Fahd Bin Jleid
Al-Jazirah
ONCE again we are demanding the Ministry of Commerce and Industry to clarify its stance toward the boycott campaigns of some consumers on social media and their impact on prices and quantities of goods. Consumers, of course, enjoy a right to boycott commodities.
Right now, the ministry’s role between traders and consumers is unclear. It safeguards and organizes commercial interests, but at the same time it is required to protect consumers’ rights. Bringing the Consumer Protection Association under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry after several years would see the latter playing a larger role in protecting consumer interests. Not only this, but also to protect the consumer as stipulated by the Kingdom’s regulations. This role is currently lacking, confirming that nobody can stop traders’ greed except for consumers themselves. Their final resort can only be to organize boycotts.
Retailers and wholesalers alike are repeatedly attempting to hike the prices of both staple foods and consumer goods. They have become accustomed to raising prices by a quarter riyal, half a riyal and then one riyal, and we consumers have got used to paying the increased prices without protest. This does not mean that we accept the situation, nor are we comfortable with the new prices, but monopolies give us no other options. Consumers receive no support when saying no to price hikes, even when they believe they are unjustified.
A consumer’s income and salary are, by and large, fixed. A trader’s income increases gradually due to rising prices, but he wants to maintain his profit margin so that he is not affected by the increased cost of basic commodities, transportation and utilities. The Ministry of Commerce considers this a justification for raising prices. Is this a just equation in the relations between consumers and traders?
If the ministry distances itself from boycotts, especially with social media playing an increasingly major role in the absence of any adequate support from the Consumer Protection Association, then this will inevitably harm us. It is neither in the interest of the consumers nor the traders.
Who will guarantee that behind a boycott there is not the hidden hand of a rival company, fanning the flames in order to harm a product, evict it from the market or destroy it in the interest of their own product? We’re cautious of falsely accusing and harming producers, but at the same time we call on the ministry to clarify it’s role. All the strings are in its hands.
