Minister Geoffrey Wever: “A Rijkswet is not needed for financial supervision.”
In his statements, Minister Wever explained that Aruba has already been under financial supervision for years.
– No HOFA Rijkswet is needed to ensure financial supervision; it already exists.
– A Rijkswet is not needed because the national debt is already decreasing.
– Aruba has been complying with financial norms for some time now.
– HOFA is not a real tool for responsible financial management, because structural improvements have already been made (in the previous cabinet where Wever was also minister).
Minister Wever: LAFT vs. HOFA
According to Wever, the HOFA Rijkswet — as negotiated by the coalition — will give the government more “freedom” to handle public finances however they “desire”.
He gives examples showing that LAFT is much stricter than HOFA:
1. Personnel expenditure cap: LAFT strict, HOFA loose
LAFT requires personnel spending to remain under 10% of GDP.
HOFA is more “flexible” and places no cap.
→ This gives the government the freedom to increase personnel spending without limit.
This is dangerous considering how the AVP filled government positions between 2009–2017.
At that time, 12.3 million florins per year was spent on Cocolishi salaries, while the Wever-Croes cabinet reduced this to 2.4 million — almost 10 million less.
So why abandon LAFT norms?
2. Budget surplus obligation: LAFT strict, HOFA optional
LAFT requires a minimum 1% budget surplus to reduce national debt.
Under HOFA, the government may choose how much debt to repay each year.
Minister Wever gave an example:
If there is a 70 million surplus, the government could pay 10 million toward debt and “invest” 60 million.
The people ask:
What is the real cost of this ‘freedom’?
Given AVP’s disastrous financial history, what guarantees exist that debts will be properly reduced?
3. Supervision points: LAFT 8 – HOFA 3
LAFT contains 8 supervision points controlled by the Netherlands.
HOFA reduces this to only 3.
→ That means more flexibility, less oversight, exactly what Futuro and AVP want.
This is the opposite of their campaign rhetoric accusing the opposition of being “afraid” of supervision.
Why reduce supervision from 8 points to 3?
What are Gerlien and Mike Eman hiding?
4. More borrowing at 3.2% interest
Wever also stated that Aruba can borrow more money from the Netherlands at 3.2% interest.
This raises concern — they are again discussing creating new debt and lowering debt repayment.
The Netherlands appears to be enticing the government with attractive interest rates, while Aruba still struggles with existing debt.
Mike Eman will be pleased!
Conclusion: HOFA is a roadmap to undo responsible governance
It appears Wever and Gerlien have adopted the mindset of AVP 2009–2017:
– Talking about investments without concern for debt
– Seeking more funding
– Reducing financial supervision
– Increasing flexibility in financial controls
But who will guarantee that Aruba won’t once again be mortgaged to the Netherlands through cheap loans, locking us permanently into the HOFA Rijkswet?
Why seek flexibility in debt repayment while Aruba risks reaching 50% of GDP in national debt if this financial behavior continues?
Press Release: MEP