The latest news in the case of Nour Miyati, the Indonesian maid abused by her sponsor, came as a shock. Miyati, as reported by the Saudi Press Agency, is to be charged with making false allegations against her employer as she retracted her previous accusations. The report cited the findings of the medical committee which investigated the case.
The findings were as follows: “The maid suffered wounds and bruises to her body, suggesting she had been the victim of violence and that the gangrene could not have been caused as a direct result of beating and that it probably was caused by a disease suffered by the patient.”
Furthermore, the report suggested that the bruises on the maid’s body came as a result of a wardrobe having fallen on her. And that the fingers must have been affected by using chemical detergents. The report, which is foggy and full of hazy possibilities and even medically suspect statements, goes on to say that some of the bruises were inflicted by the sponsor’s wife.
The reactions from readers were a mixture of anger and surprise. The website Al-Arabiya also carried a number of readers’ responses that were openly skeptical. Most readers voiced disbelief and suggested that the sponsor was responsible for what happened to Miyati. Those who responded believed the state the maid was in was the direct result of neglect, if not torture, by her sponsor. Come to think of it, as an outsider reading the story, one would think that the sponsor did bear a huge responsibility. Even if the injuries were caused by a falling wardrobe or chemical detergents or even if, as the report suggested, they were self-inflicted. It is simply inevitable that the sponsor is blamed.
Having someone under his direct sponsorship living in the same house with him and his family makes him the person who must answer for any harm that befalls her. Besides, investigators found Miyati was malnourished, maltreated and neglected by her employer. The maid alleged the wife hit her on the face with a shoe when she saw her “walking in the house without underwear,” according to a statement carried by the Saudi Press Agency. Doesn’t that indicate that she was cruelly treated? Aren’t these grounds for preventing such a family from employing domestic helpers?
Taking the report’s conclusion, it is obvious that no matter how these injuries came about, the sponsor still has to be punished, and his punishment should be announced publicly. If such human beings as this man and his wife think they can treat fellow human beings in such a manner, then it is only just to make their punishment an example for others who might forget that there is such an intangible thing as justice. I quote an Arab News’ reader, “Even if one accepts the employers’ word that the maid was not physically abused, it is too much to believe that they did not notice it when the maid ...got so ill as to develop gangrene.” The facts are still hazy, unclear and indistinct.
A London-based Saudi newspaper quoted a source at the Indonesian Embassy who had visited the maid as saying that she was confused and did not make any sense at all. The source suggested that her statements might therefore not be reliable. Even if this is so, the case does not seem to be any clearer.
People are still asking questions and are demanding explanations of what actually happened to this woman. If she was not abused, the facts should be made clearer and perhaps another investigation is in order to eliminate the contradictions and make things sharp, clear and distinct.
Leaving the subject here seems manifestly unwise since doing so casts dark shadows on the way we treat others and opens the doors to all sort of theories, right and wrong.
******
Why Do We Believe Them?
This week, local papers carried full-page ads for a center in Dubai operated by a “healer” who claims to treat all sorts of ailments and diseases using herbs and Qur’anic verses.
The ads said that the healer had been successful in treating cancer, heart disease and a number of psychological problems. This same healer has been banned from practicing in the Kingdom; the Saudi Ministry of Health issued a warning that people should not deal with this individual or his brand of medicine. The ministry also said that such practitioners have neither valid medical credientials or official authorization. This particular healer has no license or any scientific proof to support his claims or the herbs that he uses.
In April, Arab health ministers issued a joint statement against these imposters in the Arab world. Now, it seems they are not only popular here but also in other Arab countries. They advertise in our papers and on our TV stations and nobody stops them. The number of people who read the ads and believe them are enormous.
There is a mentality that naturally rejects medicine and science and goes for alternative medicine. Not to mention those who are deceived by people who claim that they can use Qur’anic verses to cure illness. Whatever the reason, practicing medicine without a license should be banned. If some people prefer healing by herbs, that is their choice but the people dispensing the herbs and treating the sick should be monitored and licensed.
Besides, how is it possible for someone to put an ad in local newspaper which promised miracles without being asked for his license and credentials? If newspapers do not run ads for cigarettes because there is a regulation preventing them from doing so, shouldn’t there also be regulations against self-proclaimed healers?
Only a short time ago, many people were deceived into buying property in a shadowy project known as Venice Islands because of ads in local papers. Those behind the ads managed to get huge sums of money from people in what is now known to be a big scam. One would think that even when we learn our lessons, we forget them very quickly.
