Colleague Mohammed Al-Dallal recently penned an article in Al- Qabas where he respectfully refuted our claims against the Student Union, without explicitly mentioning my name. In the spirit of directness, I would like to personally address him and extend my gratitude to him and the rest of the “Brothers” for their support and articles defending the union. Their stance, no doubt, reflects their commitment to the constitution, democracy, and student and union work.
However, I can’t help but wonder why we haven’t seen the same fervor from them when it comes to the dissolution of the National Assembly or the suspension of certain constitutional articles. Is it because the union holds more significance for them than the constitution and the Assembly? Or perhaps it’s because, for over 40 years, the union served as a training ground for their future cadres, an institution they likely invested considerable resources into -- investments that have now been jeopardized by the union’s dissolution? In his article, my colleague Mohammed reaffirmed what I’ve come to understand over decades: that while the Muslim Brotherhood is strong in terms of financial resources, military capability, and ideological influence, it remains weak structurally and intellectually.
Mohammed accused me of defaming the Kuwait University Student Union, yet he likely knows this accusation is unfounded. Neither he nor those who came before or after him have ever provided evidence disproving my statements, which I’ve made in many articles over the years. The absolute silence from all members of the “Executive Body of the Union” in refuting the claims made in our articles serves as undeniable proof of their validity. It’s no surprise, then, that the Brotherhood and the union turned to Mohammed’s column in Al-Qabas to respond to me. They chose to do so through a carefully crafted question to the head of the Kuwait University Student Union’s branch.
From the wording of both the question and the response, it’s clear that a third party was involved in drafting the reply to counter my accusations. How can we take seriously the odd exchange between a university student and his professor -- the “doctor” at the university, former Brotherhood representative, and well-known writer? This dialogue reads more like a conversation between comrades in ideology or party, based on an unusually high level of “trustworthiness,” even though age, rank, and position would suggest otherwise.
Moreover, it’s not characteristic of Brother Mohammed, based on his writing style and previous articles, to engage in investigative journalism or contact officials for fact-finding. So, why did he feel compelled this time to reach out to a student to refute the story of the million dinars? What you mentioned about the Student Union spending one million dinars on its activities wasn’t limited to just its branch in Kuwait, but encompassed all its branches, which serve nearly 60,000 students.
For example, during the union’s student elections in the United States, around 2,000 students are required to travel from one city to another just to participate. So, who was covering the costs of their tickets, accommodation, and food? When the union organized its large semi-annual conferences with high-profile attendees, along with student delegates from various branches in different cities, who financed these events? And who paid for the preparations for the last elections, which were ultimately canceled? These elections, driven by tribal momentum and by-elections, were the most expensive in the union’s history, and the most fragmented, with numerous groups participating.
Is it believable that 70,000 dinars could cover all these enormous expenses? These expenses include not only providing services and assistance to students but also managing election campaigns for over 22 student lists, 26 additional lists for tribal committees and offices, and an organizational structure that involves many costs. This is not to mention the expenses of the union offices, both in Kuwait and abroad, which require salaries for employees like accountants, correspondents, janitors, and others. For context, the union initially had a nationalist orientation, and its leaders requested a government license.
However, Sheikh Saad’s government hesitated to grant one. When the Muslim Brotherhood eventually took control of the union, the government seemed more open to licensing their activities. But it appears the Brotherhood preferred to maintain the status quo, likely to avoid any oversight. This lack of oversight led to an increase in violations. It’s no surprise, then, that representatives from one of the union’s branches in a European city filed a report with the public prosecutor regarding irregularities in the branch’s bank account. Similarly, in Egypt, a competing student list spent significant sums to cover the registration fees for new students, securing victory for their list. Yet no one questioned where the money for those fees came from!
Thus, in my view, the amount of one million dinars is relatively small. We have documented estimates of the amounts -- of unknown origin -- that were spent on the last student election project before it was canceled, and, unsurprisingly, none of these amounts appear in the union’s official bank accounts. So, I ask again: why did the Muslim Brotherhood’s writers, leaders, and followers become so outraged over the dissolution of the Student Union, while they remained silent about the dissolution of the National Assembly?
By Ahmed alsarraf
e-mail: [email protected]
