For Parliamentarian Eduard Pieters of the Aruban Patriotic Party (PPA), the main issue in the debate surrounding the 16-million-florin sum of the Aruba Tourism Authority (ATA) is a clear and transparent explanation of its destination.
During an interview on Enfoke 90, Pieters focused his criticism on the 16 million florins reserved in the ATA’s Corporate Plan & Budget 2026 under the heading “Government Development.” According to the parliamentarian, the Government has yet to clearly explain to Parliament or the people how that money will be used.
“ATA was not created to become a government bank”
According to Pieters, ATA was created with a specific mission: to strengthen Aruba’s tourism product. For this reason, the parliamentarian questions whether the institution is deviating from its original purpose when it reserves millions of florins for projects that are traditionally the responsibility of different ministries. “Where is the limit?” Pieters asked.
To illustrate his concern, the PPA fraction leader used several hypothetical examples. According to Pieters, if the current logic is accepted, tomorrow ATA could end up financing road asphalt, school renovations, elderly care, or other government projects. “All of these are important,” he said, “but none of them are the original mission of ATA.”
According to Pieters, the concern is not just financial, but institutional. “We are changing the purpose of a public institution without Parliament having the corresponding debate. If this is the path Aruba wants to take, then changes must be made to existing laws so that everyone is on the same page.”
Formal letter to the Council of Ministers
The PPA also confirmed that it has sent a formal letter to the Council of Ministers requesting full documentation regarding the legal basis, the process followed, and the decisions that led to the use of the 16-million-florin fund. According to Pieters, the request is not aimed at creating political confrontation, but at giving the Government the opportunity to demonstrate that all decisions are made in accordance with the law. “We are not looking for a show. We are giving the Government an opportunity to correct the situation.”
The parliamentarian emphasized that Parliament has a constitutional duty to control how public money is used. For Pieters, the role of the opposition is not to obstruct the Government, but to verify if financial management is transparent and in compliance with the legal framework. Pieters warned that this debate is not limited to a single contract. According to Pieters, the decisions made today could create a precedent for the future if Parliament does not question the use of public funds.
“Every florin that ATA manages is Aruba’s money,” he concluded. “The people have the right to know where the money goes, what it finances, and how these decisions are made.” For the PPA, transparency is not an option, but an obligation. And as long as the Government does not provide clarity on the destination of the 16 million florins, Pieters says that Parliament has the responsibility to continue asking the questions that the people also want answered.