I laughed in private when I read the story of the director of human resources at a communications company in the United Arab Emirates who had embezzled AED27 million over two years. She was caught because the bank reported to the company unusually high deposits into her account. She was forced to return the money and resign.
Then I cried when I read a report in the online newspaper wakad.net about the huge disparity between the initial budget for work on King Abdullah Street in Riyadh and the actual cost of the work itself.
According to the report, SR698 million was approved for the project. The main contractor, Saudi Oger, subcontracted the project for SR400 million. This subcontractor subcontracted the work for SR75 million. Finally, a third subcontractor was commissioned to actually do the work for SR18.2 million.
Wakad.net caught wind of the story only because the three sub-contractors got into a row over their allocations. My question here is: Was such conduct a familiar practice in all the government projects in the past?
This reminded me of an old tale about corruption. A sultan wanted to visit one of the towns in his sultanate. He allocated 100,000 dinars for the decoration of the town for the royal visit. The decoration work involved lighting the town’s streets and alleys.
The sultan gave the money to his prime minister, who in turn passed 50,000 dinars to the treasurer. The treasurer gave 25,000 dinars to his deputy for the job. The deputy passed 12,500 dinars to the head of the town’s finances, who in turn ordered the regional mayors to illuminate the streets and alleys of their respective districts that the sultan was scheduled to tour at their own expense.
In the case of King Abdullah Street, I thank Almighty Allah that the residents along the avenue weren’t expected to do the work at their expense, but I have a simple question to ask: Will the concerned bodies investigate what is happening with the work on one of the major roads in our beloved capital?
