Transparency is one of the fundamental pillars of good governance. Citizens have the right to know how decisions are made, how public money is spent, and whether their government is acting within the law.
Yet, the message that has emerged from the Pisas administrations appears to point in the opposite direction.
When the head of Cabinet Pisas II took office in 2021, he reportedly stated that those within government had been taught "not to talk" and that information should not be disclosed before decisions were made. The stated objective was to prevent interference with the government's work.
While governments certainly need space to deliberate, democracy also requires openness. Curaçao already has the tools to communicate transparently with the public: a Government Communication Service, official websites, press conferences, and the opportunity to brief the Curaçao Parliament during public meetings. These mechanisms exist for a reason—they are designed to ensure accountability.
In practice, however, the Pisas II and Pisas III administrations have often appeared reluctant to embrace transparency.
The removal of the PNP from the governing coalition after its members raised critical questions sent an unfortunate signal about how dissent is handled. Parliamentary questions from opposition parties frequently remain unanswered. Independent institutions such as the Advisory Council, the Financial Supervision Board (Cft), and the General Audit Chamber have repeatedly faced public criticism from the government after highlighting legal shortcomings or failures to comply with established procedures.
Questions have also been raised about projects managed through SOAB, where significant public funds are involved but where, in some cases, there has been limited public clarity regarding the nature and scope of the projects. Press conferences have become infrequent, while journalists who ask critical questions have increasingly found themselves under attack. Civil servants who question government decisions have likewise been sidelined.
At the same time, a governing majority of 13 seats in Parliament appears more focused on applauding the government than exercising its constitutional responsibility of oversight. Routine government activities are often presented as exceptional achievements, while meaningful parliamentary scrutiny has become increasingly rare.
This reflects the message that, according to critics, has been present since 2021: do not question, do not criticize, simply govern—even when decisions may conflict with the law.
That is not how a healthy democracy functions.
Governments should welcome scrutiny, not fear it. Independent oversight bodies should be regarded as safeguards of democracy rather than obstacles to political objectives. Parliament exists not to celebrate the executive branch, but to hold it accountable on behalf of the people.
Without transparency, accountability weakens. Without accountability, public trust erodes. And when trust disappears, democratic institutions themselves begin to suffer.
Curaçao cannot afford a crisis of accountability. Good governance depends not only on winning elections but on respecting the institutions, laws, and principles that protect democracy every day.
That is the challenge our country must confront.
By Alvin Daal
Daal is a policy expert for the MAN party in Parliament