The Council of State visited Aruba and held several meetings, including with the Parliament of Aruba and each parliamentary faction. Parliamentarian Edgar Vrolijk revealed that during its visit, the Council of State indicated that the HOFA law is approaching its limits and could be considered controversial.
Whenever a law conflicts with the constitution, which requires that a land ordinance cannot be changed without approval from the Netherlands, naturally such a law creates problems and generates significant uncertainty for the country of Aruba. This was highlighted during the Council of State’s visit.
However, the speech by Minister Gerlien Croes in front of the Administrative Office at the moment she placed the symbol was controversial and misleading. Minister Croes is the same person who campaigned saying she wanted a Rijkswet (Kingdom law), yet she is now actively bringing the Rijkswet into effect. She also removed the plenipotentiary minister to the Netherlands to defend Aruba in the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom, directly contradicting her earlier stance.
This is hypocrisy and falsehood by Minister Gerlien Croes, who manipulates the people using a symbol of Aruba’s status aparte, while simultaneously undermining that status and placing Aruba under the Netherlands—a method reminiscent of how the AVP previously subordinated Aruba under the 12-8 division with Curaçao. It represents a total falsehood and hypocrisy toward the people of Aruba.
Minister Gerlien Croes, together with Minister Geoffrey Wever, as head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Relations within the Kingdom, went to the Netherlands’ ministerial council, approved the HOFA law, and pushed it forward.
By doing so, Ministers Gerlien Croes and Geoffrey Wever betrayed the people of Aruba and promoted a Rijkswet HOFA that conflicts with Aruba’s constitution and autonomy. According to Parliamentarian Vrolijk, this process occurred without any valid reason why Aruba should require a Rijkswet at this time.
If these politicians genuinely respected the 40-year history of Aruba’s status aparte, they would use the national emblems properly, keeping the coat of arms in its original colors. When a government does not respect its national emblem, it reveals much about its attitude toward its own country.
It is shameful that in front of the Administrative Office, history is spoken about freely, yet in practice all official Aruba documents show the coat of arms in green or fuchsia, demonstrating a lack of respect for Aruba’s national emblem.
Minister Croes likes to give speeches and put on a show, but the reality on the ground is different. As a FUTURO party minister, she plays a double game with the people of Aruba. If Minister Gerlien Croes truly supported Aruba’s autonomy, she would never have pushed the HOFA Rijkswet, nor would she disrespect the national symbol by changing its colors for political attention.
However, Minister Gerlien Croes is not far removed from the heritage of the party that has historically betrayed Aruba and subordinated it—“the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.”
This traces back to 1951 when Aruba was under 8-8, then in 1951 the AVP handed Aruba over under the 12-8 system to Curaçao, subordinating Aruba to Curaçao. It was only when the liberator Betico Croes fought for constitutional change that Aruba gained its status aparte and separated from Curaçao. Today, we see a new generation in the FUTURO party, dependent on the AVP, continuing the same submissive and traitorous thinking as the AVP once promoted.