Pressure to collect rights leads to bankruptcy, search for mercy

Arab Times

26-04-2025

LEGISLATIVE structure development is an urgent necessity. We have been calling for this for a long time, taking into consideration the social, economic, and political developments in Kuwait, the region, and the whole world, as well as the need to consolidate the principle that Kuwait is a country of humanity.
The purpose of laws is to regulate societal life, solve its problems, and prevent the creation of further problems in the future. Some laws are enacted for the benefit of certain individuals. This exacerbates the crises -- both private and public. It is essential to draft laws wisely and precisely to fill the loopholes on one hand; and to ensure that the laws take into account the financial, mental, and social circumstances of the people on the other hand.
A current example is the issue of garnishing a debtor's salary. The Judicial Execution Department at the Ministry of Justice has clarified that the permissible garnishment rate ranges from 25 to 50 percent of the debtor's salary.
This does not solve the problem, because the term 'salary' means securing the minimum needs of an employee. It is well known that no one obtains a loan unless they need money. This means their salary is insufficient, forcing them to resort to borrowing -- from a bank, a financial institution, or even individuals. When a debtor's entire or half salary is seized, it creates a new problem: borrowing again from a new source so that the debtor can make ends meet. This brings us to the dud check issue. The deterrent penalties in force in Kuwait are not present in most, if not all, other countries.
The three-year prison sentence for each dud check means the borrower who issues such a check for each installment will spend decades in prison. It is internationally recognized in the Civil Rights Law, as well as the Islamic Law and the Kuwaiti Constitution, that a citizen who enjoys freedom should not be imprisoned due to financial cases and civil misdemeanors; that is, as long as he does not compromise honor and integrity, does not harm the internal security of the State, and does not forge to harm others. Imprisoning a debtor incurs a huge cost for the public and the State. The cost of imprisonment may be greater than the debt itself. The imprisonment of debtors destroys families, thereby creating a social problem that the State must solve.
For example, the government, represented by the Ministry of Social Affairs, assists thousands of needy people in Kuwait. On the other hand, certain bank loans are secured through the assets of debtors, which are often several times more than the value of the debt. Therefore, when the law imposes a tough penalty, instead of finding solutions to help the debtor settle the debt, the situation becomes like a slow death. How can the debtor live under such penalties? The debtor has only two options -- resort to illegal means or die from starvation. How can the debtor live without a salary, even though he is an employee? Is the goal to destroy the debtor? Mercy is the fundamental goal of legislation. Even in deterrent penalties, a certain principle must be taken into account -- the judicial ruling must be acceptable and consistent with reason and logic.
Recent legal developments are replacing temporary problems with more harmful ones. When a debtor finds himself subject to the merciless control of a creditor, he resorts to declaring bankruptcy to avoid a travel ban and to be able to live his life without disruption. In Kuwait, lawsuits have been filed against about 120,000 borrowers.
Arrest warrants have been issued, and they have been banned from traveling. This means paralyzing economic life, destroying families, and creating an ongoing social crisis that extends beyond the debtor -- up to his family members. The government and its agencies are transformed into debt collectors in the interest of creditors. Based on this, the issue of seizing the debtor's salary -- whether whole or part of it -- means, at best, pushing people to declare bankruptcy.
This will undoubtedly confuse the judiciary due to the large number of lawsuits that will be filed. On the other hand, this situation will deprive the law of its most important principles -- respect for social guidelines and maintaining social stability. Is it reasonable for the law to become a 'destabilizer' of society? This question is for the Council of Ministers and the committees tasked with drafting laws, some of which serve a certain group at the expense of the majority.