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. 

Dear Editor,

The Minister of ECYS has jumped on this misguided bandwagon, pressuring schools to abandon longstanding hygiene rules. This governmental interference is particularly egregious because the proposed changes haven't even passed through parliament. We have a minister trying to override established school policies through political pressure rather than proper legislative process.

This represents a dangerous precedent where schools lose their authority to maintain basic standards. When government officials undermine institutional rules for political gain, they're teaching children that rules don't matter, and authority can be circumvented through complaints and protests.

Vote-Hunting Through Lawlessness

Let's call this what it is: ministers and parliament members are sacrificing community health and educational standards to secure votes from permissive parents. They're not considering what's best for children's development, health, or preparation for adult responsibilities.

These politicians know that maintaining hygiene standards is crucial for public health. They understand that schools need clear authority to enforce basic cleanliness rules. But they're willing to abandon these principles to appease a vocal minority of parents who view any standards as oppression.

This isn't progressive policy, it's lawlessness disguised as tolerance.

Poor hygiene in schools creates serious consequences beyond bad smells and unsightly appearances. It increases disease transmission, creates social barriers for students with proper hygiene habits, and fails to prepare young people for workplace expectations.

Employers won't tolerate workers who can't maintain basic cleanliness. By allowing students to graduate without learning fundamental hygiene practices, we're setting them up for professional failure and social rejection.

Schools serve the entire community, not just the loudest parents. When we abandon hygiene standards, we compromise the health and comfort of all students, staff, and families.

Schools must stand firm against this assault on basic standards. They need to enforce existing hygiene rules without apology, regardless of parental complaints or political pressure. The health and well-being of the majority cannot be sacrificed for the convenience of a few.

Parents need to accept their responsibility to teach their children proper hygiene habits. If you can't maintain your child's elaborate hairstyle or nail extensions, don't send them to school with these potential health hazards.

Politicians must stop using children's education as a campaign battleground. Support schools in maintaining reasonable standards, or stay out of educational policy entirely.

The time for compromise on basic hygiene has passed. Our children deserve clean, healthy learning environments where they can focus on education rather than navigate around classmates who haven't learned basic cleanliness. Schools, parents, and policymakers must choose to maintain standards that serve the community, or watch our educational institutions become breeding grounds for poor habits and declining health standards.

Authors' Name Withheld upon Request.

Dear news media,

When I read Member of Parliament Sjamira Roseburg’s recent remarks about GEBE disconnections and the rights of consumers, I could not help but feel a sense of disgust at the blatant hypocrisy on display. Rosenberg is not some powerless observer; she is an MP for the URSM Party—led by Prime Minister Luc Mercelina—and a full member of the governing coalition that has presided over nearly two years of hardship for the people of St. Maarten. If Roseburg truly cared about protecting the rights of ordinary citizens, she would not have voted against the motion in Parliament to provide relief from the crushing energy bills GEBE has been charging. She would have spoken up months ago, not now when it is politically convenient to appear as “the people’s champion.” As an attorney at law with the privilege of continuing her private practice while collecting over NAf 18,000 per month as an MP, Roseburg has no difficulty paying her own electricity bills. With her position as a Member of Parliament for the Coalition, even if she had a problem with a high GEBE bill, she can afford to call GEBE management directly for answers—an option the average citizen does not have. Where was Rosburg when St. Maarten was plunged into darkness after the island-wide blackout—when businesses were forced to close, tourists fled, and our island’s reputation was blacklisted in the United States and Canada as unsafe due to electricity instability? Where was her outrage when homes and businesses lost valuable appliances with no compensation, while GEBE’s bills kept climbing without explanation?

At no time did she stand up for the people, defend them against her party’s failures, or challenge the Prime Minister’s empty promises. She sided with her leader and voted against relief. Let us not forget: This leader and Party is Prime Minister Luc Mercelina, the same man who publicly said that generators could have been on the island within a week of the blackouts—but chose not to act, because according to him it was “too expensive.” Instead, he and his URSM government have done nothing but make excuses, shift blame, and now fire the GEBE board in a desperate attempt to cover up their incompetence. St. Maarten, this may be a case of you getting what you deserve because you are the ones who voted for them. But not even that is enough reason for anyone to deserve this kind of injustice. So, for Rosenberg to suddenly discover her concern for the public is not only insulting—it is a calculated political manoeuvre designed to erase her voting record.

I hope this marks the beginning of her redemption, now that she has awoken from her deep slumber and possibly distanced herself from Luc Mercelina and the URSM Party. Because she truly can do better, I think. However, if she must follow the decisions of a Narcissistic leader whose goal is merely to be called Prime Minister, rather than to do the work, then she, like the URSM, is wasting the people’s time and not genuinely trying to help them. I remain a believer in the people of Sweet St. Maarten, and although politicians hope they can count on the people to forget, I believe the people of St. Maarten remember. They remember the promise of relief “by the end of July” that never came. They remember being told there was no double TOT on fuel—only for the Prime Minister’s own words to confirm that, yes, fuel is taxed at wholesale and again at the pump. They remember the lies, the excuses, and the two years of the new government and no action. Roseburg’s words are meaningless unless backed by action—and she has already shown, through her vote and her silence, exactly where her loyalty lies. The URSM government has failed the people of St. Maarten at every turn. They cannot fix what they promised to fix, they cannot keep the promises they made, and they think firing a board member will hide the fact that they have done nothing for nearly two years except protect themselves. The people must ask: how much longer will we allow such hypocrisy and disregard for human decency to go unpunished? How can we trust those who, in our time of desperation, chose party loyalty and personal comfort over the needs of the very people they swore to represent? Roseburg, the answer to your question of whether you're getting my vote, is NO. It should be the same for every other St. Maartener because that is what you said when the opposition members of Parliament brought a motion to get relief for me and the rest of St. Maarten from the financial burden and hardship that GEBE has imposed on us.

Concerned Citizen.

Dear Editor,

Recent parliamentary debates have raised important questions about the practice of Members of Parliament voting in favor of a motion while opposing the national budget. This is neither contradictory nor unprecedented. In Sint Maarten’s parliamentary democracy, such actions reflect issue-based decision-making rooted in constitutional responsibility, legal oversight, and a commitment to the people.

Motions serve as targeted instruments to address specific concerns or call for government action on defined issues. One such motion, recently approved by Parliament, mandates the General Audit Chamber to conduct a formal audit into the government’s financial and in-kind support for the Soul Beach event. This decision followed widespread concern over violations of the Subsidy Ordinance and public finance laws. By supporting this motion, Parliament is exercising its right to demand transparency and accountability in public spending.

At the same time, the national budget represents the government’s overarching financial blueprint for the entire fiscal year. It includes projected revenues, expenditures, and policy priorities. A vote on the budget is a vote on the government’s total financial direction. Supporting a motion to address a specific problem does not require endorsing a flawed budget that reflects broader shortcomings in planning, transparency, and execution.

There are concrete reasons why a Member of Parliament may support certain motions while voting against the budget. The Minister of Finance herself acknowledged during budget discussions that several entities had been paid without an approved budget and stated publicly that this practice needed to be corrected. Yet, despite this admission, those same entities were still not included in the 2025 budget, raising serious concerns about fiscal accountability and legal consistency.

In addition, Parliament has yet to receive the full and updated list of government rental properties and the financial obligations attached to them. This information, which should have been disclosed as part of the budget package, remains absent despite multiple formal requests. The lack of transparency on such a fundamental budget item calls into question the completeness and credibility of the document.

Further concerns have arisen from the exclusion of numerous capital projects financed through the T.W.O. Dutch funding programs. These are projects that have already received approval and international support, yet they remain unaccounted for in the national budget. Their absence will likely lead to additional delays in delivery, undermining national development and raising questions about the government’s coordination and readiness.

Meanwhile, the handling of the Soul Beach event has cast a shadow over public finance management. The government’s significant support for this private initiative, carried out without the proper legal foundation, has drawn criticism from Parliament, civil society, and the public. That the budget made no attempt to reconcile or correct this approach further justified the need for formal audit intervention, as now mandated through an approved motion.

It is important to note that this approach is not new. Over the past decade, both coalition and opposition MPs in Sint Maarten have exercised their right to support individual motions while withholding support from the national budget when that budget failed to meet basic standards of transparency, legal compliance, or sound governance. This practice is part of healthy parliamentary oversight and is a vital check within the democratic process.

Supporting a motion is an act of targeted agreement with a solution. Opposing a budget, in contrast, can be a principled response to systemic flaws. Members of Parliament are not elected to simply validate government proposals but to critically assess them in the interest of the people. Under these circumstances, voting against the budget is not obstruction. It is responsible, necessary, and rooted in the constitutional role of Parliament to hold the government accountable.

MP Ardwell Irion.