Jamal Banoon Al-Hayat If we presume that the kafala (sponsorship) system, which the Kingdom has been following for more than five decades, was just an experiment to study its impact on the labor market and its implications on the national economy, how can we assess its success or failure? Can we consider it a successful method that has achieved its targets so we continue with it for many years to come to regulate the employment of foreigners in the country? If the concerned government departments believe that the system has achieved their visions and objectives, why has the national economy lost so much as a result of the kafala system in five decades? We can summarize the results after 50 years of implementing the program as follows: Trading in humans has flourished, the labor market has been dumped with cheap and illiterate foreign manpower, the workers flee from the rightful kafeels (sponsors) to work in other places, Tasatur (coverup) has become a predominant phenomenon, new types of crimes have surfaced, a black market for work visas has appeared and the labor market has been corrupted and the doors to bribes have opened in the private and government establishments to renew or transfer iqamas illegally. There is a long list of negative aspects that have also adversely affected the Saudi economy. According to a report issued by the Commerce Ministry, more than SR140 billion ($30 billion) is transferred abroad in expatriate remittances each year. This means a remarkable withdrawal of liquidity from the market, which is detrimental to the economy as well as to the domestic trade due to the unethical competition between expatriates and Saudis. The ministry's figures about Tasatur show that it dominates the contracting sector by about 43 percent, consumer goods 19.2 percent, general trading 16 percent, foodstuffs 8 percent and others 15.8 percent. With 50 percent, the Arabs occupy the first place in doing business through Tasatur followed by Asians who constitute about 28 percent. The legitimate question here is: Should we, after all this, still stick to the kafala system? This system has maligned our image in global human rights circles and placed us among the list of those suspected of trading in humans. How come the concerned departments did not notice all the problems resulting from the system? They were not only ignorant to the problems but also made concerted efforts to prove to us that the system was the best method to control foreigners in the country. The Kingdom had experience in granting iqamas to foreigners without kafeels. This was done with the Yemenis. It was a successful experiment that did not result in any problems. The market was open. The Yemenis flourished in retail trade, services and vocational work. This experiment was halted after the first Gulf War. We were waiting for the experiment to be made with other nationalities until the kafala system was abolished and substituted with a system of granting residency without kafeels. We should seriously consider an alternative approach to the kafala system, which is not appropriate to regulate more than 12 million foreigners in the Kingdom. A few weeks ago the concerned government departments started to correct the situation of the Burmese living in the Kingdom, particularly in Makkah. A committee was set up to enumerate them and authenticate their papers. This is a suitable opportunity to give them iqamas without kafeels, especially since the Burmese have been residing in the Kingdom for long years. There are other nationalities that have also been living among us for many years, including Afghans and Africans among others. These communities are being hosted by the Kingdom out of consideration to the circumstances in their own countries. Correcting their situation is essential for them to be able to find work and accommodation in a legal way without the need to look for kafeels. Asking these communities to have sponsors will take us back to square one, which is the Nitaqat program and the illegal procedures being used to renew or transfer iqamas. The abolition of the kafala system and finding another substitute is a social and security issue, which should be studied at the highest levels, and not just by an individual administration or a small government department. The issue should be considered at the level of the Supreme Economic Council or the Shoura Council. We have suffered a lot from the kafala system and it is high time we look for substitutes that will achieve our economic goals. Believe me if the issue is considered seriously away from passion and self-interest, the Saudi economy will be cured of many of its ills. I think the kafala system needs a brave decision to cancel it. We have tried this system for long years. There is nothing to prevent us from trying the iqama system without the need for a kafeel.
