Dear Editor,
Does the public know what the Court of Guardianship (COG) does? Contrary to popular belief, it’s not just about collecting child support. The COG is the central reporting center for child abuse. Its youth protection division is responsible for responding to cases of suspected child abuse and neglect, implementing (Judicial ) safety measures, creating safety plans to address risk factors within the minor's environment without removal or Court intervention,and  mediation to establish parenting plans that address custody, visitation and child support, conducting independent research in matters related to adoption, custody, paternity, and divorce proceedings, all in the interest of the minors involved. Meanwhile, the youth probation department deals with minors who get in contact with law enforcement for criminal offenses and manages everything from providing a wellness check into the well-being of the minor once detained, conducting research, providing advice to the prosecutor or the judge, initiating interventions, and providing guidance.

Now, let’s talk about the real issue—where exactly does the COG stand in the Ministry of Justice? The answer? We don’t know! The COG has been stuck in bureaucratic limbo since 10-10-10, floating around like an abandoned stepchild. There isn’t a single worker within the department who has been officially sworn in as civil servants. The entire operation is running by workers under the guise that they will eventually become civil servants within the Ministry of Justice. And somehow, despite nine different ministers cycling through since 10-10-10—Ronald Duncan, Dennis Richardson, Richard Gibson, Edson Kirindongo, Rafael Boasman, Cornelius De Weever, Egbert Doran, Anna Richardson, Lyndon Lewis, and currently, Nathalie Tackling—not one of them has managed to correct this issue? Seriously? Minister after minister has come and gone, doing absolutely nothing about the COG’s status and the lack of resources dedicated to minors, yet claim to prioritize the youth of St. Maarten.

In 2023, former minister Anna Richardson suggested that we sign placement letters to regulate the COG before the LIOL was finalized. Guess what? Those letters never showed up. The process stalled, and everyone conveniently forgot about it. Then, in 2024, Batman, I mean MP Lyndon Lewis, took office and displayed zero interest in the COG. He spoke on the Breakfast Lounge with Lady Grace about two weeks ago, calling out various departments within the Ministry of Justice, failing to notice he listed a couple of foundations in between. Yet somehow, he conveniently left out the COG. This glaring omission isn’t a surprise, considering that during his tenure, COG was basically treated like a department nobody wants to acknowledge. Fast forward to the current minister, who also doesn’t seem to understand the importance of the COG or the challenges the department has been experiencing. Seeking collaboration with the Youth Brigade regarding youth crime prevention while not including the COG where youth probation is executed shows a misguided approach towards the issue. The COG has continuously reached out to previous ministers to express their concerns. However, due to the size of the department, we are often overlooked and neglected. The youth protection department is expected to respond to crises outside of working hours without being compensated.

The entire department had high hopes when the current minister was appointed; however, much like those before her, the importance of regulating the legal positioning of the employees remains an afterthought. But like every other Minister before her, those hopes are now nothing more than crushed expectations. No one has once asked what tools and resources are needed to rehabilitate these minors who commit crimes to prevent recidivism. Stakeholders have become unwilling or reluctant to provide beneficial services to minors due to the government's extensive outstanding balance. Many minors who commit crimes have a history of child protection due to exposure to violence and poor parenting environments, which have led to severe behavioral issues and social-emotional challenges. After the closure of the I Can Foundation, many of these children were displaced due to the passing of the house mother and a lack of resources and facilities to accommodate them with their specific challenges. As a result, they were left to fend for themselves, which contributed to incidents of assault and robbery targeting tourists. During the tenure of Dennis Richardson, Miss Lalie Center was established as a facility for minors with behavioral challenges and those who committed crimes. Until the brilliant Edson Kirindongo decided to convert it into solely a detention center for minors under age 18. It was later converted to a detention center for ages 12 to 21. Not only is the large age bracket an issue, but the mere fact that this action left minors with behavioral challenges without proper facilities for the interventions needed to curb these challenges.

How many more ministers must come and go before the COG finally receives the recognition it deserves? How many more promises must be made before real action is taken? The time for empty words and misguided approaches has passed. It’s clear that without true understanding and a genuine commitment to change, the COG will continue to be left in the cold and forced to work without proper resources. To achieve real progress, leadership must stop ignoring the critical issues at hand and take decisive action to address the COG's legal status and administrative challenges. This also includes tackling the difficulties faced by the department in dealing with youth-related matters.

Sincerely,
A disappointed worker

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