The recent controversy surrounding the Bashi bonus, paid out in early 2025 to civil servants, retirees, and employees of subsidized institutions, has reignited a critical debate about fiscal discipline and parliamentary oversight in Curaçao. While the government has defended the payout as a response to rising inflation and loss of purchasing power, the College of Financial Supervision (Cft) has raised a more fundamental concern: the legality of the expenditure under the Kingdom’s financial supervision rules.
In response to the Cft’s criticism, Finance Minister Javier Silvania asserted that the bonus stemmed from policy intentions previously outlined in the 2025 budget. The government points to a note in the Finance Memorandum that stated, should there be sufficient financial room, certain austerity measures could be reversed. Based on strong fiscal performance in 2024, the Cabinet authorized the bonus on December 30, 2024, with payments made in January 2025.
However, the Cft’s central objection has nothing to do with the economic or social justification for the bonus. It lies squarely in the realm of procedure and budget law: spending public funds of this nature requires formal, prior authorization by parliament. A footnote in a policy memorandum is not a substitute for an approved budget amendment.
In fact, the government itself admits that this formal authorization is still pending. An adjusted budget proposal (supplementary budget) is in preparation, but won’t be submitted to the Advisory Council or parliament (Staten) until after the refinancing of a maturing government bond is resolved. In doing so, the government effectively concedes that the bonus was paid out before parliamentary approval, violating the procedural requirements of the Kingdom Act on Financial Supervision (Rft).
Regardless of the government's intentions, this is a clear procedural misstep. Under the Rft, the parliament holds the power of the purse. Expenditures—especially those introduced outside the approved budget—must be authorized in advance, not retroactively. Ignoring this process sets a dangerous precedent, eroding the principles of good governance, transparency, and financial accountability.
No one questions the fact that many public employees and retirees are struggling with the cost of living. The Bashi bonus, however well-meaning, cannot be exempt from the rules that govern public spending. In a context where Curaçao’s finances remain under close scrutiny within the Kingdom, compliance with budget law is not optional—it is essential.
This episode is a textbook example of the tension between political will and fiscal procedure. It also serves as a timely reminder: good intentions do not override legal obligations.
It is now up to the parliament of Curaçao to review the matter formally once the supplementary budget is submitted. Until then, the Cft’s conclusion stands: the expenditure was made without the required parliamentary approval, in violation of established financial oversight rules.
For a small country navigating economic recovery and aiming to strengthen trust with its citizens and international partners, respecting the rule of law in budgeting isn’t just bureaucracy—it’s the foundation of responsible leadership.
