This post has been read 8200 times!
“WHAT is the fault of those who have never resorted to borrowing under difficult conditions? Is it right to spend by paying off people’s debts and leaving others unaccountable? »
With these questions, opponents of personal loan repair justify their position on a societal problem that troubles a large segment of citizens. They base this on the principle of social justice.
Here we ask – God forbid, if a natural disaster strikes an area and its inhabitants lose their property, isn’t the state obliged to compensate them? Or will they demand equal pay for all, not just those affected, and that millionaires be compensated equally with the needy to achieve the principle of social justice?
What is surprising is that things in Kuwait operate on this biased principle. Raising the prices of commodities, for example, is championed by traders who regard it as their exclusive right, and at the same time they applaud the subsidization of commodities because it benefits them.
They refuse to compensate those with low incomes by raising taxes on the rich. On the other hand, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for example, takes from the rich to support the poor. In Bahrain, the government has struggled to support the needy during the COVID-19 pandemic and has cut off loans from a large portion of its citizens.
This is why we always say that more than 120,000 Kuwaitis are suffering greatly because of the bad debts, loans and bad checks that loan sharks have forced them to issue.
Incidentally, these are not commercial loans from banks. This percentage of citizens constitutes a social crisis that strikes the pillars of families and causes a major imbalance in the economic and financial cycle. Prisons are full of insolvents.
While this problem continued to concern Kuwait for years, it was resolved by many countries, especially the Gulf States, some of which worked to remove loans from all citizens, while others did so. abandoned insolvent.
Other countries have managed to put legislation in place and have stopped considering issuing an NSF check as a criminal offence. They forbade the imprisonment of its transmitter, but settled for a fine. Others saw that if it was proven that the creditor had demanded a check from the debtor in bad faith, he would be imprisoned.
Some may question the preservation of rights in this type of financial transaction. The answer is clear and unambiguous, which is agreed in many countries of the world, that is, if the debtor does not pay, it is not considered a crime. He can choose to pay according to his priority and he is not imprisoned. Instead, his loan is being rescheduled to allow him to perform his job and fulfill his duties.
Unfortunately, in Kuwait, there are obvious legal loopholes that make the borrower a suspect, which means that the creditor assumes the bad faith of the debtor and forces him to sign checks, despite knowing that he does not there is no money in them, to use them at any time, even if the borrower is regular in his payments.
Getting out of this difficult social situation is in the hands of the leaders, who can use the legislation of the countries that have solved this problem and lifted the injustice from their citizens without listening to the music of social justice that the greedy exploit to hoard money by exploiting Needs.
The solution may be to give up or postpone, and the state guarantees the benefits, or the debt is treated as a civil right, and the question of bad checks is dealt with in a civil way, and the rest is of the water under the bridge.
In Switzerland, if a person is imprisoned as a result of theft or falsification of a debt, the plaintiff bears the expenses of the imprisoned debtor so as not to waste his money, or to take advantage of the needs of the people to enrich themselves illicitly.
By Ahmed Al-Jarallah
Editor-in-Chief, The Arab Times