Dear Editor,

The race to the conclusion of the 2025 budget debate was long, and winding and fascinating and surprising, all at the same time. This marathon was an unforgettable display of knowledge, wit and stamina – a performance that grabbed the attention of many viewers and listeners; curious to be informed of the final decision.

Although it was 5 days of intense deliberation by the Council of Ministers and Members of Parliament, the nucleus of this article would be centered on the latter group only, as I bring into focus three MPs who really captured my interest – deeply impressed with not just the content of their presentations, but their disposition that interlocked with the sincerity of their individual messages.

During the budget debate, it was crystal clear that these MPs were independent thinkers, because they have studied the document, which provided them with the insight not to pose lots of questions that would result in superficial answers. Instead, they assessed the pros and cons of the budget, linked their evaluations and recommendations to the reality of the various situations, and then dialogued with the relevant ministers, via the Chair.

Based on space availability, I can only highlight a brief version of their presentations, starting with MP Veronica Jansen-Webster. From the start, she acknowledged to be very comfortable in her new position as an MP and that she would live up to the expectations that are required of her. This admission expressed maturity to move on and embraced her current role, in order to work in the best interest of the people.

When this MP spoke, her demeanor was so calm, and her choice of words were simple and well-measured. She linked her own experiences to solidity her advices to the ministers. I was very much touched when she revisited the Tourism Master Plan to extract information that has relevance today. This jolted my memory, because I can recall clearly when this document was put together, roughly 20 years ago.

MP Jansen-Webster urged the ministers to monitor their progress on a spreadsheet, to see what they have accomplished. This is up my alley because I started writing a similar article and I left it unfinished. To top it off, she pleaded with the ministers to recognize and encourage the good people who are around them and vowed to keep the ministers accountable for their actions.

MP Ludmila de Weever had a similar approach in her delivery, where her findings and requests were clearly defined. This MP stressed the need to present the budget with precision, to reflect the current year, and to make the document complete. She agreed with the principle of continuity, but was critical about new items added to the budget to incur more debts, which disputed the core meaning of continuity.

She also expressed the lack of unity among the Executive branch to focus on the issues that have plagued the country for months – matters such as safety and security for all; garbage disposal; road neglect; traffic congestion; economy and tourism. She encouraged cooperation across ministries, but reiterated that the Council of Ministers need to come together to work on these pressing issues.

The most crucial matter for me was when MP De Weever described the responsibility of Bureau Telecommunication and Post – how it failed to report matters in a timely fashion – and questioned if the organization’s personnel have the experience and knowledge to manage this entity, because of her experience with this institution.

The MP further emphasized that there was no oversight, and begged Prime Minister Luc Mercelina to look into the operation of BTP, to ensure that the supervision is carried out professionally. I really appreciated the explanation because all along I thought that BTP was only responsible for the regulation of telephone companies.

Hats off to MP Sjamira Roseburg for doing a fantastic job as the Vice Chair of Parliament. It was not an easy task to chair the debate for three consecutive days, especially when two days of these deliberations ended around 1:00am. This was a test of stamina. If anyone had tuned in for the first time, he or she would not have known that this was her first-ever, presiding over a budget debate.

She followed the Rules of Order to the best of her knowledge, and at times when the chatter among teammates rose above the acceptable level, she reminded her colleagues to maintain the decorum that is required in The People’s House. Great job, MP Roseburg!

What a memorable experience the budget debate of 2025 has been!

Joslyn Morton

Dear Minister of Finance,

If the budget is passed or approved and it is for the year 2025, and money to pay the justice workers and to paint the roads is not included in the budget, that’s not so good.

And concerning the CKC credit union and the clients’ money, when can you give us some information about when the clients will get the money?

Cuthbert Bannis

Dear Editor,

The debate on independence seems to be split between those who decry ongoing attachment to the colonial power and the remaining controls exercised by that power. The other side of the debate are those who appreciate the stability of remaining colonial attachment and the usability of the passport.

Permit me to suggest that the debate misses future considerations which I believe to be the important ones.

We can easily agree that exploitation by colonial powers has been the major part of Caribbean history. Currently there are many independent countries and much greater autonomy in others. But we can clearly see that in the future, new exploitative and imperialist structures are beginning to form that are different to earlier colonialism. Powerful countries are in control and other powerful countries want to have more control. Small and weak territories like Greenland, Panama and St. Maarten will likely be the victims of future imperialism. New forms of colonialism driven by different forms of power are likely in the future.

In the future, given that likely confrontations of the major sovereign powers (mixed in with private mega corporations that have significant control), it might be more favorable for St. Maarten to be attached to a power block that will provide some protection and guidance.

Robbie Ferron

Dear Editor,

I strongly believe that no member of Parliament should in any form or fashion assume the position of a defending lawyer against anyone who is trying their endeavor to curb and combat crime in a country. In this day and age of drastic rise of crime in which several people were gunned down, members of Parliament should, like I wrote in the past, should grow up, demonstrate maturity and unite with whoever is responsible for making sure that law and order is upheld and maintained in the country.

When I read Irion’s and Doran’s questions to the Minister of Justice, I asked myself on whose side are they? Whether they were on the side of law enforcement or the “gotcha” side?

One of the reasons that I am reacting to this is because it was during the time that I supervised the Control Unit that the then-Commissioner, Michael Ferrier, introduced the law governing tinted glass of motor vehicles. I must say that it was very well controlled.

I am not aware why the Control Unit is not functioning, but it goes without saying that they are needed out there.

During the last budget meetings MP [Member of Parliament – Ed.] Irion again did not think if it was the opportune time to react to the Minister of Justice. A few days before that he took a few shots at the VROMI [Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure] Minister to which I reacted hypothetically: If you tell me that you do not agree, to use the colour yellow. But I know that in the past your friend used yellow. And now you turn around and tell me that I should have used the colour that your friend used, is that not contradicting yourself?

My father used to tell us to try to pick sense out of nonsense, that is what I always try to do because everybody have their way of looking at things. But when you choose to be a representative of the people that is what you are expected to be and to do and not to go in there and take shots at one another. In this case, questioning or challenging the Minister of Justice concerning the tinted glass, knowing fully well that their intention was to score points, completely disregarding the safety of the people.

Here again another Minister of government is, rightfully so, advocatong to enforce the law and MPs Irion and Doran are trying a thing and in the process, especially during these last months, making themselves look small.

A simple question. Would it be easier to find a suspect in a car with black tinted glass or normal tinted glass? Do we know what all does be taking place in cars with black tinted glass?

Precisely in a time when combating crime should have priority, members of Parliament are being petty. Who are they representing, themselves or the people who elected them to do so?

This is not the time to take trick to make luck. This is the time to join forces to combat crime and bring it back to a minimum.

I appreciated the energy of Miss Richardson, but as long as Minister of Justice Tackling is showing the will to combat crime I am one hundred percent behind her. I believe that if one is in a position where country comes before self, then that is what it should be.

Russell A. Simmons