Who speaks for people of the UAE in the New York Times

"Many Emiratis agree, and fear that groups like Islah threaten a stability that has made their country of 5.5 million wealthy, safe and peaceful. “It is apolitical, and that is why this country works,” said Sultan Sooud al-Qassemi, a writer. “It is a political Islamist-free zone. We don’t want your political Islam here. Go mess up another country.”"  Well, well, well.  It is rather amusing that the Times selects a member of the ruling family to speak for all people of the UAE.  2) Sultan: are you aware--I am sure that you are--that you speak from a position of "royal" privilege and that by virtue of that privilege you should not speak on behalf of all people of the UAE unless the ruling families of the UAE were chosen by the people and not by British colonialism (later confirmed by US colonialism).  3) You may not want political Islam (neither do I) but who decides what form of politics is acceptable and which form is not? Are you implying that the only form of political activism is political Islam?  What about communism, socialism, democracy, liberalism, anarchism? All those are banned too in the UAE, Sultan.  It is not only Political Islam that is banned by the rulers.   4) You realize that you are only allowed to express your views if they coincide with the views and interests of the rulers.  I am sure that you know that.  And remember that those same rulers back in the 1950s and 1960s banned Arab nationalist and socialist political organizations.