Dear Editor,

In a stunning display of political opportunism, Antonio Rogers, a former civil servant and current treasurer of the Democratic Party, has called for the suspension of the Fire Chief and Ambulance leadership, citing the need for an independent investigation. While his statement may appear to champion accountability, it reeks of hypocrisy and political deflection, given his party’s long-standing role in perpetuating the very grievances he now decries.

Rogers’ comments come at a time when the fire and ambulance departments are grappling with decades-old issues of underfunding, stagnant salaries, and a lack of recognition for their critical frontline work. These are not new problems. In fact, they are deeply entrenched, with roots stretching back to the tenure of Democratic Party leader and current Chair of Parliament, Sarah Wescot-Williams. Wescot-Williams herself admitted that these grievances existed over a decade ago when she served as Prime Minister. Yet, during her leadership and the Democratic Party’s time in power, little to no meaningful action was taken to address these systemic issues.

For Rogers, a high-ranking member of the very party that has been part of the governing coalition for years, to now call for suspensions and investigations is not only disingenuous but also insulting to the intelligence of the public. Where was this outrage when his party had the power to implement reforms? Where was this call for accountability when frontline workers were left to struggle with stagnant wages and inadequate resources under his party’s watch?

The fire and ambulance departments have long been the unsung heroes of our community, risking their lives daily to save others. Yet, they have been met with neglect and indifference from successive administrations, including those led by the Democratic Party. The lack of investment in their welfare, training, and equipment is a glaring indictment of the government’s priorities—or lack thereof.

Rogers’ attempt to shift blame onto the current leadership of these departments is a transparent effort to deflect attention from his party’s own failures. It is a classic case of political scapegoating, designed to score cheap points while ignoring the systemic issues that his party has contributed to over the years. If Rogers truly cared about the plight of these frontline workers, he would be advocating for tangible solutions—such as increased funding, better salaries, and improved working conditions—instead of calling for suspensions that serve no purpose other than to create a spectacle.

The public deserves better than this kind of political theater. It is time for leaders to take responsibility for their actions—or inactions—and work collaboratively to address the root causes of these long-standing issues. The fire and ambulance departments do not need more empty rhetoric or finger-pointing; they need real, substantive change.

As the Chair of Parliament, Sarah Wescot-Williams has a unique opportunity to lead by example and push for the reforms that her party has long neglected. But this will require more than just words; it will require action, accountability, and a genuine commitment to the well-being of our frontline workers.

Until then, Rogers’ comments will remain what they are: a hollow attempt to deflect blame and distract from his party’s own culpability. The public sees through this charade, and it is high time that our leaders stop playing politics with the lives and livelihoods of those who serve on the front lines.

Former Member and MP from the Democratic Party Faction.

What happens when a landlord refuses to keep his word? That is the painful question facing the Wilson family, tenants who resided in Industry Drive #18, Cul de Sac, who say they have been left without the return of their full rightful deposit after vacating their rental home earlier this month.

Dear Editor, 

The Wilsons, senior citizens who are abroad, have been renting the home since 2023. While they were away, their daughter remained in the property. At the end of June 2025, landlord Andrew David — who is also a pastor, known for conducting services at the John Larmonie Center on Sundays — notified them that their daughter must leave by the end of July.

By law and by principle, tenants are generally entitled to at least two months’ notice. But Mr. David’s demand allowed only one. Since the daughter would be off-island during July, both sides agreed to extend the arrangement until August 3rd. The daughter found another apartment and vacated the premises by that date.

According to the Wilsons, Mr. David verbally assured them that once the house was empty, the deposit would be reissued. But instead of honoring his word, the landlord introduced new conditions: repainting the house, cutting off electricity, and providing proof of these tasks. The family complied. The painting was completed within six days, the electricity was disconnected, and Mr. David was informed.

Yet, silence followed. Calls and messages went unanswered. When reached, Mr. David shifted his position again, saying he would now only return part of the deposit, citing “disrespect” from the Wilsons’ daughter and deducting the days it took to paint the home.

The Wilsons, hurt but humble, did not argue. But they are left wondering:
- Is this morally correct?
- Is fair not fair?
- How can a man of the cloth, entrusted with shepherding souls, fail to keep his simple word?

They ask why senior citizens should be forced to plead for the return of what is rightfully theirs. “Why would he find it difficult to reissue the full amount? Why do landlords make it so hard for tenants to get back deposits?” the Wilsons asked.

Their story reflects a larger issue many tenants quietly endure: deposits withheld, promises broken, and landlords taking advantage of the vulnerable. The Wilsons believe silence allows this behavior to continue. “If no one stands up to them, they will continue to get away with this,” they warned.

For a pastor who preaches on Sundays, the Wilsons say the situation raises uncomfortable questions of integrity. “Where is the conscience and the charge that Christ bestowed upon him?” they ask.

The Wilsons. 

Dear Editor,

The Minister of ECYS has jumped on this misguided bandwagon, pressuring schools to abandon longstanding hygiene rules. This governmental interference is particularly egregious because the proposed changes haven't even passed through parliament. We have a minister trying to override established school policies through political pressure rather than proper legislative process.

This represents a dangerous precedent where schools lose their authority to maintain basic standards. When government officials undermine institutional rules for political gain, they're teaching children that rules don't matter, and authority can be circumvented through complaints and protests.

Vote-Hunting Through Lawlessness

Let's call this what it is: ministers and parliament members are sacrificing community health and educational standards to secure votes from permissive parents. They're not considering what's best for children's development, health, or preparation for adult responsibilities.

These politicians know that maintaining hygiene standards is crucial for public health. They understand that schools need clear authority to enforce basic cleanliness rules. But they're willing to abandon these principles to appease a vocal minority of parents who view any standards as oppression.

This isn't progressive policy, it's lawlessness disguised as tolerance.

Poor hygiene in schools creates serious consequences beyond bad smells and unsightly appearances. It increases disease transmission, creates social barriers for students with proper hygiene habits, and fails to prepare young people for workplace expectations.

Employers won't tolerate workers who can't maintain basic cleanliness. By allowing students to graduate without learning fundamental hygiene practices, we're setting them up for professional failure and social rejection.

Schools serve the entire community, not just the loudest parents. When we abandon hygiene standards, we compromise the health and comfort of all students, staff, and families.

Schools must stand firm against this assault on basic standards. They need to enforce existing hygiene rules without apology, regardless of parental complaints or political pressure. The health and well-being of the majority cannot be sacrificed for the convenience of a few.

Parents need to accept their responsibility to teach their children proper hygiene habits. If you can't maintain your child's elaborate hairstyle or nail extensions, don't send them to school with these potential health hazards.

Politicians must stop using children's education as a campaign battleground. Support schools in maintaining reasonable standards, or stay out of educational policy entirely.

The time for compromise on basic hygiene has passed. Our children deserve clean, healthy learning environments where they can focus on education rather than navigate around classmates who haven't learned basic cleanliness. Schools, parents, and policymakers must choose to maintain standards that serve the community, or watch our educational institutions become breeding grounds for poor habits and declining health standards.

Authors' Name Withheld upon Request.

Dear news media,

When I read Member of Parliament Sjamira Roseburg’s recent remarks about GEBE disconnections and the rights of consumers, I could not help but feel a sense of disgust at the blatant hypocrisy on display. Rosenberg is not some powerless observer; she is an MP for the URSM Party—led by Prime Minister Luc Mercelina—and a full member of the governing coalition that has presided over nearly two years of hardship for the people of St. Maarten. If Roseburg truly cared about protecting the rights of ordinary citizens, she would not have voted against the motion in Parliament to provide relief from the crushing energy bills GEBE has been charging. She would have spoken up months ago, not now when it is politically convenient to appear as “the people’s champion.” As an attorney at law with the privilege of continuing her private practice while collecting over NAf 18,000 per month as an MP, Roseburg has no difficulty paying her own electricity bills. With her position as a Member of Parliament for the Coalition, even if she had a problem with a high GEBE bill, she can afford to call GEBE management directly for answers—an option the average citizen does not have. Where was Rosburg when St. Maarten was plunged into darkness after the island-wide blackout—when businesses were forced to close, tourists fled, and our island’s reputation was blacklisted in the United States and Canada as unsafe due to electricity instability? Where was her outrage when homes and businesses lost valuable appliances with no compensation, while GEBE’s bills kept climbing without explanation?

At no time did she stand up for the people, defend them against her party’s failures, or challenge the Prime Minister’s empty promises. She sided with her leader and voted against relief. Let us not forget: This leader and Party is Prime Minister Luc Mercelina, the same man who publicly said that generators could have been on the island within a week of the blackouts—but chose not to act, because according to him it was “too expensive.” Instead, he and his URSM government have done nothing but make excuses, shift blame, and now fire the GEBE board in a desperate attempt to cover up their incompetence. St. Maarten, this may be a case of you getting what you deserve because you are the ones who voted for them. But not even that is enough reason for anyone to deserve this kind of injustice. So, for Rosenberg to suddenly discover her concern for the public is not only insulting—it is a calculated political manoeuvre designed to erase her voting record.

I hope this marks the beginning of her redemption, now that she has awoken from her deep slumber and possibly distanced herself from Luc Mercelina and the URSM Party. Because she truly can do better, I think. However, if she must follow the decisions of a Narcissistic leader whose goal is merely to be called Prime Minister, rather than to do the work, then she, like the URSM, is wasting the people’s time and not genuinely trying to help them. I remain a believer in the people of Sweet St. Maarten, and although politicians hope they can count on the people to forget, I believe the people of St. Maarten remember. They remember the promise of relief “by the end of July” that never came. They remember being told there was no double TOT on fuel—only for the Prime Minister’s own words to confirm that, yes, fuel is taxed at wholesale and again at the pump. They remember the lies, the excuses, and the two years of the new government and no action. Roseburg’s words are meaningless unless backed by action—and she has already shown, through her vote and her silence, exactly where her loyalty lies. The URSM government has failed the people of St. Maarten at every turn. They cannot fix what they promised to fix, they cannot keep the promises they made, and they think firing a board member will hide the fact that they have done nothing for nearly two years except protect themselves. The people must ask: how much longer will we allow such hypocrisy and disregard for human decency to go unpunished? How can we trust those who, in our time of desperation, chose party loyalty and personal comfort over the needs of the very people they swore to represent? Roseburg, the answer to your question of whether you're getting my vote, is NO. It should be the same for every other St. Maartener because that is what you said when the opposition members of Parliament brought a motion to get relief for me and the rest of St. Maarten from the financial burden and hardship that GEBE has imposed on us.

Concerned Citizen.