~MP proposes standing enforcement patrols, a reporting hotline, citizen incentives, and proof that tax exemptions reach consumers.~
PHILIPSBURG, Sint Maarten — Member of Parliament Sjamira Roseburg has presented two motions calling for immediate action against illegal dumping and stronger government oversight of prices on tax-exempt basic necessities.
During the continuation of the 2026 budget debate on Wednesday, Roseburg argued that government does not need to wait for new legislation before taking several practical steps already permitted under existing law.
Her first motion targets littering and illegal dumping. Her second addresses the rising cost of living and the lack of a system to show that tax exemptions on basic goods are reflected in lower retail prices.
Illegal dumping has become a structural problem
Roseburg said Sint Maarten has faced years of visible littering and illegal dumping, including waste along public roads, debris in mangrove areas and pressure on the landfill.
She noted that the government has announced an island-wide cleanup involving the removal of car wrecks, cleaning and sweeping main roads, tree pruning and the completion of earlier solid-waste work by waste haulers.
However, she said Parliament still had not received basic information about the cleanup’s duration, implementing agencies or budget.
Roseburg argued that the existing prohibition against littering under Article 31 of the Waste Ordinance has remained materially unchanged since 2010. She said the maximum criminal fine remains stated in the old currency at 1,000 guilders, has not been indexed, and depends on the slower criminal-justice system for enforcement.
She further said there is no legal requirement for notices at dumping locations informing the public of the prohibition, applicable fine, or reporting method.
Standing enforcement unit and bilingual warning signs
Roseburg’s motion asks the VROMI Ministry to consider designating a permanent enforcement unit within the inspectorate, with fixed patrol and inspection schedules at known dumping hotspots.
She wants enforcement treated as a continuous government responsibility rather than an occasional cleanup action. The ministry would also have to specify whether the unit could be staffed from the inspectorate’s existing complement or whether additional positions would be required.
The motion calls for clear public information through government websites, traditional and social media and bilingual Dutch-English signs at known dumping locations. Additional languages could be used where necessary.
The signs would state what conduct is prohibited, the applicable fine and the number through which violations can be reported.
Roseburg also proposed an accessible reporting hotline, preferably allowing residents to submit photographic evidence of illegal dumping.
Fines, rewards and ‘name and shame’
The motion asks government to intensify enforcement of the existing ordinance in cooperation with the Police Force of Sint Maarten and the Prosecutor’s Office, with a minimum number of inspections per month established as a measurable target.
Roseburg requested that government report to Parliament within 60 days on the cleanup’s duration, implementing agencies and budget. She also wants a factual overview of all fines, citations and prosecutions issued under Article 31.
She said the VROMI Minister had indicated that amendments to the Waste Ordinance were already being finalized. Roseburg wants those amendments to include authority for administrative fines so violations can be penalized directly without requiring every case to pass through the Prosecutor’s Office.
Her motion asks government to examine a reward for citizens whose reports lead to a final fine, possibly a percentage such as 10 percent or another appropriate incentive.
She also proposed creating a statutory basis for publicly identifying repeat or commercial-scale offenders—a measure commonly described as ‘name and shame.’
Roseburg asked government to confirm within 30 days whether the draft amendments include administrative fines, signage, a reporting mechanism, citizen incentives and public disclosure. She requested that the resulting amendment be submitted to Parliament within 90 days of the motion’s adoption.
The MP said she had already started drafting her own amendment but would wait to review government’s proposal to avoid duplicating work. As a co-legislator, she said, she remains prepared to amend the government’s draft once it reaches Parliament.
Are tax exemptions lowering prices?
Roseburg’s second motion focuses on food, cooking gas and other household necessities whose prices have risen sharply for low- and middle-income households.
She said Article 8, paragraph 17, of the Turnover Tax Ordinance exempts a limited list of basic necessities but does not cover several products she considers essential, including vegetables, fish, meat other than chicken, cooking gas and menstrual products.
The MP’s central concern is that a tax exemption benefits the public only if businesses pass the savings on to consumers through lower retail prices.
According to Roseburg, there is currently no binding mechanism requiring that pass-through and no systematic link between tax relief administered by the Finance Ministry and price enforcement conducted by the TEATT Inspectorate.
She said TEATT had reported conducting more than 50 price-control inspections and issuing 16 pro-justice summonses in 2026. However, she argued that the enforcement was not structured to separately track the prices of goods already exempted under Article 8, paragraph 17.
Maximum prices and a published basic basket
Roseburg asked the TEATT Minister to use existing authority under the Price Ordinance to establish temporary maximum or reference prices and impose price-administration requirements on businesses selling tax-exempt necessities.
She proposed that the temporary measures remain in place until her planned amendment to the Turnover Tax Ordinance creates a permanent system for expanding the exempted list, enforcing pass-through savings, labeling products in stores and monitoring prices.
Her motion requests targeted quarterly monitoring of the retail prices of exempted goods, separate from general price inspections, with the results made public.
Government would also be asked to publish the current composition of its regulated basket of goods and issue a comparative basic-basket price overview twice a year. The report would show whether tax exemptions are translating into lower prices and would be submitted to Parliament and made available to the public.
Roseburg asked for a written report within 90 days detailing how the Price Ordinance is being applied outside a state of emergency, the updated number of inspections and summonses, how many involved tax-exempt necessities and whether the inspectorate has enough capacity for structural price monitoring.
Co-legislator, not spectator
Roseburg emphasized that she was not merely asking government to act. She said she had also prepared draft legislative amendments as part of her own responsibility as a member of Parliament.
Her two motions add measurable deadlines and reporting requirements to issues often addressed only through public appeals: illegal dumping and the rising cost of basic goods.
If adopted, government would be required to show not only what it intends to do, but also who will execute the measures, how enforcement will be tracked and whether relief designed for consumers is actually reaching them.