PHILIPSBURG: --- The uniform is meant to be a symbol of safety, a sign that help and order are at hand. But for too many citizens, the sight of a KPSM officer now sparks fear, not reassurance. A disturbing pattern of harassment and brutality is eroding the very foundation of public trust, turning protectors into predators and leaving a community feeling besieged by the people sworn to serve them. This isn't about isolated incidents; it's about a culture of intimidation that must be confronted.

Reports are surfacing of actions that have no place in a just society. Officers are allegedly strip-searching pedestrians on the street without cause, a profound violation of human dignity. This is not policing; it is a humiliating power play designed to demean and control. Such an act strips away a person's rights and leaves lasting psychological scars. It is an abuse of authority that cannot be tolerated or explained away.

The aggression doesn't stop there. We are hearing accounts of officers threatening to shoot individuals and even their pets. Let’s be clear: a threat to use lethal force, whether against a person or their beloved animal, is an act of extreme violence and intimidation. It is a tactic of terror, not of law enforcement. When an officer uses the power of their weapon to instill fear, they have crossed a line from upholding the law to breaking it. This behavior demonstrates a shocking lack of restraint and a complete disregard for the lives they are supposed to protect.

These are not the actions of a professional police force. They are the hallmarks of a department failing its community. Each unwarranted search, each terrifying threat, shatters the bond between citizens and law enforcement. It makes people less likely to report crimes, less willing to cooperate with investigations, and more inclined to see the police as an occupying force rather than a community partner. This doesn't make our streets safer; it fosters an environment of hostility and danger for everyone.

Enough is enough. We cannot allow this culture of abuse to continue unchecked. The silence and inaction from leadership are deafening and amount to a tacit endorsement of this behavior.

It is time for the community to demand accountability. We must speak out against these injustices. Document every incident. Share your stories. Support your neighbors who have been victimized. Your voice is a powerful tool against oppression.

We also demand that authorities take immediate and decisive action. A thorough and transparent investigation into these allegations is not a request; it is a necessity. Officers found guilty of such abuses must be removed from their positions and face legal consequences. Systemic reform is not optional. We need improved training, strict and enforceable policies on use of force, and a civilian oversight board with real power to hold the department accountable.

The trust that has been broken must be rebuilt, but that process can only begin when the abuse stops and justice is served. Our safety and our rights are not negotiable. The time for accountability is now.

HNLMS Friesland has intercepted another drug shipment in the Caribbean. This time, it involved 318 kilos of cocaine during an operation on August 18th. The announcement was made today. This is already the eighth time the ship has intercepted drugs.

On that evening, the station ship HNLMS Friesland spotted a suspicious vessel in the Caribbean Sea. It was a so-called go-fast, a fast boat often used for drug smuggling. As soon as this was clear, both rapid interception vessels (Friscs) from the Friesland were deployed to approach the boat.

Overboard

A chase ensued, during which the smugglers threw packages overboard. The chase was called off, and the Frisc crew was subsequently able to recover 318 kilos of cocaine. The drugs were handed over to the US Coast Guard for destruction, as is customary.

Combating

HNLMS Friesland has been active in the region since May. Combating drug trafficking at sea is one of the Ministry of Defence's responsibilities in the Caribbean. The station ship works alternately with the Caribbean Coast Guard and the US Coast Guard.

PHILIPSBURG:--- The Police Force of Sint Maarten (KPSM) continues to take firm action to keep Philipsburg and its surroundings safe for residents, businesses, and visitors. Over the past days, officers issued several fines and towed 10 vehicles that were parked in ways that blocked access or created safety risks or parked illegally. Officers also conducted checks on suspicious vehicles, scooters, and motorcycles, particularly in the busy areas of Front Street and Back Street.

On Wednesday, August 27, 2025, during one of these controls, officers attempted to stop a scooter rider on Front Street. The rider tried to escape by driving through alleys that were closed off to traffic. After a short pursuit, officers cornered the suspect, who continued to resist arrest. The individual was eventually brought under control and taken to the Philipsburg Police Station.

KPSM stresses that these operations are not only about enforcement but about protecting the community. Reckless driving, illegal parking, and attempts to avoid police checks put everyone at risk. We ask all vehicle drivers, motorcycle riders, and scooter riders to cooperate fully with officers carrying out these important tasks.

Everyone has a role to play in keeping Philipsburg safe. KPSM will continue these operations and will take the necessary measures against anyone who resists or obstructs police work.

KPSM Press Release.

PHILIPSBURG:--- Sint Maarten's electricity and water tariffs are under intense scrutiny, with two recent evaluation reports offering conflicting analyses and recommendations. One report, prepared by the Regulatory Authority of Curaçao (RAC) and Bureau Telecommunication and Post (BTP), calls for significant regulatory reform and tariff restructuring. The other, a review of the RAC/BTP report by Reporting, Controlling and Regulatory Consulting (RCRC) on behalf of the utility company GEBE, raises alarms about the potential financial consequences of the proposed changes. A close comparison reveals key inconsistencies in their findings, methodologies, and core recommendations.

Divergent Methodologies and Core Assumptions

A primary point of conflict lies in how each report approaches the evaluation. The RAC/BTP report adopts a classic regulatory stance, focusing on cost causality and consumer protection. It methodically dissects the tariff formulas, concluding that the current system lacks transparency and results in consumers being overcharged. The report operates on the assumption that tariff components should directly and accurately reflect the costs they are meant to cover.

Conversely, the RCRC report argues that the RAC/BTP's approach is biased from the start, claiming its objective was pre-determined "to determine whether the fuel component can be reduced." RCRC’s analysis prioritizes the financial stability of the utility provider, GEBE. It contends that while the current tariff structure may be flawed, a cross-subsidy exists between different components. It warns that reducing one part of the tariff without a corresponding increase elsewhere would jeopardize GEBE's financial health.

The Fuel Clause: A Tale of Two Interpretations

The calculation of the fuel clause—a key component of consumer bills—is a central point of disagreement.

• RAC/BTP Finding: The report finds a cumulative surplus of approximately 12.6 million guilders in the fuel clause for electricity over three years (2022-2024). It argues that the formula incorrectly allocates the cost of electricity used for water production to all electricity consumers, effectively making them pay for a component of the water service.

• RCRC Rebuttal: The RCRC report acknowledges the surplus but attributes it to an outdated yet legally standing 1979 Ministerial Decree governing the water fuel clause. It asserts that the RAC/BTP's conclusion of "double charging" is based on a misunderstanding of this decree. While agreeing the decree is obsolete, RCRC warns against hastily removing the electricity cost for water production from the electricity tariff, estimating it would create an annual revenue shortfall of 9.2 million guilders for GEBE.

Recommendations on Non-Revenue Electricity (NRE)

Both reports agree that Non-Revenue Electricity (NRE)—power lost in transmission or due to theft—needs to be addressed in the tariff calculation. However, they differ on how it should be applied.

• RAC/BTP Recommendation: Proposes that the current fixed 8.5% NRE rate should be replaced with a dynamic, monthly calculation based on actual performance. This would create an incentive for the utility to improve efficiency.

• RCRC Counterpoint: Argues against a dynamic NRE rate, emphasizing the need for predictability in consumer tariffs. RCRC recommends maintaining a constant, fixed NRE norm to avoid volatile monthly price fluctuations for customers.

The Path Forward: Reform vs. Caution

The two reports present starkly different paths for the future of Sint Maarten's utility tariffs. The RAC/BTP report is a call for immediate and comprehensive reform, advocating for independent regulatory oversight, formula restructuring to ensure fairness, and a review of the deep cross-subsidies between commercial and domestic water users.

The RCRC report, while acknowledging inefficiencies, urges extreme caution. It frames the issue as one of financial sustainability, suggesting that any changes must be part of a holistic, integral cost-of-service study. Its core message is clear: altering one part of the complex and interconnected tariff system without understanding the full financial impact could lead to unintended and severe consequences for the utility provider.

Ultimately, these conflicting reports highlight a fundamental tension in utility regulation: balancing consumer fairness and tariff transparency with the operational stability of the sole provider. The divergence in their findings underscores the complex decisions facing Sint Maarten's policymakers as they navigate the critical task of structuring fair and sustainable utility rates.