Dear Editor,

As a concerned citizen and supporter of the Democratic Party DP, I am deeply troubled by Nicole Marlin's recent appointment as Chief of Staff to the Minister of Finance to the Resolution Fund Committee of the Central Bank. This move raises serious corporate governance red flags, particularly regarding conflicts of interest, transparency, and due process.

The Resolution Fund Committee has a critical role in overseeing the Ennia saga and the agreements made by Minister Marinka Gumbs on behalf of St. Maarten. However, appointing Marlin, who directly reports to Gumbs, to review her own boss’s decisions is a clear conflict of interest. How can we expect independent oversight when the appointee is politically and professionally tied to the very person whose agreement she is supposed to evaluate?

Moreover, the lack of transparency in this appointment is alarming. The article states that the Central Bank approved Marlin’s appointment before it was even discussed with the Council of Ministers. This begs the question.

Who initiated this appointment?

Was the position publicly advertised, and were other qualified candidates considered?d

Why was the Council of Ministers seemingly sidelined in a decision of this magnitude?


This is not how a responsible government operates. Good governance requires independence, transparency, and accountability, none of which are reflected in this decision. If the government truly believes in accountability, it should ensure that independent professionals fill key oversight roles, not political insiders with direct ties to the Minister.

The people of St. Maarten deserve better. This appointment should be reversed immediately, and a proper open selection process should be conducted to find a truly qualified and impartial candidate.

We must hold our leaders accountable and demand governance that serves the people, not political interests. If this administration truly cares about ethical leadership, it must rectify this mistake before public trust is further eroded.

Sincerely,
A Concerned DP Supporter

Name Withheld upon Request.

Dear Editor,

The blatant disregard for Sint Maarten’s laws and governance processes by the current Council of Ministers has once again been exposed, this time with their handling of public funds related to Soul Beach, Carnival, unauthorized payments to consultants, and questionable financial transfers. Their actions not only violate our Constitution and financial regulations but also highlight their intentional and selective approach to governance, favoring certain entities while neglecting others.

Despite boasting some of the youngest and brightest legal minds within their ranks, this coalition government continues to apply the law selectively. They were quick to analyze and argue procedural flaws in the referendum motion, citing constitutional grounds, yet when faced with clear violations of our Constitution, laws, and policies, they proceeded without hesitation. Their legal acumen, along with the experience and knowledge of the Chair of Parliament, is evident. That being the case, I can only conclude that when it comes to the outright violation of our Constitution, laws, and policies, it is being done intentionally.

Minister of TEATT, Grisha Heyliger-Marten, confirmed that Soul Beach had requested tax exemptions. However, Minister of Finance Marinka Gumbs stated that no tax exemptions would be granted. Despite the negative advice already issued regarding Soul Beach’s tax exemption request, the government is still pursuing it through direct instruction. This raises serious concerns about why financial regulations are being disregarded for one entity while others are held to strict compliance. The government also approved 180 rooms for Soul Beach staff and influencers, funding for additional security and police, a paid venue at Festival Village, and a second venue for the comedy club. Meanwhile, the St. Maarten Carnival Development Foundation (SCDF) is being pursued for back payments of NAf 20,000 by a government-owned entity, SOG. Other major events, such as the Heineken Regatta, SXM Festival, and other foundations that contribute to the island’s culture and economy, have not been granted tax exemptions, raising questions about fairness and equal treatment under the law.

Additionally, what procurement process was followed for Soul Beach? According to the Subsidy Ordinance, Soul Beach does not have a registered foundation on the island to qualify for a subsidy. For payment to be made, it would have to go through a procurement process or a national decree signed by the governor explaining the extraordinary circumstances under which procurement was not required. Surprisingly, this blatant bypassing of the procedure went unnoticed by members of PFP, whose main campaign and issue centered around procurement.

Adding insult to injury, the Minister of Finance attempted to explain government funding for Carnival, stating that it was not allocated under subsidies but under marketing expenses, a category that also requires a national decree, which was not done. Instead of following the legal process, the government transferred public funds without proper authorization, violating the Compatibility Ordinance, the Subsidy Ordinance, and the Constitution. Furthermore, Article 6 of the Landsverordening houdende algemene voorschriften inzake de verlening van subsidies door de regering van Sint Maarten clearly states:

"Een instelling heeft nimmer aanspraak op een subsidie, dan voor zover voortvloeit uit de goedgekeurde landsbegroting."

"An institution never has a right to a subsidy, except to the extent that it arises from the approved national budget."
The government has blatantly ignored this legal requirement, transferring funds for Carnival despite no approved budgetary allocation for it. Now, in a shocking attempt to cover their tracks, they claim they will fix the Carnival payment in a future budget amendment, an outright admission that the payments were made illegitimately. Payments were also made to consultants, political supporters, and cabinet staff, all without the 2025 budget being published or ratified. The fact that public funds were transferred without a legally established budget is a direct violation of financial regulations and further proof of this government’s blatant misuse of taxpayer money.

Ministers Patrice Gumbs of VROMI and Melissa Gumbs of ECYS have doubled down on their claims that this government operates in full compliance with the law. If that is truly the case, then they should be able to explain exactly how these payments were made and under which law they were authorized. If they cannot provide a clear legal basis for these payments, then they must be held accountable for misleading both Parliament and the people of Sint Maarten.

This administration's actions set a dangerous precedent, where taxpayer funds are freely distributed to favored events and individuals without proper oversight, while local organizations like SCDF and other cultural foundations are burdened with liens and debt collection. The people of Sint Maarten deserve a government that upholds the law, not one that manipulates it to serve its own interests. The Council of Ministers has once again been caught engaging in financial mismanagement, and as a Member of Parliament, I will continue to demand accountability for their reckless actions.
Given the severity of these financial irregularities, urgent meetings of Parliament pertaining to the budget have been called and are awaiting the response and scheduling of the Chair of Parliament. These meetings are critical in ensuring transparency and accountability in government spending and addressing the numerous concerns raised regarding these unauthorized payments. During this meeting, the Members of Parliament will have the opportunity to hold the relevant Ministers accountable.

MP Ardwell Irion
Member of Parliament – Sint Maarten

Dear Editor,
Please allow me space in your esteemed publication for the following:
Recent developments have once again highlighted the shortcomings of Sint Maarten’s Hillside Policy, reinforcing the urgent need for legally binding legislation to protect our natural landscapes. As has been reported in the media, ongoing hillside developments such as the Concord Residence in Pelican Key and extensive excavation on Cole Bay Hill have sparked public outcry, with concerns over deforestation, erosion, and the long-term consequences of unchecked construction. While the VROMI Ministry has defended the policy, it is clear that its guidelines alone are not enough to prevent the degradation of our hillsides. The same can be said for the Beach Policy, which similarly lacks the legal weight to prevent overdevelopment and encroachment on the very coastlines that define our island’s identity.
The Hillside Policy, implemented in 1998, was intended to regulate development in elevated areas, ensuring that construction does not compromise the island’s green spaces, biodiversity, and natural defenses against flooding and landslides. However, without legal enforcement, the policy remains largely advisory, allowing developers to proceed with projects that undermine its very purpose. The policy’s restrictions on high-density construction and its call for environmental consideration are routinely bypassed, as demonstrated by the continued clearing of vegetation and the alteration of slopes for commercial and residential expansion. Without clear penalties or a legal framework mandating compliance, these activities persist, threatening not only the island’s natural beauty but also its resilience to extreme weather events.
Similarly, the Beach Policy fails to provide sufficient protection against the privatization and exploitation of our shores. Beach access for residents continues to be reduced, with new developments pushing further into what should be public coastal spaces. The encroachment on dunes and beach vegetation contributes to erosion, making the coastline more vulnerable to hurricanes and sea-level rise. Yet, without a law to enforce setbacks and ensure sustainable coastal management, our beaches remain at the mercy of unchecked development.
The lack of legally enforceable hillside and beach protections has far-reaching consequences. Deforestation on slopes exacerbates runoff and soil erosion, leading to increased flooding in lower-lying areas. Unregulated coastal development not only depletes marine biodiversity but also limits public access to what should be a shared national resource. These developments often proceed without comprehensive environmental impact assessments, leaving communities vulnerable to disasters and reducing the natural defenses that help buffer Sint Maarten against the impacts of climate change.
If Sint Maarten is to truly embrace sustainability, it must move beyond non-binding policies and implement laws that prioritize long-term environmental security over short-term economic gain. It is time for parliament to take decisive action and introduce both a Hillside Protection Ordinance and a Beach Protection Ordinance that ensure development does not come at the cost of our island’s natural defenses. Failure to act now will not only result in further environmental degradation but will also undermine the resilience of our communities in the face of climate change. Protecting our hillsides and beaches is not just an environmental issue—it is an urgent necessity for the future of Sint Maarten.

Sincerely,
Tadzio Bervoets
Belair
+1 721 5864588

Dear Editor,

St. Maarten has always had a complicated relationship with gambling. For years, concerned voices in Parliament have spoken about the dangers of unregulated lottery booths, the pervasiveness of casinos, and the gambling addiction that plagues many of our people. Among the loudest critics? None other than MP Sarah Wescot-Williams and MP Raeyhon Peterson are now coalition partners in the very government that just gave the green light to yet another casino.

That’s right. Another casino in the Sunset building has officially been granted a permit, thanks to the decision of Minister of Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport, and Telecommunication (TEATT) Grisha Heyliger-Marten. And now, she’s scrambling to justify it, saying the previous government issued a promissory letter and her hands were tied. But let’s be honest, since when does a promissory letter from a former administration mean a done deal? If she truly opposed it, she could have reversed it just as she has reversed many other decisions since taking office. So, quite frankly, this sad attempt of an excuse is unacceptable. 

So, the real question is: Does she agree with opening the casino, or is she just playing both sides?

A Government Out of Sync. Who’s Fooling Who?

This move exposes the deep hypocrisy within the current coalition government. Sarah Wescot-Williams, the leader of the Democratic Party (DP) and a senior member of the coalition, has spent years railing against the spread of gambling institutions. In 2022, she grilled the government over casino revenues, demanding transparency on agreements between casinos and the government. In earlier years, she questioned the issuance of new casino licenses, emphasizing the need for strict regulations. Now, her own coalition partner and party member, the Minister of TEATT, has handed out a new casino permit on a silver platter.

And what about Raeyhon Peterson of the Party for Progress (PFP)? He has been vocal against lottery booths, even pushing for policies to restrict their numbers. Most recently, during the budget debate, he even called for casinos to be shut down. His stance has been clear: gambling should be regulated more strictly, not expanded. Yet, his government just signed off on a brand-new gambling establishment. Will he speak up against his own coalition, or is he conveniently silent now that the political winds have shifted?

This administration claims to stand for “the people,” but which people, exactly? The hardworking St. Maarteners who struggle to make ends meet, or the well-connected business elite who continue to rake in profits while the rest of the island drowns in economic disparity?

The Classic St. Maarten Double Standard

This government is proving, once again, that it operates on two sets of rules: one for the haves and another for the have-nots. If you’re struggling, you’ll be met with endless red tape, excuses, and delays. They’ll tell you to be patient, that the budget is tight, and that solutions take time. But if you’re a casino owner or a well-connected businessman, suddenly, doors open, permits are issued, and excuses are made.

The House Always Wins

The approval of this new Casino isn’t just about one more casino. It’s about who this government really serves. And from what we’re seeing, it’s not the struggling families, not the working-class citizens, and certainly not the people who have been warning about gambling addiction for years.

This isn’t just hypocrisy; it’s a blatant slap in the face to everyone who believed this coalition was different. So the question is, will MPs like Wescot-Williams and Peterson stand up and call out their coalition’s double standards, or will they let this government continue to cater to the few at the expense of the many?

Because in this game, the casino always wins, and it seems like the people of St. Maarten will be the ones left paying the price.

Concerned Citizen.