Education prepared the plans for the school buildings in 1995. The underlying idea was to stop schools using rented buildings that had been built for purposes other than educational ones. It is very unfortunate to have to say that the ministry has been disappointed in its efforts to get private sector participation in the project over the last five years. No Saudi investor came forward. How long does the private sector want our school children to lack proper school buildings?
We need not have any undue fear of foreign participation. We are all familiar with Aramco and its contributions to the Kingdom. We are proud of the disciplined, productive and efficient Saudis who were trained by the company. In the end, let us not forget, when we no longer required Aramco’s services, a simple goodbye made our wishes clear.