Although it affects only a small segment of citizens, the increase in state property fees, particularly for marine properties, has sparked a huge uproar. There are far more pressing issues that deserve such public outcry, given their widespread negative impact on a larger portion of the population. These issues could have achieved the same objective, particularly concerning chalets, while also correcting several important problems that impact citizens’ lives.

Vast stretches of Kuwait’s seafront have indeed been so heavily exploited that the public can no longer enjoy them as people do in many other countries. Perhaps the fee increase is a step toward clearing and redeveloping these areas into public recreational spaces accessible to all.

However, that is not the topic for today. What matters here is the power of public opinion, the media’s role in highlighting the concerns of citizens, and how journalism, especially the press, can help identify the root causes of problems and propose meaningful solutions. Before addressing that, it is important to set the record straight.

Minister of Finance Noura Al-Fassam is not personally responsible for the decision to increase fees. She is simply carrying out the duties assigned to her. Al-Fassam is widely known for her commitment to serving the public interest, and therefore, she was not behind this decision. In reality, it stems from the direction of the policy set by the Council of Ministers as a whole. More importantly, why hasn’t there been a similar public outcry over far more critical issues, such as food security and the urgent need to reduce our complete dependence on imported food? The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the risks of relying entirely on imported goods, with huge losses and supply disruptions that affected everyone.

There hasn’t been a major public uproar over the lack of industrial security, which continues to cost Kuwait’s budget substantial amounts, despite the country’s vast land resources that could be harnessed to develop a strong industrial base and position Kuwait as a regional economic power. Indeed, when the Cabinet faced widespread criticism, many observed its efforts to revise and correct its course. This response should not be seen as a sign of disregard for the law, but rather as a demonstration of the Cabinet’s flexibility and its willingness to reverse measures that prove ineffective.

The truth is that raising fees on the use of state property will not significantly improve the general budget, as the amounts collected are relatively modest. Far greater savings could be achieved by addressing the issue of arbitrary and excessive subsidies granted to those who do not qualify. These subsidies amount to KD 7 billion, approximately $24 billion, representing nearly one-third of the total public budget of KD 24 billion.

Reorganizing and reforming the subsidy system deserves far more attention. Why, then, did we not witness a similar outcry over the revocation of citizenship from Kuwaiti mothers, who were granted citizenship legally under Article 8 of the applicable law? If there were any violations in the procedures for granting citizenship, then accountability should lie with the authority that issued them, not with the women. Most of these mothers breastfed their children with milk infused with love and loyalty to the nation. They worked tirelessly to educate and raise them to become valuable contributors to Kuwait.

Many of their children have gone on to serve the country as ambassadors, doctors, university professors, undersecretaries, officers, and in many other roles that make Kuwait proud. So, isn’t it only fair that their case receives the same level of attention as the uproar over the chalet fee hike? Are we now measuring the importance of issues based on private interests rather than the public good? Let me be clear: anyone who obtained citizenship through deception, whether by lying, forgery, fraud, false declarations, or dishonest means, deserves to be held accountable, including the revocation of citizenship. However, those who were granted citizenship by dependency should not be included in the punishment. I say this with firm conviction in the importance of preserving the integrity of national identity, which is a fundamental pillar of state policy, something no one should oppose.

Nevertheless, I see no reason to stifle open discussion about certain decisions, especially given Kuwait’s long-standing tradition of a vibrant and active media, which predates its independence. I also recall the repeated assurances from Kuwait’s leadership that no one will be wronged in this era. What is surprising is that the public uproar has been limited to the increase in chalet fees, while other state-owned properties, such as industrial, agricultural, and service zones, are more severely affected by this decision, despite the vital contributions these sectors make to the gross domestic product. Don’t service and entertainment projects also deserve support and increased investment, given their substantial economic and social benefits? These and other questions remain open for the government to reflect upon. Decisions must be thoroughly reviewed before being issued to prevent the need for reversals.

The government must carefully consider the potential repercussions of its decisions and how best to manage them to avoid the public backlash they may provoke. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the government and His Highness the Prime Minister for proving that they listen to the voices of the people and respond to their demands. At the same time, I wonder if the government has a solution for the issue of Kuwaiti mothers whose citizenships were revoked and who are still awaiting a decision from the Grievances Committee. We hope the government will uphold the directives of the leader of the new era, ensuring that no one is wronged in Kuwait.

I am surprised that the owners of a small number of chalets have become enraged over the fee increase, while a much more serious issue, the revocation of citizenship from Kuwaiti mothers, is being ignored, leaving these women to live in uncertainty. Where are they supposed to turn to? So why haven’t they called on the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior to show mercy toward these women, just as they demanded leniency by pushing for reduced fees on chalets that mar the waterfront view?