| February 12, 2006 | Sunday | Muharram 13, 1427 |
Sugar: where is consumer resistance?
Development and residents’ rights
THE announcement that a new highway is to be built through one of Dubai’s many new residential areas is in the process of creating an interesting situation regarding residents’ “rights”. Those of us who have lived here for many years have long since accepted that we have no rights. Dubai has developed in its breakneck way because its system of government – it has often been referred to as a benevolent dictatorship – is direct. Consultation does take place in the upper echelons of local society before decisions are taken by the Ruler, but the vast majority of the population has no say in what happens in the emirate. We might hear that a project is to take place through the newspapers but often the first intimation of something happening is when a construction company starts mobilising its equipment.
Not that this is necessarily a bad way of doing things. There is no way Dubai could have developed the way it has – and just about everyone will agree that what has been achieved is remarkable – with any form of democratic rule that involved lengthy consultation. Shaikh Rashid Al Maktoum, the father of the present ruler, Shaikh Mohammed, was a master at getting things moving quickly. Nearly 30 years ago I received a call from a friend who said his bosses had just been summonsed to a patch of desert outside Dubai and a big announcement was expected. As a journalist, I invited myself along, drove for about 20 minutes outside what we used to call the city (it must have been about 10 per cent of what now exists), down some desert tracks and eventually located a group of besuited, sweating, western expatriates.
They were from various construction-related companies — contractors, consultants and so on — and had all been told by the ruler’s office only a couple of hours previously to attend the meeting. As today, when that sort of royal summons arrives, you drop everything and make sure you are there. Eventually Shaikh Rashid arrived, accompanied by his “security” which consisted of a few elderly Bedu tribesmen, armed with ancient rifles. A couple of years earlier, Rashid had given instructions to construct the 100-berth Jebel Ali port, which even today is still the largest man-made port in the world. It was built by excavating the desert, building quay walls, and then letting the water in.
Rashid wasted no time in saying what he wanted. The old rickety road from Dubai to Abu Dhabi went through what had now become the port area, and a new highway would be built to by-pass it. Rashid raised his stick, which he always carried, and pointed at a tree on the horizon. The road would go from where he stood, straight to the tree, where there would be a slight bend, and then it would go direct to the border with Abu Dhabi. The ensuing exchange went something like:
“Certainly Your Highness. We will engage consultants to draw up the plans.” “No, I want work to start today.” And so it was that the construction executives leapt into action, discarded their jackets and ties, and started walking through the dunes, marking the route the road would take. Satisfied, Rashid climbed into his four-wheel drive and headed off in a cloud of dust. The next day, bulldozers moved onto the site and started cutting their way through the desert to build an eight-lane highway. Much of the work had been completed by the time the plans were ready.
Shaikh Mohammed is definitely his father’s son when it comes to getting things done and the results are there for all to see. Dubai has been fortunate that those taking the decisions have had a vision of what is possible. Other Gulf states with far more money lag far behind when it comes to modern infrastructure. It has never really occurred to expatriates that they should be consulted about what is going on in Dubai. Some do reflect on what would happen in their home countries if, for instance, an airport was to be built. The process would go something like: initial announcement, alternative sites considered, residents protest groups formed (for all sites), parliamentary bill published, more consultation, government decides on location, planning enquiries held, more protests, court action, more committees formed and so on and so on, for perhaps a couple of decades, at which point it would probably be decided that there was no need for an airport after all. So, for getting things done, it is generally agreed that the Dubai formula works well and, in any case, in a place where expatriates are generally made to feel temporary – thanks in large measure to the fact that everybody has only a three year residence visa – why would anybody expect to be consulted on anything?
Well, times are changing rapidly and it is all down to the fact that, as has been mentioned in this column on numerous past occasions, expatriates have been allowed to buy property in defined locations for the past couple of years. Suddenly they have a stake in the place and some seem to think that, as a result, they have “rights”. This unfamiliar concept has been raised because of Dubai’s horrific traffic. The city is grinding to a halt with all-day queues and new body called the Roads Transport Authority (RTA) has been set up to sort it out with a remit that includes better public transport and building more roads.
It became public knowledge last week that among the plans are two six-lane highways that will go straight through some new residential communities where expatriates of all nationalities have paid big bucks for bricks and mortar. The tree-lined, walled, estates with lakes and fountains have names like Meadows, Lakes and Springs and seem unlikely places to give birth to the Dubai Revolution but the RTA may have to think how it is going to move ahead if it is to avoid adverse publicity. The roads might ease the traffic situation but it does not appear to have occurred to anybody at the RTA that not everybody would welcome them.
So far, the protests are confined to a few newspaper quotes. A spokesman for a residents group (not so long back such a group would have been illegal) said: “We clearly have to get into constructive dialogue to discuss both the negative and positive sides to these plans and to assess what rights we have as residents.
“If this road is indeed being built then what rights do we have to say, no, we don’t want it to go through here. Are we allowed to even say this? At the moment we know nothing.” Another resident said: “The properties were sold as an area where people can live peacefully but then they go on to build a major road right by the houses. Not only would investors feel cheated, it would bring down their confidence in the system.”
In short, the potential row is the sort of thing that would happen in any country if residents thought they were being adversely affected by a development, but in the Dubai context, the implications are far wider. This is not just a dispute about a road: it is the first sign of expatriates – buoyed up by their investment in the country – flexing their muscles. Rights? This one is going to be worth watching.
ARE we really serious about the sugar prices rising? Are we really, truly, actually upset at the way they have raised the prices despite government’s concern, and some measures taken to control an amazing but not inexplicable price rise?
Is the Pakistani consumer worried to an extent that it is reflected in his lifestyle, and consumption? Have you heard of one person saying that he missed a cup of tea or gave up some sweet thing because of sugar prices? asked one citizen I talked to last evening.
This Karachiite was referring to the countrywide expression of concern, and what he termed, ‘a verbal assault’ on the sugar theme. He was referring to the overall phenomena of rising prices in the country. He made specific references to the prices of gold, for instance, which have crossed Rs11,000 per 10 grams, and yet people are buying. Look at the way the jewellers have increased in this society. Look at the size and decor and security levels of these retail outlets, forever with eager families buying.
A colleague listening to this joined in to refer to the prices of petrol that have risen, and said the number of cars still continues to grow. Infact ,it is hard to find an example of something where consumption has declined as a result of rising prices. Eating outdoors is more expensive than at home, yet people go for it all the time. In the case of sugar prices which have risen to record highs, the interesting (read disappointing) aspect is that there has been no impact so far on the prices of food items that are dependent on sugar.
Neither the prices have risen, nor has the consumption of cakes, mithai, icecream and … (the list is long) declined. Infact, the way people have been going about their lives, perhaps only betrays the hollowness and hypocrisy of their protests and complaints.
But if the sugar consumer is as insensitive and unmindful of prices, then why is there this countrywide concern? The media is full of news stories, and editorials, and even cartoons on this theme, and the picture that is conveyed is one where it appears that the people are doing without sugar, and families are sulking that the ‘sweetness’ from their lives has gone. Nothing of that sort, dear reader. If anything, life is very much the same, and the sweetness of sugar still part of daily routine.
Let us try to interpret (and why not?) the public concern and restlessness about the hike in sugar price. It is perhaps not so much of a fear of prices or even shortage, but the fact that the government is either unable to control the prices or has evidently simply failed. The government has been arguing that the sugar price is linked more to international prices than local factors… like petroleum products. The consumer is told that the world oil prices determine local prices.
To lend a sort of ironic (read familiar) dimension to the sugar price crisis is the fact that the subject of hoarding of sugar has made its presence felt. There are always groups of vested interests,(manipulators really) who resort to hoarding of sugar and make that quick buck.
And what is amazing is that amidst reports (from Lahore in this daily on Feb 8) that hoarding is a primary cause of the price-hike, there has been no mention of any deterrent action taken against an individual or a group for this malpractice.
The report which highlighted that hoarding was deepening the sugar crisis also hinted that the employees of the utility stores there were also aggravating the situation by selling the same subsidized sugar at the open market rates. A market analyst was quoted as saying that the “hoarders are dictating the market, because the government has failed to check them.”
A spokesman for the Pakistan Sugar Millers Association has been quoted as saying that if the government fails to arrest the trend of rising prices, it may touch even Rs50 per kilo in the next few days.
A fundamental question that arises is what exactly the government alone can do. If the consumer, in cosmopolitan Karachi or across the length and breadth of the country, is not willing to make convincingly even a token cut in consumption of sugar to resist the rising prices, what can officialdom achieve?
Have you not been surprised at the fact that in all this sugar price crisis, like the meat crisis where prices were raised without any impediment or those of milk and dairy products for example, there has been no collective voice from even the paper organizations that exist to promote the so-called concept of consumer resistance?
Is it not amazing that not a single public interest advertisement in the print or electronic media asking consumers to cut down on sugar consumption has appeared so far?
Life really will not stop if sugar is not consumed for a while in that heavy measure as we are accustomed to as a people, justifying it in the name of tradition and culture. I am tempted to quote that Urdu saying which says Shakerkhoray ko shakar mil hi jati hai Translated roughly, it means that the person who desires sugar passionately always manages to acquire it.
Even President General Pervez Musharraf has directed ‘immediate steps’ to ensure the supply of sugar at reduced prices to offset the impact of the price-hike on the common man. Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz presided over a high-level meeting on this crisis, and Dawn reports indicate that “ministers and advisers traded allegations in the presence of the president and the prime minister in the two meetings.”
A TV report on Ashura day kept saying that “Dr Salman Shah has said that the government could not subsidise sugar prices.” On the other hand, the federal Commerce Minister Humayun Akhtar has been quoted as saying that the finance ministry had delayed the import of sugar which they knew was imperative. They are now getting sugar from India.
At the end of all this focus, unfortunately there is perhaps no good news, as far as sugar prices go. The common man also senses this, and believes that at the end of the official push and pull that is going on, the prices will stabilize at a high level. “But seriously speaking, does the common man truly care about the price of sugar… if he doesn’t care about the other all round expensive prices? asks a sceptical citizen.