Dear Editor,
Member of Parliament Ludmila de Weever suddenly found her voice.
During the 2026 budget debate, she unleashed a sweeping condemnation of unpaid government bills, the crises at GEBE and TelEm, the unfinished hospital, the financial pressure on SZV, and the neglect of children with special needs. She declared that “while the grass is growing, the horse is starving.”
Powerful words—but Sint Maarten’s taxpayers are entitled to ask where this urgency was hiding before the budget cameras began rolling.
Where was this sustained outrage during all the months that families were being crushed by electricity bills, patients were waiting on an unfinished hospital, special-needs organizations were begging for assistance, and government-owned companies were stumbling from one crisis to another?
An occasional fiery speech cannot substitute for consistent parliamentary work.
MP De Weever receives a public salary to attend meetings, scrutinize government, initiate legislation, demand documents, question ministers and remain visibly engaged in the people’s business. Parliament is not a television studio where an elected representative can appear for a dramatic monologue and then disappear until the next politically convenient performance.
If De Weever believes government is starving the horse, she must explain what she has been doing while standing in the same political pasture.
She is not an innocent observer reporting from outside the gates. She is one of only 15 members of the country's highest legislative body. Her party, the Party for Progress, is part of the governing coalition supporting Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina’s administration.
That makes her more than a commentator. It makes her part of the political structure she is now denouncing.
The public should therefore demand the publication of the official attendance records of every MP, including De Weever: plenary meetings, committee meetings, Central Committee meetings, quorum calls and voting sessions. Let taxpayers see who attended, who arrived late, who left early and who were repeatedly absent.
Without verified records, rumors about chronic absenteeism should not be presented as established fact. But Parliament’s continuing failure to make a complete and easily searchable attendance register available only protects politicians from accountability.
Release the records and let the evidence speak.
Is This Conviction—or Political Repositioning?
There is another uncomfortable question: Is De Weever’s sudden militancy genuine, or is another political migration being prepared ahead of the next election?
De Weever entered Parliament through the United People’s Party, later declared herself independent and subsequently found a new political home with PFP. Today, Parliament’s official website still identifies her as a PFP member.
Voters are therefore justified in watching closely for signs of another political relocation.
Sint Maarten has endured too many politicians who treat political parties like rental cars—use one to reach Parliament, abandon it when the vehicle becomes inconvenient, and search for another ride before election day. Parliamentary seats should not become transferable lifetime-employment packages financed by taxpayers.
If De Weever intends to remain with PFP, she should say so clearly. If she has lost confidence in the government her party supports, she should act accordingly. If she believes the Council of Ministers is neglecting the country, she has parliamentary instruments available to her.
Write motions. Submit amendments. Introducing legislation. Demand deadlines. Request urgent meetings. Vote against failed policies. Publish correspondence and follow up until answers are delivered.
But do not condemn government on Thursday and quietly help preserve its political comfort on Friday.
Cannabis: De Weever Joins Mercelina’s Opposition to Legalization
De Weever’s position on cannabis does not place her in opposition to Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina. On the fundamental question of legalization, they stand on the same side: Mercelina is firmly opposed to legalizing cannabis, and De Weever has reinforced that position by declaring that Sint Maarten is “not ready for it.”
During the budget debate, De Weever questioned the attention being given to cannabis regulation, the possible influence of a foreign entity, the country’s potential contractual exposure, and whether Sint Maarten possesses the necessary healthcare, mental-health, and regulatory capacity.
Those are legitimate concerns, but they do not amount to political courage when the Prime Minister is already 100 percent against legalization. De Weever is not challenging Mercelina’s position; she is joining his bandwagon and presenting an aligned position as though it were a bold confrontation with government.
Meanwhile, cannabis consumption is already widespread and openly visible on both sides of the island. Successive governments have refused to confront that reality with a coherent policy. They have neither established a properly controlled medicinal-cannabis system nor developed a transparent framework for regulated recreational use.
The result is the worst of all worlds: cannabis remains widely available, the illegal market continues operating, consumers have no reliable protection against contaminated or dangerously potent products, and the government collects no regulated revenue to finance prevention, mental-health care, addiction treatment, or public education.
Simply saying “no” will not make cannabis disappear. It has not disappeared under prohibition, and no evidence shows that repeating the same failed policy will suddenly remove it from Sint Maarten’s communities. If Mercelina and De Weever oppose legalization, they must explain what credible alternative they are offering to address the market that already exists.
Where Is De Weever’s Alternative?
This is where De Weever’s speech falls short.
Saying “we’re not ready” may be true, but it is not a complete policy. When will the country be ready? What legislation does she propose? What safeguards does she want written into law? How should medicinal access operate? What percentage of cannabis revenue should be legally reserved for mental-health treatment, addiction services and youth prevention?
If she believes the government’s proposal gives excessive influence to a foreign entity, will she demand publication of every agreement, memorandum, consultancy contract and financial commitment connected to that entity?
Will she refuse to support the legislation until those documents are disclosed?
Will she move an amendment prohibiting ministers, MPs, political parties, senior civil servants and their immediate associates from secretly benefiting from cannabis licenses?
Or will the warnings end when the microphones are switched off?
The same test applies to GEBE, TelEm, SZV, the hospital and special-needs care. De Weever has identified serious failures. Now she must produce measurable parliamentary action.
Taxpayers do not pay MPs merely to describe their suffering. The people already know they are suffering. They pay Parliament to force accountability and create solutions.
MP De Weever, the public does not need another speech about a starving horse from someone standing beside the barn. Open the barn. Account for the feed. Name those withholding it. Use your parliamentary authority—or stop pretending that outrage alone is work.
Sint Maarten has had enough political theatre, enough selective visibility and enough representatives awakening only when an election begins appearing on the horizon.
The horse is indeed starving.
The question now is whether MP De Weever intends to feed it—or simply ride it into the next election.
A Concerned Taxpayer
