BALINEWSID.COM, DENPASAR — The controversy surrounding the Bali Turtle Island Development (BTID) project in Serangan has intensified, as new findings point to serious alleged irregularities, including a potentially fictitious land swap scheme, mangrove forest clearing, and concerns over unequal law enforcement in Bali.

The long-running project, dating back to the New Order era, has come under public scrutiny amid growing questions over its legality and transparency. Despite being promoted for its economic potential, critics argue the development continues to leave unresolved fundamental issues.

At the center of the controversy is an alleged non-transparent land swap (ruilslag). Replacement land reportedly located in Jembrana and Karangasem remains unclear in status, while the land proposed in the exchange is said to have already been controlled and certified beforehand.

Gede Pasek Suardika, Director of Berdikari Law Office, described the case as a critical test for both the government and law enforcement in balancing investment interests with public accountability.

He stressed that transparency and consistency in legal enforcement are essential to maintaining public trust. “If investors comply and show clear commitment, they should be supported. However, if violations are found, law enforcement must act firmly and without discrimination,” he said.

He further warned that if the land swap proves to be fictitious or engineered, it must be annulled due to its potential to harm state interests. Authorities, he added, must thoroughly investigate the entire process, including possible document manipulation and procedural violations.

Environmental concerns have also emerged prominently. Allegations of mangrove forest clearing within the project area could constitute legal violations if conducted without proper permits. Comparisons have been drawn to a similar case in Tanjung Benoa that previously resulted in criminal prosecution.

“If one case is prosecuted while another is ignored, the public will perceive a disparity in law enforcement,” he emphasized.

Amid the escalating dispute, public opinion remains divided. Supporters argue the BTID project could generate investment and employment opportunities, while critics demand transparency regarding commitments previously made to the public.

Criticism has also been directed at weak oversight mechanisms, particularly the role of a special committee (pansus), which is seen as limited to site inspections without clear follow-up actions. The public, observers say, has yet to receive comprehensive information regarding the outcomes of these findings.

“What is needed is not merely inspections or temporary closures, but certainty in resolution and openness to the public,” Suardika added.

Another issue drawing attention is the alleged connection between the project and plans to close the Suwung landfill. Some observers believe the policy could benefit investment zones but warn it may worsen Bali’s waste management crisis if not accompanied by concrete solutions.

The BTID case is now widely viewed as a key indicator of the credibility of investment governance and law enforcement in Bali, particularly as public pressure mounts for stronger environmental protection and legal fairness.