MP says patients have traveled abroad alone and calls for a closed-door meeting with SZV after Minister Connor outlines companion approvals and nursing arrangements.

PHILIPSBURG:--- MP Veronica Jansen-Webster challenged the account presented to Parliament about support for patients referred abroad by Social and Health Insurances SZV, saying she personally knew of patients who had traveled without someone to assist them and warning that vulnerable patients could struggle with even basic needs while receiving treatment overseas.

The exchange followed Minister of Public Health, Social Development and Labor Claret Connor’s explanation of SZV’s companion policy during deliberations on the proposed 2027 budget. While the minister described arrangements intended to ensure patients receive support, Jansen-Webster questioned whether those arrangements consistently translate into adequate assistance in practice.

She renewed her request for a closed-door meeting with the minister and SZV, where they could discuss specific patient experiences.

Approval for a Companion Does Not Guarantee One Is Available

Connor told Parliament that patients aged 65 and older, as well as minors, are automatically approved for a companion when SZV refers them abroad.

However, he acknowledged practical limitations: not every patient has someone available to travel, and not every companion can remain overseas for the entire treatment period.

To accommodate those circumstances, SZV allows companions to change every 30 days, he explained, enabling relatives or other support persons to take turns.

Where a patient does not have a companion, Connor said SZV arranges nursing support through the treating healthcare institution. According to the minister, that arrangement is intended to ensure patients traveling without companions are not left without care and support.

Connor also said SZV does not keep a separate record of patients who travel without a companion.

That limits the information available to Parliament about how frequently patients make these journeys alone and how often alternative support must be arranged.

Jansen-Webster Cites Personal Knowledge

Jansen-Webster was not satisfied that the minister’s explanation addressed the experiences she had raised.

She told Parliament that she had personally encountered a patient in Colombia who was there alone. She also said she knew someone who had recently been sent abroad without a companion.

Her concern extended beyond the medical procedure itself. A patient receiving treatment overseas, she argued, may be unable to manage ordinary tasks independently, particularly when complications arise.

She warned that even getting a meal at night could become difficult.

Jansen-Webster characterized the information conveyed through the minister as suggesting that patients were not being sent alone and firmly disputed that interpretation.

“I know for a fact that it happened,” she said.

The distinction between the two accounts is important. Connor’s explanation did acknowledge that some patients travel without companions. He said nursing support is arranged in those circumstances. Jansen-Webster’s intervention questioned whether patients’ actual experiences matched the assurance of adequate support.

The exchange therefore left unresolved whether the cases she cited involved missing arrangements, insufficient assistance, communication failures or other circumstances requiring investigation.

Demand for Accountability in Individual Cases

Jansen-Webster said that if patients had been left in such circumstances through an error, SZV should acknowledge what happened and apologize.

She objected to any suggestion that the experiences she described had not occurred.

Her intervention focused on whether the institution’s response to Parliament adequately addressed specific patients, rather than simply explaining the general policy.

Approval for a companion, the availability of someone to travel and the provision of alternative nursing assistance are separate matters. The exchange did not establish what support was arranged in the individual cases Jansen-Webster referenced, whether it was delivered or whether patients knew how to access it.

No patient files, treatment records or case-specific findings were presented publicly during the discussion.

Closed-Door Meeting Requested

Speaking as chair of Parliament’s VSA Committee, Jansen-Webster said she had asked the minister to attend a closed-door meeting with SZV so the committee could examine these concerns directly.

Such a meeting would allow MPs to raise individual experiences without publicly disclosing sensitive medical information.

Her request also reflected dissatisfaction with relying on general assurances when she believed concrete examples required an institutional response.

The discussion did not produce a confirmed date for that meeting. The recorded exchange also did not include a completed response from Connor to the specific cases raised during her clarification.

Parliament subsequently adjourned briefly to allow the minister to prepare answers to the outstanding questions.

Complications and Liability Also Raised

The wider discussion included questions about what happens when treatment abroad results in complications or suspected medical wrongdoing.

Connor said SZV covers the cost of treating complications arising from authorized overseas treatment. Where medical wrongdoing is established, he said liability rests with the treating facility, which has its own liability insurance.

He also described annual evaluations of overseas healthcare services and feedback to the institutions concerned.

Those explanations addressed treatment coverage and institutional responsibility. They did not resolve Jansen-Webster’s separate concern about the practical assistance available to an individual patient navigating treatment in another country.

A patient may have an authorized referral and medical coverage while still requiring help with meals, communication, mobility, and other daily needs.

Missing Figures Leave Questions Open

Connor’s statement that SZV does not keep a separate record of patients traveling without companions left Parliament without a numerical picture of the issue.

The exchange did not establish how many patients traveled alone, how many received alternative nursing assistance or how many complaints were made about inadequate support.

Without those figures, the discussion could not determine whether Jansen-Webster’s examples reflected isolated failures or a broader problem.

For patients and their families, the central question remains whether the support described in policy is reliably available throughout an overseas referral.

Jansen-Webster’s challenge placed that question directly before the minister and SZV. The next step she requested was a detailed examination of actual cases, with an explanation of what happened and what action would follow where assistance fell short.

Why does the Netherlands, despite its thousands of politicians and history of major political scandals, have relatively few criminal investigations involving its political establishment, while tiny St. Maarten has seen eleven politicians and former politicians face criminal proceedings, several ending in prison sentences?

Is this simply a difference in corruption levels? Or should we also question how the two countries investigate, prosecute, and punish political misconduct?

The question is particularly relevant because much of St. Maarten's enforcement machinery is supported by substantial Dutch financial and institutional resources.

- Dutch scandals, limited criminal accountability -

The Dutch childcare benefits scandal, the Toeslagenaffaire, devastated thousands of families wrongly accused of fraud. Parents were financially ruined, and some children were separated from their families. The scandal brought down the third Rutte government in January 2021.

Yet criminal consequences for the political leadership were remarkably limited.

Following criminal complaints against several ministers and former ministers, the Prosecutor General at the Supreme Court advised against ordering a criminal investigation.

Under Article 119 of the Dutch Constitution, prosecuting ministers and MPs for official misconduct requires a special order from the Government or a resolution of the House of Representatives.

Parliament also rejected a proposal to establish an investigative committee into allegations that the government had withheld information during the scandal. The proposal was defeated by 97 votes to 34.

Then came the Mondkapjesaffaire. Sywert van Lienden and his business partners made approximately €29.3 million in profit from a face-mask transaction involving around €100 million worth of masks. The businessmen faced criminal prosecution, but the political leadership did not face comparable criminal consequences.

The Netherlands does prosecute corrupt politicians. Former North Holland provincial executive member Ton Hooijmaijers, for example, received two years and five months in prison for bribery, forgery and money laundering. But how often do investigations involving political officeholders, particularly at national level, actually result in prison sentences?

- Twelve Dutch mayors, thirteen misadventures -

My own journalistic experience offers another perspective.

In the 1990s, together with the late investigative reporter Henk Hanssen, I investigated twelve Dutch mayors. Our investigation exposed allegations involving substantial bribes, misuse of public funds, fraud, and abuse of office.

Panorama magazine published the investigation on its cover under the headline "Twaalf Burgemeesters, Dertien Ongelukken" – "Twelve Mayors, Thirteen Misadventures".

I do not recall any of the twelve being prosecuted when our investigation appeared.

An official figure is also worth considering. In a letter to Parliament dated April 25, 2023, the Dutch Minister of the Interior reported approximately twenty criminal investigations involving political officeholders since 1990.

Twenty investigations in more than three decades, in a country with thousands of political officeholders.

- And then there is St. Maarten -

Since obtaining autonomous country status in 2010, St. Maarten has seen eleven politicians and former politicians face criminal proceedings. Several have received prison sentences or been disqualified from public office.

Consider former MP Rolando Brison. In the Lisbon case, the court found him guilty of bribery in one of three cases and acquitted him in the other two. He received six months of unconditional imprisonment, was ordered to repay approximately US$8,000 in benefits associated with the proven offense and was disqualified for five years from holding public office or standing for election.

How does that sentence compare with punishments for comparable offenses elsewhere in the Kingdom? The Public Prosecutor's Office also appealed aspects of the judgment.

Other cases include former Minister Christopher Emmanuel, sentenced to 29 months in the Jasmine investigation, former Minister Maria Buncamper-Molanus and her husband Claudius, and former Minister of Justice Lyndon Lewis, who faces prosecution in the Alicante investigation.

Nobody should be above the law. But accountability must also be proportionate.

- Millions invested in Caribbean enforcement -

Dutch funding for the coordinated approach to undermining crime in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom increased from €12 million to €24 million annually by 2025.

The program involves organizations including the RST, the Caribbean Public Prosecutor's Office and the Joint Court of Justice, and targets corruption, financial crime and money laundering, including offenses involving politically exposed persons.

I am not arguing against Dutch assistance. But where is the transparency?

How much is spent investigating politicians? How many cases result in convictions, acquittals or discontinued proceedings? Who evaluates whether the enforcement priorities and methods are proportionate?

Dutch financial support should come with accountability.

- One Kingdom, two standards? -

Every arrest, search of a government office, and prison sentence generates another headline about corruption in St. Maarten. The island risks being portrayed as a place where political corruption defines public life.

Yet the Netherlands itself has experienced scandals involving abuse of government power, devastated families and questionable public procurement.

Why do the standards of scrutiny appear so different?

Why does the Dutch Constitution impose a special procedure for prosecuting ministers and MPs? Why did the childcare benefits scandal not result in criminal investigations of the political leadership?

And why should St. Maarten accept a different standard of justice simply because it is smaller and has less political influence?

The fight against corruption is necessary. But so is the fight against double standards.

MARIGOT: --- Tintamarre President Gilles Gumbs has issued a written response to SMN News’s November 5, 2026 article, “Nine Years After Irma, French Quarter Still Waiting as Funding Gaps and Infrastructure Delays Demand Answers.”

In his response, Gumbs says the first phase of Tintamarre’s underground duct network is complete and in service, while construction of the second phase awaits financing. He says the grant funding anticipated in 2024 was not secured and that the partners are preparing an alternative financing arrangement. According to Gumbs, the legal and financial work on that arrangement was still underway when the November 13 Territorial Council agenda was prepared.

Gumbs also addresses the shareholders’ roles and explains who is responsible for installing fiber, activating service, and correcting coverage declarations.

In response to “Nine Years after Irma, French Quarter still waiting...” (SMN News, 5 November 2026)

Tintamarre welcomes the attention given to French Quarter residents. Their expectations regarding digital infrastructure are legitimate; we share them, and completing the network is our priority. The article raises several fair questions. Several concern Tintamarre directly, and we would rather answer them than leave them open.

Our role. Tintamarre’s sole purpose is to build and operate the passive civil-engineering infrastructure, that is, the underground ducts that house the fiber-optic cables. Deploying the fiber itself, activating the lines, and selling services are the responsibility of the electronic-communications operators. Whether fibre can actually be ordered at a given address therefore depends both on the presence of our ducts and on the deployment the operators carry out within them. This distinction matters for understanding where each responsibility lies.

Where the project stands. The first phase of the network is complete and in service. The second phase remains to be built, and securing its financing is our current priority. Following the procurement consultation, construction costs came back materially higher than the initial business-plan assumption, in a context shaped by the aftermath of Hurricane Irma and by the general rise in construction costs. This is the main reason the project has not yet moved into its second phase.

The 2024 financing package. The complementary financing considered at the end of 2024 did not come together as planned: the components anticipated at that time, in particular the expected grant funding, were not secured. That is precisely why the partners are now finalizing an alternative financing structure. Funds received to date have been applied to the completed first phase and to preparatory work; second-phase construction is pending the new financing.

The financing is being prepared. The Collectivité and the other project partners are working on a financing solution. Putting it in place has required additional legal and financial work, which is why it was not ready in time to appear on the 13 November council agenda. We will submit it to the competent bodies once the structuring is complete, and we will make its terms public then. We will not disclose figures or mechanisms that are still under discussion: these decisions involve a public authority and must follow its deliberative process, and premature disclosure would serve neither the project nor the residents.

The shareholders. Tintamarre has a share capital of 600,000 euros, and its shareholding, a matter of public record, brings together public and private partners: the Collectivité de Saint-Martin and Banque des Territoires, both public, each hold 40 percent, and Dauphin Telecom Infrastructures, a private company, holds 20 percent. In addition, the operators that use the network, including Dauphin Telecom Infrastructures and Orange, co-invest in it through long-term access contracts.

Fibre coverage declarations. The “déployé / raccordable” status shown on ARCEP’s map is declared by the operators, based on their own deployment, not by Tintamarre. In the streets where the second-phase civil engineering has not yet been built, fibre cannot be deployed and is genuinely not yet available. Where a declaration does not match the situation on the ground, the operator that made it must correct it. For our part, we will readily confirm, for any location, whether the civil engineering is in place.

Procurement and schedule. The construction framework advertised in early 2026 reflects planned procurement capacity, as the article rightly notes, not funds already committed or spent. We will order works under it once financing is secured, and we will publish a realistic completion schedule then. Committing to dates before the funding is in place would not be credible.

Matters outside our scope. Several topics in the article fall outside Tintamarre’s purpose. Public lighting, video-protection and the presence of public services are the responsibility of the Collectivité and the State; mobile-telephony installations and the wireless project are the responsibility of the operators concerned.

Tintamarre remains committed to serving the French Quarter and the rest of the territory, and to being transparent about the progress of its works as decisions are formalized.

PHILIPSBURG:--- Member of Parliament (MP) and Chairman of the Justice Committee Lyndon Lewis is requesting that Minister of Justice Nathalie Tackling provide a written and public update on the seizure of three firearms at Princess Juliana International Airport and explain why the passenger was released after questioning.

According to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, as reported in Friday’s paper, “A woman arriving in St. Maarten on a flight from Saba was arrested after three firearms were found in her luggage. All weapons were confiscated, and the woman was released from police custody after questioning. The investigation into the importation of firearms into St. Maarten remains ongoing.”

“I'm asking the Minister to clarify who made the decision to release the suspect after questioning, what factors informed that decision, and whether any conditions were imposed. Why pictures of the confiscated firearms, including the make and caliber, were not published as customary.” MP Lewis said.

“Many persons in the community are shocked to hear that the suspect was released after questioning and that if it were a local public figure, they would have been remanded in police custody pending further investigation. This presumes to be another situation of Class Justice. The public deserves answers and a clear explanation of what can be disclosed at this stage, with full respect for the presumption of innocence and the integrity of the investigation,” MP Lewis stated.

MP Lewis is seeking clarification as to whether investigators have established who owned the firearms and whether the required authorizations were obtained. He seeks clarification on the screening procedures in place for passengers and luggage on the Saba–Sint Maarten route and whether the relevant authorities are reviewing those procedures following the incident.

MP Lewis requests a prompt response and asks when Parliament can expect a further update on any matters that cannot be addressed while the investigation is ongoing.