Dear Editor,

Recent parliamentary debates have raised important questions about the practice of Members of Parliament voting in favor of a motion while opposing the national budget. This is neither contradictory nor unprecedented. In Sint Maarten’s parliamentary democracy, such actions reflect issue-based decision-making rooted in constitutional responsibility, legal oversight, and a commitment to the people.

Motions serve as targeted instruments to address specific concerns or call for government action on defined issues. One such motion, recently approved by Parliament, mandates the General Audit Chamber to conduct a formal audit into the government’s financial and in-kind support for the Soul Beach event. This decision followed widespread concern over violations of the Subsidy Ordinance and public finance laws. By supporting this motion, Parliament is exercising its right to demand transparency and accountability in public spending.

At the same time, the national budget represents the government’s overarching financial blueprint for the entire fiscal year. It includes projected revenues, expenditures, and policy priorities. A vote on the budget is a vote on the government’s total financial direction. Supporting a motion to address a specific problem does not require endorsing a flawed budget that reflects broader shortcomings in planning, transparency, and execution.

There are concrete reasons why a Member of Parliament may support certain motions while voting against the budget. The Minister of Finance herself acknowledged during budget discussions that several entities had been paid without an approved budget and stated publicly that this practice needed to be corrected. Yet, despite this admission, those same entities were still not included in the 2025 budget, raising serious concerns about fiscal accountability and legal consistency.

In addition, Parliament has yet to receive the full and updated list of government rental properties and the financial obligations attached to them. This information, which should have been disclosed as part of the budget package, remains absent despite multiple formal requests. The lack of transparency on such a fundamental budget item calls into question the completeness and credibility of the document.

Further concerns have arisen from the exclusion of numerous capital projects financed through the T.W.O. Dutch funding programs. These are projects that have already received approval and international support, yet they remain unaccounted for in the national budget. Their absence will likely lead to additional delays in delivery, undermining national development and raising questions about the government’s coordination and readiness.

Meanwhile, the handling of the Soul Beach event has cast a shadow over public finance management. The government’s significant support for this private initiative, carried out without the proper legal foundation, has drawn criticism from Parliament, civil society, and the public. That the budget made no attempt to reconcile or correct this approach further justified the need for formal audit intervention, as now mandated through an approved motion.

It is important to note that this approach is not new. Over the past decade, both coalition and opposition MPs in Sint Maarten have exercised their right to support individual motions while withholding support from the national budget when that budget failed to meet basic standards of transparency, legal compliance, or sound governance. This practice is part of healthy parliamentary oversight and is a vital check within the democratic process.

Supporting a motion is an act of targeted agreement with a solution. Opposing a budget, in contrast, can be a principled response to systemic flaws. Members of Parliament are not elected to simply validate government proposals but to critically assess them in the interest of the people. Under these circumstances, voting against the budget is not obstruction. It is responsible, necessary, and rooted in the constitutional role of Parliament to hold the government accountable.

MP Ardwell Irion.

Dear Editor,

Well, well, well. Would you look at that? Another year passed and still not one coconut shifted on the Great Bay sand where the so-called Planet Hollywood resort was supposed to rise up like a movie star on premiere night.

Four hundred and fifty rooms, casino, sky lounge, nightclub—what happened? Did Tom Cruise miss his flight?

Since 2018, we have been hearing sweet talk: “State-of-the-art,” “14-story elegance,” “construction starting soon.” Boy, I tell you—if talk could build, we’d have a whole second island by now.

But let me not judge too quickly, eh? Maybe they're just taking the “Hollywood” part seriously and filming a suspense thriller. Title: "Permit Pending: The Sequel Nobody Asked For." Stars: A shovel, a blueprint, and four years of bush growing back.

And I can’t help but smell something familiar, like mildew in an old hotel room.

Remember Mullet Bay? Yes, man—the ghost of resorts past. That once-proud paradise has since transformed into a full-fledged jungle safari since Hurricane Luis in '95. Concrete bones still bleaching in the sun while lawyers play Monopoly with the land. It's been almost 30 years now, and it looks like Jurassic Park without the budget.

So, forgive me if I don’t iron my shirt for the Planet Hollywood ribbon-cutting just yet.

You want development? Ask the people. Ask the sand. Not the PowerPoint presentations with beachfront fantasies and not a jackhammer in sight.

I'm gone now, before my sarcasm overspend the budget too.

Sincerely,
Andrew Dick
Philipsburg (Where construction projects come to tan, not build)

Dear Editor,

The need for tax reform in Sint Maarten is undeniable. With a fragile economy, limited revenue streams, and increasing reliance on external funding, a fairer and more stable tax system is not a luxury but a necessity. However, the current approach risks doing more harm than good. The recent proposal by former Minister of Finance Ardwell Irion is a stark example: a narrow reform of the profit tax, without an integrated plan for the broader fiscal framework. This piecemeal approach is not only ineffective—it is potentially damaging. A tax system is an interconnected structure; altering one component, such as the profit tax, without accounting for its impact on other taxes—like income tax, wage tax, turnover tax, and social security premiums—can lead to unintended consequences, such as shifting tax burdens, pushing tax payers from being an income tax entrepreneur to having to set-up an expensive legal entity, and legal inequality. Moreover, Sint Maarten, with all due respect, lacks the institutional resilience to implement ad hoc reforms continuously. The Tax Administration of Sint Maarten has long struggled with capacity issues, compliance rates are low, and public trust in government institutions is fragile. Any new fiscal instrument must be not only economically sound but also administratively feasible and socially legitimate. Reforming the profit tax in isolation like suggested by Ardwell Irion—without parallel changes to the income tax, for example—could even backfire. In a small, open economy like Sint Maarten, businesses are highly sensitive to tax burdens. A standalone adjustment to the Profit Tax could discourage investments without achieving a fairer distribution of the tax load. What Sint Maarten truly needs in my opnion is a coherent fiscal policy plan with clear goals: broaden the tax base, reduce the informal economy, improve compliance, and support economic growth. This requires transparent consultations with the private sector, the people of Sint Maarten, and international partners, not quick fixes driven by political or financial pressure. A solid, inclusive, and integrated fiscal strategy is no easy feat, but it is the only path to sustainable public finances. Quick patchwork measures like Minister Irion’s proposal may earn short-term political points, but they risk undermining the larger goal: building a fair and future-proof tax system for Sint Maarten. That said, the intent behind Minister Irion’s initiative—to support micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises and modernize parts of the tax legislation—is commendable. It reflects a willingness to tackle long-standing issues and a recognition that reform is overdue. Now, what is needed is to channel that momentum into a broader, more coordinated reform effort—one that strengthens the entire fiscal foundation of Sint Maarten and serves all citizens, equitably and sustainably. Marco Aalbers, Former Tax Inspector on Sint Maarten and active in the Caribbean in the field of tax law education.

By Marco Aalbers

Dear Editor,

The controversial reinstatement of Hensley Plantijn to a top government position in Sint Maarten has amplified public concerns over the erosion of integrity, transparency, and sound governance within the civil service. Plantijn, previously dismissed by the former government under Prime Minister Silveria Jacobs for non-performance, appealed his dismissal not through an independent or impartial channel, but under a new administration in which he now serves as a legal advisor.
This dual role as both a beneficiary of the appeal and a legal advisor to the very government deciding on his case represents a blatant conflict of interest. By failing to recuse himself, Plantijn compromised the ethical standards expected of public officials and cast doubt on the fairness of the reinstatement process.
The fallout extends beyond Plantijn himself. Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina’s administration is under fire for its growing reputation of opacity, preferential treatment, and failure to uphold the procedures that should govern the public service. His silence on this case, and others like it, has severely damaged his credibility. Instead of defending democratic principles, the government has chosen to shield one of its own — a move that suggests political loyalty is being prioritized over public accountability.
Alarming allegations also point to Plantijn using his current position to marginalize Emilia Thomas-Connor, effectively preventing her from executing her role as Secretary General. Faced with mounting internal pressure, Thomas-Connor ultimately stepped down and moved into the private sector. Such tactics not only undermine professional integrity but also send a chilling message to other civil servants.
This case also highlights a deeper, systemic issue: the performance of many Secretary Generals (SGs) who are critical to the day-to-day functioning of government is not being adequately monitored or evaluated. Several SGs have remained in their posts for years without any formal performance assessment, leading to stagnation in public sector efficiency and accountability. Without proper evaluation mechanisms, poor performance is allowed to persist, further eroding the quality of governance.
Given the serious implications of these developments, many are now calling for the Kingdom Government of the Netherlands to intervene and assess the situation. Reinstating individuals under ethically compromised circumstances, particularly those who misuse their influence for personal or political gain, is not only inappropriate; it is unethical. Without integrity, the machinery of government ceases to serve the people and begins serving only itself. The current trajectory threatens to compromise everything Sint Maarten’s democracy stands for.

Author's name withheld upon request.