THE HAGUE--Dutch Minister of Home Affairs and Kingdom Relations Ronald Plasterk utilised the written questions submitted by Member of the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament André Bosman of the liberal democratic VVD party to reiterate the position of the Kingdom Government on the July 2014 instruction for Aruba.

 

Bosman had posed questions following an October 28 article in the Curaçao newspaper Antilliaans Dagblad in which it was stated that three members of the Council of State of the Kingdom had allegedly voiced their objections to the July 2014 instruction that Aruba's Governor Fredis Refunjol was given to hold-off on the signing of the 2014 budget until an in-depth analysis of said budget was carried out.

 

Plasterk stated, as he had done on an earlier occasion in reply to questions of the Second Chamber in July 2014, that the instruction secured in a Royal Decree was legitimate as it was based on the Governor's responsibilities as a representative of the Kingdom, not as representative of the country's government.

 

Obviously irked by the suggestive nature of the newspaper article, the minister stated that he was most willing to give an additional explanation now that "once more (would-be) statements in the media are circulating about the would-be lacking of a foundation for the Royal Decree."

Plasterk reiterated that the Governor's role as representative of the Kingdom was described in the Kingdom Charter and the Regulation of the Governor, and that his main tasks as this representative were to safeguard the abiding of higher law and the interests of the Kingdom.

 

The Governor will not ratify a national ordinance if he deems it in contravention of the Charter, international regulations, a Kingdom Law, a general measure of the Kingdom Government or the interests of the Kingdom

 

"This has always been the case. It is not as if the Governor suddenly took a new authority onto himself," stated Plasterk. He added that the Governor as a Kingdom representative has to carry out instructions of the Kingdom Government.

 

The minister concluded that the Royal Decree was used in light of the guarantee function of the Kingdom, and that this decree was based on the role of the Governor as Kingdom representative. "The instruction doesn't relate to the role of the Governor as representative of the country, as such there is no breach of autonomy," he stated.

 

As for the statements that the members of the Council of State supposedly made in relation to the Aruba instruction, Plasterk pointed out that Mito Croes had made his statements before his appointment at the Council of State. He also remarked that the other member, Chairman of Aruba's Council of Advice Frits Goedgedrag had not expressed an individual opinion. Member of the Second Chamber Bosman had referred to the alleged statements of Goedgedrag, Croes and Robert Vornis as "highly inappropriate."

 

Plasterk agreed with Bosman that members of the Council of State carried the responsibility to be very cautious where it came to expressing opinions and to keeping a keen eye on the position of the Council of State. He added that "if desired" the members in question "Could be and would be addressed" by the chairman of the Advisory Department of the Council of State.

 

The minister did not think that the prepositioned opinion of the three members concerned would influence the objectivity of the advice of the Council of State that the Second Chamber plans to request on the Aruba instruction in the near future.

 

According to Plasterk, advices of the Council of State were in principle taken in unison and that personal opinions that were not generally shared were secondary.

 

The Daily Herald