The debate surrounding Curaçao’s online gaming industry has reached an uncomfortable point: two members of the same political party are now publicly questioning each other’s decisions and positions. A Minister of Finance and a Member of Parliament from the MFK party are effectively facing each other across the political battlefield, while both insist that their actions are motivated by loyalty to the party and the country.
This situation is not only politically awkward; it also raises serious questions about transparency, accountability and the future of one of Curaçao’s most controversial industries.
On one side, Minister of Finance Charles Cooper has announced an investigation into financial arrangements within the online gaming sector, specifically questioning why a private company linked to an individual identified as M. Galeo allegedly receives ANG 8.3 million annually. Cooper argues that the government must determine whether this payment is justified, what services are being provided and whether the agreement was established through a transparent process.
On the other side, MFK Member of Parliament Javier Silvania is defending the online gaming sector and emphasizing its enormous financial potential for Curaçao. Silvania argues that the industry, if properly regulated, can generate enough revenue to help fund important social priorities, including a possible increase of the AOV pension to ANG 1,500 per month.
Both arguments contain issues that deserve serious attention.
The problem is that this debate is taking place within the same political family. Silvania was the minister responsible for introducing the new gaming legislation, the Landsverordening op Kansspelen (LOK), which transferred licensing authority to the Curaçao Gaming Authority (CGA). Cooper, now responsible for the financial oversight of the sector, is questioning arrangements that emerged under the new system.
That creates a political mess.
Silvania continues to state that he remains loyal to MFK and that his criticism and explanations are aimed at strengthening the party’s policies and protecting the country’s interests. However, loyalty to a political party cannot replace the need for transparency. At the same time, an investigation by a sitting minister into decisions made during the same party’s administration inevitably raises questions about internal coordination and political responsibility.
The public deserves answers, not a political confrontation.
For decades, Curaçao’s online gaming sector operated under a controversial system in which private master license holders controlled access to international operators. Silvania is correct in pointing out that the previous model resulted in potential government revenues remaining outside the national treasury.
The introduction of the LOK was intended to change that. The government became responsible for licensing, supervision and collecting revenues. According to Silvania, more than ANG 14 million entered government coffers shortly after the new system was introduced.
That achievement should not be ignored.
But the transition to a new system also comes with a responsibility to ensure that every agreement, every payment and every relationship connected to the sector meets the highest standards of governance.
If a private entity receives ANG 8.3 million annually from a government-controlled system, the public has the right to know why. What services are being delivered? Was the agreement established through a transparent process? Are the costs reasonable compared with international standards? Who owns and controls important data connected to licensed operators?
These are legitimate questions.
At the same time, the government must avoid creating the impression that the entire sector is problematic. Online gaming, when properly regulated, can become a valuable economic activity. Other jurisdictions have demonstrated that gaming can generate significant tax revenues, attract international businesses and create employment.
The challenge is ensuring that Curaçao benefits from the industry instead of allowing value to disappear through unclear arrangements.
The coming investigation must therefore not become a political weapon. It must be a fact-finding exercise. If mistakes were made, they must be corrected. If agreements are justified, they must be explained publicly.
The people of Curaçao should not have to choose between defending a political figure and demanding accountability. They deserve both: leaders who support successful policies and leaders who are willing to investigate when questions arise.
The online gaming industry has the potential to become a “golden egg” for government revenues, as Silvania describes it. But before Curaçao can benefit fully, the government must prove that the system is transparent, professionally managed and built on public trust.
The biggest risk is not the investigation itself.
The biggest risk is that an internal political dispute between two MFK representatives distracts from the real issue: ensuring that Curaçao’s resources are managed in the best interest of the people.