Minister Charles Cooper walked into Parliament during Question Hour as if he were about to expose a major corruption scandal. The tone was combative, the framing dramatic, and the implication clear: something was fundamentally wrong with the sale of telecom company UTS under the previous PAR-led government. What followed, however, was not a revelation of misconduct, but a lesson in how political theater can obscure rather than clarify public understanding.
At issue was the long-running narrative that the sale of UTS yielded only 1.1 million guilders for the people of Curaçao. That figure has circulated widely and understandably fueled public outrage. It was therefore entirely appropriate for Parliament to demand clarity. It was also entirely appropriate for the minister of finance to provide it. Where Minister Cooper fell short was not in the facts he eventually presented, but in how he chose to present them.
The facts themselves are straightforward. The sale of UTS generated 339 million guilders. Of that amount, 124.3 million was paid directly into the government treasury. The remaining funds were not “lost” or siphoned away, but used to settle debts and finance urgent public needs. Significant sums went to the Curaçao Medical Center and the former Sehos hospital, to the Social Insurance Bank, and to a range of public entities and ministries for infrastructure, education, cleaning services and renovations. In other words, the money was spent—arguably out of necessity—on keeping the country afloat during a period of financial strain.
None of this points to corruption by PAR. None of it supports the suggestion that something illicit occurred in the transaction itself. And notably, Minister Cooper himself stopped short of accusing former minister Zita Jesus-Leito of wrongdoing. That restraint may be explained by the fact that she now works with MFK, but it only underscores the inconsistency of trying to politically blame PAR while simultaneously conceding that the transaction followed a defensible, if painful, logic.
This is where the minister needs to draw a clearer line between politics and governance. It is one thing to disagree, even strongly, with the decision to sell a strategic asset like UTS. It is another to imply scandal where there is none, especially when the public is already distrustful and confused. Curaçao does not benefit when ministers inflame suspicion only to later deflate it with technical explanations. That approach erodes trust in both government and Parliament.
If Minister Cooper truly regrets the sale of UTS—and he has said repeatedly that he does—then the most constructive contribution he can make is to ensure that such decisions are never again taken without full parliamentary scrutiny. His suggestion to require prior parliamentary approval for the sale of government-owned assets, as is done on Sint Maarten, is sensible and deserves serious consideration. That is where the focus should be: on strengthening oversight, transparency and democratic control.
Curaçao’s public deserves clear information, not political staging. When ministers blur the line between accountability and accusation, they do more than score short-term political points—they deepen cynicism and confusion. Leadership requires knowing when to fight political battles and when to calmly explain the facts. In this case, Curaçao needed the latter far more than the former.