Photo: John Reid. Sydney Morning Herald
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Inevitable confusion
You can guarantee that the more clarifications we're given the more confused the situation will become.
The latest in a long and never-ending line is the restaurant 'service charge' issue.
First, restaurants have been openly charging anything from 5% to 30% 'service charge' even though it has apparently been illegal since 2006.
Many claim they weren't told that it was illegal and I'm sure very few of we paying customers knew that it was.
We're told that although the law is in place it requires a bylaw before it can be enforced.
We're also told that we can't refuse to pay the illegal charge if a restaurant demands it.
Today we have clarification in The National.
The Abu Dhabi Department of Economic Development’s chief lawyer has said that customers should refuse to pay service charges at non-tourist restaurants.
A couple of days ago a senior official at the Dubai Economic Development Department told Gulf News that consumers can't take action and refuse to pay the service charge at any restaurant.
So which is it? Is the law to be applied differently in each emirate?
And how can we be sure the restaurant is 'non-tourist'? The new information is that the ban does not apply to restaurants licensed by the various tourist authorities, which includes most establishments in hotels and private clubs.
A bit vague to say the least.
I don't suppose confusion (relating to almost any subject) could be a deliberate policy could it? To have us throwing up our hands in frustration and putting up with the staus quo?
Surely not?
Today's story from The National is here.
The earlier Gulf News story is here.
The latest in a long and never-ending line is the restaurant 'service charge' issue.
First, restaurants have been openly charging anything from 5% to 30% 'service charge' even though it has apparently been illegal since 2006.
Many claim they weren't told that it was illegal and I'm sure very few of we paying customers knew that it was.
We're told that although the law is in place it requires a bylaw before it can be enforced.
We're also told that we can't refuse to pay the illegal charge if a restaurant demands it.
Today we have clarification in The National.
The Abu Dhabi Department of Economic Development’s chief lawyer has said that customers should refuse to pay service charges at non-tourist restaurants.
A couple of days ago a senior official at the Dubai Economic Development Department told Gulf News that consumers can't take action and refuse to pay the service charge at any restaurant.
So which is it? Is the law to be applied differently in each emirate?
And how can we be sure the restaurant is 'non-tourist'? The new information is that the ban does not apply to restaurants licensed by the various tourist authorities, which includes most establishments in hotels and private clubs.
A bit vague to say the least.
I don't suppose confusion (relating to almost any subject) could be a deliberate policy could it? To have us throwing up our hands in frustration and putting up with the staus quo?
Surely not?
Today's story from The National is here.
The earlier Gulf News story is here.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Bounced cheques committee
Only a few weeks ago a decree was issued setting up a judicial committee to settle disputes over bounced cheques relating to property in Dubai.
With speed that surprises me the bounced cheques committee will apparently be ready to start hearing cases in the next two weeks.
It's a huge and welcome move away from the existing 'go to jail' system.
The committee has a lot of power too.
The decree says that Public Prosecution and courts can't carry out any investigation or issue any ruling relating to bounced property cheques until the case is looked into by the committee.
It also says that judgments pronounced by the committee will be decisive and cannot be challenged. They'll be implemented through the execution department of the Dubai Courts.
They're going to be busy - they say that over 500 cases have already been transferred to them by Jebel Ali police station.
EmBiz 247 has the story here.
With speed that surprises me the bounced cheques committee will apparently be ready to start hearing cases in the next two weeks.
It's a huge and welcome move away from the existing 'go to jail' system.
The committee has a lot of power too.
The decree says that Public Prosecution and courts can't carry out any investigation or issue any ruling relating to bounced property cheques until the case is looked into by the committee.
It also says that judgments pronounced by the committee will be decisive and cannot be challenged. They'll be implemented through the execution department of the Dubai Courts.
They're going to be busy - they say that over 500 cases have already been transferred to them by Jebel Ali police station.
EmBiz 247 has the story here.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
The 'service charge' debate
The 'service charge' from many restaurants which we now know is illegal has become the current big talking point around town.
There are two particular comments that I've heard over and over again.
The first is that the restaurants will simply raise their prices. In fact that was the first comment, from Rami, left on my original post on the service charges.
It misses the point in my opinion.
I don't object to paying for my food, I object to the cost being hidden, disguised, misrepresented.
I said in the post: "Generally speaking it's simply a way of charging more for the food than the price shown on the menu and that's dishonest."
Grumpy Goat in response to Rami's comment : "Personally I prefer for the price you see to be the same as the price you pay - and sticking a tiny footer at the bottom of the menu explaining that there's a 15% on-cost is disingenuous at best."
That's exactly the point. The price is shown on the menu as, let's say, Dh50 but in fact the 'service charge' means you pay anything between Dh55 and Dh65.
If that's what you're going to charge for the dish then be honest and say so.
I fully subscribe to the second comment being made; why has this illegal activity been allowed to continue for so long?
The Supreme Committee for Consumer Protection said that under Consumer Protection law 24, 2006, restaurants are not allowed to add any service charge to a bill.
Law 24 of 2006.
We're a couple of days away from 2010.
There's another aspect of this which I don't understand. I quote today's Gulf News report:
A senior official at the Dubai Economic Development Department told Gulf News: "According to the consumer protection law restaurants are not allowed to add service charge to a bill. Once we receive the bylaw we will immediately inform the restaurants to stop this illegal practice which they carried out for more than three years. The bylaw will be issued in a couple of weeks."
A law was passed which can't be enacted until a by-law is issued - which it hasn't been for more than three years.
Any legal experts reading this who can explain that to me?
Another decision I don't understand is this: However, he said restaurants will be given a grace period to adjust their accounting and bill system before implementing the rule.
The length of the grace period wasn't specified.
If it's illegal it's illegal. Adjusting the till can't take more than a few minutes can it?
It sounds like another attempt at ignoring something in the hope that it'll go away. This won't though.
The Gulf News stories start here.
There are two particular comments that I've heard over and over again.
The first is that the restaurants will simply raise their prices. In fact that was the first comment, from Rami, left on my original post on the service charges.
It misses the point in my opinion.
I don't object to paying for my food, I object to the cost being hidden, disguised, misrepresented.
I said in the post: "Generally speaking it's simply a way of charging more for the food than the price shown on the menu and that's dishonest."
Grumpy Goat in response to Rami's comment : "Personally I prefer for the price you see to be the same as the price you pay - and sticking a tiny footer at the bottom of the menu explaining that there's a 15% on-cost is disingenuous at best."
That's exactly the point. The price is shown on the menu as, let's say, Dh50 but in fact the 'service charge' means you pay anything between Dh55 and Dh65.
If that's what you're going to charge for the dish then be honest and say so.
I fully subscribe to the second comment being made; why has this illegal activity been allowed to continue for so long?
The Supreme Committee for Consumer Protection said that under Consumer Protection law 24, 2006, restaurants are not allowed to add any service charge to a bill.
Law 24 of 2006.
We're a couple of days away from 2010.
There's another aspect of this which I don't understand. I quote today's Gulf News report:
A senior official at the Dubai Economic Development Department told Gulf News: "According to the consumer protection law restaurants are not allowed to add service charge to a bill. Once we receive the bylaw we will immediately inform the restaurants to stop this illegal practice which they carried out for more than three years. The bylaw will be issued in a couple of weeks."
A law was passed which can't be enacted until a by-law is issued - which it hasn't been for more than three years.
Any legal experts reading this who can explain that to me?
Another decision I don't understand is this: However, he said restaurants will be given a grace period to adjust their accounting and bill system before implementing the rule.
The length of the grace period wasn't specified.
If it's illegal it's illegal. Adjusting the till can't take more than a few minutes can it?
It sounds like another attempt at ignoring something in the hope that it'll go away. This won't though.
The Gulf News stories start here.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Restaurant 'service charges' illegal
Something I've always disliked is the so-called 'service charge' on restaurant bills.
The assumption has generally been that the 'service charge' goes to the staff as tips but the reality is very different. In a few establishments it does go to the staff. In others only a percentage goes to staff. In yet others the owner simply keeps it.
Generally speaking it's simply a way of charging more for the food than the price shown on the menu and that's dishonest.
The 'service charge' culture has crept in here over the past couple of years but it's now been declared illegal.
The Supreme Committee for Consumer Protection has just held its fourth meeting of the year under the chairmanship of H.E. Sultan Bin Saeed Al Mansouri, Minister of Economy.
WAM reports: "The Committee warned restaurants against the illegal service charges. This followed several complaints received by the Ministry of Economy that some restaurants were charging as much as 5 to 20 per cent of the bill as service charge, which the Committee said is against the consumer protection law number 26 for year 2006. Al Mansouri said that the Ministry will take serious measures against those who violate the law."
Good.
The WAM story is here.
The assumption has generally been that the 'service charge' goes to the staff as tips but the reality is very different. In a few establishments it does go to the staff. In others only a percentage goes to staff. In yet others the owner simply keeps it.
Generally speaking it's simply a way of charging more for the food than the price shown on the menu and that's dishonest.
The 'service charge' culture has crept in here over the past couple of years but it's now been declared illegal.
The Supreme Committee for Consumer Protection has just held its fourth meeting of the year under the chairmanship of H.E. Sultan Bin Saeed Al Mansouri, Minister of Economy.
WAM reports: "The Committee warned restaurants against the illegal service charges. This followed several complaints received by the Ministry of Economy that some restaurants were charging as much as 5 to 20 per cent of the bill as service charge, which the Committee said is against the consumer protection law number 26 for year 2006. Al Mansouri said that the Ministry will take serious measures against those who violate the law."
Good.
The WAM story is here.
Friday, December 25, 2009
Christmas in Oz
Idling away a few moments I went to the ABC website to see what was happening in Oz.
I wish I hadn't bothered. What a depressing list of stories. Here's a copy & paste of what I found:
Australia - Top Stories
Christmas rains prompt flood warning
Posted 3 hours 11 minutes ago Updated 2 hours 40 minutes ago
A severe weather warning has been issued for flash flooding in parts of New South Wales as widespread rain continues across the state.
Man dies in hospital after police shooting
Posted 4 hours 11 minutes ago
A man has died in hospital after being shot by police on the NSW central coast.
Fisherman hit by wave and killed
Posted 6 hours 58 minutes ago Updated 5 hours 51 minutes ago
A man has died after he was hit by a large wave and hit his head on rocks off Cape Schanck on Victoria's Mornington Peninsula.
Boy impaled on fence in bike accident
Posted 7 hours 44 minutes ago Updated 6 hours 52 minutes ago
A boy is undergoing surgery in Brisbane after he was impaled on a fence on Queensland's Darling Downs.
Pregnant woman hit by car
Posted 9 hours 47 minutes ago
A pregnant woman has been flown to hospital with serious injuries after being hit by a car on the New South Wales central coast.
Flood watch widened for NSW communities
Posted 11 hours 2 minutes ago Updated 10 hours 55 minutes ago
A severe weather warning has been extended to include Orange, Bathurst and Molong in central-west NSW.
Speedboat driver questioned over swimmer's death
Posted Fri Dec 25, 2009 11:20am AEDT Updated Fri Dec 25, 2009 11:35am AEDT
Police have interviewed a man they believe was operating a speedboat which struck and killed a swimmer in the Murray River yesterday.
Police badly hurt in massive brawl
Posted Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:08am AEDT Updated 11 hours 13 minutes ago
Two police officers have been injured, one seriously, in a brawl involving up to 80 people in Western Australia's north.
Rain douses fire threat in Victoria
Posted Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:03am AEDT Updated Fri Dec 25, 2009 11:16am AEDT
Good overnight rain has eased the fire threat in Victoria's East Gippsland region.
Man saves parents from burning bedroom
Posted Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:01am AEDT
A man has rescued his parents from their burning bedroom in Adelaide's northern suburbs early today.
The tip of the iceberg too. Not a good Christmas for so many people...
I wish I hadn't bothered. What a depressing list of stories. Here's a copy & paste of what I found:
Australia - Top Stories
Christmas rains prompt flood warning
Posted 3 hours 11 minutes ago Updated 2 hours 40 minutes ago
A severe weather warning has been issued for flash flooding in parts of New South Wales as widespread rain continues across the state.
Man dies in hospital after police shooting
Posted 4 hours 11 minutes ago
A man has died in hospital after being shot by police on the NSW central coast.
Fisherman hit by wave and killed
Posted 6 hours 58 minutes ago Updated 5 hours 51 minutes ago
A man has died after he was hit by a large wave and hit his head on rocks off Cape Schanck on Victoria's Mornington Peninsula.
Boy impaled on fence in bike accident
Posted 7 hours 44 minutes ago Updated 6 hours 52 minutes ago
A boy is undergoing surgery in Brisbane after he was impaled on a fence on Queensland's Darling Downs.
Pregnant woman hit by car
Posted 9 hours 47 minutes ago
A pregnant woman has been flown to hospital with serious injuries after being hit by a car on the New South Wales central coast.
Flood watch widened for NSW communities
Posted 11 hours 2 minutes ago Updated 10 hours 55 minutes ago
A severe weather warning has been extended to include Orange, Bathurst and Molong in central-west NSW.
Speedboat driver questioned over swimmer's death
Posted Fri Dec 25, 2009 11:20am AEDT Updated Fri Dec 25, 2009 11:35am AEDT
Police have interviewed a man they believe was operating a speedboat which struck and killed a swimmer in the Murray River yesterday.
Police badly hurt in massive brawl
Posted Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:08am AEDT Updated 11 hours 13 minutes ago
Two police officers have been injured, one seriously, in a brawl involving up to 80 people in Western Australia's north.
Rain douses fire threat in Victoria
Posted Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:03am AEDT Updated Fri Dec 25, 2009 11:16am AEDT
Good overnight rain has eased the fire threat in Victoria's East Gippsland region.
Man saves parents from burning bedroom
Posted Fri Dec 25, 2009 10:01am AEDT
A man has rescued his parents from their burning bedroom in Adelaide's northern suburbs early today.
The tip of the iceberg too. Not a good Christmas for so many people...
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Surprise! The rumours are wrong
Dubai has a much more active rumour mill than anywhere else I've lived. It's always been the same and many of the rumours are simply recycled old ones.
For example, I remember when the Trade Centre opened there were rumours that it was falling over. And the then-new Shindagah Tunnel was about to collapse. Both are still there, in good order, so the same rumours have been transferred to new projects.
There are two current persistent rumours that I can shoot down, relating to the Al Sufouh Tram and the Metro stations.
First the tram. Rumour has it that the RTA has run out of money so work on the tram system has stopped and thousands of workers have been sent home.
In fact the work is continuing as before.
Every day I see trucks delivering concrete parts for the elevated section, which is being completed at a fast pace...
Then the Metro. Word is that the contractor has stopped work on all the stations as he hasn't been paid.
In fact work is continuing as normal...
For example, I remember when the Trade Centre opened there were rumours that it was falling over. And the then-new Shindagah Tunnel was about to collapse. Both are still there, in good order, so the same rumours have been transferred to new projects.
There are two current persistent rumours that I can shoot down, relating to the Al Sufouh Tram and the Metro stations.
First the tram. Rumour has it that the RTA has run out of money so work on the tram system has stopped and thousands of workers have been sent home.
In fact the work is continuing as before.
Every day I see trucks delivering concrete parts for the elevated section, which is being completed at a fast pace...
Then the Metro. Word is that the contractor has stopped work on all the stations as he hasn't been paid.
In fact work is continuing as normal...
Monday, December 21, 2009
A different pace Part 3
I've posted a couple of times about the slow pace of construction work in Oz compared to Dubai, with the upgrading of our street as an example.
The street is more like a country lane:
Seven years ago the council decided to put in underground drains, a kerb and a footpath, which also meant doing a bit of landscaping when they'd finished. You can see the grass they planted in the areas where the curb has been finished.
In seven years they managed to get about a kilometre done and got up to our house, which at the end of October looked like this:
Yesterday my neighbour told me the 'workmen' had now stopped for their three week Christmas/New Year holiday and he sent me updated photographs.
The've done a better job than I expected, but to get from the previous photograph to this has taken two months...
When they come back in three weeks they have to finish the wall on the right then do the same for the four more houses to the end of the street.
Then they have to resurface the road.
I'm guessing March.
The street is more like a country lane:
Seven years ago the council decided to put in underground drains, a kerb and a footpath, which also meant doing a bit of landscaping when they'd finished. You can see the grass they planted in the areas where the curb has been finished.
In seven years they managed to get about a kilometre done and got up to our house, which at the end of October looked like this:
Yesterday my neighbour told me the 'workmen' had now stopped for their three week Christmas/New Year holiday and he sent me updated photographs.
The've done a better job than I expected, but to get from the previous photograph to this has taken two months...
When they come back in three weeks they have to finish the wall on the right then do the same for the four more houses to the end of the street.
Then they have to resurface the road.
I'm guessing March.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Catching up
The past couple of days have been spent with Dilip retrieving various file from my computer after the virus got in and stuffed it. He's getting the files out without bringing the virus with them.
So far so good, we've managed to find some of the e-mail stuff that I hadn't got around to backing-up so, for example, I've found some of the e-mail addresses I thought I'd lost. I'm gradually rebuilding the address book, and also putting sites back into Favourites. There's also softwear to re-install so it's all taking a lot of time.
That's delayed me following on from the Abu Dhabi rescue story, which I wanted to do a few days ago.
The rescue attracted the usual comments about AD grabbing Dubai's assets, such as Emirates, in return, but I don't subscribe to that theory.
Even in the unlikely event that it happened we wouldn't know about it anyway. It would be done quietly behind closed doors. But I don't think for one moment it will happen.
The only real long-shot is a merger between Emirates and Etihad to make a true national airline. But I don't even see that happening. They're both strong international brands which billions have gone into building and to compromise that would be a ridiculous business decision.
Another real long-shot would be an Al Nahyan on the board of Dubai World to make sure the restructuring is done to their satisfaction - but again I don't see it as a realistic possibility.
The deal was a straight commercial one, $10 billion over five years at 4% interest are the reports.
Additionally, AD doesn't need the money. They pump about 2.7 million barrels of oil a day which at about $7o a barrel is getting on for $70 billion a year. That makes the profits from companies such as Emirates, Dubal, Ducab, Jumeirah relatively trifling.
When people have enough money what want is power and that's what I think AD will want in return for helping the other emirates. Less independence for individual emirates with more federal (meaning Abu Dhabi) influence over events, laws, conduct.
So far so good, we've managed to find some of the e-mail stuff that I hadn't got around to backing-up so, for example, I've found some of the e-mail addresses I thought I'd lost. I'm gradually rebuilding the address book, and also putting sites back into Favourites. There's also softwear to re-install so it's all taking a lot of time.
That's delayed me following on from the Abu Dhabi rescue story, which I wanted to do a few days ago.
The rescue attracted the usual comments about AD grabbing Dubai's assets, such as Emirates, in return, but I don't subscribe to that theory.
Even in the unlikely event that it happened we wouldn't know about it anyway. It would be done quietly behind closed doors. But I don't think for one moment it will happen.
The only real long-shot is a merger between Emirates and Etihad to make a true national airline. But I don't even see that happening. They're both strong international brands which billions have gone into building and to compromise that would be a ridiculous business decision.
Another real long-shot would be an Al Nahyan on the board of Dubai World to make sure the restructuring is done to their satisfaction - but again I don't see it as a realistic possibility.
The deal was a straight commercial one, $10 billion over five years at 4% interest are the reports.
Additionally, AD doesn't need the money. They pump about 2.7 million barrels of oil a day which at about $7o a barrel is getting on for $70 billion a year. That makes the profits from companies such as Emirates, Dubal, Ducab, Jumeirah relatively trifling.
When people have enough money what want is power and that's what I think AD will want in return for helping the other emirates. Less independence for individual emirates with more federal (meaning Abu Dhabi) influence over events, laws, conduct.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Done by a virus
Chaos at the Seabee computer.
A bloody virus got past the protection and destroyed everything.
Throw it away and buy a new one was my immediate thought but Mrs Seabee called the computer wizard she uses for her office machines. He came round yesterday evening, accessed places I had no idea existed, did whatever it was he did and here I am back in cyberspace.
The next couple of days are going to be taken up trying to put all the stuff back in that was destroyed, like favourites and contacts. I'm having to find all my user names and passwords too so it's taking a while.
Fortunately I back up most of the important stuff with a pen on paper, so I haven't lost it. Being old-fashioned can be a blessing.
I lost all my e-mail folders though, and I hadn't pen&papered all my contact addresses. Idiot! I'll have to wait for friends and family to send me e-mails so that I can get their addresses. This time they go in the book as soon as they arrive.
We, or rather he, managed to retrieve my photograph files. I'd been meaning to back them up for ages, but hadn't got around to it. You know how it is.
By the way, his name is Dilip, he's highly recommended if you have a problem. He forgot to leave his card and I can't raise Mrs Seabee on the phone so I can't give you his contact details at the moment. I'll do that in a follow-up post just in case you ever need him.
Anybody want to join a vigilante group to hunt down and deal with the bastards who create and spread viruses? I'm getting some satisfaction from planning what I'll do with them if we ever catch them.
A bloody virus got past the protection and destroyed everything.
Throw it away and buy a new one was my immediate thought but Mrs Seabee called the computer wizard she uses for her office machines. He came round yesterday evening, accessed places I had no idea existed, did whatever it was he did and here I am back in cyberspace.
The next couple of days are going to be taken up trying to put all the stuff back in that was destroyed, like favourites and contacts. I'm having to find all my user names and passwords too so it's taking a while.
Fortunately I back up most of the important stuff with a pen on paper, so I haven't lost it. Being old-fashioned can be a blessing.
I lost all my e-mail folders though, and I hadn't pen&papered all my contact addresses. Idiot! I'll have to wait for friends and family to send me e-mails so that I can get their addresses. This time they go in the book as soon as they arrive.
We, or rather he, managed to retrieve my photograph files. I'd been meaning to back them up for ages, but hadn't got around to it. You know how it is.
By the way, his name is Dilip, he's highly recommended if you have a problem. He forgot to leave his card and I can't raise Mrs Seabee on the phone so I can't give you his contact details at the moment. I'll do that in a follow-up post just in case you ever need him.
Anybody want to join a vigilante group to hunt down and deal with the bastards who create and spread viruses? I'm getting some satisfaction from planning what I'll do with them if we ever catch them.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Abu Dhabi in last minute rescue
Today is when the Nakheel $4.1 billion sukuk, or Islamic bond, is due for payment.
It's the big one. It's been the focus of much international attention since the global slump hit Dubai, attention which reached fever pitch about three weeks ago when Dubai's government said it was seeking a delay in payment of Dubai World companies' debts.
I posted about that here with links to some of the international reactions.
It had been assumed by investors and commentators that the debts of Dubai government related or owned companies were guaranteed by the government. And ultimately by oil-rich Abu Dhabi if necessary.
But both governments said that there had never been such a guarantee.
Abu Dhabi went further and said that they would 'pick and choose' which companies they supported.
Non payment would mean default, legal action to seize assets has been threatened, the whole Islamic bond industry was under a cloud...and today's the day.
A couple of hours ago the Emirates news agency WAM issued a statement from Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum, in his capacity as Chairman of the Dubai Supreme Fiscal Committee.
"The Government of Abu Dhabi has agreed to fund $10 billion to the Dubai Financial Support Fund that will be used to satisfy a series of upcoming obligations on Dubai World.
As a first action for the new fund, the Government of Dubai has authorized $4.1 billion to be used to pay the sukuk obligations that are due today. The remaining funds would also provide for interest expenses and company working capital through April 30, 2010..."
Phew!
Brinkmanship.
By the way, BBC World Service news says that there are no conditions on the $10 billion.
Hmmmmm...
The announcement in full is here.
It's the big one. It's been the focus of much international attention since the global slump hit Dubai, attention which reached fever pitch about three weeks ago when Dubai's government said it was seeking a delay in payment of Dubai World companies' debts.
I posted about that here with links to some of the international reactions.
It had been assumed by investors and commentators that the debts of Dubai government related or owned companies were guaranteed by the government. And ultimately by oil-rich Abu Dhabi if necessary.
But both governments said that there had never been such a guarantee.
Abu Dhabi went further and said that they would 'pick and choose' which companies they supported.
Non payment would mean default, legal action to seize assets has been threatened, the whole Islamic bond industry was under a cloud...and today's the day.
A couple of hours ago the Emirates news agency WAM issued a statement from Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum, in his capacity as Chairman of the Dubai Supreme Fiscal Committee.
"The Government of Abu Dhabi has agreed to fund $10 billion to the Dubai Financial Support Fund that will be used to satisfy a series of upcoming obligations on Dubai World.
As a first action for the new fund, the Government of Dubai has authorized $4.1 billion to be used to pay the sukuk obligations that are due today. The remaining funds would also provide for interest expenses and company working capital through April 30, 2010..."
Phew!
Brinkmanship.
By the way, BBC World Service news says that there are no conditions on the $10 billion.
Hmmmmm...
The announcement in full is here.
Torture video case - into the land of the bizarre.
A quick recap. Back in April, after the infamous 'torture tape' involving Sheikh Eisa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan and an Afghan merchant hit the international headlines, it was reported that the Human Rights Office of the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department would conduct an immediate and comprehensive review and make its findings public at the earliest opportunity.
I posted about that, with links to a couple of the international media reports on the tape so if you don't know the details you can go to the post and the links here.
I've been wondering what had happened and now it appears that the review must have been finished. In the Al Ain Criminal Court of First Instance Sheikh Eisa has pleaded not guilty to charges of assault and endangering the life of the Afghan.
That's when it starts getting bizarre.
The victim says he's been defamed because the video was made public without his permission.
It was released by the sheik's former partner and the Afghan merchant has lodged a criminal and civil case against him, accusing him of defamation by airing the video on the internet without his approval.
The physical damage is irrelevant, it's the defamation by publicising it that's the problem.
I need to think about that.
I thought the 'look what you made me do' defence was interesting too.
The defence says that the former partner and his brother set the whole thing up as a blackmail scam.
They plotted the incident to drug the sheikh and cause him to commit the alleged beating and videotape it for blackmailing purposes. They gave him more than sixty drugs over a long period which caused him to lose free will, lose self-control and lose his memory. They then demanded millions of dollars to destroy the video.
I'll be following this one with great interest.
Gulf News has the latest report here.
I posted about that, with links to a couple of the international media reports on the tape so if you don't know the details you can go to the post and the links here.
I've been wondering what had happened and now it appears that the review must have been finished. In the Al Ain Criminal Court of First Instance Sheikh Eisa has pleaded not guilty to charges of assault and endangering the life of the Afghan.
That's when it starts getting bizarre.
The victim says he's been defamed because the video was made public without his permission.
It was released by the sheik's former partner and the Afghan merchant has lodged a criminal and civil case against him, accusing him of defamation by airing the video on the internet without his approval.
The physical damage is irrelevant, it's the defamation by publicising it that's the problem.
I need to think about that.
I thought the 'look what you made me do' defence was interesting too.
The defence says that the former partner and his brother set the whole thing up as a blackmail scam.
They plotted the incident to drug the sheikh and cause him to commit the alleged beating and videotape it for blackmailing purposes. They gave him more than sixty drugs over a long period which caused him to lose free will, lose self-control and lose his memory. They then demanded millions of dollars to destroy the video.
I'll be following this one with great interest.
Gulf News has the latest report here.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Proper rain.
A few spots for the last couple of days but today so far it hasn't stopped. At 7.30 this morning it was like this:
...and it still is. If anything it's darker and more gloomy now at just after 2pm
I haven't driven far, seen no crashes and no real flooding.
There are ponds of water on the roads in the usual places around Knowledge Village and Dubai Marina and we have a new location for temporary ponds, Dubai Marina Mall.
Not deep but there's a lot of water all around the entrance and the gangs are out with their brooms trying to sweep it away. Some chance with it still pouring down.
The radio has been reporting plenty of crashes around the UAE and I'm not surprised. Although I haven't seen a crash today people are driving as they usually do, no consideration, talking on the phone, pulling out in front of oncoming traffic, speeding - all the usual stuff.
Blissfully unaware that the conditions are different, that they're likely to hit a fifteen centimetre deep pond that's going to send them careering all over the place.
I'm hiding indoors.
...and it still is. If anything it's darker and more gloomy now at just after 2pm
I haven't driven far, seen no crashes and no real flooding.
There are ponds of water on the roads in the usual places around Knowledge Village and Dubai Marina and we have a new location for temporary ponds, Dubai Marina Mall.
Not deep but there's a lot of water all around the entrance and the gangs are out with their brooms trying to sweep it away. Some chance with it still pouring down.
The radio has been reporting plenty of crashes around the UAE and I'm not surprised. Although I haven't seen a crash today people are driving as they usually do, no consideration, talking on the phone, pulling out in front of oncoming traffic, speeding - all the usual stuff.
Blissfully unaware that the conditions are different, that they're likely to hit a fifteen centimetre deep pond that's going to send them careering all over the place.
I'm hiding indoors.
Friday, December 11, 2009
I got rain!
I know other parts of the country have had rain but I haven't seen any since last winter some time.
Today I saw some. A short shower, nothing more. A few damp spots on the ground.
By the time I got the photo uploaded and on here, not more than ten minutes, the ground was dry again. Not enough to wash the sand and dust away I'm afraid but it's cloudy and dark so maybe we'll get more...
Today I saw some. A short shower, nothing more. A few damp spots on the ground.
By the time I got the photo uploaded and on here, not more than ten minutes, the ground was dry again. Not enough to wash the sand and dust away I'm afraid but it's cloudy and dark so maybe we'll get more...
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
A stay indoors day
There's a seven star icon somewhere in this pic:
Gloomy, dusty, sandy, horrible:
And not for the first time in weather like this I was puzzled to see several joggers out, sucking in large amounts of dust and sand. Their health would be better served if they cancelled the jogging on days like this.
And talking about the weather, it's not good back home either. The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting:
NSW is bracing itself for extreme weather conditions today, with a total fire ban in place for much of the state, and a catastrophic fire warning declared in the Central West.
A top of 40 degrees has been forecast for Sydney's west, with similar temperatures predicted in northern NSW and the Central West.
The Rural Fire Service said that, apart from the hot weather, westerly winds of up to 50km/h were expected to trouble firefighters.
"We've got some quite dangerous fire weather moving through the state," RFS spokesman Ben Shephard said."
Extreme fire warnings are in place for several areas including Greater Sydney with other large areas having Catastrophic fire warnings in place.
Currently, over 100 fires are burning in NSW with 35 'uncontained'.
Gloomy, dusty, sandy, horrible:
And not for the first time in weather like this I was puzzled to see several joggers out, sucking in large amounts of dust and sand. Their health would be better served if they cancelled the jogging on days like this.
And talking about the weather, it's not good back home either. The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting:
NSW is bracing itself for extreme weather conditions today, with a total fire ban in place for much of the state, and a catastrophic fire warning declared in the Central West.
A top of 40 degrees has been forecast for Sydney's west, with similar temperatures predicted in northern NSW and the Central West.
The Rural Fire Service said that, apart from the hot weather, westerly winds of up to 50km/h were expected to trouble firefighters.
"We've got some quite dangerous fire weather moving through the state," RFS spokesman Ben Shephard said."
Extreme fire warnings are in place for several areas including Greater Sydney with other large areas having Catastrophic fire warnings in place.
Currently, over 100 fires are burning in NSW with 35 'uncontained'.
A different view
Back in February I posted about the changing view from apartments in Dubai Marina. Far from the views buyers expected when they bought off-plan.
The original plans for the Marina, and the city in general, are changed so often that this isn't unusual.
There've been many changes to the original master plan for Dubai Marina and as a result people paying a premium for views often ended up with something very different or even no view.
A big change for some buyers was the introduction of the Metro. For example, the station at JLT was built with its pedestrian bridge across Sheikh Zayed Road to Dubai Marina. Very convenient it will be too, when the station is opened.
I'm not sure the buyers of these apartments will be happy with the convenience though. On the plan they would have seen there was nothing between them and Jumeirah Lake Towers. A nice open space with not a bad view.
Not now:
The original plans for the Marina, and the city in general, are changed so often that this isn't unusual.
There've been many changes to the original master plan for Dubai Marina and as a result people paying a premium for views often ended up with something very different or even no view.
A big change for some buyers was the introduction of the Metro. For example, the station at JLT was built with its pedestrian bridge across Sheikh Zayed Road to Dubai Marina. Very convenient it will be too, when the station is opened.
I'm not sure the buyers of these apartments will be happy with the convenience though. On the plan they would have seen there was nothing between them and Jumeirah Lake Towers. A nice open space with not a bad view.
Not now:
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Preserve, renovate, rebuild?
The other day I took the Metro into Bur Dubai and then had to go across into Deira, so naturally I walked down to the Creek and took the abra across.
The walk took me through Bastakiya, the original part of Dubai that's being 'preserved' by the Municipality.
I'd been in Old Town at Burj Dubai the day before and as I walked through Bastakiya I was comparing the two areas in my mind, and remembering what the old parts of town had been like when I was first here in 1977.
I always carry a little pocket digital camera with me, so I'd taken some photographs in Old Town and I took more in Bastakiya.
I've been rummaging through the few 'old Dubai' shots I have with me - the majority are in store back in Oz - and I'll start with a couple of those, taken in 1978.
Looking across from Deira, it used to be like this:
In both Bur Dubai and Deira there were still plenty of the old buildings, complete with their windtowers, barjeel in Arabic. They were a kind of air-conditioning system, long before electricity was available. They caught the breeze and directed it down into the house.
Narrow alleyways and sand rather than paved footpaths, easy to walk on though because it had been trodden down so hard over the years.
The buildings were basically mud walled, reinforced with lumps of coral. Some of that has been preserved in the renovated Bastakiya, but only in small patches:
Some of the restoration work looks almost authentic:
But a lot of it doesn't. It's all too neat and tidy, there's far too much very obvious concrete, the footpaths are very modern, even in the narrow alleyway sections:
And a lot of it looks, well, modern:
In a strange way the brand new Old Town at Burj Dubai almost feels more authentically old than Bastakiya:
I wonder what the Bastakiya 'preservation' thinking is.
The old buildings presumably couldn't be renovated and preserved, they weren't bult of material that would lend itself to that. But I think it's a shame that the final finish on the buildings, the veneer, doesn't look older, doesn't look more like the original buildings. The modern paved walkways could have been much more like the original alleyways too.
Having said that, it's still an area well worth a visit. There are plenty of interesting little art galleries, museums, restaurants for example, all housed in the recreated buildings. In that sense the Municipality has done a great job, it's a fascinating area to spend time exploring.
The walk took me through Bastakiya, the original part of Dubai that's being 'preserved' by the Municipality.
I'd been in Old Town at Burj Dubai the day before and as I walked through Bastakiya I was comparing the two areas in my mind, and remembering what the old parts of town had been like when I was first here in 1977.
I always carry a little pocket digital camera with me, so I'd taken some photographs in Old Town and I took more in Bastakiya.
I've been rummaging through the few 'old Dubai' shots I have with me - the majority are in store back in Oz - and I'll start with a couple of those, taken in 1978.
Looking across from Deira, it used to be like this:
In both Bur Dubai and Deira there were still plenty of the old buildings, complete with their windtowers, barjeel in Arabic. They were a kind of air-conditioning system, long before electricity was available. They caught the breeze and directed it down into the house.
Narrow alleyways and sand rather than paved footpaths, easy to walk on though because it had been trodden down so hard over the years.
The buildings were basically mud walled, reinforced with lumps of coral. Some of that has been preserved in the renovated Bastakiya, but only in small patches:
Some of the restoration work looks almost authentic:
But a lot of it doesn't. It's all too neat and tidy, there's far too much very obvious concrete, the footpaths are very modern, even in the narrow alleyway sections:
And a lot of it looks, well, modern:
In a strange way the brand new Old Town at Burj Dubai almost feels more authentically old than Bastakiya:
I wonder what the Bastakiya 'preservation' thinking is.
The old buildings presumably couldn't be renovated and preserved, they weren't bult of material that would lend itself to that. But I think it's a shame that the final finish on the buildings, the veneer, doesn't look older, doesn't look more like the original buildings. The modern paved walkways could have been much more like the original alleyways too.
Having said that, it's still an area well worth a visit. There are plenty of interesting little art galleries, museums, restaurants for example, all housed in the recreated buildings. In that sense the Municipality has done a great job, it's a fascinating area to spend time exploring.
Friday, December 04, 2009
The real problem
"It's not the problem that's the problem, it's how you handle the problem that's the problem."
An old truism, which I've been preaching to colleagues and clients for as long as I can remember. I believe it's one of the most important rules in business.
An example. I worked for a hotel group and was in a restaurant of one of our hotels when a waiter slipped and tipped a drink over a customer.
The manageress immediately hurried over with a clean, dry cloth and gave it to the customer. She apologised, said his meal would be on the house, asked him to drop the suit off at Reception, it would be dry-cleaned at no cost and returned the next day.
In a few seconds a possible problem was replaced by a positive outcome. The customer would only remember the drink spilling in the context of how well the hotel had handled the incident. A plus for the brand.
The most important thing you have in business is the brand.
It's hard work to build the brand image and its positioning, to instil a good feeling about it in the mind of users and potential users.
But to damage or destroy it is the easiest thing in the world.
There's a fairly recent absolute classic of how quickly a brand can be destroyed, which gave rise to the phrase 'Doing a Ratner'.
Gerald Ratner was CEO of a successful family chain of discount jewellers in the UK. Discounted but believed to be good value for money. A good brand image.
Then he made a speech to the Institute of Directors, which was picked up by the media.
He said the brand's products could be sold at low prices because 'it's total crap' and he went on to say that some items were 'cheaper than a Marks & Spencer prawn sandwich but probably wouldn't last as long'.
Damage to the brand? The share value fell by about half a billion pounds Sterling, the company almost collapsed. Share price had been at a high of 400 pence went as low as 9.5 pence, sales plummeted, investor dividends disappeared.
Gerald Ratner went but the damage was done. He'd been in charge for 25 years but destroyed it all in a few minutes.
I relate these stories because we currently have two examples of damage to a previously strong brand running in the media.
Very different stories but the difference demonstrates the truth of the saying and that it applies to any brand, whatever the business.
The subjects of course are Tiger Woods Brand and Brand Dubai.
Tiger Woods Brand is worth a huge amount of money, a large amount of its value based on a perception of perfection, unrealistic but that's what people tend to do.
After the row with Mrs Woods and subsequent minor car prang the damage to the brand began.
He hired a criminal attorney, refused to talk to the police and made no public statement.
The rumour mill went into overdrive, in the mainstream media and the blogosphere, and those actions added to the rumours. I haven't heard any jokes but I'm sure there must be hundreds.
He stayed silent for several days, and by the time he eventually made a statement the damage was already done.
The problem was the way the problem was handled.
Dubai World, although a very different story, is a similar example of the real problem being the way the problem was handled, which has resulted in damage to the brand.
I've already posted about the mishandling.
Brand Dubai has been built for decades on the basis of being a great business centre, perfectly located and commercially astute. A city with a long and succesful commercial history, a place where it was safe to do business, where the business people really knew how to run successful companies. Brand Dubai meant successful, safe investing.
As a result of the mishandling of Dubai World's debt restructuring and how it was announced we're now seeing things like this said in the world's media about Dubai:
"Dubai default...Dubai debt meltdown...Dubai financial crisis...bloodbath...risked triggering the biggest sovereign default since Argentina...city is now so swamped in debt that it's asking for a six-month reprieve...shock announcement that a debt-laden Dubai state corporation was unable to meet its interest bill...Dubai cast adrift as credibility crumbles...Dubai's financial health is under scrutiny"
OK, it was inaccurate, it was unnecessary blind panic, it was a misunderstanding of the status of Dubai World, it was lack of knowledge of how much debt was the subject of the announcement, of how much it was relative to the amount of debt in the world. But those reactions were caused by the mishandling of the situation in Dubai. Had the old saying been remembered the fallout would have been very different and without damage to Brand Dubai
If you are a potential investor, publicity like that will make you pause and rethink. If you are a financial institution you'll look much more carefully at Dubai companies requesting loans or offering bonds. There are plenty of other places around the world competing for your investment and loans.
However successful you are, however well you've built your brand, however long it's taken to build it to where it is today, make a mistake in handling a problem and you can damage it instantly. It can take years to regain the reputation and it can even end up as permanent damage.
An old truism, which I've been preaching to colleagues and clients for as long as I can remember. I believe it's one of the most important rules in business.
An example. I worked for a hotel group and was in a restaurant of one of our hotels when a waiter slipped and tipped a drink over a customer.
The manageress immediately hurried over with a clean, dry cloth and gave it to the customer. She apologised, said his meal would be on the house, asked him to drop the suit off at Reception, it would be dry-cleaned at no cost and returned the next day.
In a few seconds a possible problem was replaced by a positive outcome. The customer would only remember the drink spilling in the context of how well the hotel had handled the incident. A plus for the brand.
The most important thing you have in business is the brand.
It's hard work to build the brand image and its positioning, to instil a good feeling about it in the mind of users and potential users.
But to damage or destroy it is the easiest thing in the world.
There's a fairly recent absolute classic of how quickly a brand can be destroyed, which gave rise to the phrase 'Doing a Ratner'.
Gerald Ratner was CEO of a successful family chain of discount jewellers in the UK. Discounted but believed to be good value for money. A good brand image.
Then he made a speech to the Institute of Directors, which was picked up by the media.
He said the brand's products could be sold at low prices because 'it's total crap' and he went on to say that some items were 'cheaper than a Marks & Spencer prawn sandwich but probably wouldn't last as long'.
Damage to the brand? The share value fell by about half a billion pounds Sterling, the company almost collapsed. Share price had been at a high of 400 pence went as low as 9.5 pence, sales plummeted, investor dividends disappeared.
Gerald Ratner went but the damage was done. He'd been in charge for 25 years but destroyed it all in a few minutes.
I relate these stories because we currently have two examples of damage to a previously strong brand running in the media.
Very different stories but the difference demonstrates the truth of the saying and that it applies to any brand, whatever the business.
The subjects of course are Tiger Woods Brand and Brand Dubai.
Tiger Woods Brand is worth a huge amount of money, a large amount of its value based on a perception of perfection, unrealistic but that's what people tend to do.
After the row with Mrs Woods and subsequent minor car prang the damage to the brand began.
He hired a criminal attorney, refused to talk to the police and made no public statement.
The rumour mill went into overdrive, in the mainstream media and the blogosphere, and those actions added to the rumours. I haven't heard any jokes but I'm sure there must be hundreds.
He stayed silent for several days, and by the time he eventually made a statement the damage was already done.
The problem was the way the problem was handled.
Dubai World, although a very different story, is a similar example of the real problem being the way the problem was handled, which has resulted in damage to the brand.
I've already posted about the mishandling.
Brand Dubai has been built for decades on the basis of being a great business centre, perfectly located and commercially astute. A city with a long and succesful commercial history, a place where it was safe to do business, where the business people really knew how to run successful companies. Brand Dubai meant successful, safe investing.
As a result of the mishandling of Dubai World's debt restructuring and how it was announced we're now seeing things like this said in the world's media about Dubai:
"Dubai default...Dubai debt meltdown...Dubai financial crisis...bloodbath...risked triggering the biggest sovereign default since Argentina...city is now so swamped in debt that it's asking for a six-month reprieve...shock announcement that a debt-laden Dubai state corporation was unable to meet its interest bill...Dubai cast adrift as credibility crumbles...Dubai's financial health is under scrutiny"
OK, it was inaccurate, it was unnecessary blind panic, it was a misunderstanding of the status of Dubai World, it was lack of knowledge of how much debt was the subject of the announcement, of how much it was relative to the amount of debt in the world. But those reactions were caused by the mishandling of the situation in Dubai. Had the old saying been remembered the fallout would have been very different and without damage to Brand Dubai
If you are a potential investor, publicity like that will make you pause and rethink. If you are a financial institution you'll look much more carefully at Dubai companies requesting loans or offering bonds. There are plenty of other places around the world competing for your investment and loans.
However successful you are, however well you've built your brand, however long it's taken to build it to where it is today, make a mistake in handling a problem and you can damage it instantly. It can take years to regain the reputation and it can even end up as permanent damage.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
National Day 38
Back in the late seventies I never heard the word Emirati, I'm not even sure it existed. People identified themselves as from Dubai or Sharjah or Abu Dhabi. The UAE was a fact but people still identified with their emirate first.
The flags flying in Dubai were the emirate's red and white, as in this shot I took of dhows on the Creek in 1978, rather than the national flag:
How things have changed.
Last evening at The Walk at Jumeirah Beach Residence there was plenty of evidence that people now identify with the country.
Car after car was decorated:
Even the cartoon characters' carers had patriotic safety jackets on:
There were plenty of abayas and shaylas with red, green and white decoration and more than a few of the kids were wearing the kind of clothing I'd seen in Satwa the week before:
I think it's an interesting and dramatic change in a relatively short period.
The flags flying in Dubai were the emirate's red and white, as in this shot I took of dhows on the Creek in 1978, rather than the national flag:
How things have changed.
Last evening at The Walk at Jumeirah Beach Residence there was plenty of evidence that people now identify with the country.
Car after car was decorated:
Even the cartoon characters' carers had patriotic safety jackets on:
There were plenty of abayas and shaylas with red, green and white decoration and more than a few of the kids were wearing the kind of clothing I'd seen in Satwa the week before:
I think it's an interesting and dramatic change in a relatively short period.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Removing abandoned cars
On my regular route through Dubai Marina I pass four obviously abandoned cars.
Dust on cars is normal of course and when people are on holiday for a month it starts to really build up. But the abandoned ones are obvious because the dust is really thick and graffiti starts to appear in it.
They just stay where they are, the authorities seem not to be active in this area removing them, like the BMW I posted about here.
Things may be improving though:
Apart from the fact that's it's the first infringement notice I've seen in this area, the department involved caught my attention.
Not the police, as I'd assumed it would be, but the Waste Management Department.
They're on the ball on this one too, it can't have been left too long ago. The only fine, for Salik, is on July 16.
Dust on cars is normal of course and when people are on holiday for a month it starts to really build up. But the abandoned ones are obvious because the dust is really thick and graffiti starts to appear in it.
They just stay where they are, the authorities seem not to be active in this area removing them, like the BMW I posted about here.
Things may be improving though:
Here's the sticker on the windscreen:
Apart from the fact that's it's the first infringement notice I've seen in this area, the department involved caught my attention.
Not the police, as I'd assumed it would be, but the Waste Management Department.
They're on the ball on this one too, it can't have been left too long ago. The only fine, for Salik, is on July 16.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Impact from the DW issue
I treat this blog not only as somewhere where I can express my own opinions but also as a place for conversation. I start the conversation by posting something, people join in by leaving comments, I and others respond and so the conversation goes on.
This post is an example, I'm continuing a conversation by responding to questions left on my last post about the Dubai World debt issue and the PR surrounding it. I started to answer in the comments box but it was really too long as a comment so I decided to turn it into a new post.
The question was: How do you think this will impact Dubai in the next 3 months and also, if this has just come out now, what other stories do you think will start to 'appear' that have remained hidden so far?
First a disclaimer: Predicting the future is nothing more than a guess. Whoever does it, however expert they are, it's just making a personal guess as to what may happen.
I've been asked what I think, I could be right or I could be wrong, it's only a guess, but here goes:
Impact over the next three months? Three months is a very short period. My thoughts are that we won't see much impact down here at street level in that time. Unless you work for one of the DW companies, that is. If you do then you can expect even more changes than you've experienced over the past year. But for the rest of us, no.
There is currently bad publicity internationally for Dubai on a massive scale and I'm sure that will continue, but it relates to business so I don't see it affecting, for example, tourist arrivals.
As for the financial world, after the initial and inevitable panic, and when eventually the information vacuum is filled by official, meaningful, believable statements from the authorities here, things will settle down. It will take a long, long time for confidence to be restored but it will be eventually.
In the real economy, as a result of the global downturn we, like many other places, already have economic slowdown, redundancies, companies closing, invoices not being paid resulting in huge cashflow problems, a property price slump, tighter credit conditions, less spending. I don't see the DW issue making any difference to that in the short term.
The Feds are in damage control mode, taking action to limit impact on the economy in general.
There's been the entirely expected run on the local share markets this morning, when they re-opened after the Eid holiday. Dubai’s lost 7.2% late morning, the biggest drop since November 2008, and Abu Dhabi’s index was down 8.2%, the most since May 2006.
Big drops, but we've seen it before. They'll bounce back.
The Feds have announced support for the banks, the companies most at risk from the Dubai World problem, having set up a special liquidity facility for local and foreign banks operating in the UAE. They've also stated that they will support selected Dubai companies, without naming them. I assume it will depend on which ones they think are viable.
There are obviously high-level meetings going on between Federal and Dubai government officials so I expect more measures will be announced if they're felt necessary as the Feds get to the facts.
Put into perspective, ignoring the terrible handling of the issue in Dubai over the last year culminating in the new PR disaster, the root of the issue is that a company is planning to restructure its debt. That's normal business practice and if it had been handled competently we wouldn't have the problem we now have.
So in the next three months, which was the question, I don't think we'll experience any impact specifically from this Dubai World issue.
To carry on the thought, over the longer term I think the impact will be positive.
What I expect to see is a stop to the overdevelopment, especially of farcical projects which were simply not viable and were nothing to do with commerce, the lifeblood of Dubai. They're what caused the problem in the first place.
The companies in DW group will be reorganised now by someone who knows how to do it, and who according to the reports will be given the authority to carry out whatever's necessary. I assume there'll be payment of overdue invoices, a restructuring of debt and the companies left in the group will be commercially viable.
In a more general sense I think that instead of focusing on property and the speculation that goes with it the focus will go back to Dubai's tradition of trading based on its location, plus the new tourism industry. That should have been the focus for Dubai's latest development boom; they should have built the airport, the commercial cluster 'cities' and at least parts of Dubailand but not Palm Deira, Palm Jebel Ali/Waterfront, The World, the Arabian Canal for example. They didn't, they got carried away and lost focus but I'm sure it will now get back to those basics.
Politically, I think there'll also be far less independence in future for Dubai, and the other emirates, with a much stronger federal government.
On that subject it'd be interesting to know whether the complete lack of comment from Dubai authorities is voluntary head-in-the-sand or whether the Feds have said 'keep quiet and leave it to us'.
The other question was: Any other hidden stories? The normal way of dealing with bad events in this region is to do it behind closed doors, sort out the problem without letting anyone know there even was a problem. Maybe there have been others, will be others, which will be dealt with in that traditional way.
But I can't see another similar problem to this Dubai World debt thing appearing.
It's the big one. It involves the biggest companies, government related or owned, responsible for the biggest, most-publicised projects.
For months the authorities have been saying there would be no problem with meeting the commitments, the markets have been led to believe that governments were underwriting the debts. Then an out-0f-the-blue announcement that there was problem. And of course the realisation that the government had never actually said that it would guarantee company debts.
I don't think there's another one to spring on us.
This post is an example, I'm continuing a conversation by responding to questions left on my last post about the Dubai World debt issue and the PR surrounding it. I started to answer in the comments box but it was really too long as a comment so I decided to turn it into a new post.
The question was: How do you think this will impact Dubai in the next 3 months and also, if this has just come out now, what other stories do you think will start to 'appear' that have remained hidden so far?
First a disclaimer: Predicting the future is nothing more than a guess. Whoever does it, however expert they are, it's just making a personal guess as to what may happen.
I've been asked what I think, I could be right or I could be wrong, it's only a guess, but here goes:
Impact over the next three months? Three months is a very short period. My thoughts are that we won't see much impact down here at street level in that time. Unless you work for one of the DW companies, that is. If you do then you can expect even more changes than you've experienced over the past year. But for the rest of us, no.
There is currently bad publicity internationally for Dubai on a massive scale and I'm sure that will continue, but it relates to business so I don't see it affecting, for example, tourist arrivals.
As for the financial world, after the initial and inevitable panic, and when eventually the information vacuum is filled by official, meaningful, believable statements from the authorities here, things will settle down. It will take a long, long time for confidence to be restored but it will be eventually.
In the real economy, as a result of the global downturn we, like many other places, already have economic slowdown, redundancies, companies closing, invoices not being paid resulting in huge cashflow problems, a property price slump, tighter credit conditions, less spending. I don't see the DW issue making any difference to that in the short term.
The Feds are in damage control mode, taking action to limit impact on the economy in general.
There's been the entirely expected run on the local share markets this morning, when they re-opened after the Eid holiday. Dubai’s lost 7.2% late morning, the biggest drop since November 2008, and Abu Dhabi’s index was down 8.2%, the most since May 2006.
Big drops, but we've seen it before. They'll bounce back.
The Feds have announced support for the banks, the companies most at risk from the Dubai World problem, having set up a special liquidity facility for local and foreign banks operating in the UAE. They've also stated that they will support selected Dubai companies, without naming them. I assume it will depend on which ones they think are viable.
There are obviously high-level meetings going on between Federal and Dubai government officials so I expect more measures will be announced if they're felt necessary as the Feds get to the facts.
Put into perspective, ignoring the terrible handling of the issue in Dubai over the last year culminating in the new PR disaster, the root of the issue is that a company is planning to restructure its debt. That's normal business practice and if it had been handled competently we wouldn't have the problem we now have.
So in the next three months, which was the question, I don't think we'll experience any impact specifically from this Dubai World issue.
To carry on the thought, over the longer term I think the impact will be positive.
What I expect to see is a stop to the overdevelopment, especially of farcical projects which were simply not viable and were nothing to do with commerce, the lifeblood of Dubai. They're what caused the problem in the first place.
The companies in DW group will be reorganised now by someone who knows how to do it, and who according to the reports will be given the authority to carry out whatever's necessary. I assume there'll be payment of overdue invoices, a restructuring of debt and the companies left in the group will be commercially viable.
In a more general sense I think that instead of focusing on property and the speculation that goes with it the focus will go back to Dubai's tradition of trading based on its location, plus the new tourism industry. That should have been the focus for Dubai's latest development boom; they should have built the airport, the commercial cluster 'cities' and at least parts of Dubailand but not Palm Deira, Palm Jebel Ali/Waterfront, The World, the Arabian Canal for example. They didn't, they got carried away and lost focus but I'm sure it will now get back to those basics.
Politically, I think there'll also be far less independence in future for Dubai, and the other emirates, with a much stronger federal government.
On that subject it'd be interesting to know whether the complete lack of comment from Dubai authorities is voluntary head-in-the-sand or whether the Feds have said 'keep quiet and leave it to us'.
The other question was: Any other hidden stories? The normal way of dealing with bad events in this region is to do it behind closed doors, sort out the problem without letting anyone know there even was a problem. Maybe there have been others, will be others, which will be dealt with in that traditional way.
But I can't see another similar problem to this Dubai World debt thing appearing.
It's the big one. It involves the biggest companies, government related or owned, responsible for the biggest, most-publicised projects.
For months the authorities have been saying there would be no problem with meeting the commitments, the markets have been led to believe that governments were underwriting the debts. Then an out-0f-the-blue announcement that there was problem. And of course the realisation that the government had never actually said that it would guarantee company debts.
I don't think there's another one to spring on us.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
A PR disaster
On Thursday, the morning after Dubai World's bombshell announcement that payment of the Nakheel bond due on December 14 was to be delayed, I said it was "badly, badly handled all round".
An understatement.
It was actually a classic of mishandling. Business schools should use it as a case study of exactly what not to do. Of how to turn bad news into a disaster.
There's inevitably been over-reaction, with bond and stock markets plunging from Europe to Asia to the US to Australia, bank shares hammered, a flight to safe havens, damning stories all around the world.
"Nervous traders, trying to understand what it meant, caused havoc across global markets. Shares plunged, currencies were battered and billions of pounds were wiped off the value of all companies with Middle East connections. British banks, considered to be among the most exposed to Dubai, were at the centre of this new maelstrom and collectively shed £14bn in value on Thursday alone."
Daily Telegraph
An overreaction of course but panic is the natural reaction of markets to bad news. After a short period it settles down as people think rather than just act but blind panic is always the first response.
To put it in perspective the amounts involved (about $60billion) are tiny in relation to what's been going on in the world. Companies like Lehman Bros ($613billion liabilities), banks by the dozen, countries like Iceland were leveraged multiple times more than DW, making Dubai World's debts almost petty cash.
But Dubai's reputation is taking a battering because of the way the thing was handled.
Statements in the months leading up to the maturing of Nakheel's bond were that the finances were all in order, then came the terse announcement on Wednesday that payment due on December 14 would be deferred at least six months. The timing of the announcement minutes before the ten day holiday added immeasurably to the problem, causing the doubts and panic, increasing the fallout. An obvious attempt to dodge the hard questions that were bound to be asked.
The problem isn't only the admission that the commitments couldn't be met - there's still belief that Abu Dhabi will come to the rescue. The way it's been handled leads people to believe that Dubai's much-vaunted business acumen is a myth. If they can't even handle something like this competently...
I've been glancing through some of my regular reads and I'm finding:
"Released after the markets shut, ahead of the 10-day Eid holiday and the Thanksgiving break in America, the notice was designed to have minimum impact. It wasn't the Dubai government's first miscalculation.amateurish...botched messaging...episode of incompetence...the biggest debt-market cock-up...this week's events have damaged its reputation for economic competence"
The Nakheel bond has been the subject of much speculation for a year at least. It was the big test of Dubai's ability to service its debt, of Dubai's ability to run businesses effectively. In a wider sense it was also taken a representative of Islamic bonds in general.
Past months have seen senior government figures reassuring the markets. Dubai could and would meet its commitments they said.
Even earlier in the day of the announcement statements were released about Dubai raising another $5 billion from Abu Dhabi banks.
So everything was under control.
What happened?
They decided to make the announcement of what is being seen as a default at close of business.
At close of business on the eve of a ten day holiday.
Drop a bombshell as you leave for holiday.
"Dubai’s authorities have acted badly....This week’s revelations were not only unexpected; they were also delivered just as the Gulf states shut up shop for an extended holiday. This is the action of a company that seems to think that it can operate in a globalised marketplace only when it suits its purposes."
The Times
I seems it's not only investors and traders who were caught by surprise. More than one report suggests that even Abu Dhabi wasn't aware that the announcement was going to be made.
"Thursday's market turmoil appeared to take federal officials in the capital Abu Dhabi by surprise. One person familiar with their thinking said there was dismay over the reaction to the handling of the announcement."
Wall Street Journal
There are also reports that 'frantic phone calls' to government officials and business leaders were unanswered.
Naturally. Everyone's on holiday. Try again about December 6. No problem, that's not even two weeks away and everything's under control anyway.
It was carefully planned, according to the statement issued late on Thursday.
I like the column by Alistair Osborne in the Daily Telegraph on the subject:
"Why we must consider Dubai's 'careful planning' a work of pure genius
Let's be generous here. Maybe Dubai was just trying to set another record.
It's already given us the biggest building, biggest indoor ski slope, biggest shopping mall and biggest theme park. Surely, it was only a matter of time before it went for another biggie: the biggest debt-market cock-up.
The Wall Street journal says:
"For Dubai to now claim it had anticipated the market reaction to its "sensible business decision" is preposterous. Dubai stands accused of irresponsibility, incompetence and bad faith. Few will trust now anything it says."
So, a PR disaster of the highest magnitude. Unbelievably badly handled. I can't imagine what they were thinking, it shows a complete unawareness of the real business world.
It's astonishing from a city that owes its very existence to commerce. A city that's been a successful trading, commercial centre from its beginnings. Where business is the culture.
It really should, and probably will, be required study at business schools.
But it won't be the end of Dubai, in spite of what some commentators will now be saying. We've already seen some of that, plus highly critical pieces using the announcement as an excuse to come back into print, such as the latest Johann Hari piece in The Independent.
The sky won't fall in. The desert won't reclaim the city. It won't be a ghost town.
Think of it terms we've grown accustomed to over the past year. Think of it as toxic debt. It's separate from the real economy. It's like the financial markets and the real economy, they're very different from each other.
This is about the ability of one company in particular, and associated companies, to repay its loans.
Dubai has two sectors, the most important is the real economy where tens of thousands of generally SMEs are still trading, still doing profitable business. Dubai Chamber of Commerce has over 100,000 members for example, and Jebel Ali Free Zone alone has over 6,000 companies registered there.
Other large government-related companies such as Emirates Airline, Dubal, Ducab, Dubai International Airport, Dubai Duty Free are all producing excellent profits.
And of course the old established merchant family conglomerates are still going strong - Al Ghurair, Al Futtaim, Al Majid, Al Habtoor, Galadari and the others.
So business goes on much as usual in the real world. It's always been there, trundling along quietly and profitably out of the news. Dubai's history since the early eighteen-hundreds has been about being commercially successful and going on into the future that will continue.
The other sector is the fantasy world of unsustainable development. But that was a blip in the grand scheme of things for the last five or six years, for other parts of the world too, not just for Dubai - although Dubai's was more outrageous, more unsustainable than probably anywhere. That's what's dead, the fantasy world, the parallel universe, to which Nakheel was the worst contributor.
I said earlier that Dubai's culture was business, which is what I've long argued with people who've said there's no culture. People are here to work, to do business, and always have been. It's the focus of just about everyone here and it's the reason for the city's existence.
But another part of the culture is 'I must have it now' and that's been a large part of the problem. Wanting to build a city the size of Singapore in a decade.
What's actually been achieved is amazing but Nakheel in particular went far too far in too many grandiose developments at the same time. Reality went out of the window and they were off in the land of the fairies. Reality always reappears as it has now.
It's a pity the old established merchant families weren't in charge. In fact it seems with the recent sackings and sideways transfers of some big-name rising stars that the old guard is being brought in to get things back onto a more sensible level.
A huge PR disaster, damage to Dubai's reputation, damage that will take some time to repair, and a setback for Dubai's growth. But not its collapse.
You can read some of the international press I've quoted from here:
The Times.
Daily Telegraph.
Wall Street Journal.
An understatement.
It was actually a classic of mishandling. Business schools should use it as a case study of exactly what not to do. Of how to turn bad news into a disaster.
There's inevitably been over-reaction, with bond and stock markets plunging from Europe to Asia to the US to Australia, bank shares hammered, a flight to safe havens, damning stories all around the world.
"Nervous traders, trying to understand what it meant, caused havoc across global markets. Shares plunged, currencies were battered and billions of pounds were wiped off the value of all companies with Middle East connections. British banks, considered to be among the most exposed to Dubai, were at the centre of this new maelstrom and collectively shed £14bn in value on Thursday alone."
Daily Telegraph
An overreaction of course but panic is the natural reaction of markets to bad news. After a short period it settles down as people think rather than just act but blind panic is always the first response.
To put it in perspective the amounts involved (about $60billion) are tiny in relation to what's been going on in the world. Companies like Lehman Bros ($613billion liabilities), banks by the dozen, countries like Iceland were leveraged multiple times more than DW, making Dubai World's debts almost petty cash.
But Dubai's reputation is taking a battering because of the way the thing was handled.
Statements in the months leading up to the maturing of Nakheel's bond were that the finances were all in order, then came the terse announcement on Wednesday that payment due on December 14 would be deferred at least six months. The timing of the announcement minutes before the ten day holiday added immeasurably to the problem, causing the doubts and panic, increasing the fallout. An obvious attempt to dodge the hard questions that were bound to be asked.
The problem isn't only the admission that the commitments couldn't be met - there's still belief that Abu Dhabi will come to the rescue. The way it's been handled leads people to believe that Dubai's much-vaunted business acumen is a myth. If they can't even handle something like this competently...
I've been glancing through some of my regular reads and I'm finding:
"Released after the markets shut, ahead of the 10-day Eid holiday and the Thanksgiving break in America, the notice was designed to have minimum impact. It wasn't the Dubai government's first miscalculation.amateurish...botched messaging...episode of incompetence...the biggest debt-market cock-up...this week's events have damaged its reputation for economic competence"
The Nakheel bond has been the subject of much speculation for a year at least. It was the big test of Dubai's ability to service its debt, of Dubai's ability to run businesses effectively. In a wider sense it was also taken a representative of Islamic bonds in general.
Past months have seen senior government figures reassuring the markets. Dubai could and would meet its commitments they said.
Even earlier in the day of the announcement statements were released about Dubai raising another $5 billion from Abu Dhabi banks.
So everything was under control.
What happened?
They decided to make the announcement of what is being seen as a default at close of business.
At close of business on the eve of a ten day holiday.
Drop a bombshell as you leave for holiday.
"Dubai’s authorities have acted badly....This week’s revelations were not only unexpected; they were also delivered just as the Gulf states shut up shop for an extended holiday. This is the action of a company that seems to think that it can operate in a globalised marketplace only when it suits its purposes."
The Times
I seems it's not only investors and traders who were caught by surprise. More than one report suggests that even Abu Dhabi wasn't aware that the announcement was going to be made.
"Thursday's market turmoil appeared to take federal officials in the capital Abu Dhabi by surprise. One person familiar with their thinking said there was dismay over the reaction to the handling of the announcement."
Wall Street Journal
There are also reports that 'frantic phone calls' to government officials and business leaders were unanswered.
Naturally. Everyone's on holiday. Try again about December 6. No problem, that's not even two weeks away and everything's under control anyway.
It was carefully planned, according to the statement issued late on Thursday.
I like the column by Alistair Osborne in the Daily Telegraph on the subject:
"Why we must consider Dubai's 'careful planning' a work of pure genius
Let's be generous here. Maybe Dubai was just trying to set another record.
It's already given us the biggest building, biggest indoor ski slope, biggest shopping mall and biggest theme park. Surely, it was only a matter of time before it went for another biggie: the biggest debt-market cock-up.
The Wall Street journal says:
"For Dubai to now claim it had anticipated the market reaction to its "sensible business decision" is preposterous. Dubai stands accused of irresponsibility, incompetence and bad faith. Few will trust now anything it says."
So, a PR disaster of the highest magnitude. Unbelievably badly handled. I can't imagine what they were thinking, it shows a complete unawareness of the real business world.
It's astonishing from a city that owes its very existence to commerce. A city that's been a successful trading, commercial centre from its beginnings. Where business is the culture.
It really should, and probably will, be required study at business schools.
But it won't be the end of Dubai, in spite of what some commentators will now be saying. We've already seen some of that, plus highly critical pieces using the announcement as an excuse to come back into print, such as the latest Johann Hari piece in The Independent.
The sky won't fall in. The desert won't reclaim the city. It won't be a ghost town.
Think of it terms we've grown accustomed to over the past year. Think of it as toxic debt. It's separate from the real economy. It's like the financial markets and the real economy, they're very different from each other.
This is about the ability of one company in particular, and associated companies, to repay its loans.
Dubai has two sectors, the most important is the real economy where tens of thousands of generally SMEs are still trading, still doing profitable business. Dubai Chamber of Commerce has over 100,000 members for example, and Jebel Ali Free Zone alone has over 6,000 companies registered there.
Other large government-related companies such as Emirates Airline, Dubal, Ducab, Dubai International Airport, Dubai Duty Free are all producing excellent profits.
And of course the old established merchant family conglomerates are still going strong - Al Ghurair, Al Futtaim, Al Majid, Al Habtoor, Galadari and the others.
So business goes on much as usual in the real world. It's always been there, trundling along quietly and profitably out of the news. Dubai's history since the early eighteen-hundreds has been about being commercially successful and going on into the future that will continue.
The other sector is the fantasy world of unsustainable development. But that was a blip in the grand scheme of things for the last five or six years, for other parts of the world too, not just for Dubai - although Dubai's was more outrageous, more unsustainable than probably anywhere. That's what's dead, the fantasy world, the parallel universe, to which Nakheel was the worst contributor.
I said earlier that Dubai's culture was business, which is what I've long argued with people who've said there's no culture. People are here to work, to do business, and always have been. It's the focus of just about everyone here and it's the reason for the city's existence.
But another part of the culture is 'I must have it now' and that's been a large part of the problem. Wanting to build a city the size of Singapore in a decade.
What's actually been achieved is amazing but Nakheel in particular went far too far in too many grandiose developments at the same time. Reality went out of the window and they were off in the land of the fairies. Reality always reappears as it has now.
It's a pity the old established merchant families weren't in charge. In fact it seems with the recent sackings and sideways transfers of some big-name rising stars that the old guard is being brought in to get things back onto a more sensible level.
A huge PR disaster, damage to Dubai's reputation, damage that will take some time to repair, and a setback for Dubai's growth. But not its collapse.
You can read some of the international press I've quoted from here:
The Times.
Daily Telegraph.
Wall Street Journal.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Shock at Dubai World announcement
The business world was expecting Nakheel to redeem its Islamic bond when it matures in two weeks.
Recent comments from Dubai government VIPs reinforced the expectation that debts would be paid on time.
So there's alarm in markets around the world since Dubai World briefly announced that it was asking creditors to defer payment for at least six months.
What a disastrous blow for Brand Dubai.
The bond has enormous significance because it's both the world's largest Islamic financial instrument and is considered the ultimate litmus test for Dubai's ability to meet its commitments.
Equally bad, the announcement was made after close of business on the eve of the Eid holiday, so now no-one's available for comment or clarification. That fact hasn't been missed by commentators either.
Badly, badly handled all round.
Commentators around the world are talking about it in disapproving terms and there's the question of whether this will be considered a default, with enormous implications for not only Dubai but Islamic bonds in general.
The New York Times says that the move demostrates that Abu Dhabi won't unconditionally bail out Dubai government controlled companies but that there has to be a genuine restructuring of the debt with the pain being equally shared by Dubai and its banks.
The Wall Street Journal talks about bankers and executives being stunned by the announcement, and says 'Dubai's efforts to deal with its mountain of debt estimated to exceed $80 billion were dealt a hammer blow.'
The Times, once one of the world's great newspapers but now reduced to near-tabloid level since being bought by Rupert Murdoch, predictably goes with the cliche 'Dubai World and properties built on sand.'
The UK Daily Telegraph headlines its report 'Dubai recovery hopes hit by debt 'standstill' call' and says that 'the credit-crunched Gulf playground, has shattered hopes of imminent financial recovery.'
The Financial Times has the widest coverage and talks about markets reeling at the announcement and acting with alarm at fears of default. Comments from analysts confirm the reaction.
There's only one positive side to the announcement and predictably the local media puts that spin on it, that Dubai World is to be re-restructured and an outside world-renowned expert is being brought in as Chief Restructuring Officer. Gulf News print edition headline, for example, says 'Dubai World gets a breather'.
The trouble is that it's the right move but it's taken far too long for the move to be made.
For nearly a year the Dubai World companies have been going through a 'restructuring'. But it's always a nonsense for the management responsible for a company's troubles to be allowed to create and preside over a restructuring made necessary because of their own policies. A Chief Restructuring Officer, an outside expert with a proven track record, was needed from the beginning of the crisis to sort the mess out. But it wasn't treated with the urgency the situation demanded.
They became bloated companies with unnecessarily huge numbers of people being paid huge amounts of money, huge duplication of job functions between the companies in the group, unnecessary competition to build the biggest, tallest.
That led to too many mega-projects all going ahead at the same time. Worse, many were pushing engineering into uncharted waters but second and third versions were being pushed ahead before the engineers had worked out how to make the first one. The Palm Islands/The World are a classic example.
Heads, senior heads that is, should have rolled long ago.
Thankfully the financial crisis put a stop to the nonsense and has forced the companies to come down to earth. Restructuring was inevitable and long overdue. It is happening but it's all taken far too long.
We're a year into the crisis before the real moves are made that needed to be made there and then.
(The Tamweel/Amlak merger is another example. The property market is desperate for mortgage providers but the two largest have been in limbo for over a year without a policy decision being made to get them back into business. And we've been told that it won't happen until next year.)
To my mind this is the biggest blow to Brand Dubai that I can recall. The one that will do the most damage to Dubai's reputation as a good, safe place to do business, as a place that understands what business is all about and knows how to conduct it.
We'll undoubtedly be seeing more of the 'Dubai collapsing, reclaimed by the desert' stories from certain commentators as a result of this announcement.
Ignore them, Dubai will survive as the commercial centre that it's been for nearly two hundred years.
But this is a huge setback.
You can read some of the comments about it here:
NYT. Dubai Fund Asks for Stay on Debt Payments.
WSJ. Dubai Debt Woes Turn Ugly After It Seeks Standstill Deal
The Times. Dubai World and properties built on sand.
Daily Telegraph. Dubai recovery hopes hit by debt 'standstill' call.
FT. Dubai shock after debt standstill call which also has links to related articles.
Recent comments from Dubai government VIPs reinforced the expectation that debts would be paid on time.
So there's alarm in markets around the world since Dubai World briefly announced that it was asking creditors to defer payment for at least six months.
What a disastrous blow for Brand Dubai.
The bond has enormous significance because it's both the world's largest Islamic financial instrument and is considered the ultimate litmus test for Dubai's ability to meet its commitments.
Equally bad, the announcement was made after close of business on the eve of the Eid holiday, so now no-one's available for comment or clarification. That fact hasn't been missed by commentators either.
Badly, badly handled all round.
Commentators around the world are talking about it in disapproving terms and there's the question of whether this will be considered a default, with enormous implications for not only Dubai but Islamic bonds in general.
The New York Times says that the move demostrates that Abu Dhabi won't unconditionally bail out Dubai government controlled companies but that there has to be a genuine restructuring of the debt with the pain being equally shared by Dubai and its banks.
The Wall Street Journal talks about bankers and executives being stunned by the announcement, and says 'Dubai's efforts to deal with its mountain of debt estimated to exceed $80 billion were dealt a hammer blow.'
The Times, once one of the world's great newspapers but now reduced to near-tabloid level since being bought by Rupert Murdoch, predictably goes with the cliche 'Dubai World and properties built on sand.'
The UK Daily Telegraph headlines its report 'Dubai recovery hopes hit by debt 'standstill' call' and says that 'the credit-crunched Gulf playground, has shattered hopes of imminent financial recovery.'
The Financial Times has the widest coverage and talks about markets reeling at the announcement and acting with alarm at fears of default. Comments from analysts confirm the reaction.
There's only one positive side to the announcement and predictably the local media puts that spin on it, that Dubai World is to be re-restructured and an outside world-renowned expert is being brought in as Chief Restructuring Officer. Gulf News print edition headline, for example, says 'Dubai World gets a breather'.
The trouble is that it's the right move but it's taken far too long for the move to be made.
For nearly a year the Dubai World companies have been going through a 'restructuring'. But it's always a nonsense for the management responsible for a company's troubles to be allowed to create and preside over a restructuring made necessary because of their own policies. A Chief Restructuring Officer, an outside expert with a proven track record, was needed from the beginning of the crisis to sort the mess out. But it wasn't treated with the urgency the situation demanded.
They became bloated companies with unnecessarily huge numbers of people being paid huge amounts of money, huge duplication of job functions between the companies in the group, unnecessary competition to build the biggest, tallest.
That led to too many mega-projects all going ahead at the same time. Worse, many were pushing engineering into uncharted waters but second and third versions were being pushed ahead before the engineers had worked out how to make the first one. The Palm Islands/The World are a classic example.
Heads, senior heads that is, should have rolled long ago.
Thankfully the financial crisis put a stop to the nonsense and has forced the companies to come down to earth. Restructuring was inevitable and long overdue. It is happening but it's all taken far too long.
We're a year into the crisis before the real moves are made that needed to be made there and then.
(The Tamweel/Amlak merger is another example. The property market is desperate for mortgage providers but the two largest have been in limbo for over a year without a policy decision being made to get them back into business. And we've been told that it won't happen until next year.)
To my mind this is the biggest blow to Brand Dubai that I can recall. The one that will do the most damage to Dubai's reputation as a good, safe place to do business, as a place that understands what business is all about and knows how to conduct it.
We'll undoubtedly be seeing more of the 'Dubai collapsing, reclaimed by the desert' stories from certain commentators as a result of this announcement.
Ignore them, Dubai will survive as the commercial centre that it's been for nearly two hundred years.
But this is a huge setback.
You can read some of the comments about it here:
NYT. Dubai Fund Asks for Stay on Debt Payments.
WSJ. Dubai Debt Woes Turn Ugly After It Seeks Standstill Deal
The Times. Dubai World and properties built on sand.
Daily Telegraph. Dubai recovery hopes hit by debt 'standstill' call.
FT. Dubai shock after debt standstill call which also has links to related articles.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Courts, organised crime.
The complaint is the same in many countries, that the courts are soft on crime.
We get some unfathomable sentences here in Dubai - draconian sentences for seemingly minor offences and a slap on the wrist for serious offences.
I read with disbelief that a drunken, speeding bus driver who killed a motorcyclist was given a one year sentence.
We have a zero policy for drinking and driving, he was way over the limit even in countries such as the UK and Australia, he was travelling at high speed on Beach Road. He slammed into an eighteen year old motorcyclist who was, correctly, stopped at a red traffic light.
The court decided his punishment should be one year.
After the sentence Salah Bu Farousha, Head of Dubai's Traffic Public Prosecution said that they wanted : "...tough and deterrent traffic court verdicts against errant drivers and especially those who drink and drive recklessly."
He added: "We constantly appeal primary verdicts which we deem as not deterrent enough."
I hope they appeal this sentence.
There was another story that caught my attention too, a sign of the changing times in Dubai.
In one of our much-publicised new developments, International City, police raided apartments that were operating as brothels. Fifty two of them apparently.
Fifty two?!
They should rename it Brothel City.
There's a predictable sequence when gang-run operations are set up and generate a lot of money. Another gang comes in demanding protection money or tries to muscle in on the operation.
I didn't think I'd see it in Dubai but here it is.
Asian gangs, mainly Vietnamese, who were involved in running brothels in the development...were also involved in inciting violent incidents among their competitors including, murdering an Indian man and seriously injuring another at the China cluster on Friday. Both men were among the competitors involved in the same illegal operations.
The incident on Friday involved more than 20 gang members who managed to break into a brothel at the China cluster demanding money profited from running the business.
Killer driver gets a year.
Brothel City.
We get some unfathomable sentences here in Dubai - draconian sentences for seemingly minor offences and a slap on the wrist for serious offences.
I read with disbelief that a drunken, speeding bus driver who killed a motorcyclist was given a one year sentence.
We have a zero policy for drinking and driving, he was way over the limit even in countries such as the UK and Australia, he was travelling at high speed on Beach Road. He slammed into an eighteen year old motorcyclist who was, correctly, stopped at a red traffic light.
The court decided his punishment should be one year.
After the sentence Salah Bu Farousha, Head of Dubai's Traffic Public Prosecution said that they wanted : "...tough and deterrent traffic court verdicts against errant drivers and especially those who drink and drive recklessly."
He added: "We constantly appeal primary verdicts which we deem as not deterrent enough."
I hope they appeal this sentence.
There was another story that caught my attention too, a sign of the changing times in Dubai.
In one of our much-publicised new developments, International City, police raided apartments that were operating as brothels. Fifty two of them apparently.
Fifty two?!
They should rename it Brothel City.
There's a predictable sequence when gang-run operations are set up and generate a lot of money. Another gang comes in demanding protection money or tries to muscle in on the operation.
I didn't think I'd see it in Dubai but here it is.
Asian gangs, mainly Vietnamese, who were involved in running brothels in the development...were also involved in inciting violent incidents among their competitors including, murdering an Indian man and seriously injuring another at the China cluster on Friday. Both men were among the competitors involved in the same illegal operations.
The incident on Friday involved more than 20 gang members who managed to break into a brothel at the China cluster demanding money profited from running the business.
Killer driver gets a year.
Brothel City.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Dubai's road deaths down
I've noted in a few posts that, although there are still plenty of morons out there, road behaviour generally seems to be improving in Dubai.
That seems to be supported by RTA figures for 2008 which show that road deaths are down for the first time in eight years. Speed is a major factor in fatalities and I've noticed a definite slowing down since, for example, Sheikh Zayed Road's limit was reduced to 100kph.
Sadly there were 157 unnecessary deaths caused by road crashes last year, but that's better than the 180 killed in 2007.
On SZR, where the speed limit was reduced from 120kph to 100kph, the stretch between between Defence Roundabout and Interchange 5 had a dramatic drop in fatalities, down from 29 in 2007 to 10 last year.
Speed is a factor in crashes in general but it isn't just the reduction of speed limits that have helped to reduce the danger on our roads, it's much more complicated than that, as Maitha bin Udai, CEO of Traffic & Roads Agency, said.
I've noticed not only a reduction in speed but also, for example, far fewer people driving along the hard shoulder, far fewer driving aggressively and forcing their way in. That's not down to speed limits but to less frustration with log-jammed traffic. A frustrated driver is a dangerous driver. The improvement in traffic flow is thanks to the opening of so many new roads and intersections plus the slightly fewer vehicles on the roads.
There's a long way to go but at least the figures are going in the right direction at long last.
Gulf News has the story here.
That seems to be supported by RTA figures for 2008 which show that road deaths are down for the first time in eight years. Speed is a major factor in fatalities and I've noticed a definite slowing down since, for example, Sheikh Zayed Road's limit was reduced to 100kph.
Sadly there were 157 unnecessary deaths caused by road crashes last year, but that's better than the 180 killed in 2007.
On SZR, where the speed limit was reduced from 120kph to 100kph, the stretch between between Defence Roundabout and Interchange 5 had a dramatic drop in fatalities, down from 29 in 2007 to 10 last year.
Speed is a factor in crashes in general but it isn't just the reduction of speed limits that have helped to reduce the danger on our roads, it's much more complicated than that, as Maitha bin Udai, CEO of Traffic & Roads Agency, said.
I've noticed not only a reduction in speed but also, for example, far fewer people driving along the hard shoulder, far fewer driving aggressively and forcing their way in. That's not down to speed limits but to less frustration with log-jammed traffic. A frustrated driver is a dangerous driver. The improvement in traffic flow is thanks to the opening of so many new roads and intersections plus the slightly fewer vehicles on the roads.
There's a long way to go but at least the figures are going in the right direction at long last.
Gulf News has the story here.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Meanwhile, back home...
"It has never been this hot, dry and windy in combination ever before," Premier Nathan Rees told reporters on Saturday.
There is no immediate threat to lives or property from 66 fires burning across NSW however, "unprecedented conditions" call for extreme vigilance, the premier says.
On Friday there were more than 120 fires across the state so the firefighters have done a huge job to halve the number.
No chance for them to relax though:
Sydney Forecast
Tomorrow 41°C
Wind NNW 26km/h
Plus dry lightning strikes. The Blue Mountains National Park, visited by around 3 million tourists a year and covering over half a million acres, was closed because of fires lit by lightning strikes on Friday.A total ban on open fires was declared in New South Wales.
The new level of 'Catastrophic' fire warning is in place for towns in large areas of western NSW.
The new highest category category was introduced after Black Saturday, when 173 people died in February's fires around Melbourne.
'Catastrophic' level is: Even specially constructed and actively defended homes may not provide shelter. Safest to leave the night before the expected fire. Under no circumstances will it be safe to stay and defend the home.
For months the authorities have been warning that this could well be the worst fire season ever and it's looking ominously as though they could be right.
But it isn't just bushfires they have to worry about.
A story from our local paper this week, close to our home an hour north of Sydney:
ANASTASIA Stead lived through many people’s worst nightmare at her Glenning Valley home on Sunday night.
Reaching out to turn off her bedlight, the girl, 14, was confronted by a 2m snake curled around her alarm clock.
The agitated adult diamond python hissed at Anastasia, who yelled to her mother for help.
I'd have yelled too.
A snake wrangler from WIRES, our wildlife rescue organisation, came and removed it...
Photo: Express Advocate
Never a dull moment in the sunburnt country.
NSW faces unprecedented conditions.
Snake alarm.
There is no immediate threat to lives or property from 66 fires burning across NSW however, "unprecedented conditions" call for extreme vigilance, the premier says.
On Friday there were more than 120 fires across the state so the firefighters have done a huge job to halve the number.
No chance for them to relax though:
Sydney Forecast
Tomorrow 41°C
Wind NNW 26km/h
Plus dry lightning strikes. The Blue Mountains National Park, visited by around 3 million tourists a year and covering over half a million acres, was closed because of fires lit by lightning strikes on Friday.A total ban on open fires was declared in New South Wales.
The new level of 'Catastrophic' fire warning is in place for towns in large areas of western NSW.
The new highest category category was introduced after Black Saturday, when 173 people died in February's fires around Melbourne.
'Catastrophic' level is: Even specially constructed and actively defended homes may not provide shelter. Safest to leave the night before the expected fire. Under no circumstances will it be safe to stay and defend the home.
For months the authorities have been warning that this could well be the worst fire season ever and it's looking ominously as though they could be right.
But it isn't just bushfires they have to worry about.
A story from our local paper this week, close to our home an hour north of Sydney:
ANASTASIA Stead lived through many people’s worst nightmare at her Glenning Valley home on Sunday night.
Reaching out to turn off her bedlight, the girl, 14, was confronted by a 2m snake curled around her alarm clock.
The agitated adult diamond python hissed at Anastasia, who yelled to her mother for help.
I'd have yelled too.
A snake wrangler from WIRES, our wildlife rescue organisation, came and removed it...
Photo: Express Advocate
Never a dull moment in the sunburnt country.
NSW faces unprecedented conditions.
Snake alarm.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Top Secret Kit Kats
Back to something that really annoys me, companies who have a 'No Photo' policy for something that's open to the public and has absolutely no reason to be secret.
I've posted examples in the past and I'll continue to rant as long as companies carry on with the stupidity of it.
The latest example I came across was what is promoted as the largest sweet shop in the world, Candylicious at Dubai Mall.
Outside there are two big, prominently displayed signs:
Yep, a sweet shop banning photography because...ermmmm.
What is the thinking behind it? I just don't understand.
It's a big but bog-standard sweet shop selling Kit Kat, Mars Bars and the like, some nuts, pick & mix sweets - the stuff you get in any supermarket, mall, sweet shop.
Is it a secret shop design then? Well, it's a public area so it can't be secret can it.
In spite of the design concept rationale (I'll get to that in a second) it's an absolutely bog-standard sweet shop - shelves around the walls, some island displays, coloured spots dotted around the floor.
But 'No Photography' is allowed.
Funnily enough, on October 26 Time Out published a gallery of sixteen photos, of the shop and close-ups of chocolates which are on sale there.
Here's the first shot from Time Out's gallery:
Told you, absolutely bog standard design.
You'd be surprised how often designers come up with a design, then write the rationale afterwards to sell it to the client.
Keep the picture of the shop in mind as you read what they say about it:
"Introducing a brand new concept - Candylicious combines candy and the world of imagination in a hip and fashion forward candy store. Located right infront of the aquarium, you cannot miss the vibrant colours and millions of wonderful candy (sic) from this fun and entertaining store.
Candylicious is an abstract concept representing fantasy, joy and irreplaceable childhood memeories. (sic)"
Anyone know anyone from Candylicious? If you do, please ask them what their rationale is.
They made a policy decision that they'd ban photography of their shop. Why? What do they need to keep secret? What is it that they won't allow to be photographed even though it's open to full public view?
The Time Out gallery is here.
I've posted examples in the past and I'll continue to rant as long as companies carry on with the stupidity of it.
The latest example I came across was what is promoted as the largest sweet shop in the world, Candylicious at Dubai Mall.
Outside there are two big, prominently displayed signs:
Yep, a sweet shop banning photography because...ermmmm.
What is the thinking behind it? I just don't understand.
It's a big but bog-standard sweet shop selling Kit Kat, Mars Bars and the like, some nuts, pick & mix sweets - the stuff you get in any supermarket, mall, sweet shop.
Is it a secret shop design then? Well, it's a public area so it can't be secret can it.
In spite of the design concept rationale (I'll get to that in a second) it's an absolutely bog-standard sweet shop - shelves around the walls, some island displays, coloured spots dotted around the floor.
But 'No Photography' is allowed.
Funnily enough, on October 26 Time Out published a gallery of sixteen photos, of the shop and close-ups of chocolates which are on sale there.
Here's the first shot from Time Out's gallery:
Told you, absolutely bog standard design.
You'd be surprised how often designers come up with a design, then write the rationale afterwards to sell it to the client.
Keep the picture of the shop in mind as you read what they say about it:
"Introducing a brand new concept - Candylicious combines candy and the world of imagination in a hip and fashion forward candy store. Located right infront of the aquarium, you cannot miss the vibrant colours and millions of wonderful candy (sic) from this fun and entertaining store.
Candylicious is an abstract concept representing fantasy, joy and irreplaceable childhood memeories. (sic)"
Anyone know anyone from Candylicious? If you do, please ask them what their rationale is.
They made a policy decision that they'd ban photography of their shop. Why? What do they need to keep secret? What is it that they won't allow to be photographed even though it's open to full public view?
The Time Out gallery is here.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
To old Dubai
I went into the city yesterday so I thought I'd give the Metro another go.
I was visiting Bur Dubai and then Deira and with only a few stations currently open there was a bit of walking involved. In this beautiful weather that suited me fine, I've always enjoyed walking and I love wandering around the old areas of Dubai anyway.
I went from Mall of the Emirates to Khalid Bin Al Waleed station (better known as Bank Street or Burjuman), it took twenty minutes and cost Dh6.50. That compares very favourably with driving, especially with the parking problems in the city.
To cross to Deira I wandered down to the Creek and, as I always do, invested a dirham in an abra ride.
Like all cities around the world with old and new sections the old part of Dubai is very different from New Dubai. It's grown naturally rather than being just plonked on some empty land, so it has soul, heart.
It's all a bit jumbled and scruffy in many parts but that's all part of its charm and I always get a lift in spirits being there.
I came back from Union Station and again it's about twenty minutes and costs Dh6.50.
By the way, on the way down to the Creek I walked through Bastakiyah, which I must explore again because there's a lot more going on than last time I was there.
Interesting food available too;
I was visiting Bur Dubai and then Deira and with only a few stations currently open there was a bit of walking involved. In this beautiful weather that suited me fine, I've always enjoyed walking and I love wandering around the old areas of Dubai anyway.
I went from Mall of the Emirates to Khalid Bin Al Waleed station (better known as Bank Street or Burjuman), it took twenty minutes and cost Dh6.50. That compares very favourably with driving, especially with the parking problems in the city.
To cross to Deira I wandered down to the Creek and, as I always do, invested a dirham in an abra ride.
Like all cities around the world with old and new sections the old part of Dubai is very different from New Dubai. It's grown naturally rather than being just plonked on some empty land, so it has soul, heart.
It's all a bit jumbled and scruffy in many parts but that's all part of its charm and I always get a lift in spirits being there.
I came back from Union Station and again it's about twenty minutes and costs Dh6.50.
By the way, on the way down to the Creek I walked through Bastakiyah, which I must explore again because there's a lot more going on than last time I was there.
Interesting food available too;
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
It's here again
Am I right in thinking that Christmas is appearing in the shops a little closer to Christmas than in previous years?
Monday, November 16, 2009
Changing times
Not so long ago, seeing one of these around Dubai Marina was unthinkable. Now there are more than a few:
Not good for investors but good for tenants and for business in general. The ridiculous and unsustainable rents were killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
Not good for investors but good for tenants and for business in general. The ridiculous and unsustainable rents were killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
A different pace Pt. 2
Construction grinds along very slowly in Australia.
Nearly three weeks ago I posted about the snail pace progress on minor work in front of our house. My friend and neightbour sent me some photographs taken on October 28 showing the work the council contractor was doing in front of our three houses - they do very small stretches at a time.
What they're doing is putting in kerbs, guttering, a footpath and resurfacing the road.
The stretch in front of our three houses was going to be finished 'in about a week'.
Today my friend sent a photograph of the Aussie workers slaving away trying to get the work finished:
He tells me they've managed, since the first photo nineteen days ago, to get the kerb and guttering laid the length of the three houses and to lay the first coat for sealing the road.
They still haven't started the footpath and they also have to build retaining walls and re-landscape the banks which they destroyed, and also replace our driveways which they dug up.
With the progress they're making I agree with my pal: "With less than six weeks until Christmas, we are wondering if this project will be completed by then."
Nearly three weeks ago I posted about the snail pace progress on minor work in front of our house. My friend and neightbour sent me some photographs taken on October 28 showing the work the council contractor was doing in front of our three houses - they do very small stretches at a time.
What they're doing is putting in kerbs, guttering, a footpath and resurfacing the road.
The stretch in front of our three houses was going to be finished 'in about a week'.
Today my friend sent a photograph of the Aussie workers slaving away trying to get the work finished:
He tells me they've managed, since the first photo nineteen days ago, to get the kerb and guttering laid the length of the three houses and to lay the first coat for sealing the road.
They still haven't started the footpath and they also have to build retaining walls and re-landscape the banks which they destroyed, and also replace our driveways which they dug up.
With the progress they're making I agree with my pal: "With less than six weeks until Christmas, we are wondering if this project will be completed by then."
Friday, November 13, 2009
Shhh. Keep it secret.
An interesting and strongly worded lead editorial in Gulf News today from none other than the Editor in Chief which shows a mindset I thought was on the way out.
In it he lambasts the Japanese Consul General for saying what is already common knowledge, that "Dubai companies are late on their dues to Japanese companies."
He says the CG is out of line, accuses him of violating diplomatic norms and goes as far as saying: "I urge the UAE Government to strongly condemn his stance, and summon him and his boss, the ambassador, to protest against his reckless behaviour, and perhaps the UAE should declare him persona non grata."
Ironically, it was a government-controlled paper, The National, which published the CG's remarks.
I saw no comparable editorial rant when the Financial Times ran a story about the UK's Secretary of State for Business: "Lord Mandelson has raised concerns about the failure of developers in the United Arab Emirates to pay British contractors, and has sought reassurances from local rulers that financial commitments will be honoured." No demand then that Lord M be declared persona non grata.
It leads me to suspect that the reason behind this rant was that the story appeared locally.
Local exposure goes against the old thinking of keeping the UAE population in the dark if anything unwanted is said or happens. Pointless. Those days are long gone. In the age of the internet we know what's happening, but that mindset hasn't kept up with the information age.
It really is a ferocious attack on the CG.
"Does Mr Otsuka work as a Consul General of Japan, or as an official spokesman for these Japanese companies? Perhaps the companies appointed him as their official representative and forgot to tell us.
Did the companies concerned give him a mandate to speak on their behalf, or was it just an individual effort by someone who obviously took all the wrong turns?
Personally, I don’t want to believe that the Consul General works secretly as an adviser to a Japanese company, or as a paid lawyer, which would propel him to embarrass his embassy and country. But I think the diplomat was betrayed by his ill-advised, undiplomatic comments and stuck his nose into something that is not his business.
...it seems the Japanese Consul General, through his strange comment, has joined the orchestra that has been playing all the negative tunes against Dubai, especially in some sections of the Western media"
Actually, the reality is that dilomats and business are inextricably linked. Embassies are involved in promoting and helping their countries' companies as much as they are in issuing visas and attending cocktail parties.
Even royal families promote their countries' exports. Britain's Queen visits a country and a huge business group travels with her. Her son Prince Andrew, Duke of York, is the United Kingdom's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment.
So it's a bit rich saying that a CG is out of line and exceeding his brief, which the editorial sneeringly refers to as: ... his job, which I believe is to issue entry visas."
He also says: "So far, we have not heard from the companies on whose behalf the Consul General volunteered to speak - in the process, shooting himself in the foot."
We have.
The report in The National included a quote from the GM of Mitsubish Heavy Industries saying that MHI was awaiting payments on major contracts with Dubai companies.
A decade into the 21st century, with all the strides the UAE and Dubai have made in moving on from archaic thinking, I really am surprised at the mindset and at the ferociousness of the criticism.
You can read the editorial here. What do you think?
In it he lambasts the Japanese Consul General for saying what is already common knowledge, that "Dubai companies are late on their dues to Japanese companies."
He says the CG is out of line, accuses him of violating diplomatic norms and goes as far as saying: "I urge the UAE Government to strongly condemn his stance, and summon him and his boss, the ambassador, to protest against his reckless behaviour, and perhaps the UAE should declare him persona non grata."
Ironically, it was a government-controlled paper, The National, which published the CG's remarks.
I saw no comparable editorial rant when the Financial Times ran a story about the UK's Secretary of State for Business: "Lord Mandelson has raised concerns about the failure of developers in the United Arab Emirates to pay British contractors, and has sought reassurances from local rulers that financial commitments will be honoured." No demand then that Lord M be declared persona non grata.
It leads me to suspect that the reason behind this rant was that the story appeared locally.
Local exposure goes against the old thinking of keeping the UAE population in the dark if anything unwanted is said or happens. Pointless. Those days are long gone. In the age of the internet we know what's happening, but that mindset hasn't kept up with the information age.
It really is a ferocious attack on the CG.
"Does Mr Otsuka work as a Consul General of Japan, or as an official spokesman for these Japanese companies? Perhaps the companies appointed him as their official representative and forgot to tell us.
Did the companies concerned give him a mandate to speak on their behalf, or was it just an individual effort by someone who obviously took all the wrong turns?
Personally, I don’t want to believe that the Consul General works secretly as an adviser to a Japanese company, or as a paid lawyer, which would propel him to embarrass his embassy and country. But I think the diplomat was betrayed by his ill-advised, undiplomatic comments and stuck his nose into something that is not his business.
...it seems the Japanese Consul General, through his strange comment, has joined the orchestra that has been playing all the negative tunes against Dubai, especially in some sections of the Western media"
Actually, the reality is that dilomats and business are inextricably linked. Embassies are involved in promoting and helping their countries' companies as much as they are in issuing visas and attending cocktail parties.
Even royal families promote their countries' exports. Britain's Queen visits a country and a huge business group travels with her. Her son Prince Andrew, Duke of York, is the United Kingdom's Special Representative for International Trade and Investment.
So it's a bit rich saying that a CG is out of line and exceeding his brief, which the editorial sneeringly refers to as: ... his job, which I believe is to issue entry visas."
He also says: "So far, we have not heard from the companies on whose behalf the Consul General volunteered to speak - in the process, shooting himself in the foot."
We have.
The report in The National included a quote from the GM of Mitsubish Heavy Industries saying that MHI was awaiting payments on major contracts with Dubai companies.
A decade into the 21st century, with all the strides the UAE and Dubai have made in moving on from archaic thinking, I really am surprised at the mindset and at the ferociousness of the criticism.
You can read the editorial here. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
