Dear Editor,

With the opening of the new Parliamentary year, Over the past 15 years, Parliamentarians in St. Maarten have collectively received over Cg48,000,000 in salary payments. That figure, staggering in its own right, demands a sobering question: what has the country tangibly gained in return? This  is without traveling expenses, rent etc.

 A Hefty Investment in Leadership

Members of Parliament earn approximately Cg20,000 monthly, placing them among the highest-paid public officials in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The rationale behind such compensation is clear: attract top-tier talent, ensure independence, and reward public service. But when the cost of governance reaches this magnitude, the public deserves more than just payroll transparency—they deserve results.

 The Reality Check: What’s Changed?

Let’s examine the past 15 years through the lens of progress:

- Infrastructure: Roads remain riddled with potholes, and hurricane recovery has been sluggish. Despite billions in pledged aid post-Irma, execution has been marred by delays and mismanagement.

- Healthcare: The long-promised general hospital remains incomplete. Citizens still travel abroad for specialized care.

- Education: Teachers have faced salary freezes and benefit cuts, while school facilities deteriorate.

- Youth & Employment: Unemployment among young people remains high, and vocational training programs are underfunded or nonexistent.

- Transparency & Accountability: Successive governments have collapsed amid infighting, and corruption allegations continue to erode public trust.

 The Cost of Political Instability

Since 2010, St. Maarten has seen more than ten different governments.( Where as under normal circumstances we should constitutionally have had no more than 4 governments in office if each government had sat for 4 years). Each change brings new ministers, new priorities, and new delays. Continuity in governance is a luxury we haven’t afforded ourselves—despite the premium we pay for leadership.

 Return on Investment: A Failing Grade

If Parliament were a business, shareholders would be demanding answers and face consequences. What policies have lifted the standard of living? What legislation has transformed the economy? What oversight has protected public funds?

The truth is that the average citizen has not seen a proportional return on this multimillion-euro investment. Instead, many feel increasingly disconnected from the political class—whose salaries remain untouched while civil servants, police, nurses, and teachers endure cuts.

What Needs to Change

- Performance-Based Accountability: Tie compensation to measurable outcomes—legislative productivity, constituency engagement, and national development benchmarks.

- Transparency in Spending: Publish detailed breakdowns of parliamentary expenditures and travel budgets, and show tangible results on those travel expenses.

- Civic Engagement: Create platforms for citizens to evaluate their representatives and participate in policy-making.

- Salary Reform: Revisit the salary structure to align with regional standards and economic realities or raise productivity.

 Conclusion: A Call to Action

St. Maarten’s Parliamentarians have been entrusted with both power and privilege. But with that comes responsibility. The people have paid the bill—now they deserve the benefits. It’s time for leadership to prove its worth not in speeches, but in outcomes. The last elections have shown that Voter apathy is now very prevalent, as shown in the lower voter turnout on polling day.

If Cg48 million can’t buy progress, then what are we really paying for?

Signed

Julian H Rollocks Sr. (Former Commissioner of Tourism and Economic Affairs)

Dear Editor,

In a stunning display of political opportunism, Antonio Rogers, a former civil servant and current treasurer of the Democratic Party, has called for the suspension of the Fire Chief and Ambulance leadership, citing the need for an independent investigation. While his statement may appear to champion accountability, it reeks of hypocrisy and political deflection, given his party’s long-standing role in perpetuating the very grievances he now decries.

Rogers’ comments come at a time when the fire and ambulance departments are grappling with decades-old issues of underfunding, stagnant salaries, and a lack of recognition for their critical frontline work. These are not new problems. In fact, they are deeply entrenched, with roots stretching back to the tenure of Democratic Party leader and current Chair of Parliament, Sarah Wescot-Williams. Wescot-Williams herself admitted that these grievances existed over a decade ago when she served as Prime Minister. Yet, during her leadership and the Democratic Party’s time in power, little to no meaningful action was taken to address these systemic issues.

For Rogers, a high-ranking member of the very party that has been part of the governing coalition for years, to now call for suspensions and investigations is not only disingenuous but also insulting to the intelligence of the public. Where was this outrage when his party had the power to implement reforms? Where was this call for accountability when frontline workers were left to struggle with stagnant wages and inadequate resources under his party’s watch?

The fire and ambulance departments have long been the unsung heroes of our community, risking their lives daily to save others. Yet, they have been met with neglect and indifference from successive administrations, including those led by the Democratic Party. The lack of investment in their welfare, training, and equipment is a glaring indictment of the government’s priorities—or lack thereof.

Rogers’ attempt to shift blame onto the current leadership of these departments is a transparent effort to deflect attention from his party’s own failures. It is a classic case of political scapegoating, designed to score cheap points while ignoring the systemic issues that his party has contributed to over the years. If Rogers truly cared about the plight of these frontline workers, he would be advocating for tangible solutions—such as increased funding, better salaries, and improved working conditions—instead of calling for suspensions that serve no purpose other than to create a spectacle.

The public deserves better than this kind of political theater. It is time for leaders to take responsibility for their actions—or inactions—and work collaboratively to address the root causes of these long-standing issues. The fire and ambulance departments do not need more empty rhetoric or finger-pointing; they need real, substantive change.

As the Chair of Parliament, Sarah Wescot-Williams has a unique opportunity to lead by example and push for the reforms that her party has long neglected. But this will require more than just words; it will require action, accountability, and a genuine commitment to the well-being of our frontline workers.

Until then, Rogers’ comments will remain what they are: a hollow attempt to deflect blame and distract from his party’s own culpability. The public sees through this charade, and it is high time that our leaders stop playing politics with the lives and livelihoods of those who serve on the front lines.

Former Member and MP from the Democratic Party Faction.

What happens when a landlord refuses to keep his word? That is the painful question facing the Wilson family, tenants who resided in Industry Drive #18, Cul de Sac, who say they have been left without the return of their full rightful deposit after vacating their rental home earlier this month.

Dear Editor, 

The Wilsons, senior citizens who are abroad, have been renting the home since 2023. While they were away, their daughter remained in the property. At the end of June 2025, landlord Andrew David — who is also a pastor, known for conducting services at the John Larmonie Center on Sundays — notified them that their daughter must leave by the end of July.

By law and by principle, tenants are generally entitled to at least two months’ notice. But Mr. David’s demand allowed only one. Since the daughter would be off-island during July, both sides agreed to extend the arrangement until August 3rd. The daughter found another apartment and vacated the premises by that date.

According to the Wilsons, Mr. David verbally assured them that once the house was empty, the deposit would be reissued. But instead of honoring his word, the landlord introduced new conditions: repainting the house, cutting off electricity, and providing proof of these tasks. The family complied. The painting was completed within six days, the electricity was disconnected, and Mr. David was informed.

Yet, silence followed. Calls and messages went unanswered. When reached, Mr. David shifted his position again, saying he would now only return part of the deposit, citing “disrespect” from the Wilsons’ daughter and deducting the days it took to paint the home.

The Wilsons, hurt but humble, did not argue. But they are left wondering:
- Is this morally correct?
- Is fair not fair?
- How can a man of the cloth, entrusted with shepherding souls, fail to keep his simple word?

They ask why senior citizens should be forced to plead for the return of what is rightfully theirs. “Why would he find it difficult to reissue the full amount? Why do landlords make it so hard for tenants to get back deposits?” the Wilsons asked.

Their story reflects a larger issue many tenants quietly endure: deposits withheld, promises broken, and landlords taking advantage of the vulnerable. The Wilsons believe silence allows this behavior to continue. “If no one stands up to them, they will continue to get away with this,” they warned.

For a pastor who preaches on Sundays, the Wilsons say the situation raises uncomfortable questions of integrity. “Where is the conscience and the charge that Christ bestowed upon him?” they ask.

The Wilsons.