15/07/2025
15/07/2025
It is strange how our society often calls for social justice, yet contradicts itself when it comes to helping those in need. Here, I am talking specifically about loans, especially those taken out of necessity due to financial hardship, not out of vanity or show. As the saying goes, “The pain of the eye is easier than the pain of debt”.
Borrowing is never a source of joy for those who are forced into it. That is why this issue must be viewed not through the lens of suspicion or the fear that someone may covet another’s wealth, but through the lens of real justice and compassion. Some argue that if a debtor’s problem is resolved, they will simply repeat it. But this view is based on assumptions that have little to do with reality. An insolvent borrower is someone in pain who needs help. For this reason, many voices have called for ensuring a dignified life for citizens by realizing social justice in a meaningful way, above narrow-mindedness and envy. In this context, it is worth recalling Article 20 of the Constitution - “The national economy is based on social justice. Its foundation is fair cooperation between public and private activities. Its goal is to achieve economic development, increase production, raise the standard of living, and achieve prosperity for citizens.” Achieving prosperity for citizens fundamentally depends on ensuring a decent life, which cannot be achieved without true social solidarity.
This is reflected in Article 25 of the Constitution, which states - “The State guarantees the solidarity of society in bearing the burdens resulting from disasters and public calamities.” Does the plight of more than 120,000 citizens facing the harsh reality of social and legal consequences due to their inability to repay debts not amount to a public ordeal and indeed, a national crisis? Can the government not step in to correct this imbalance among families by upholding justice and alleviating the burden on insolvent borrowers? On the other hand, some argue that if the crisis of insolvent borrowers is alleviated, then those who did not borrow should be granted non-refundable sums to ensure equal treatment. This view, however, is entirely unrealistic and has no connection to the principles of social justice. It reflects shortsightedness and is driven by entitlement rather than fairness.
I must reiterate that those who borrowed and defaulted are unlikely to repeat the same mistake. Several Gulf countries resolved similar issues by closing the debt file entirely, either through government repayment of citizens’ debts or by requiring companies and creditors to collect repayments in installments spread over 20 years. In addition, a borrower’s electronic file is often marked with a “debtor” status, preventing them from applying for any future loans. Many alternative measures could ease people’s lives without resorting to imprisonment, travel bans, or the suspension of services. Unfortunately, this last approach is especially damaging. Imagine a citizen being barred from traveling for urgent medical treatment, or unable to renew a driver’s license or a domestic worker’s residency, all because they missed a single installment, perhaps less than KD 100, to a company.
Once the Gulf states resolved the issue of insolvent debtors and lifted restrictive measures against them, their local economies witnessed a revitalization driven by increased liquidity in the hands of citizens. Some Gulf countries have amended their laws to stipulate that a bounced check is not a felony and should not be grounds for preventing individuals from working or traveling. A citizen’s homeland is his final refuge, and if he travels, it is often to complete work that could help him repay his debts.
A debtor is not a fugitive; he is neither an embezzler nor a serious criminal. I am aware that the Ministry of Justice is currently studying a proposal to declassify bounced checks as felonies, with the goal of easing burdens on individuals. If this reform is implemented, Kuwait will be on the right path as a humanitarian country. Easing the burden on indebted citizens is a vital matter that deserves to be firmly placed on the tables of both the Council of Ministers and the Minister of Justice.