Dear Editor,

Member of Parliament Ludmila de Weever suddenly found her voice.

During the 2026 budget debate, she unleashed a sweeping condemnation of unpaid government bills, the crises at GEBE and TelEm, the unfinished hospital, the financial pressure on SZV, and the neglect of children with special needs. She declared that “while the grass is growing, the horse is starving.”

Powerful words—but Sint Maarten’s taxpayers are entitled to ask where this urgency was hiding before the budget cameras began rolling.

Where was this sustained outrage during all the months that families were being crushed by electricity bills, patients were waiting on an unfinished hospital, special-needs organizations were begging for assistance, and government-owned companies were stumbling from one crisis to another?

An occasional fiery speech cannot substitute for consistent parliamentary work.

MP De Weever receives a public salary to attend meetings, scrutinize government, initiate legislation, demand documents, question ministers and remain visibly engaged in the people’s business. Parliament is not a television studio where an elected representative can appear for a dramatic monologue and then disappear until the next politically convenient performance.

If De Weever believes government is starving the horse, she must explain what she has been doing while standing in the same political pasture.

She is not an innocent observer reporting from outside the gates. She is one of only 15 members of the country's highest legislative body. Her party, the Party for Progress, is part of the governing coalition supporting Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina’s administration.

That makes her more than a commentator. It makes her part of the political structure she is now denouncing.

The public should therefore demand the publication of the official attendance records of every MP, including De Weever: plenary meetings, committee meetings, Central Committee meetings, quorum calls and voting sessions. Let taxpayers see who attended, who arrived late, who left early and who were repeatedly absent.

Without verified records, rumors about chronic absenteeism should not be presented as established fact. But Parliament’s continuing failure to make a complete and easily searchable attendance register available only protects politicians from accountability.

Release the records and let the evidence speak.

Is This Conviction—or Political Repositioning?

There is another uncomfortable question: Is De Weever’s sudden militancy genuine, or is another political migration being prepared ahead of the next election?

De Weever entered Parliament through the United People’s Party, later declared herself independent and subsequently found a new political home with PFP. Today, Parliament’s official website still identifies her as a PFP member.

Voters are therefore justified in watching closely for signs of another political relocation.

Sint Maarten has endured too many politicians who treat political parties like rental cars—use one to reach Parliament, abandon it when the vehicle becomes inconvenient, and search for another ride before election day. Parliamentary seats should not become transferable lifetime-employment packages financed by taxpayers.

If De Weever intends to remain with PFP, she should say so clearly. If she has lost confidence in the government her party supports, she should act accordingly. If she believes the Council of Ministers is neglecting the country, she has parliamentary instruments available to her.

Write motions. Submit amendments. Introducing legislation. Demand deadlines. Request urgent meetings. Vote against failed policies. Publish correspondence and follow up until answers are delivered.

But do not condemn government on Thursday and quietly help preserve its political comfort on Friday.

Cannabis: De Weever Joins Mercelina’s Opposition to Legalization

De Weever’s position on cannabis does not place her in opposition to Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina. On the fundamental question of legalization, they stand on the same side: Mercelina is firmly opposed to legalizing cannabis, and De Weever has reinforced that position by declaring that Sint Maarten is “not ready for it.”

During the budget debate, De Weever questioned the attention being given to cannabis regulation, the possible influence of a foreign entity, the country’s potential contractual exposure, and whether Sint Maarten possesses the necessary healthcare, mental-health, and regulatory capacity.

Those are legitimate concerns, but they do not amount to political courage when the Prime Minister is already 100 percent against legalization. De Weever is not challenging Mercelina’s position; she is joining his bandwagon and presenting an aligned position as though it were a bold confrontation with government.

Meanwhile, cannabis consumption is already widespread and openly visible on both sides of the island. Successive governments have refused to confront that reality with a coherent policy. They have neither established a properly controlled medicinal-cannabis system nor developed a transparent framework for regulated recreational use.

The result is the worst of all worlds: cannabis remains widely available, the illegal market continues operating, consumers have no reliable protection against contaminated or dangerously potent products, and the government collects no regulated revenue to finance prevention, mental-health care, addiction treatment, or public education.

Simply saying “no” will not make cannabis disappear. It has not disappeared under prohibition, and no evidence shows that repeating the same failed policy will suddenly remove it from Sint Maarten’s communities. If Mercelina and De Weever oppose legalization, they must explain what credible alternative they are offering to address the market that already exists.

Where Is De Weever’s Alternative?

This is where De Weever’s speech falls short.

Saying “we’re not ready” may be true, but it is not a complete policy. When will the country be ready? What legislation does she propose? What safeguards does she want written into law? How should medicinal access operate? What percentage of cannabis revenue should be legally reserved for mental-health treatment, addiction services and youth prevention?

If she believes the government’s proposal gives excessive influence to a foreign entity, will she demand publication of every agreement, memorandum, consultancy contract and financial commitment connected to that entity?

Will she refuse to support the legislation until those documents are disclosed?

Will she move an amendment prohibiting ministers, MPs, political parties, senior civil servants and their immediate associates from secretly benefiting from cannabis licenses?

Or will the warnings end when the microphones are switched off?

The same test applies to GEBE, TelEm, SZV, the hospital and special-needs care. De Weever has identified serious failures. Now she must produce measurable parliamentary action.

Taxpayers do not pay MPs merely to describe their suffering. The people already know they are suffering. They pay Parliament to force accountability and create solutions.

MP De Weever, the public does not need another speech about a starving horse from someone standing beside the barn. Open the barn. Account for the feed. Name those withholding it. Use your parliamentary authority—or stop pretending that outrage alone is work.

Sint Maarten has had enough political theatre, enough selective visibility and enough representatives awakening only when an election begins appearing on the horizon.

The horse is indeed starving.

The question now is whether MP De Weever intends to feed it—or simply ride it into the next election.

A Concerned Taxpayer

Dear Editor,

The solemn opening of St Maarten’s 2026-2027 Parliamentary Year should force this country to confront two serious questions: Where is the boundary between Church and State, and what happens when Parliament begins rewarding the media institutions that are supposed to scrutinize it?

President of Parliament Sarah A. Wescot-Williams opened the solemn meeting by referring to Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Constitution. That provision states that the Parliamentary Year begins on the second Tuesday of September with a speech by or on behalf of the Governor outlining the policies of government.

Immediately afterward, the Chairlady invited Pastor Nigel Brooks to deliver an invocation prayer.

Pastor Brooks said he represented the Saint Martin United Ministerial Foundation, supported by the Christian Council and the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

“I stand here to pray the will of God on the opening of this 2026-2027 Parliament session,” he declared.

The prayer invited the Holy Spirit into the parliamentary chamber and ended “in Jesus’ mighty name.”

Let me be clear: this is not an attack on Christianity, prayer or Pastor Brooks. His appeal for wisdom, integrity, justice and the removal of selfish ambition, partisanship and pride was appropriate and desperately needed in a Parliament where political games too often overshadow the suffering of the people.

The question is whether an explicitly Christian prayer should be incorporated into the official proceedings of a state institution that represents every citizen.

Parliament belongs to every citizen

St Maarten is home to Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Rastafarians, members of other religious communities, people with personal spiritual beliefs and citizens who do not subscribe to any religion.

Parliament belongs equally to all of them.

Freedom of religion means that every person is free to pray, worship and practice his or her faith. It does not automatically mean that Parliament, as an institution of the State, should adopt one religious tradition as part of an official constitutional ceremony.

The Constitution recognizes religious belief without forcing it upon everyone. Public officials can swear a religious oath or make a secular affirmation. That choice demonstrates respect for both believers and non-believers.

Why, then, was no such balance visible during the opening of Parliament?

When did Parliament decide to introduce an invocation prayer? Was this decision discussed by the Presidium? Were all 15 Members of Parliament consulted? Is it contained in the Rules of Order? Was any consideration given to people of other faiths?

The public announcement for the solemn opening referred to the Governor’s address, invited dignitaries and the President of Parliament Award. It did not inform the population that Parliament had added an explicitly Christian invocation to the official ceremony.

If Parliament intends to continue this practice, it must establish an inclusive and transparent policy. It could introduce a neutral moment of reflection or invite representatives from different religious and belief communities on a rotating basis.

Parliament should not quietly turn a constitutional ceremony into a denominational event without public discussion.

The Church must remain free to guide the nation's conscience and criticize political wrongdoing. The State must govern fairly on behalf of every citizen, regardless of religious belief. When the State begins selecting which religion will officially bless its proceedings, that important distinction becomes blurred.

Why is Parliament awarding the media?

The second matter is equally troubling.

During the activities surrounding the opening of the Parliamentary Year, Parliament recognized The People’s Tribune, a media house.

That recognition must not be confused with the annual President of Parliament Award presented to an outstanding young person. The media recognition was separate, and it raises a serious question:

Why is Parliament awarding a media house that is supposed to be independently scrutinizing Parliament and the politicians sitting inside it?

This is not about whether any journalist works hard or deserves recognition. Journalists perform an essential public service, often under difficult conditions and with limited resources.

The issue is who gives the award.

Recognition from an independent professional organization is one thing. An award from the political institution a journalist or media house is expected to monitor is something entirely different.

The media is called the Fourth Estate because it is supposed to stand apart from the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Its responsibility is to investigate those who exercise power, expose wrongdoing, test official claims, and provide the public with information that politicians may prefer to keep hidden.

The press is not supposed to seek applause from Parliament.

It is supposed to hold Parliament accountable.

The Public deserves full disclosure

Parliament should immediately disclose:

• Who nominated The People’s Tribune for recognition;
• Who selected the media house;
• What criteria were used;
• Whether other media houses were considered;
• Whether the decision was approved by Parliament or made solely by the Chairlady;
• Whether Parliament or government has purchased services from the recipient;
• Whether the recipient or its representatives have performed political, governmental, consultancy or public-relations work;
• What public funds were spent on the award and related activities.

Asking these questions is not an accusation of corruption. It is a demand for transparency.

An award does not, by itself, prove that a media house has been compromised. However, it creates an appearance of closeness between the watchdog and the institution it is supposed to watch.

That appearance matters.

Will the recipient vigorously investigate the Chairlady who recognized it? Will it question Parliament’s spending, expose its failures and criticize MPs without fear or favor? Or will the award create a sense of gratitude, loyalty or obligation?

The public should never have to wonder whether favorable political coverage is journalism, public relations or repayment for access and recognition.

Media operatives in political pockets betray the people

St Maarten is a small community where politicians, journalists, consultants, party officials and government communications personnel frequently share the same social and professional circles.

That reality demands more disclosure, not less.

Anyone working in journalism while also performing political consultancy, public relations or communications work must reveal those relationships. A person cannot privately help package a politician’s message and then publicly report on that politician while pretending that no conflict exists.

The same principle applies to government advertising, contracts, appointments, travel opportunities, privileged access and awards.

Media houses cannot demand transparency from government while hiding their own financial and political relationships.

They cannot condemn conflicts of interest inside government while refusing to acknowledge conflicts of interest within the media.

A media house that openly supports a political party can at least be judged by the public with that knowledge. Far more dangerous is the media operation that calls itself independent while quietly protecting selected politicians, suppressing damaging information, softening headlines, attacking political opponents or publishing prepared political narratives as objective journalism.

When media operatives enter the pockets of politicians and government, truth becomes the first casualty.

Public trust becomes second.

Democracy cannot function properly when the watchdog is being fed, praised or rewarded by the very people it is supposed to monitor.

Parliament must answer

Parliament must explain both decisions.

It must explain when and how an explicitly Christian invocation became part of the solemn opening of the Parliamentary Year.

It must also explain why a media house was selected for recognition, who made that decision and what safeguards exist to protect the independence of the press.

The cost of the opening ceremony and all connected awards should also be made public, including expenditure on trophies, plaques, receptions, decorations, entertainment and promotional materials.

The Church must be able to speak truth to political power without becoming an instrument of the State.

The press must be able to expose political power without becoming dependent on its money, access, praise or awards.

The Church may guide consciences. The State must govern everyone. The Fourth Estate must scrutinize both.

When those boundaries are erased, those in power can surround themselves with prayer, praise and favorable publicity while escaping the independent scrutiny that democracy—and the people of Sint Maarten—deserve.

J. Jones is a native of Sint Maarten who deserves to know who and what I am voting for.

Dear Editor,

There is still a cloud of anger, suspicion, rumors, unanswered questions, and grief that hangs over the community of St. Peters and the entire island of St. Martin surrounding the fatal shooting of Mr. Rudy Benjamin on the evening of February 13th, 2026. It has been over eight months, and people need to know the FACTS and the truth to rebuild trust. This investigation is also being followed internationally.

The last article I read was that the police were involved in the St. Peters shooting, and that the investigation is to be handled by the Prosecutor's Office of Curaçao, but to date there has been no update to the community about the camera evidence or autopsy results. Community relations need to be rebuilt with the Police to rebuild trust. The Founding Members of the St. Peters Community Council took time over the years to build trust between the Police and the Community. 

This February, the Police Force invested in officer training and professional development, with some officers in specialized training to provide lifesaving instruction, emergency response training, and community engagement. 

As a community-spirited leader, the family and the people have the right to know the FACTS of what went wrong that fatal night. There should be camera evidence on the public light pole on St. Peter's Main Road where the shooting happened. The public has a right to know if the police followed the right protocols instead of using deadly force unjustly. Did the officers apply any of that lifesaving/CPR training that fatal night? 

This is the first time in history something like this has happened in St. Peters, involving a resident who posed no threat to his community or society. I truly don't understand why the Community Police Officer or other officers who know the community weren't called to de-escalate the situation instead of using deadly force.  

The family and the Community of St. Peters need to know the truth, see the public camera evidence for transparency, and someone should be held accountable for the fatal shooting of the late Mr. Rudy Benjamin, who is well known and liked within the community of St. Peters and St. Martin.

Let's continue to pray to God for the family, the police, and a transparent investigation that shows the public the camera evidence with integrity. The community of St. Peters is looking forward to the investigation being concluded as soon as possible.

Kr,

Maurice Lake, Co-Founder of the St. Peters Community Council/

By Dr. Clarence E. Pilgrim

Dear Editor,

Six years after COVID-19 brought much of humanity to a standstill, the world has largely resumed its rhythm. Borders are busy, stadiums are full, aircraft crowd the skies, and masks have mostly disappeared.

But normality is not resolution.

The unfinished business of the pandemic is not only scientific; it is also moral, institutional, and deeply human.

More than 779 million confirmed COVID-19 cases and over seven million deaths have been reported to the World Health Organization, which acknowledges that the true numbers are higher. Against a global population of approximately 8.3 billion people, few societies escaped the pandemic's reach.

Millions survived but did not fully recover. WHO estimates that about 6% of people with symptomatic COVID-19 develop Long COVID, with some experiencing respiratory, neurological, cardiovascular, and other problems for months or years.

For them, the pandemic is not history. It still haunts the living.

I understand something of its psychological reach personally. The pandemic shrank my circle of friends and taught me to be apprehensive even of a friendly handshake—an instinct that remains with me today. After workplace exposure, I was immediately quarantined until testing confirmed that I was free of infection.

The uncertainty, fear of becoming ill, concern about possibly exposing others, and suspicion of ordinary human contact reflected what millions experienced worldwide. COVID-19 changed more than health systems; for a time, it changed the meaning of proximity itself. A handshake, an embrace, or a conversation at close quarters became a potential source of danger.

SARS-CoV-2 continues to circulate and evolve. WHO is monitoring variants including XFG, NB.1.8.1, PQ.16.1.1, and BA.3.2. The emergency ended; the virus did not.

Neither did the questions surrounding its origin.

The guilty plea of Dr. David Morens, a former senior adviser at the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has reopened difficult questions about institutional credibility. Morens admitted involvement in efforts to evade federal public-record requirements relating to coronavirus research and official communications, including matters connected with a bat-coronavirus research grant involving the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

These facts do not prove that SARS-CoV-2 escaped from a laboratory, nor do they establish criminal wrongdoing by Dr. Anthony Fauci.

They do, however, establish that relevant official communications were deliberately concealed from normal transparency mechanisms.

That warrants a simple question: Why?

WHO's scientific assessment says the weight of available evidence favors zoonotic spillover. Yet important information remains unavailable, including early viral sequences, details concerning animals sold in Wuhan markets, and information about laboratory work and biosafety conditions.

The responsible position is therefore neither to proclaim a laboratory origin proven nor dismiss it as impossible.

Science should follow evidence, not defend predetermined conclusions.

The same standard of evidence and transparency that should govern the origin debate must also govern how we assess the benefits and harms of vaccination.

I chose to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and a booster because I trusted the recommendations of WHO and the international public-health community.

Strong evidence shows that vaccination reduced severe illness, hospitalization, and death. But acknowledging those benefits does not require denying genuine risks.

Regulators across Europe, Africa, India, and Russia broadly reached the same conclusion: vaccines provided important protection, but continuing safety monitoring was necessary. European regulators recognized rare myocarditis and pericarditis after some mRNA vaccines. African authorities monitored rare clotting disorders. India recognized thrombosis with thrombocytopenia associated with adenovirus-vector vaccines while continuing surveillance of other reported conditions. Russia issued formal contraindications and clinical guidance.

Across very different regulatory systems, the common lesson was not that vaccination was risk-free, but that benefit and risk had to be assessed together and continually.

COVID-19 vaccines provided important protection, but risk was not zero.

It should therefore be possible to say that vaccines saved lives without pretending that no one was harmed by them. It should also be possible to recognize genuine vaccine injuries without claiming that every illness or unexplained death following vaccination was caused by it.

Those positions are not contradictory. They are the minimum requirements of intellectual honesty.

In the United States, 11,055 claims alleging COVID-19 vaccine injury or death had been filed through the federal compensation programme by July 2026. A claim is not proof of causation, and many did not meet evidentiary requirements. Nevertheless, some vaccine-related injuries have been officially recognized.

Where injury is scientifically established, those affected should not disappear behind statistics.

Treat what can be treated. Rehabilitate where possible. Compensate fairly where responsibility is established.

Human dignity should never be measured by prevalence.

The same intellectual discipline applies to cardiovascular disease. WHO identifies cardiovascular disease as the world's leading cause of death, a reality that long predates COVID-19. It cannot credibly be presented as proof of widespread vaccine injury.

Yet legitimate questions remain. COVID-19 itself can affect the cardiovascular system. Long COVID may contribute to illness. Traditional risk factors and disrupted healthcare remain important. Rare vaccine-associated cardiovascular complications have also been documented.

The question therefore is not whether vaccines caused post-pandemic cardiovascular disease, but how much illness resulted from COVID infection, existing disease, interrupted healthcare, or recognized vaccine complications.

There is no credible global figure that answers that fully. The absence of an answer should encourage research, not speculation.

History also warns us that another pandemic will come. Major respiratory pandemics struck in 1889–90, 1918, 1957, 1968, 2009, and 2019. Their timing was irregular, so no responsible formula can predict the next one. But another pandemic within the lifetime of much of today's population is entirely plausible.

The true reckoning, therefore, is not about vindicating one government, scientist, institution, or vaccine.

It is about whether humanity learns enough to protect everyone better next time—the majority who benefit from effective medical interventions, the minority who may suffer genuine harm, the vulnerable, and generations yet unborn.

Progress that protects millions while abandoning the few who are genuinely harmed is incomplete. Equally, concern for the injured cannot justify denying interventions that saved lives on a vast scale.

The higher obligation is to pursue both: protection and accountability, scientific advancement and human dignity, institutional strength and transparency.

I trusted the international public-health system enough to receive a vaccine and booster.

That trust should never require silence.

Science earns authority through evidence. Institutions earn legitimacy through transparency. Leadership earns confidence through accountability.

The dead cannot demand answers.

The living can.

And before another pandemic tests humanity, we should establish what was right, acknowledge what was wrong, repair what can still be repaired, and build systems capable of protecting both the many and the few.

The next response must be not merely faster, but wiser, fairer, more transparent, and directed toward the greatest good of all.

Disclaimer

The views expressed are those of the writer.