A recent one provides a good example. A company occupied a plot of land near Hac Sa, and conducted some land transformation operations, including the partial draining of a small lake. These activities took place close to inhabited and widely visited areas. Regardless of the specific nature of the operations and their possible objectives, the case raises broader questions even as we enter the season’s proper state of mind.
Such operations are not made using one bucket at a time. They require equipment and moving materials that are necessarily bulky and quite visible. The activities took place in public and accessible areas. However, it appears that the authorities took three years or so to spot the problem and act upon it. Why was the action so slow? The competent public services were unaware of the issue, which is hard to believe? If they knew, as is likely, nobody doubted their legality or thought they deserved investigation or intervention? The origins of this apathy deserve some explanation.
Then, when the action was taken, another issue arose. Very intriguingly, the authorities claimed to the press that they could not identify publicly those responsible for the activities. This prudishness is strangely placed. Someone uses public land for undisclosed purposes, without authorisation. Their actions result in significant landscape changes that include the partial draining of a small lake. And an obliging Administration protects their identity lest there be some blemish to their reputation? This unusual approach also deserves explanation.
Finally, they are requested to return a restored plot to the government, regardless of other penalties that may be applicable. Surprisingly, that leads to public services bickering about what should be done and who is responsible for doing it. Who is responsible for what and who will support the costs: the land services or the municipal institute? If these things are not clear, which in itself is confusing, shouldn’t the services involved consult one another and agree on a ‘division of labour’ and share of responsibilities before pointing fingers? Again, this outcome of the process is perplexing and deserves explanation.
What is the likelihood of such explanations taking place? Possibly not much: first, there will be disagreements about who should explain what; then, we have Summer; then – what was it about, really?
*Economist and permanent contributor to MNA
