PHILIPSBURG (DCOMM):--- The Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) has called on countries to accelerate efforts to achieve cervical cancer 2030 elimination targets in the Americas, warning that, with only five years remaining, the current pace puts reaching the goals at risk, despite progress in vaccination.

Each year, over 78,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer in the Americas, and more than 40,000 die from the disease.

Cervical cancer is a type of cancer that starts in the cervix, which is the lower, narrow part of the uterus that connects to the vagina. Almost all cases of cervical cancer are caused by persistent infection with certain high-risk types of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV), a very common sexually transmitted infection.

The cancer typically develops very slowly, often beginning as pre-cancerous cell changes (known as dysplasia) that, if left undetected and untreated, can take many years to progress into invasive cancer. This slow progression is what makes routine screening so effective.

While this disease is a significant health challenge in our region, the Collective Prevention Service (CPS) wants every resident to know the most important fact: Cervical cancer is one of the most preventable and treatable forms of cancer, provided it is detected early.

Cervical cancer rates in the Caribbean are among the highest in the Americas. CPS recommends a three-tiered approach to eliminating cervical cancer in our community: HPV Vaccination: The First Line of Defense.

Vaccination is most effective when given to girls (and boys) between the ages of nine (9) and 14, before they are exposed to the virus. By vaccinating our youth, we are providing them with lifelong protection against the primary cause of cervical cancer.

Screening is not about looking for cancer; it is about looking for pre-cancerous changes. If these changes are found, they can be treated long before they ever become "cancer." The pap smear is a simple test that looks for abnormal cells in the cervix.

Women should begin regular screening at age 21 (or as advised by their healthcare provider). Don't wait for symptoms as cervical cancer often has no symptoms in its early stages. If you wait until you feel pain or notice unusual bleeding, it may be more difficult to treat.

While vaccination and screening are the most powerful tools, overall health plays a role in how our bodies fight infections like HPV. Smoking doubles the risk of developing cervical cancer because it weakens the immune system’s ability to clear HPV infections.

A diet rich in Caribbean fruits and vegetables provides the antioxidants necessary for cellular health. At CPS, our goal is to ensure that no woman in our community suffers from a disease that we have the power to prevent.

Prevention is primarily achieved through the HPV vaccine, which protects against the strains of the virus most likely to cause cancer. Early detection relies on regular cervical cancer screening, which includes the Pap smear (to look for pre-cancerous cell changes) and the HPV test.

When these screenings are performed routinely, abnormal cells can be found and removed before they ever become cancer, making the prognosis for women who participate in regular screenings excellent.

CPS advises women who need additional information to contact their physician. Early detection is your best protection. Let us work together to keep the women of the Caribbean healthy, vibrant, and strong.

ORANJESTAD, ARUBA:--- The Ombudsman of Aruba, Ms. Jurima Bryson LL.M. has published the report “Het Luisterend Oog, In kader brengen van instellingen” (Dutch for “The Listening Eye”) on March 9^th, 2026. In this report, 564 institutions on Aruba that fall under the National Ombudsman Ordinance have been identified.

The four utility companies are NV Elmar, Setar N.V., Web Aruba N.V. and Serlimar Sui Generis. These were also part of the group that was identified. Because these companies offer essential services and citizens depend on these essential services, it is very important that these companies provide careful and transparent service, including complaint handling.

This report, “Het Luisterend Oog,” concerns an investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman in the third quarter of 2025. The main objective of the investigation was to identify institutions that fall under the National Ombudsman Ordinance.

The research shows that all utility companies offer general contact options and customer service, but that a clearly defined and publicly known complaints procedure is missing.

For citizens, it is essential that it is clear how a complaint can be submitted, how it is handled, and within what time frame a response can be expected. Such a procedure contributes to trust, legal certainty, and quality of service.

The Ombudsman has sent a letter about this to all utility companies and the ministers involved, and calls upon them to introduce and publish a clear and accessible complaints procedure in the short term.

“A good complaints procedure is not a formality, but an essential part of reliable service to citizens”, said the Ombudsman.

In addition to the general recommendations in the report, the Ombudsman advised the utility companies to take a number of steps in the short term:

• Define and publish a clear and accessible complaints procedure (for example, via the website or customer portal);
• Outline the steps, such as deadlines, registration, responsibilities and feedback;
• Choose one clear contact person or place for customers.
• Describe what customers can do if they are not satisfied with how their complaint has been handled and within the processing time frame.
• If applicable, define and publish the general terms and conditions, keep them up to date and easy to find.
• Ensure internal awareness and monitoring of complaints, following the recommendations in the report.

Also, there should be greater clarity about how the organizations operate and which laws they follow, so people can better understand how they function and who is responsible.

Also, there should be more clarity about the structure of organizations and which laws are applicable, so people can better understand how they function and who is responsible. These are concerns which the Ombudsman already raised in her letter of concern sent to Prime Minister Mike Eman in February of 2026.

The full report “The Listening Eye” (“Het Luisterend Oog – in kader brengen van instellingen”) and the letter of concern are available on the Ombudsman’s website, www.ombudsman.aw/en/publications/ .

The Ombudsman will continue to monitor and do follow-ups on these recommendations.

Stay informed about the latest developments

By Terence Jandroep, CRA, CQA, CLA Certified Risk Auditor & Forensic Integrity Specialist

In the specialized field of Forensic Integrity Auditing (FIA) and preemptive risk analysis, we often identify vulnerabilities within systems that are not merely technical, but behavioral. One of the most corrosive structural risks to fiscal integrity emerged in the late 1980s and has since solidified into a systemic crisis: the transition of government tax inspectors into private independent consultancy.

To protect the sanctity of the public treasury and the objectivity of the audit process, we must address this "revolving door" not as a career move, but as a fundamental breach of state security.

The Genesis of Insider Advantage (Post-1980s)
Since the late 1980s, the complexity of global tax codes and the digitalization of audit trails created a premium on "inside knowledge." During this era, a pattern emerged where high-level officials began migrating to the private sector, selling the very blueprints they helped draft.

As a Certified Risk Auditor, I view this through the lens of Information Asymmetry. When a former inspector enters the private sector, they are not just providing legal advice; they are providing a map of the government's internal "blind spots."

A Case of Government Spionage
The term "consultancy" often acts as a polite veneer for what is effectively Government espionage. When a former official leverages their tenure for private gain, they engage in several high-risk activities:

• Systemic Mapping: They possess intimate knowledge of the "Risk Selection" algorithms used by tax authorities. This allows clients to structure transactions that intentionally bypass the triggers for a formal audit.
• Protocol Extraction: They carry confidential administrative benchmarks and internal "settlement ranges" that were never intended for public or commercial dissemination.
• The "Shadow" Influence: By maintaining social and professional ties with active inspectors, these consultants can exert psychological pressure or gain unauthorized intelligence on the progress of ongoing fiscal litigation.

 The Risk to Audit Integrity
From a forensic perspective, the presence of a former insider on the "defense" side of a tax dispute compromises the Forensic Integrity Audit (FIA).

1. Technical Manipulation: They understand the specific software vulnerabilities and data-entry shortcuts used by government staff, allowing them to "sanitize" records in a way that an external auditor might miss.
2. Erosion of Public Trust: When the public perceives that a tax inspector is simply "auditioning" for a lucrative private role while still on the state payroll, the moral authority of the tax office evaporates.
3. Conflict of Interest: There is an inherent risk that active inspectors may be less rigorous when auditing a firm represented by their former supervisor or colleague, fearing future professional repercussions or hoping for a similar "exit" path.

The Professional Mandate: A Call for a Permanent Ban

In the interest of ISO 9001 standards and the principles of preemptive risk containment, the solution is clear. We must implement a mandatory ban or, at minimum, a stringent ten-year "cooling-off" period for former inspectors.

The fiscal frontier cannot be defended if the guards are allowed to sell the keys to the gate. To restore integrity to our regional financial systems from Aruba to Sint Maarten we must recognize that the tools of the state belong to the public, not to the highest bidder in the private consultancy market. It is time to treat the "revolving door" as the National security threat it truly is.

PHILIPSBURG:--- In March 2026, a legal advisory prepared by Professor Arjen van Rijn was submitted to the Council of Ministers of Sint Maarten, addressing a critical constitutional issue: the role and limits of the Governor within the country’s governance system.

The advisory was prompted by a January 2026 incident involving administrative decision-making and subsequent actions that raised serious constitutional concerns. At its core, the document examines whether the Governor acted within his legal authority—or whether those actions risked undermining democratic governance.

Background: The Incident That Triggered the Advisory

The issue began with an incident on January 7, 2026, involving disciplinary action against a civil servant. The government imposed an immediate administrative measure, followed by a suspension decision that required formal approval by a national decree.

However, complications arose during the decision-making process:

• The Governor intervened in the Council of Ministers’ proceedings
• The Prime Minister and another minister were reportedly prevented from attending a meeting
• The Governor participated in deliberations with an advisory vote
• The Governor returned and delayed signing the decree, requesting further review

These actions led to confusion over authority and raised questions about whether constitutional boundaries had been crossed.

The Core Constitutional Question

The advisory focuses on a fundamental issue:

What are the legal limits of the Governor’s authority within Sint Maarten’s constitutional framework?

To answer this, the advisory examines the Governor’s dual role and the principle of ministerial responsibility.

The Dual Role of the Governor

The Governor of Sint Maarten operates in two distinct capacities:

1. Constitutional Head of Government (National Role)

In this role, the Governor:

• Represents the King within Sint Maarten
• Forms part of the government together with the ministers
• Acts formally as the head of the executive

However, crucially:

• The Governor has no independent governing authority
• All actions fall under ministerial responsibility
• Ministers—not the Governor—are politically accountable to Parliament

2. Representative of the Kingdom Government (Kingdom Role)

In this capacity, the Governor:

• Safeguards the interests of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
• Ensures compliance with Kingdom law
• May intervene if national decisions conflict with Kingdom interests

This role includes a key power:

• The ability to refuse to sign a decree and escalate it to the Kingdom government

A Fundamental Principle: No Independent Power

A central conclusion of the advisory is:

The Governor does not possess independent decision-making authority within the national government.

Instead, the Governor’s role is limited to:

• Being consulted
• Offering advice
• Providing warnings
• Encouraging reconsideration

But ultimately:

The ministers decide—and the Governor must follow.

This principle is rooted in parliamentary democracy: elected officials must hold power, not appointed representatives.

“No Third Way”: A Critical Doctrine

One of the most important legal conclusions in the advisory is the rejection of a so-called “third role” for the Governor.

The Governor can act only as:

1. Head of government (without independent power), OR
2. Kingdom representative (with escalation powers)

There is no middle ground where the Governor acts as an independent constitutional guardian with autonomous authority.

Allowing such a “third way” would:

• Undermine democratic accountability
• Blur lines of responsibility
• Concentrate unelected power in a non-political office

Historical Context: The Van der Meer Affair

The advisory draws on precedent, particularly the Van der Meer affair, which clarified that:

• The Governor may form opinions and engage in discussion
• But in case of disagreement, ministers have the final say
• The Governor must ultimately “sign at the dotted line”

This historical case reinforces the doctrine that the Governor’s authority is subordinate in national governance matters.

Assessment of the Governor’s Actions in the 2026 Case

The advisory concludes that the Governor exceeded his authority in several ways:

1. Interfering with Ministerial Participation

The Governor informed certain ministers that they could not attend a Council meeting.

• This is problematic because:
  • The Council of Ministers determines its own functioning
  • The Governor has no authority to exclude ministers

2. Participating Actively in Cabinet Deliberations

The Governor attended and engaged in discussions with an advisory vote.

• This is considered inappropriate because:
  • The Governor should remain above political decision-making
  • Active participation risks politicizing the office

3. Influencing Policy Direction

Decisions taken in meetings suggested a shift in policy direction influenced by the Governor.

• This undermines:
  • The political primacy of elected officials
  • The authority of the Prime Minister

Democratic Risks Identified

The advisory warns that such actions pose serious risks:

• Erosion of ministerial responsibility
• Weakening of democratic legitimacy
• Blurring of constitutional roles
• Potential constitutional crisis

A key insight:

The Governor is not democratically accountable, while ministers are. Therefore, the Governor must not take on a political role.

The Proper Use of Governor’s Powers

The advisory clarifies what the Governor should do in contentious situations:

1. Advise and warn ministers
2. Respect ministerial decision-making
3. If necessary, refuse to sign a decree
4. Immediately refer the matter to the Kingdom government

This ensures:

• Legal oversight without undermining democracy
• Clear accountability structures

Resolution of the Case

Eventually, after legal developments:

• A revised decree was submitted
• The Governor signed it
• The proper constitutional procedure was restored

This outcome aligned with the correct legal framework.

Final Conclusions of the Advisory

The advisory reaches a strong and unequivocal conclusion:

• The Governor’s actions exceeded constitutional limits
• They undermined the authority of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers
• They were constitutionally and democratically unacceptable

Recommendations

The advisory urges the government to:

• Clearly reaffirm constitutional boundaries
• Engage in dialogue with the Governor
• Prevent recurrence of similar situations
• Protect the primacy of democratic governance

It also warns against allowing precedents that could gradually expand the Governor’s role beyond its legal limits.

Conclusion

This advisory highlights a fundamental tension in constitutional systems that combine local autonomy with Kingdom oversight. While the Governor plays an essential role in safeguarding legal order, that role must remain strictly limited.

The key takeaway is clear:

Democratic authority must remain with elected officials.
The Governor advises, safeguards, and escalates—but does not govern.

Click here to read Professor Van Rijn's advice to Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina.