THE reality is that the citizens’ pockets have been touched daily for decades, despite the slogan that was raised on every occasion in the past about not touching the citizens’ pockets, which means ensuring their income is not impacted. This is an empty slogan that neither sustains nor alleviates hunger. This issue was turned into a dilemma because of the opportunistic political trading of former MPs, selfish and envious individuals, and the currently powerful figures who prioritize their interests above all else.
The size of this dilemma increases whenever an opportunity for political gain arises either from former or current ministers or from MPs in the past. This means achieving social justice without impacting citizens’ finances is merely a fantasy, and it is likely to remain so. The citizen’s pockets are impacted by unjustified subsidies that allow owners of multiple buildings to avoid paying their dues for electricity and water services, shifting the burden to public funds.
This situation ultimately deprives low-income citizens of opportunities to improve their earnings. All the talk about this matter revolves around the interests of stakeholders, but no one has asked why citizens are deprived of enjoying a decent life, and who is preventing their financial stability.
Is it the wealthy man who invests abroad the money he obtained from tenders whose prices were inflated through favoritism by corrupt officials, while his own country is deprived of productive projects? Or perhaps it is the one who amasses wealth through real estate, owning vast lands and properties, driving prices beyond what citizens can afford? Could it be the greedy merchant, or the owner of 30 or 40 agencies, and many others who exploit people’s hardships for personal gain? Thus, when food and services are subsidized, it often leads to increased arrogance and greed, fostering a societal attitude of demanding more. There is no long-term vision that would benefit the future of generations, which are currently threatened with losing fundamental resources shortly.
The concept of “Public Reserve” means increased austerity, thereby jeopardizing the prospects for productive projects on which young people could depend in the future. So we say frankly - Yes, touch the pockets of the citizens and those described above, but not those with low income. Take from the affluent and redistribute to the needy, as is practiced in countries worldwide that are striving to align individuals’ incomes with the services they receive. In Kuwait, retirees are suffering like those with limited salaries. The majority of them, along with a significant segment of citizens, are under the sword of loans that consume the majority of their income.
Is it reasonable that a quarter of citizens are borrowers, with half of their salaries eaten up by interest payments, while 120,000 individuals face sentences, travel bans, arrest orders, and habeas corpus, and many among them are imprisoned? Successive governments have overlooked this fact because they perhaps refused to do justice to these people in line with the argument put forth by those who benefit from people’s injustice, which is “social justice does not accept that”. When a large number of citizens face a crisis, article 25 of the Constitution provides a solution. It stipulates, “The state guarantees the solidarity of society in bearing the burdens resulting from disasters and public tribulations.”
Likewise, if an area is exposed to an earthquake or a natural disaster, will the state refrain from taking care of the damage because another area was not affected by the disaster? Is this the social justice that some people are trading on? Also, is there a citizen who borrows funds, except out of necessity? Is it humane for Kuwaiti money to benefit all of humanity but not contribute to alleviating the plight of 25 percent of Kuwaitis? Shouldn’t the Foreign Minister, who extends loans to a hundred countries, consider lifting the burden on these citizens?
By Ahmed Al-Jarallah
Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times
[email protected]
