Mike Eman refuses to answer questions regarding HOFA
In the parliamentary chamber, after 2 weeks we once again continued the public meeting that began on August 28, 2025, and was suspended so AVP could analyze the draft law. The meeting then resumed 2 months later on October 28 and was suspended again because Minister Gerlien Croes had to travel to the Netherlands for 2 days. Two weeks later, on November 10, 2025, we finally managed to continue and finalize such an important meeting for our country. Unfortunately, they treat the law the same way they treat the meeting: with no attention, no priority, and certainly no urgency. And with a matter so essential for our country’s future, the government continues to leave questions unanswered and fails to provide the necessary information.
As a parliamentarian, I was very disappointed with the way Prime Minister (PM) Mike Eman treats parliament. In my second term I immediately brought this up with the President of Parliament. I was very disappointed because after I asked PM Mike Eman only 4 questions in the first term on October 28 — which I repeated in the question round today, November 10, 2025, and again in a point of order — PM Mike Eman did not have the decency to respond. The President of Parliament, Mr. Sneek, accepts this situation just like that and makes no effort to request the PM to answer. This is a situation I do not want to see continue, and I urged the President to improve this.
The consensus Kingdom Act HOFA is more than a simple law. It is a law that further undermines our financial autonomy and our right to self-determination concerning the future of our country. That is why I asked simple questions and requested clarification about the process the PM followed. Unfortunately, I received no answer or reaction. Below I share these questions again with the people.
On July 4, 2025, PM Eman stated that based on the draft achieved at the administrative level, they would engage in an administrative consultation with the Dutch government, where they would discuss what was on the table and that things could change. He also mentioned that because the Dutch government had fallen, they informed the new State Secretary that they wished to continue discussions in August and that afterwards the government would come to collect the sentiments of Parliament toward the concept as it stood before submission. But the reality was different, and that is why I asked PM Eman: WHAT WENT WRONG?
What happened to the commitment he made to Parliament that we could rest assured that the government would not do anything binding Aruba without Parliament being heard and without Parliament giving its approval or disapproval? I asked PM Mike Eman to explain to Parliament and the people why and when it was decided that it was no longer important to hear Parliament before agreeing, while on July 4 he strongly emphasized the importance of this. I also asked when the administrative consultation began, how long it lasted, and who represented Aruba.
Because if we are to believe the PM’s information, we can conclude that within 13 days — from August 1 to August 13 — the AVP-Futuro government decided to agree. What kind of negotiation was that? A complete lack of seriousness.
Another question I asked the PM was to explain to the people why he sidelined the representatives of the people — not only MEP and PPA, but also his own parliamentarians. I asked why he misled the parliament and did not have the courage to announce their approval of the content of the consensus Kingdom Act HOFA while they had multiple opportunities during the four public meetings and one closed session between August 21 and 27, where we asked questions about the HOFA act. A condemnable and unacceptable situation.
In conclusion, the people must realize that the government still does not have parliamentary consensus. After more than 2 months, AVP still cannot determine a position, and Mike de Meza clearly stated that he does not support the HOFA act. The government knew it had no parliamentary support and therefore failed to fulfill its duty to consult us — which is also condemnable and unacceptable.
Press release: MEP
