After establishing the kafeel (sponsor) system to govern the relationship between Saudi employer and foreign employee, we now find ourselves in a situation that we are unable to cope with. Apart from its high financial costs, the system has adversely affected our country’s reputation and was originally introduced as a result of specific considerations under specific circumstances. Over the years, the system came to be treated as irreproachable and unchangeable. Even when there is discussion of amending some provisions, it is only a cut-and-paste process.
Questions continue to be raised as to the relevance of the system. Why was it introduced in the first place? Why is it so unreasonably severe and inflexible? Were things perhaps better before introducing a system that has so far failed to achieve its objectives — namely protecting the rights of both employer and employees?
The system has nothing to do with labor and workmen’s laws, prompting even the Ministry of Labor to distance itself from it. The ministry denies having anything to do with it, saying the relationship between employer and employee is determined by the employment contract and not the kafeel system which, according to them, was the creation of another body rather than the ministry.
One question asked is whether the system has in fact resulted in a drop in crime rates or helped remove the signs of backwardness we see around us. Reality and fact tell us something very different.
Do other Arab countries use this same system? Do they suffer the same problems as we do? Or is the kafeel system yet another sign of our "special status"? This "special status" is alleged to have made us different from others but it has only obstructed our progress in many areas. If the rest of the world around us applies more resilient, practical and useful systems, we should also apply them and so spare ourselves criticism and help businessmen provide the country with the workers it needs.
By the way, where are our experts in employment laws? Are they really capable of coming up with another system that would be more useful? And if they are, why haven’t they done so? What is the point of all the academic qualifications and distinguished-sounding titles preceding names? Perhaps others would like to add questions of their own to mine. Even better would be some answers and possibly some changes.
23 September 2002
