A governing agreement is not meant to be a catalogue of ambitions. At its core, it is a financial instrument. It determines who receives what, when, and—above all—how it will be paid for. Without clear financial backing, policy is reduced to an expression of intent rather than a plan that can be executed and held accountable.
That essential reality was largely absent during the presentation of the governing program of Cabinet-Pisas III. The press conference was rich in language about ambition: investment, growth, reform, social strengthening and modernization. What remained vague was the fundamental question that should underpin every governing program: how will this be financed, and within which limits?
More concerning was the suggestion that SOAB would “monitor” the governing program. While this may sound reassuring, it reflects a misunderstanding of institutional roles. SOAB is an accounting and advisory body. It audits financial statements, conducts compliance and efficiency reviews, and provides advice when requested. It is not a budget authority. It does not decide whether policies are financially viable, nor does it structurally safeguard the funding of government programs. It does not supervise policy.
Financial oversight rests elsewhere: with the Ministry of Finance, the Council of Ministers, Parliament through its budgetary powers, the College of Financial Supervision under the national financial supervision framework, and ultimately the General Audit Chamber. These institutions exist to guard public funds. Presenting an advisory body as a financial watchdog is political framing, not institutional reality. And that distinction matters.
The governing program itself is expansive. Economic stimulation, social investment, digital transformation, healthcare reform, public safety and infrastructure are all presented as priorities. Ambition is not inherently problematic. Governments are expected to set goals. But ambition without firm financial choices is risky—especially in a small economy with limited fiscal and administrative capacity.
Curaçao currently benefits from higher revenues, largely because the economy is performing better. This has created fiscal space. But that space did not emerge from a suddenly efficient tax system; concerns about the functioning of the Tax Department persist. Growth creates room, but room is not a blank check.
Recent actions by the Minister of Finance have only heightened these concerns. Attempts to normalize emergency measures into structural policy and disputes involving oversight institutions have rightly sparked debate. These issues strike at the core of budget discipline and checks and balances. When the focus shifts from addressing substantive criticism to questioning those who raise it, accountability is weakened.
Another remark from the presentation also deserves scrutiny: that the governing program is “not set in stone.” Adaptability is necessary in governance. Circumstances change. But when flexibility is paired with unclear financial oversight, it risks becoming administrative looseness rather than responsible governance.
Governing requires making choices. And making choices means accepting that not everything can be done at once. For Curaçao, this is not optional—it is essential. The assumption that social reform, economic expansion, institutional modernization, infrastructure upgrades and healthcare renewal can all be pursued simultaneously, without strict prioritization, is financially hazardous.
More plans do not automatically mean more progress. Often they result in the opposite: diluted focus, weakened discipline and fragile execution. The central question left unanswered during the presentation therefore remains straightforward: where is the hard budget discipline? Which priorities come first? Which initiatives must wait? And which will not proceed at all?
Until those questions are answered clearly and transparently, the governing program remains an ambitious statement of intent rather than a credible roadmap.
The economy is growing, and that is positive. But growth does not erase limits. On a small island, those limits are always visible. Ignoring them is not leadership—it is spending as if resources were infinite.
And that is precisely what Curaçao cannot afford.