St. Martin News Network

WHO IS THE VICTIM?

Dear Editor,
I have been serving the community of Sint Maarten, working at KPSM (the Sint Maarten police force-Ed.) for almost 33 years. Today I hold the rank of Inspector (team leader) and hold in an interim position, the function as a Section Chief within the Detective Department. In other words, I provide guidance to team leaders and, where necessary, also to staff members.
I have decided, in the interest of myself and other KPSM leaders, to come forward to the public to provide clarity regarding the accusation made by Mrs. N. James. I see the accusation not against me personally, but against me in the function that I hold. I am also coming out publicly to prevent other KPSM leaders from being victimized in similar situations in the future. It doesn't necessarily have to be an accusation of a sexual nature.
I want to state upfront that I have built a flawless career within the police force until about five years ago when Mrs. N. James sent an email to my Division Head on January 27, 2020, with accusations against me regarding an incident on January 23, 2020. She stated that I had my face in her breasts on the afternoon of January 23, 2020.
This is strongly contrary to the truth. I have given multiple explanations about this over the years and have also written an accountability report of what happened. Additionally, I have been heard twice with regard to this situation.
What happened that day is that I simply hugged her after doing very good work when we succeeded, after working a whole week of evening and night shifts, in an effort to remove two contract killers from the streets. With the intention of not revealing too many details about work procedures, I can only state that the hug happened partly because, at a given moment during work on the afternoon of January 23, 2020, Mrs. James had to leave her desk briefly. Her task that afternoon was to guide the patrols to the location of the suspects. I use the word suspects because it was already evident that these persons were responsible for two murders and four (4) failed attempts on four other people on the island.
When Mrs. James returned to her desk, I noticed something had occurred that really bothered her. Long story short, during that brief time, the suspects had managed to escape from the area where they were located without being arrested. Mrs. James was upset about the fact that she had to leave her desk briefly. I believe I was noticeably angry as well.
About 30 minutes later, the patrols were still successful in arresting one of the suspects on the Dutch side, and about 30 minutes after that, word came from French colleagues that the second one was also arrested. It was truly a fantastic moment for us on the investigation team and for KPSM as a whole. This was the reason for the hug, but also because she had been upset an hour earlier that the suspects had escaped the patrols. I have always maintained that the hug happened spontaneously without any form of malicious or double intent.
On the morning of January 24, 2020, Ms. N. James came to speak with me in my office. She informed me that she felt very uncomfortable the day before when I hugged her as I came close to her breasts. I repeat, close to her breasts because that's exactly how she said it, and I assumed that's also how she meant it.
Initially, I was lost for words and didn't know what to say. I immediately offered my apologies and said that I absolutely didn't want any problems. I asked if we could please discuss this here in the office. She listened to me and then went to her desk in the workroom.
On January 27, 2020, Mrs. James decided to send an email about this to the Division Head with the accusation that I had my face in her breasts. As you can see, this differs from her statement to me on January 24, 2020. After thinking long and hard about this, I could clearly remember that she was wearing her glasses as she always doe,s and because I didn't want to bump into her glasses, I came with the left side of my head against her right shoulder. She was seated behind her desk.
This incident, along with three (3) other fabricated complaints, were thoroughly investigated between April and July 2022, in addition to the three being those of two arrested police officers, a male and a female. I was part of the investigation against these two officers who, based on police information, tried to extort money from an individual. The fourth person is another female colleague of Mrs. James who worked with her in the same department. This fourth person had received a report from me in 2019 whereby we were not on speaking terms other than work-related.
In a fact-finding investigation conducted by the National Detective together with a member of the Netherlands National Police (Rijksrecherche) on July 26, 2022, it was concluded that I did not commit any criminal offense but that it should be investigated disciplinarily, which is what happened.
After the disciplinary investigation was completed, KPSM made a proposal for a disciplinary punishment to the Ministry of Justice regarding the fact of hugging and allegedly sending a sexually suggestive message to the wife of the arrested male police officer, being a Customs officer working at the time at KPSM. The message was not written completely, which created room for misinterpretation and was used to her advantage.
My lawyer and I completely disagreed with the suggested disciplinary punishment, as I had already been punished more than sufficiently. I was placed on non-active duty for nine (9) months which is equivalent to a suspension. The Ministry of Justice has never formally responded to KPSM's request, nor have there been different letters from my lawyer.
I must also immediately add that all complaints made, being four (4), not eight (8) or ten (10), were all made in writing and signed in the month of April 2022. All complaints were made after I had taken measures for not complying with tasks within job descriptions, started a criminal investigation under the leadership of a prosecutor, and not cooperated with a request from a respective complainant.
In the case of Mrs. James, she only filed a criminal report about the alleged incident with the National Detective in March of 2020, two months after the fact, after I had not cooperated with her request made through her lawyer to hold a higher rank.
As of March 30th, 2020, Mrs. James had requested an extraordinary leave to work at the VROMI Cabinet. Subsequently, by March/April 2021, she returned to KPSM with the request to be placed back in the same team, thus again under my leadership. Why should someone who made such a serious complaint against me would want to come back and work again under my leadership?
Despite the mishap of hugging Mrs. James in 2020 and my negative advice in March 2020 for a promotion she had requested, Mrs. James and I still had good working cooperation after returning from the VROMI Cabinet. She is a very skilled and efficient worker, as she was certainly seen in my office 2 to 3 times per week. At times even more, to discuss investigative approaches with cases. Discuss investigation directions in cases, especially when she disagreed with the working method or views of her team leader. We had sat together with the French authorities in at least two meetings on the French side. We had driven together in the same vehicle with another colleague present. All of this can be confirmed by multiple colleagues.
On March 08, 2022, I gave for a second time, a negative advice on a request from Mrs. James made through her lawyer to be placed in a higher rank. The reason for the negative advice was that the work done by Mrs. James fell exactly within her described task description for the function she held. The written advice was submitted to the Division of Operations.
Around mid-March 2022, I noticed that Mrs. James spoke very little to me and, to an extent, even avoided me.
In April 2022, Mrs. James, besides having an interview conducted by personnel of the internal affairs of KPSM, wrote a separate letter where she literally indicated, among other things: "That she had sleepless nights and needed to cry herself to sleep." With a normal working relationship for the two months after the incident and then again between April 2021 and March 2022, this was clearly not noticeable to me or my management.
It is evident that Mrs. James and the other female colleague from her department were aligned with the two colleagues who were arrested and later removed from service in a conspiracy to have me removed from the function.
I initially wrote a six-page letter addressing all four complaints of April 2022, revealing all facts and contradictions with proof of the fabricated complaints. But due to lack of space, I can only publish this much.
What I have stated here can be verified by others, unlike the accusations without proof made by Mrs. James and others.
I have retained the services of a lawyer, and I am currently in the process of taking legal action against all who are tarnishing my reputation.

ALL FOR CARRYING OUT MY WORK WITH FULL COMMITMENT AS A STRONG, POSITIVE, AND JUST LEADER.

NOW, TELL ME—WHO IS THE VICTIM??????

Liando R. Rombley.

Time for a New Vision for St. Maarten’s Aviation Future.

aviationrey09022025 Dear Editor,
The recent article published by The People's Tribune, titled “St. Maarten’s Diminishing Regional Hub Role, Minister’s Presence at Routes Has Added Significance,” highlights an urgent challenge facing St. Maarten’s aviation sector. For decades, Princess Juliana International Airport (SXM) served as the primary hub connecting nearby islands like Anguilla, Nevis, Tortola, and Dominica to the rest of the world. However, this position has steadily eroded as these islands develop their own direct air connections with major U.S. carriers, reducing their reliance on St. Maarten as a transit point.
A reader recently shared a compelling commentary with me on this issue, arguing that the decline of SXM’s hub status was inevitable. The lengthy reconstruction period after Hurricane Irma, combined with advancements in aircraft technology, has allowed airlines to bypass St. Maarten entirely. Smaller airports that once depended on SXM as a gateway now receive direct flights, eliminating the need for travellers to connect through St. Maarten. The reader further pointed out that the transfer process at SXM is cumbersome, making it an unattractive hub compared to direct flights that offer travellers greater convenience. If St. Maarten is to maintain its role in regional aviation, it must reassess what value it truly offers to transit passengers and whether the traditional hub model is still relevant.
The most pressing challenge is that airlines operate on efficiency and profitability. American Airlines, JetBlue, and other major carriers now serve Anguilla, Dominica, and Tortola directly, giving travellers a simpler alternative. Meanwhile, Anguilla and Nevis are expanding their runways to accommodate larger aircraft, further diminishing their reliance on St. Maarten. At the same time, SXM has struggled to modernize its transit passenger experience. Lengthy immigration processes, baggage re-check requirements, and a lack of seamless transfer options create unnecessary friction. The reader questioned what SXM truly offers as a transit point. Layovers here provide limited shopping, dining, or leisure options, making it an unappealing choice for travellers compared to direct flights. Additionally, St. Maarten’s road infrastructure presents another obstacle. Even if transit passengers extend their stay for a short visit, they face frustrating congestion. A trip from Maho to Philipsburg or Grand Case can take more than an hour in traffic, limiting a visitor’s ability to experience the island in a meaningful way.
Instead of focusing solely on reviving SXM’s hub status, St. Maarten should reposition itself as a high-value destination that travellers choose for its unique experiences. The traditional hub model is no longer a reliable economic driver, and other islands are proving that direct connections are the future. St. Maarten’s approach to aviation and tourism must be redefined. Rather than concentrating on bringing in more transit passengers, efforts should be directed toward improving infrastructure, easing traffic congestion, and enhancing the overall visitor experience. The island’s natural beauty is an asset, but without a well-developed tourism product, visitors may find it lacking in comparison to other destinations. There needs to be a greater focus on establishing attractions that set St. Maarten apart from other Caribbean islands. Casinos and bars alone are not enough when tourists can find these options elsewhere, including in their home countries. If the island is to maintain its appeal, it must offer a richer and more immersive experience, making it an attractive place to stay rather than just a stopover.
The upcoming Routes Americas 2025 forum presents a crucial opportunity for St. Maarten to reposition itself in the regional aviation landscape. However, if the primary focus is to pitch SXM as a transit hub, the island will likely struggle to reverse its declining relevance. The Minister of Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport and Telecommunication, Grisha Heyliger-Marten, must take a broader approach by securing direct flights from key U.S. cities to offset the losses in regional transit traffic. Strengthening airline partnerships and expanding connectivity beyond the United States, particularly into European and Latin American markets, will also be critical. Furthermore, improving the transit passenger experience through streamlined processes and better facilities will be essential in retaining SXM’s competitiveness.
St. Maarten cannot afford to rely on an outdated strategy. The hub model that once worked is no longer sustainable without significant operational improvements and a strategic shift in focus. Competing islands are evolving, and if St. Maarten fails to adapt, it will be left behind. The future of SXM does not depend on clinging to its past as a hub but rather on transforming itself into a destination that travellers actively want to visit and experience. The time for rebuilding is now, and that means more than just an airport—it means a new vision for St. Maarten’s role in Caribbean tourism.
Terrance Rey

Minister Finance addresses sexual harassment of Civil Servant.

Dear Ms. Nicole James,
First and foremost, I commend your courage in speaking out on this deeply troubling issue. No civil servant—or any employee—should ever have to endure sexual harassment, let alone feel unsafe in their workplace. Your testimony underscores the urgent need for decisive action to protect victims, hold perpetrators accountable, and dismantle a culture of silence and impunity.
As Minister of Finance, I acknowledge that a safe and professional work environment is a moral imperative and a fundamental requirement for an efficient and effective civil service. When employees feel unsafe, demoralized, or unheard, it directly affects productivity, morale, and the overall functioning of government institutions. It is unacceptable that these matters have persisted without proper resolution despite multiple reports over the years.
The Government of Sint Maarten must ensure a workplace free of harassment and intimidation. I fully support the call for urgent reviews and reforms, including implementing clear policies within the Landsverordening Materieel Ambtenarenrecht (LMA) to address sexual harassment in the workplace explicitly. Additionally, I support strengthening reporting mechanisms to ensure victims can come forward without fear of retaliation, including establishing an independent body to investigate integrity breaches.
Accountability is paramount. Leadership at all levels must prioritize ethical conduct and ensure that perpetrators face real consequences regardless of rank or influence. If we fail to act, we fail victims and weaken public trust in the institutions meant to serve and protect our people.
The Ministry of Finance stands committed to working alongside Parliament, the Integrity Chamber, and all relevant stakeholders to ensure that measurable and enforceable policies are implemented. Let this be a turning point—one where we move beyond rhetoric and toward real structural change.
I extend my support to all victims of workplace harassment and reaffirm the Government’s responsibility to ensure justice, integrity, and safety in the public sector. The time for action is indeed now.

Marinka Gumbs
Minister of Finance
Government of Sint Maarten

Concerns regarding GEBE saga.

To Whom It May Concern,
As a concerned citizen, I am writing to formally raise my concerns regarding the electricity system in St. Maarten, specifically the ongoing issues with GEBE.
For nearly 30 months, GEBE has cited a system hack and generator malfunctions as reasons for persistent load shedding. While these explanations have been repeated, consumers bear the brunt of unreliable service and exorbitant electricity bills.
When GEBE restored its systems, consumers received unusually high bills, many of which appeared unregulated. Households with the same appliances they have used for years suddenly faced drastic increases in their electricity charges. When consumers questioned these inflated bills, GEBE’s response was simply that their meters were functioning correctly—implying that consumers were somehow using significantly more electricity than before despite no change in their consumption habits.
Additionally, the fuel clause charges now exceed the actual cost of electricity consumption, adding further financial strain on consumers. This raises critical questions:
• How often does GEBE purchase daily, weekly, or monthly fuel?
• Why are consumers being forced to absorb such high fuel costs with no transparency or accountability?
Due to the ongoing instability of GEBE’s service, many consumers were compelled to invest in generators just to maintain power in their homes. For months, households endured load shedding lasting up to 11 hours a day, requiring them to spend additional money on fuel for their own backup power. This placed an enormous financial burden on consumers already receiving excessive electricity bills from GEBE.
Moreover, the frequent power outages and fluctuations have caused significant damage to household appliances. Modern appliances, especially inverter-based models, are designed to be energy-efficient, yet they continue to be affected by GEBE’s inconsistent power supply. Consumers have taken steps to reduce their electricity usage—switching to energy-saving bulbs and using inverter-based appliances—but despite these efforts, electricity bills remain unreasonably high.
Given this situation, I respectfully ask:
1. Who will compensate consumers for the excessive fuel costs they incurred while GEBE was failing to provide a stable power supply?
2. Who will take responsibility for the damaged appliances caused by GEBE’s unreliable service?
3. What relief is being offered to consumers who are struggling with these exorbitant bills and the ever-increasing fuel clause charges?
It is time for transparency, accountability, and tangible solutions for the people of St. Maarten.
Signed,
A concerned citizen.

Integrity or Hypocrisy? Minister Marinka Gumbs vs Dr. Luc Mercelina.

Dear Editor,

In the world of politics, every decision matters, but recent events in the Council of Ministers (CoM) have left URSM supporters feeling betrayed. Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina, once seen as a strong leader, is now under fire for what many see as his failure to stand up to the Minister of Finance, Marinka Gumbs. At the center of the controversy is a troubling situation involving favoritism in the Tax Office that has sparked widespread outrage.

Minister Marinka Gumbs often preaches integrity, but her actions tell a different story. Recently, she overturned a fair hiring process in the Tax Office to favor her own relative. This relative had previously worked in the role on an acting basis but left because the pay wasn't worth the extra workload. When the job was officially advertised, the relative applied but did not rank as the top candidate. Despite this, Minister Gumbs stepped in, declared her relative the "best fit" for the role due to past experience, and instructed the Human Resources Department to remove the top candidate and hire her family member instead.

This blatant act of nepotism has caused an uproar. The hiring process should have been straightforward: the most qualified candidate gets the job. The person who came out on top was a former employee of the Ministry of Finance and is currently working in the Cabinet of the Prime Minister. Their qualifications and performance had earned them the position through a transparent process, only for their rightful placement to be disregarded for personal gain.

Such actions break the fabric of trust within the organization and raise serious ethical concerns. Civil servants are now eagerly looking to see if the Governor will sign the national decree to finalize the appointment. Many fear that allowing such favoritism to stand will set a dangerous precedent, further eroding morale and undermining confidence in the system.

Power Dynamics: Gumbs vs. Mercelina

Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina is also facing sharp criticism for his perceived inaction. Many URSM supporters, who once celebrated his rise to leadership, now feel disappointed and betrayed. The growing belief is that Dr. Mercelina is being overshadowed and pushed around by Minister Gumbs, raising doubts about his strength as a leader. His apparent unwillingness to stand up against what many see as bullying has caused supporters to question whether he has the courage to defend the principles of fairness and integrity that his party claims to uphold.

This controversy is not just about one job; it is a litmus test of the government's ability to lead with fairness and transparency. If the Minister of Finance can interfere with hiring decisions for her own benefit, what does that say about the administration's commitment to integrity? And if the Prime Minister cannot stop such actions, is he truly in charge?

For now, all eyes are on Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina as civil servants and URSM supporters, and the public waits to see whether integrity will prevail or if hypocrisy will continue to rule the day.

Concerned Civil Servants.

Names of Civil Servants are withheld upon request.