After a rather confusing celebration of 40 years of Status Aparte and 50 years of our Anthem and Flag, parliamentarian Eduard Pieters of the PPA faction has once again raised a serious alarm: the process surrounding the Rijkswet HOFA is not only questionable, but dangerous and completely undemocratic.
Last week, on the initiative of the PPA faction, a public meeting was convened with 13 representatives of unions and organizations to give a voice to those representing workers and the interests of the people of Aruba. However, the way the President of Parliament chose to conduct the meeting, according to Pieters, shows a worrying trend: silencing the voice of the people within Parliament itself.
5 minutes for the people… a lack of institutional respect
The invitation for the meeting was sent on Monday, giving less than 72 hours’ notice and putting pressure on the organizations to arrange their participation. Nevertheless, despite these limitations, the unions showed determination in presenting their positions on HOFA.
But the treatment they received in Parliament, according to Pieters, was simply unacceptable.
“Giving us only 5 minutes to present and ask questions on such a serious topic is an elegant yet authoritarian way of silencing the representatives of the people,” Pieters stated. For the PPA, this is a lack of respect for democracy.
Silent coalition, pressured opposition
According to Pieters, the attitude of the coalition during the meeting was equally concerning. For much of the session, the parliamentary majority remained silent, without questioning or confronting the information presented by the unions.
“It was only when the opposition began pressing with serious questions that some coalition members reacted,” Pieters said. “And these were speeches without direction, without real content. One member of the AVP faction even had the audacity to question the unions, despite campaigning and telling voters they were against the Rijkswet, while now their government supports it.”
This clearly reflects a deeper problem: “Coalition members are behaving more like representatives of the government than representatives of the people.”
Unions represented the people better than Parliament
A striking point from the meeting, according to Pieters, was that unions showed more leadership in defending the people’s interests than coalition parliamentarians themselves.
“It seemed that the 13 union representatives defended the people more than the AVP and FUTURO parliamentarians,” Pieters said. “And this is something the people of Aruba should not accept.”
This criticism strikes at the core of democracy: Parliament exists to represent the people, not to validate government decisions without questioning them.
HOFA: No consensus, no legitimacy
At the center of the debate is the Rijkswet HOFA, a law the government claims is necessary for fiscal discipline, but which PPA believes poses a direct risk to Aruba’s autonomy and self-determination.
According to Pieters, a consensus kingdom law must have real consensus—not only from the government, but also from Parliament and the people.
“Right now, neither Parliament nor the people, represented by unions and organizations, agree. So how can we speak of consensus?” Pieters questioned.
For PPA, the current process is a clear example of bypassing Parliament and disrespecting democratic procedures.
A real alternative: Discipline without losing autonomy
Pieters emphasized that PPA is not against fiscal discipline. On the contrary, the party proposes a concrete alternative: strengthening financial supervision through a local budget chamber within Aruba’s constitutional framework.
Financial arguments are also strong:
- Aruba’s debt decreased from 117% of GDP to 64% in 5 years
- Projections show it could drop to 50% by 2030
“If we are demonstrating financial discipline, why should we give up our autonomy and self-determination under a Rijkswet?” Pieters asked.
A decisive moment for the people of Aruba
For Pieters, this situation goes far beyond a technical debate. It is a decisive moment for Aruba’s democracy and self-determination.
“If Parliament has no real voice or vote in financial decisions, why should people vote?” he questioned. According to Pieters, implementing HOFA without resistance risks Parliament losing its essential role.
Finally, the PPA faction once again calls for the creation of a national front together with unions, business organizations, and the people, to clearly show the Netherlands that there is no consensus on HOFA and to present the alternatives proposed by PPA.
“We are willing to accept supervision, but in a way that respects our autonomy and self-determination,” Pieters concluded
