This is your money, your future, and now it is without guarantees.
Every florin that the government invests is a tax florin that you paid. You have the right to know what happens to that money, who is responsible for it, and what happens if things go wrong. The National Ordinance for the General Investment and Development Fund, colloquially called the Investment Fund, which was approved this week, does not give you any of that. This is exactly the reason why the MEP Faction could not support the law in its current form.
The idea is good. The execution is bad.
The MEP Faction recognizes that an investment fund is a necessary instrument. In practice, governments structurally lose public resources: if an approved project does not start within the same budget year, the funds expire and are allocated to other things, frequently to pay off debt. A special fund to preserve these resources makes sense. The problem is not the concept. The problem is how this law was constructed.
What the Advisory Council and the Court of Audit said The Advisory Council (RvA) concluded that Minister Wever’s proposal lacks a solid governance structure. The text does not clearly stipulate who is responsible, when accountability must be given, nor how Parliament can exercise its oversight role. The RvA’s warning was clear: the law in its current form does not align with the norms of good governance.
The General Court of Audit (ARA) went further. In its report “Out of sight, out of control”, the ARA illustrated past mistakes in 13 funds that were established throughout Aruba’s history, and formally recommended that Minister Wever introduce the necessary changes via an Amendment Note (Nota di Cambio) before the law was approved. Unfortunately, the Government did not do this, and unfortunately, the 11 coalition members in parliament did not demand it either.
The link with HOFA In the Explanatory Memorandum, Minister Wever included a loan facility anchored in the Kingdom Act HOFA, an instrument that legally does not exist yet. The MEP Faction finds this inclusion legally questionable: how can you anchor something in law that legally does not exist yet? Additionally, the law stipulates that the minister will share financial information with CAft. However, Aruba has had the National Ordinance on Aruba Financial Supervision (LAft) since 2015, which already gives CAft all the necessary legal tools to obtain that information. If LAft already regulated this since 2015, the question is: why is the government repeating this in a new law?
The outcome The Government received advice from two independent bodies. In response, the government introduced an Amendment Note with a minimal control mechanism. This change does not capture everything the General Court of Audit recommended to guarantee real transparency and good governance.
The Government and the majority of the coalition in parliament consciously chose not to follow the advice. The MEP Faction cannot support a law that, after all the warnings, still does not meet the basic standards of transparency and accountability that the people of Aruba deserve. A band-aid on a wound that needs surgery is not treatment. It is cosmetic.
The people of Aruba deserve real investment, with real rules, where transparency and good governance are real. Not this fund.