|
WSWS
: News &
Analysis : Middle
East
Four Sri Lankan workers beheaded in Saudi Arabia
By Parwini Zora
26 February 2007
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
Last Monday the Saudi Arabian government beheaded four Sri
Lankan migrant workersSanath Pushpakumara, E.J.Victor Corea,
Ranjith De Silva and Sangeeth Kumaradespite years of protest
from international human rights organisations and the victims
pleas for clemency. The beheading brought the number of people
executed in Saudi Arabia this year to at least 17, compared to
38 for all of 2006. Two-thirds of those killed were foreign nationals.
An estimated 350,000 Sri Lankans are working in Saudi Arabia
and make up a significant portion of the 8.8 million foreigners
living and working in the country. According to the report, Bad
DreamsExploitation and abuse of migrant workers in Saudi
Arabia, published by Human Rights Watch in July 2004, foreign
nationals account for 67 percent of the workforce and hold 90
to 95 percent of private-sector jobs. Most come from South Asia
and Africa to escape rising unemployment and poverty.
The overwhelming majority are poorly paid and heavily indebted,
due to the exorbitant fees charged by recruiting agencies. They
often work as cleaners in hospitals and schools, as plumbers,
carpenters, labourers and garbage collectors. Women are often
engaged as domestic servants, assistants in beauty salons and
as seamstresses. The report stated that migrant workers were often
paid far lower salaries than promised and subjected to long working
hoursup to 12 hours or more daily without overtime. Many
instances were cited of salaries being unpaid for months and medical
care being denied, although complaints are rarely made for fear
of summary dismissal.
In these circumstances, the use of the medieval Islamic law,
including the death penalty and other brutal forms of punishment,
serves a very definite political purpose. Whatever its religious
justification, this legal system is being exploited by the autocratic
Saudi regime to intimidate and terrorise the flood of cheap immigrant
labour, on whom the countrys small wealthy elite is increasingly
dependent.
The four Sri Lankan workers were publicly executed for allegedly
forming a criminal gang which robbed a number of companies
and threatened accountants and workers with weapons, shooting
one of them and stealing his car. They were arrested in
March 2004 and convicted by an Islamic religious court in October
of the same year.
After these sentences were upheld in March 2005, the Asian
Human Rights Commission (AHRC) issued a statement, urging the
Sri Lankan government to intervene to save the lives of Pushpakumara,
Corea and De Silva. The fourth prisoner, Sangeeth Kumara, was
not mentioned because he was not sentenced to death by the court,
but was serving a 15-year prison sentence. The AHRC said the prisoners
had received penalties far more severe than international legal
standards, and those of their home country.
From inside Al Nayad Prison in Riyadh the victims continually
objected to the convictions because they were denied any legal
representation. No substantial witnesses were presented in court
to support the charges against them. They repeatedly appealed
to the Sri Lankan authorities to secure their return to serve
an appropriate sentence after facing a fair trial in Sri Lanka.
In an attempt to deflect adverse international attention, the
Sri Lankan Embassy in Saudi Arabia promised in March 2005 to appeal
on behalf of the prisoners. The embassy confirmed that a discussion
had been held with the Sri Lankan Foreign Employment Bureau (FEB),
which organises the recruitment of overseas workers, to finance
legal proceedings to seek reduced sentences.
When family members in Sri Lanka subsequently gave interviews
to the media about the plight of their relatives in prison, President
Chandrika Kumaratunga issued a press release, claiming to have
written to Saudi authorities requesting clemency. The Sri Lankan
Embassy in Saudi Arabia, however, could give the AHRC no details
of this communication.
Family members made numerous private visits to the current
Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse, even before his election
in November 2005, requesting urgent help. A demonstration of several
hundred people was held in Colombo following which Rajapakse,
then the prime minister, met a delegation and personally guaranteed
to intervene. A photograph of Rajapakse meeting the families appeared
in the local press.
De Silvas mother has subsequently made a personal appeal
to Rajapakse to help save her only son, while Pushpakumara made
requests to see his child who was born after he left for Saudi
Arabia.
Faced with continued disinterest and lying pretences from the
Sri Lankan government, De Silva announcedjust two weeks
before his executionthat he had started to write a book
about his plight. He said he would seek help to publish the book
in order to issue a wider call for justice.
Following the executions, the AHRC issued a statement on its
website, saying, the [Sri Lankan] government must explain
the execution of three whose death sentences were said to have
been reconsidered and the execution of another who was sentenced
only to imprisonment in Saudi Arabia.
According to the AHRC, the Sri Lankan government had earlier
confirmed, that the matter was being actively considered
by the Saudi Arabian authorities and that the sentences would
be commuted to life imprisonment. Hence, the execution had
come as a shock, with some family members only informed by a local
news agency.
Government spokesmen Keheliya Rambukwella told the BBC Sinhala
Service that the government was in the process of recovering the
bodies and advises Sri Lankans going abroad to comply with
the laws of the land. He made no mention the governments
previous comments that the trial might have fallen short of international
standards, with no legal representation allowed.
This duplicity again reveals that the Sri Lankan government
is not the least interested in the plight of Sri Lankan workers
overseas, even when their maltreatment involves breaches of fundamental
human rights and international law. As the AHRC stated, it is
a basic obligation of any government to provide legal assistance
for its citizens if convicted abroad, especially when facing death
sentences.
The AHRC called on the Sri Lankan government for an explanation.
Beyond the concerns of the four individuals, this execution
raises questions regarding the relationship Sri Lanka has with
other nations, particularly ones in which local citizens engage
in large-scale employment. Do such relationships imply some form
of supply of slave labour where the rights of the citizens are
abandoned in pursuit of trade relations and foreign exchange earnings?
Is Sri Lanka not in a position to take up the issues of the rights
of citizens in a strong manner for fear of losing trade agreements
or other contracts?
The answers to these questions are obvious. The Sri Lankan
government will do nothing to threaten the virtual slave labour
arrangements by which one million Sri Lankan workersone
eighth of the countrys labour forcework overseas to
support their families. The government benefited directly from
the $US2.3 billion in remittances sent home by Sri Lankan workers
abroad last year, with well over 50 percent coming from workers
in the Gulf.
Rajapakses complacent and callous response to the execution
of four overseas workers is simply the latest example, following
its refusal to urgently rescue the 90,000 Sri Lankans stranded
in heavily bombed Lebanon last year.
See Also:
Sri Lankan government
abandons thousands of citizens trapped in Lebanon
[26 July 2006]
Another unexplained
death of a Sri Lankan worker in Saudi Arabia
[11 May 2006]
Sri Lankan housemaid
tells of systematic abuse in Saudi Arabia
[22 February 2006]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |