The act of lobbying, either officially or behind the scenes, is prevalent across the world. It is most often associated with politics in the United States and negatively so. In fact, lobbying dates back to just after the American War of Independence when William Hull, a war veteran, was hired by those who fought alongside him to lobby those in Philadelphia, then the US capital, to compensate them for their service. The rest, of course, is history.
The UAE is no stranger to lobbying firms. It hosts various companies, some of them US-based, who provide global services to UAE-based firms and the various governments. The UAE also hosts business associations and Canadian, US, Indian and British groups, which executives belong to meet for educational and informative sessions as well as to celebrate occasions such as national holidays. Other lobbying organisations press for oil rights and contracts for their clients.
An interesting development occurred when the former UK business secretary Lord Mandelson visited the UAE and addressed a group of British businessmen and women in the UAE earlier this year. Lord Mandelson urged the UAE to settle an estimated £400 million in unpaid fees to British firms from companies in the UAE.
He also reportedly said that the UK government was “firmly behind UK business in the country” and that he “did not mind raising issues” on their behalf to the UAE government. Foreign newswires quoted the mixed response to the UK business secretary’s statement, with one member saying: “There’s nothing the UK can preach to Dubai.”
The incident did mark how lobbying can take on another dimension here in the UAE, with some business groups calling upon their governments to press the UAE to further their members’ interests.
The Abu Dhabi Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ADCCI) elections last year were amongst the clearest examples of lobbying’s importance in the UAE. The capital’s chamber of commerce is an important body, considering that Abu Dhabi’s GDP is more than $150 billion. ADCCI’s stated mission is to be the “private sector representative working to advocate policies, connect businesses and expand member opportunities”. Sound familiar?
Initially three coalitions were formed to field candidates for the organisation’s 21-member governing body. In only the second time in the ADCCI’s 40-year history, its 71,000 members from Abu Dhabi and Al Ain were able to vote and decide on their representatives. Sixty-seven Emiratis competed for 13 seats and a dozen expatriates were competing for two expat seats. The government of Abu Dhabi would appoint the remaining six to the board.
The elections were intense and hotly contested, with a group known as Abu Dhabi First taking out full-page advertisements, launching a website and a radio campaign to promote their candidates. Abu Dhabi First could be seen as the first official commercial coalition to promote common goals, effectively making it the first local business-lobbying group.
Among other parts of its platform, it enticed voters by promising to slash membership fees by 50 per cent for small businesses in Abu Dhabi. The results were remarkable; Abu Dhabi First won all 15-membership seats including the two expatriate allocations.
With close to 5,000 votes, the female Emirati candidate on its slate, Fatima Al Jaber, garnered more votes than any other Emirati on the way to becoming the first woman to be elected to the ADCCI board.
There are other registered lobbying groups in the UAE whose goals are non-commercial, including environmental groups and human rights associations. Not all lobbying is negative. Still, it is an industry that is growing in the UAE and is largely unknown and completely unregulated.
So should the UAE look into establishing a law to govern these lobbying associations? The United States first federal lobbying regulation, known as the Lobbying Act of 1946, sought to make sure that the process was transparent and there was full disclosure of financial payments. It has been amended several times since.
In December 2006, the first FNC partial elections were held, and the body’s tenure was extended for two years despite its failure to meet the demands of UAE citizens, raising questions regarding its ability to introduce and debate reforms in the UAE. The tenure extension expires in 2010, though the government has yet to announce new election dates.
It may be prudent to announce electoral reforms along with an election date and to include legislation to make any lobbying activity official. The success of Abu Dhabi First will not go unnoticed by many in the business community that want to silence any debate, for instance, on laws that protect monopolies.
Unofficial and community lobbying manifest themselves in various forms, including an online petition in 2007 to save Jumeirah’s public beach, which resulted in the scrapping of a development. But whether we like it or not, lobbyists are about to become more prevalent in the UAE, and not all of them are out to save a beach.
*This article first appeared in The National on Sunday 4th July 2010
Showing posts with label regulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label regulation. Show all posts
Sunday, 4 July 2010
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Levelling the UAE playing field
The UAE federal government has been attempting to introduce a revised version of the 1984 companies law since 2005. The fact that it has taken so long is a major reflection of just how sensitive the issue is, since the UAE as a pragmatic and fast emerging nation is expected to update its laws periodically.
Just in the past year we have witnessed amendments to the media law, property law and residency law. These amendments and others, although controversial, were introduced without delay. In the UAE, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) has been carrying out test runs for the proposed changes in similar laws that it calls the DIFC Public Comment Policy. The latter invites the wider public to comment on draft versions of laws that are posted on the DIFC website. For instance, in November 2008, a new proposed DIFC companies law and insolvency law was made available for public consultation for one month and then presented to the ruler of Dubai for enactment. Why isn’t the same policy applied to the federal companies law, one might ask? Simply put, there are various elements that stand to lose should a drastically revised companies law be introduced.
Many UAE citizens operate small and medium size enterprises based on the current law and may be affected by a change in ownership structures in case they have an expatriate business partner. Also, if a new law is introduced that essentially flips the 51 per cent to 49 per cent local to foreign ownership ratio, it will affect major UAE national-owned businesses. Many of these giant corporations have enjoyed a monopoly status for the past four decades.
Recently, a friend of mine commented: “Give me a monopoly and I will give you a great business.” But it is unfair to say that these giant monopolies in the UAE have only grown as a result of their unfair competitive advantage. Some, in fact, were successful businesses that acquired agencies as they grew. Others can be expected to excel even in a competitive environment due to the relatively superior customer service they offer, which can be seen when GCC citizens opt to purchase goods from them rather than from their own agents back home. Despite the above, there is no doubt that the UAE will benefit from a revised companies law that levels the playing field. After all, why, for example, should there be only one agent for a specific brand of cars?
The UAE federal government had already started breaking down the iron grip that some exclusive importers held on staple goods when it introduced a so-called open import list for essential items such as rice and flour as inflation levels broke the one-digit ceiling during the last boom cycle. However, it is easier to justify a loosening of import laws on necessity items such as food and medicine than on luxury items such as cars and high-end accessories.
So what do we know about the new law? The previous minister of economy stated that it would, in some cases, allow more than 49 per cent foreign ownership in UAE-based companies or when new firms that would attract cutting-edge technology and major economic benefits to the UAE were established. Also, the law will bring the UAE more in line with international and WTO regulations, but it will not duplicate them. The process of valuing companies was to be revised along with IPO rules for companies wishing to go public. Finally, it was to be sent to the various emirates in the UAE, as well as to certain elements in the private sector and the justice ministry for comment before enactment.
What we have seen in the past few years is that elements of the law have come into force without the entire draft being approved for the sake of expediency. For instance, firms wishing to offer an IPO must now have a three-year track record of profitability. This was expected to be part of the new comprehensive companies law, but the ministry of economy acted by banning start-ups from listing until the new law is approved.
On one hand, it could be argued that the current UAE companies law has been serving the UAE well. After all, if it ain’t broke, why fix it? UAE nationals big and small alike have been the major beneficiaries under this law. Foreign firms have had to find a UAE national entity to partner with to take advantage of the UAE’s market and infrastructure outside free zones. On the other hand, it could be argued that the current UAE law has rendered many UAE nationals complacent, since the current laws work in their favour. Ultimately, this will remain a contentious issue that will attract controversy long after it is finally approved and implemented.
*This article first appeared in Moneyworks magazine, Issue 131 October 2009
Just in the past year we have witnessed amendments to the media law, property law and residency law. These amendments and others, although controversial, were introduced without delay. In the UAE, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) has been carrying out test runs for the proposed changes in similar laws that it calls the DIFC Public Comment Policy. The latter invites the wider public to comment on draft versions of laws that are posted on the DIFC website. For instance, in November 2008, a new proposed DIFC companies law and insolvency law was made available for public consultation for one month and then presented to the ruler of Dubai for enactment. Why isn’t the same policy applied to the federal companies law, one might ask? Simply put, there are various elements that stand to lose should a drastically revised companies law be introduced.
Many UAE citizens operate small and medium size enterprises based on the current law and may be affected by a change in ownership structures in case they have an expatriate business partner. Also, if a new law is introduced that essentially flips the 51 per cent to 49 per cent local to foreign ownership ratio, it will affect major UAE national-owned businesses. Many of these giant corporations have enjoyed a monopoly status for the past four decades.
Recently, a friend of mine commented: “Give me a monopoly and I will give you a great business.” But it is unfair to say that these giant monopolies in the UAE have only grown as a result of their unfair competitive advantage. Some, in fact, were successful businesses that acquired agencies as they grew. Others can be expected to excel even in a competitive environment due to the relatively superior customer service they offer, which can be seen when GCC citizens opt to purchase goods from them rather than from their own agents back home. Despite the above, there is no doubt that the UAE will benefit from a revised companies law that levels the playing field. After all, why, for example, should there be only one agent for a specific brand of cars?
The UAE federal government had already started breaking down the iron grip that some exclusive importers held on staple goods when it introduced a so-called open import list for essential items such as rice and flour as inflation levels broke the one-digit ceiling during the last boom cycle. However, it is easier to justify a loosening of import laws on necessity items such as food and medicine than on luxury items such as cars and high-end accessories.
So what do we know about the new law? The previous minister of economy stated that it would, in some cases, allow more than 49 per cent foreign ownership in UAE-based companies or when new firms that would attract cutting-edge technology and major economic benefits to the UAE were established. Also, the law will bring the UAE more in line with international and WTO regulations, but it will not duplicate them. The process of valuing companies was to be revised along with IPO rules for companies wishing to go public. Finally, it was to be sent to the various emirates in the UAE, as well as to certain elements in the private sector and the justice ministry for comment before enactment.
What we have seen in the past few years is that elements of the law have come into force without the entire draft being approved for the sake of expediency. For instance, firms wishing to offer an IPO must now have a three-year track record of profitability. This was expected to be part of the new comprehensive companies law, but the ministry of economy acted by banning start-ups from listing until the new law is approved.
On one hand, it could be argued that the current UAE companies law has been serving the UAE well. After all, if it ain’t broke, why fix it? UAE nationals big and small alike have been the major beneficiaries under this law. Foreign firms have had to find a UAE national entity to partner with to take advantage of the UAE’s market and infrastructure outside free zones. On the other hand, it could be argued that the current UAE law has rendered many UAE nationals complacent, since the current laws work in their favour. Ultimately, this will remain a contentious issue that will attract controversy long after it is finally approved and implemented.
*This article first appeared in Moneyworks magazine, Issue 131 October 2009
Sunday, 12 July 2009
A jealous wife’s revenge makes for bad law
Every once in a while, somewhere in the world, we come across a case that proves either overtly or implicitly that men can get away with things that women can’t.
When I was a student in France in the 1990s, I recall reading often about President Francois Mitterrand’s mistress, Anne Pingeot, and their illegitimate daughter, Mazarine. Even in Catholic, conservative France, that a man should have a mistress is accepted with a Gallic shrug. The two women even stood side by side at his funeral in 1996.
I remember thinking to myself then, what if France had a married female president who happened to keep a few men around on the side to keep her company at her whim? Would they be allowed to attend her funeral and stand side by side with her husband in public?
Here in the UAE we have the case of the South African diving instructor who has been imprisoned because of an alleged sexual indiscretion; a case that is not unique in many aspects. Allegedly, the 22-year-old expatriate woman was caught with a married Emirati national last May at the wrong hour of the night in the east-coast town where they both work. It later emerged that the married man’s wife had informed the police about the incident, presumably to teach her husband a lesson. Although medical tests have proved that there was no sexual contact, they were both found guilty – possibly of being “alone in a work building after work hours”, which was the second charge brought against them.
Both were sentenced to imprisonment, but the Emirati male was released early on appeal. This case is clear evidence that the issue of adultery and matrimonial disputes throughout the UAE is probably better handled by a civil court rather than a criminal court, since it is clearly open to abuse. One has to keep in mind the UAE’s multi-layered and ambiguous court systems. For instance, UAE federal law applies to all the Emirates except Dubai and Ras Al Khaimah, which have their own Courts of First Instance that allow them to settle such matters in a civil court rather than a criminal or Sharia court.
In another case, the Court of First Instance in Dubai fined an Italian man $3,000 for kissing his Egyptian girlfriend in a taxi. She was fined $500 for the same misdemeanour. Why the monetary difference? And had this case been handled by a criminal court, ie, in any emirate other than Ras Al Khaimah or Dubai, it could have meant that they both ended up in jail, and with different jail terms.
However, if anyone likes to think that discrimination against women is alive and kicking only in the Middle East a slew of cases proves otherwise. In the West, women have successfully sued DKR Capital, UBS and Citicorp in the past few years for discrimination. In other cases women have not been so successful, even though they were using similar laws, including a Merrill Lynch female executive and another from Schroders.
Not long ago a friend of mine was living with his fiancée in their apartment in Dubai. They weren’t legally married, so, technically, their good intentions about an imminent wedding aside, they were still breaking the law in the bedroom every night. As he was a senior manager with a multinational company, he sometimes had to take the unfortunate decision to let people go. One soon-to-be-fired employee threatened my friend that if he lost his job he would tip off the police about these illegal domestic arrangements. My friend wanted to keep both his job and his fiancée, so they decided to get legally married immediately and have their official wedding day a few months later.
What should be clear to everyone in the UAE is that sex outside marriage is against the law. This is not France. What isn’t clear is whether the implementation of this law is even-handed. Why should an adulterous woman be given a different sentence from a man, when they have committed the same crime? In fact, I recall being taught how in the early days of Islam, and for similar crimes, women were shown more leniency: for example, in cases where they had become pregnant, they were punished only after the baby had become independent of the mother’s breast-feeding.
And finally, what is the use of conducting medical tests if a person is going to be punished anyway, even if the results prove them to be innocent?
Sharia is a complicated set of laws and regulations, but if one thing about those laws and regulations is clear it is that they must be applied even-handedly. No discrimination can be tolerated with regards to gender, nationality and ethnicity. Sadly this is another case where men get away with much more than women can: and in this case, a forensically proven innocent woman who was a victim of a jealous wife’s police tip-off.
*This article was first published in The National on Sunday, July 11th 2009.
When I was a student in France in the 1990s, I recall reading often about President Francois Mitterrand’s mistress, Anne Pingeot, and their illegitimate daughter, Mazarine. Even in Catholic, conservative France, that a man should have a mistress is accepted with a Gallic shrug. The two women even stood side by side at his funeral in 1996.
I remember thinking to myself then, what if France had a married female president who happened to keep a few men around on the side to keep her company at her whim? Would they be allowed to attend her funeral and stand side by side with her husband in public?
Here in the UAE we have the case of the South African diving instructor who has been imprisoned because of an alleged sexual indiscretion; a case that is not unique in many aspects. Allegedly, the 22-year-old expatriate woman was caught with a married Emirati national last May at the wrong hour of the night in the east-coast town where they both work. It later emerged that the married man’s wife had informed the police about the incident, presumably to teach her husband a lesson. Although medical tests have proved that there was no sexual contact, they were both found guilty – possibly of being “alone in a work building after work hours”, which was the second charge brought against them.
Both were sentenced to imprisonment, but the Emirati male was released early on appeal. This case is clear evidence that the issue of adultery and matrimonial disputes throughout the UAE is probably better handled by a civil court rather than a criminal court, since it is clearly open to abuse. One has to keep in mind the UAE’s multi-layered and ambiguous court systems. For instance, UAE federal law applies to all the Emirates except Dubai and Ras Al Khaimah, which have their own Courts of First Instance that allow them to settle such matters in a civil court rather than a criminal or Sharia court.
In another case, the Court of First Instance in Dubai fined an Italian man $3,000 for kissing his Egyptian girlfriend in a taxi. She was fined $500 for the same misdemeanour. Why the monetary difference? And had this case been handled by a criminal court, ie, in any emirate other than Ras Al Khaimah or Dubai, it could have meant that they both ended up in jail, and with different jail terms.
However, if anyone likes to think that discrimination against women is alive and kicking only in the Middle East a slew of cases proves otherwise. In the West, women have successfully sued DKR Capital, UBS and Citicorp in the past few years for discrimination. In other cases women have not been so successful, even though they were using similar laws, including a Merrill Lynch female executive and another from Schroders.
Not long ago a friend of mine was living with his fiancée in their apartment in Dubai. They weren’t legally married, so, technically, their good intentions about an imminent wedding aside, they were still breaking the law in the bedroom every night. As he was a senior manager with a multinational company, he sometimes had to take the unfortunate decision to let people go. One soon-to-be-fired employee threatened my friend that if he lost his job he would tip off the police about these illegal domestic arrangements. My friend wanted to keep both his job and his fiancée, so they decided to get legally married immediately and have their official wedding day a few months later.
What should be clear to everyone in the UAE is that sex outside marriage is against the law. This is not France. What isn’t clear is whether the implementation of this law is even-handed. Why should an adulterous woman be given a different sentence from a man, when they have committed the same crime? In fact, I recall being taught how in the early days of Islam, and for similar crimes, women were shown more leniency: for example, in cases where they had become pregnant, they were punished only after the baby had become independent of the mother’s breast-feeding.
And finally, what is the use of conducting medical tests if a person is going to be punished anyway, even if the results prove them to be innocent?
Sharia is a complicated set of laws and regulations, but if one thing about those laws and regulations is clear it is that they must be applied even-handedly. No discrimination can be tolerated with regards to gender, nationality and ethnicity. Sadly this is another case where men get away with much more than women can: and in this case, a forensically proven innocent woman who was a victim of a jealous wife’s police tip-off.
*This article was first published in The National on Sunday, July 11th 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)