EVERY economic expert affirms that a government’s ability to create jobs through concrete, realistic, and sustainable plans is the primary indicator of its success. If governments fail in this regard, they will eventually accumulate a deficit, which can lead to a rise in the unemployment rate.
This represents a major turning point for countries if they do not figure out how to reduce the unemployment rate and deal with the issues stemming from inadequate plans.
In Kuwait, officials have yet to recognize the risks associated with major economic transformations occurring worldwide, particularly regarding oil.
This is because the global oil market is expected to be exposed to huge changes in the near future that could limit the returns from black gold, on which we depend for 90 percent of our revenues. This could lead to a financial deficit in the future, which will raise concerns for both Kuwaiti citizens and the state.
Therefore, when the state allocated land for public economic use, whether for industrial, agricultural, or service projects, it aimed to create a sustainable economic pillar for the future.
It also realized long ago that the value of any land lies in the facilities built upon it, particularly those belonging to institutions that contribute to food and industrial security.
Such facilities not only generate income for the state through fees and taxes in the future, but also enhance the gross domestic product.
The context for this discussion is the current talks about the amendments to the usufruct law for built properties, specifically regarding restrictions on inheritance and sale.
This indicates a shortsighted approach to the potential benefits from these facilities, which risk becoming merely empty land or neglected ruins and ultimately causing inconvenience to all state institutions.
Such a decision is detrimental to the national economy and individuals alike, because it will further shrink industrial, service, and agricultural areas, and increase dependence on imported goods, even the basic commodities.
Allowing the inheritance of usufruct ensures the continuity of activities, regardless of their type. The restrictions imposed in this regard are particularly unfair, as they hinder the expansion of activities within these facilities instead of encouraging investment.
If someone who grows vegetables wants to add fruit, this may later reduce the huge costs of importing them from abroad. Unfortunately, in Kuwait, some operate on an irrational principle, and this applies to all industrial, agricultural, and service facilities.
Hence, the proposal to prevent the inheritance or sale of usufruct rights for a property suggests a lack of understanding. It undermines the national economy by removing an important tool for development. Despite ministers’ statements indicating Kuwait’s desire to compete with neighboring countries, this proposal seems more like a catchphrase than a viable strategy.
Kuwait’s Constitution and law ban the confiscation of usufructuary property except under certain conditions, as ownership is a sacred right, and one of the foundations upheld by all countries. Therefore, contemplating such a matter poses a huge threat to both individuals and institutions.
This raises an important question - How can the Council of Ministers promote the idea of development and job creation for citizens while simultaneously attempting to stifle the economy with such proposals, which we hope are merely hypothetical?
We sincerely hope this is just an unrealistic idea, as implementing it would only serve to further restrict citizens.
