PHILIPSBURG--Members of Parliament (MPs) on Tuesday approved a motion to lower their salaries and those of ministers by five per cent, and voted down another to lower the salaries of these public officials by fifteen per cent.
Several MPs who supported the approved motion contended that both motions would result in the same outcome, as there was already a “solidarity initiative” agreement on the table for the lowering of MPs’ and ministers’ salaries by 10 per cent and the additional five percent in the motion would result in the same outcome as the rejected motion.
The motions were handled at the end of the debate on the 2020 budget that spanned about 18 hours over a two-day period. Of the 15 MPs who voted on the motion that was passed, 12 voted for and three were against. All MPs from the National Alliance (NA), United People’s (UP) party and United St. Maarten Party (US Party) supported the motion while those from Party For Progress (PFP) and United Democrats (UD) voted against.
The approved motion, tabled by NA MP Solange Ludmila Duncan, resolved to request that government reduce the salaries of the Council of Ministers and MPs by five per cent for a period of six months, request that the Finance Minister present a comprehensive approach to cost-cutting measures within 15 days, request a general reduction in material cost of Parliament and the Council of Ministers by 20 per cent, and to review, within the next six months the “Pensioenregeling politieke gezagdragers” regarding the transitional allowance of public office holders to make economical fiscal adjustments.
According to the considerations of the motion, the Prime Minister announced on March 17 that St. Maarten had recorded its first coronavirus COVID-19 case and would proceed with the closure of schools and non-essential businesses. As a result, the financial outlook of the government of St. Maarten for the remainder of 2020 has been negatively affected by the coronavirus pandemic.
The 2020 budget will have to be amended given the current national and international economy and with the advent of online, virtual meetings and conferences there is no demand or pertinent need for physical travel.
Parliament and government will be looking at various cost-cutting measures to alleviate the increased financial strain caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, since Hurricane Irma, and now with the approaching recession due to COVID-19, government and Parliament will have to make legislative amendments with positive financial consequences.
In remarks before the passing of her motion, Duncan said there are many former public office holders who continue to enjoy a percentage of their salaries from public office and this has to be looked into for the country to save on funds. She said the motion offers a wider variety and greater possibility for major savings across the board in parliament and government.
In motivating his vote, UP MP Rolando Brison said Duncan’s motion directly identified the law that needs to be addressed.
US Party MP Claudius “Toontje” Buncamper said the instability in government has been costing the country over the past 10 years and the country simply cannot afford it any longer.
NA MP Angelique Romou said it was her belief that once an individual has served and completed their function “so be it.” Those who are currently serving are the ones who are working and carrying out their duty to represent the people of St. Maarten. While sitting office-holders are being asked to slash their salaries, they are the ones working, while those who are not working are reaping the benefit of a salary and costing the country money.
UD MP Sarah Wescot-Williams said that while she can agree with some of the points of Duncan’s motion, she did not agree with the part of the motion that speaks about a five per cent salary reduction and said the motion calling for a 15 per cent reduction is more straightforward and she would therefore lend her support there.
UP MP Omar Ottley said it appeared as if there is competition between the two motions to see who can do more and this should not be the case, and he will back Duncan’s motion.
NA MP Christophe Emmanuel said that while he did not see Duncan’s motion as other MPs had, he would support it. He said he did not like the “tone” of the other motion.
NA MP William Marlin gave a historical perspective of the bridging allowance of former office-holders, saying it is being applied in a way that was not intended.
The rejected second motion, presented by PFP MP Melissa Gumbs, resolves to request that government adopt a national decree containing general measures to reduce the salaries of MPs and ministers by 15 per cent; to request that government adopt and publicise the national decree containing general measures referred to as soon as possible; and to request that government submit the relevant draft national ordinance to Parliament within three months after adopting the national decree containing general measures referred to in which national ordinance, the relevant national decree to be formalised retroactively.
The considerations of Gumbs’ motion also take into account the COVID-19 pandemic, which has economically impacted the country. Gumbs’ motion was rejected by three votes for and 11 votes against. PFP and UD MPs supported the motion and other MPs, except Romou, voted against. Romou was not present in the virtual meeting for the voting.
In defence of her motion, Gumbs said she comes from the private sector, where she held a decent position and so received a decent salary, even by private sector standards.
“If I were still in the private sector, I do believe that the conversation would be raised about cutting spending in any way possible, in an effort to preserve jobs. This COVID-19 crisis has already led to significant cuts throughout the private sector, some by choice and some forced by the early economic impact of COVID-19 on especially the hospitality sector.
“So, when I hear mention of asking private sector to tighten their belts, I wonder just what size belt is the private sector rocking that it’s not already cutting off circulation,” Gumbs said.
“Someone said to me, ‘You’re looking for trouble with this one,’ when we mentioned wanting to bring a motion to cut MPs’ and ministers salaries by 15 per cent. Touching people’s pockets always hurts, especially when it’s their own pocket they have to touch.
“Who are we to watch from up on high as the population struggles and we say to them, ‘We all have to tighten our belt,’ while our own belts hang loose? And then it has been justified, today again, by saying that MPs are ‘supporting people in the community who cannot buy food’ with their salary. To take it back to high school days, I say to that: ‘wheel and come again, please.’
“If MPs were to take the necessary sacrifices and turn our attention to, for example, fixing the issues causing our extraordinary high cost of living, instead of clinging to 100 per cent of our salary, perhaps our people could stop being a nation of beggars, kept so by those they trusted to take care of them because we prefer to give a man a fish rather than teaching them to fish.”
“Some in here have external businesses and/or real estate, as they are allowed to by law; they will not starve with a 15 per cent reduction. What percentage of our population can say that? …
“This motion is a step to show that we hold ourselves to a higher standard. … We’re not unique in this struggle. Our neighbouring islands and our sister islands within the Kingdom are all feeling pain during these difficult times. Let us not be unique in the steps we are willing to take to stand hand-in-hand with our people.
“We have to be the example. We are asking people to be patient, to be calm and to tolerate the very real distressing scenarios many of them are facing and will continue to face. We have to ask more of ourselves. … We have sworn to set the people of St. Maarten before us, not partially, but fully, for however long they continue to put us here.”
