~Prime Minister says his earlier statements were specifically about GEBE absorbing the higher diesel cost of temporary 10MW generators; Doran rejects suggestion that demanding answers about promises to struggling consumers is political gamesmanship.~
PHILIPSBURG:--- A heated exchange over GEBE and the continuing financial burden on consumers erupted in Parliament after Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina characterized MP Egbert Jurendy Doran’s use of recordings of the Prime Minister’s own previous statements as “politics,” prompting Doran to question whether holding the head of government accountable for a promise made publicly — not once, but twice — could reasonably be dismissed in that manner.
The confrontation centered on statements Mercelina made in 2024 and 2025 about increased fuel costs associated with GEBE and assurances that the utility would absorb the additional expense rather than pass it on to consumers.
During the first round of the budget debate, Doran played recordings containing Mercelina’s own voice and subsequently demanded answers from the Prime Minister about what happened to those assurances.
Mercelina responded in the second round by arguing that the statements were being taken out of context.
The Prime Minister described it as “politics” before trying to explain what his earlier statements actually concerned.
That characterization did not sit well with Doran.
Mercelina: Recordings were about Temporary 10MW Generators
The Prime Minister told Parliament the recordings had to be understood in the circumstances in which he made his statements.
According to Mercelina, his assurances concerned the temporary 10-megawatt container generators that GEBE brought in to address the country's electricity-generation problems.
Those generators used more expensive diesel.
Mercelina said that when the government and GEBE realized the temporary generators would require the more costly fuel, GEBE agreed to absorb the additional operating costs rather than pass them on to consumers.
“Let me be very clear with the public,” Mercelina said before giving his explanation.
The Prime Minister's position, therefore, was that his previous statements were not a blanket promise that consumers would be insulated from every increase in GEBE's fuel-related costs.
Rather, according to his explanation to Parliament, they concerned the additional cost of using more expensive diesel in the temporary 10MW units.
But Doran's challenge went directly to accountability.
Doran: I Played the Prime Minister’s Own Words
Doran returned to the issue during clarification.
He told Parliament that hearing the Prime Minister describe his use of the GEBE recording as “plain politics” made him “frown.”
His reason was straightforward: the GEBE crisis is not an abstract political argument.
Doran said virtually everyone sitting in Parliament knows someone affected by the GEBE crisis — and, in many cases, knows multiple people struggling with it.
He then put the central question directly back to Mercelina.
Doran reminded Parliament that he has been a duly elected MP since 2018 and asked whether seeking clarification about a promise made by the Prime Minister “not once but twice” should genuinely be considered politics.
His response was pointed:
“If that is the case, then God help us all.”
That exchange raises a much larger question than the political disagreement between Mercelina and Doran.
When an MP plays back a Prime Minister's own public statements and asks what became of the commitment contained in those statements, is that politics — or precisely the oversight Parliament is constitutionally expected to perform?
The Public Deserves Clarity on What Was Promised
The distinction Mercelina is now drawing is important.
If the Prime Minister's earlier promise related only to the incremental cost of diesel used by the temporary 10MW container generators, then government and GEBE should be able to demonstrate precisely how that commitment was implemented.
That leads to several obvious questions.
How much additional diesel cost resulted specifically from the temporary generators?
How much did GEBE actually absorb?
For what period?
Where is that absorption reflected in GEBE's accounts?
And how can consumers independently determine that those additional costs were not subsequently incorporated into their bills through another mechanism?
The transcript supplied does not provide those figures, so it would be improper to claim that Mercelina's explanation proves either that the promise was fulfilled or that it was broken.
The parliamentary record establishes that Mercelina says his earlier remarks have been interpreted too broadly and that they specifically concerned the additional diesel costs of the temporary generators.
These answers did not provide the financial evidence needed to settle the matter.
GEBE Crisis Makes “Politics” Remark Particularly Sensitive
The Prime Minister's choice of the word “politics” was particularly striking because, later in the same exchange, Mercelina himself acknowledged the economic reality facing residents.
He conceded that he perhaps did not intend the remark in the way Doran understood it, although he confirmed that he had used the word politics.
Mercelina then shifted the tone considerably.
He told Doran that he knows the MP cares about the country's people and said they both want relief for Sint Maarten.
Most significantly, the Prime Minister acknowledged:
“We realize that the people are struggling.”
Mercelina explained that the government's difficulty is finding relief measures that do not seriously threaten the country's financial sustainability.
He said decisions that appear capable of giving immediate relief can produce a “reality check” once the government examines their consequences elsewhere in the public finances.
That may explain the government's caution.
It does not eliminate Parliament's right to ask what happened to previous commitments.
Mercelina Ultimately Invites Doran to Help Find Relief
By the conclusion of the exchange, Mercelina's tone had moved noticeably away from the initial accusation of politics.
The Prime Minister invited Doran to his office to work with him on ideas for providing relief.
“Please help me with this relief because I really want that for the country too,” Mercelina said.
That invitation effectively acknowledged that both men were addressing a genuine public problem, even if they disagreed sharply about the government's previous statements and how they should now be interpreted.
And it brings the debate back to the underlying issue: the consumers.
The Recordings Cannot Simply Disappear From the Debate
Doran did not invent the statements he raised.
He played recordings of Mercelina's own previous remarks.
Mercelina has now supplied an explanation: the statements referred specifically to GEBE absorbing the higher diesel costs associated with operating the temporary 10MW container generators.
That explanation deserves to be reported accurately.
But it also deserves to be tested.
The logical next step is not another political argument over who took whose words out of context.
It is documentation.
If GEBE agreed to absorb the additional cost, government should be able to establish what that additional cost was and demonstrate how it was absorbed.
That would allow Parliament — and more importantly consumers — to determine whether what was promised publicly matches what happened financially.
Accountability Is Parliament’s Job
The exchange also carries an unavoidable irony.
Elsewhere in the same parliamentary session, Mercelina explicitly recognized that Parliament has a responsibility to oversee government.
He said MPs have a controlling, corrective and supervisory function and should have access to the information necessary to carry out that responsibility.
Doran's confrontation with Mercelina therefore touches the heart of that oversight role.
A Prime Minister's public statements matter.
Promises concerning household electricity costs matter.
Recordings of those statements matter.
And when residents are struggling with utility bills, an elected Member of Parliament asking the Prime Minister to explain the difference between what the public heard then and what government says now should expect a factual answer.
Mercelina has now offered one: his promise, he says, was specifically about the additional diesel cost generated by the temporary 10MW generators.
The next question should be much easier to answer with numbers than with politics:
How much did that additional fuel cost GEBE, how much did GEBE absorb, and can the government show Sint Maarten's consumers the evidence that the promised cost was never passed on to them?