A government’s credibility is built not only on the decisions it makes, but also on how, when and to what extent it informs the public about those decisions. Transparency is not achieved simply by issuing a statement. It requires timely communication, meaningful disclosure and a willingness to answer legitimate questions.
Recent experiences with the Public Entity of St. Eustatius suggest there is considerable room for improvement.
The government’s response to the incident at the GTI oil terminal illustrates the issue. The incident occurred on July 21. It was only after BES-Reporter published a critical article on July 29, eight days after the incident, that the government issued its first official statement the following day, on July 29.
The statement offers reassurance. It says the spill remained contained within the facility and that there was no risk to public health, air quality, the marine environment or surrounding nature. Those assurances are important and deserve to be taken seriously.
At the same time, the statement leaves many factual questions unanswered.
It does not disclose how much oil was released, how the spill occurred, which authorities were notified, whether environmental sampling or independent inspections were carried out, what investigations have taken place or on what evidence the government concluded that there was no environmental damage and no risk to public health.
Such questions are not intended to challenge the government’s conclusions. They are precisely the questions any member of the public would reasonably ask following an industrial incident involving an oil terminal. Transparency requires not only conclusions, but also sufficient information to understand how those conclusions were reached.
The GTI incident is not an isolated example.
On June 18, BES-Reporter submitted a series of questions to the Government Information Service (GIS) concerning concerns raised by Lenaldo Courtar and the Search & Rescue Organization. A formal response was issued on July 21—more than a month later.
Governments are entitled to verify facts before responding. Accuracy should never be sacrificed for speed. But timely communication is equally important. Particularly where matters of public interest are concerned, prolonged silence does little to promote confidence.
The consequences extend beyond individual news stories.
Responsible journalism relies on the principle of giving all parties a fair opportunity to respond before publication. That principle only works when public authorities respond within a reasonable timeframe and address the questions that have actually been asked. When responses arrive weeks later or consist largely of general statements without addressing the factual issues raised, the practical value of seeking a government’s comment is significantly diminished.
That serves neither the media nor the public.
In the absence of timely and substantive information, speculation inevitably fills the vacuum. Governments often seek to reassure the public after an incident, but reassurance carries greater weight when accompanied by facts, supporting information and a clear explanation of how official conclusions have been reached.
Ultimately, transparency is measured not by whether communication eventually takes place, but by whether it is timely, informative and sufficiently detailed to enable the public to understand what happened and why the government has reached its conclusions.
For any government, credibility is one of its most valuable assets. It is strengthened through openness, responsiveness and accountability. Those principles are not merely good communications practice—they are essential elements of good governance.
