One can never cease to be amazed at the choice and treatment of local stories in the United Arab Emirates’ English language press. The genuflections of the press with photographs of members of the ruling family or sundry announcements from the government are a norm. But occasionally the reporting descends from being craven to being stupid. Invariably there is a connection between the two.
A case in point, and a glaring one at that, was the recent cover story from Emirates Today, a newspaper owned by the ruling family of Dubai. The story headlined, “The UAE wins workers over with a better way of life,” comes in the context of numerous groups suggesting that labourers work under oppressive conditions in the UAE and the subsequent announcement by the Dubai ruler, Sheikh Mohammed, that steps need to be initiated towards improving their lot. So how does the newspaper respond?
It does so by blandly informing the reader that “Labourers from the Subcontinent are not as badly off as some would have you believe” (November 10, 2006). The reader is not told about these pesky “some” who are leading them down the garden path. These words of reassurance are based on “a recent survey conducted by Emirates Today.” One would hope in such a promising piece of reportage for some data from the survey and at least a few parts of the subcontinent being represented. There is not a single word on how the survey was conducted, who were asked, what was the method employed, or even how the conclusions were reached. Presumably the survey included some random questions asked of some people who could be accessed by phone or worse by walking across to a random construction site. No labourer is quoted in the story.
The terms of comparison, it turns out, is not between the subcontinent and UAE, but UAE and India. The reader is informed that “low-paid labourers in India normally work in one of two ways – either on a day-to-day basis or a monthly basis.” Further, that “this means there is no contractual agreement between the workers and their companies, meaning they often have no idea from one day to the next whether they have jobs.” What is the unit of comparison if one is writing of low-paid labourers in India vis-à -vis labourers in Dubai? One is told nothing. Then comes this piece of information about how “people who are employed as contractors in Mumbai earn on average about Dh 300 each month, while in Dubai they earn more than double, taking home on average about Dh 700 each month.” There is no understanding of contractual labour and contractors. Add to that is the complete absence of any understanding about what are the laws that govern minimum wage, how they are flouted in India, the recourse to collective bargaining in the country, the presence of trade unions, and other ways in which the contexts within which the labourers work differ between both places. How India stands in for the subcontinent might please the Indian government for finally having rendered vestigial the other countries, but it does no service towards any proper comparison of working conditions.
A secondary story in the inside pages is headlined “Labourers better off in Dubai”. In this story the reader is informed in the lead that “a survey conducted by Emirates Today has revealed the real status of the plight of labourers from the subcontinent, working in the UAE. In their own words, life may be tough here, but many workers say it is far better than back home.” What follows are quote from six labourers, two working in Dubai and four working in India. The quotes are preceded by a sentence that sums up what the contrasting quotes possibly convey, which is that “manual workers in Dubai are paid higher salaries than at home, as well as having access to healthcare and weekends.” The division of the wages by the currency conversion factor necessarily makes the wage contrast seem stark. But issues of how these workers are recruited, the fees that they have to pay, minimum number of years they have to serve just to repay the debt that they may have taken to arrive at the shores. All such issues that would form part of even an accurate piece of reportage is missing.
But it is not even the close attention to details and the absence of appropriate measures, what researchers call validity, which makes this story lapse into the realm of the stupid. It is the very premise of the story. The difference between shoddy reporting and downright stupidity lies in the reportorial premise at work. Migrant labour is possible among other things when there is a net differential in pay scale and an absence of employment in the region from where the migration takes place. This is true of both intra- and inter-country migrations. Those pointing to the flaws in the way that UAE treats its labourers are worried that basic norms are flouted and existing laws within the country are not followed. By pointing out that migrant labourers are better off in the country where they are working than they would be in their home country is merely to point the obvious; though the psychological, health, and other long-terms costs are never a part of this calculation. When human rights violation take place in democracies against those from other countries, especially Arab ones, should it then be suggested that since these violations could be worse in their own countries, one should ignore them. It is such specious logic that lies behind this piece; but then if the newspaper is there to paint the nation or the rulers in a better light rather than address the country’s problems, one can look forward to even brighter examples of such reportage.
