The refinery debate in Parliament this week was not just another political exchange. It was a reflection of years of frustration, missed opportunities and failed partnerships that have cost Curaçao time, credibility and money.
Opposition member Giselle Mc William was blunt in her assessment, describing the refinery saga as a “soap opera.” She is right.
For years, Curaçao has moved from one prospective operator to another — from CPR to VIGOR — each time promising stability, revival and economic renewal. Each time, the outcome has been disappointment, contractual disputes and legal uncertainty. The lease with VIGOR was terminated after repeated failures to meet essential obligations, including timely payments and proper maintenance. Now, there are threats of litigation.
At what point do we admit that the problem is not only external partners, but also internal leadership and strategy?
Mc William’s call for the resignation of 2BAYS director Patrick Newton should not be dismissed as mere opposition politics. It is rooted in a basic principle of governance: accountability.
Those who repeatedly fail cannot remain in place to continue failing. Leadership is not a lifetime appointment. If the same approach keeps producing the same negative results, then the approach — and possibly the leadership behind it — must change.
Curaçao’s refinery is too important to be managed through trial and error. It is historically a cornerstone of the island’s economy. It represents jobs, strategic positioning and long-term energy opportunities. Yet it has been reduced to a cycle of announcements, broken agreements and legal tensions.
The coalition argues that stability and calm are necessary, especially in light of changing international sanctions that may create new opportunities. Stability is important. But stability without accountability becomes stagnation.
Prime Minister Gilmar Pisas has asked for two to three weeks to provide detailed answers. That is reasonable. Transparency must be part of any serious effort to rebuild trust. However, answers alone are not enough. Structural change may be required.
If VIGOR is threatening legal action and negotiations are underway behind closed doors, the public deserves clarity about the risks involved. What financial exposure does Curaçao face? What due diligence was conducted before agreements were signed? What lessons have been learned?
This is not about political point-scoring. It is about governance.
When a strategy fails once, it can be considered bad luck. When it fails repeatedly, it becomes a pattern. And when patterns are ignored, they become policy.
The refinery cannot afford another failed partnership. Curaçao cannot afford another cycle of optimism followed by collapse. The island’s credibility in international energy negotiations is at stake.
Changing tactics is not a sign of weakness. It is a sign of leadership.
If Curaçao truly wants a fresh start for its refinery operations, it must be willing to reassess not only its partners, but also the people and strategies driving the process.
The future of the refinery — and the confidence of the public — depends on it.