Dear Editor,
Please allow me space in your esteemed publication for the following:
Recent developments have once again highlighted the shortcomings of Sint Maarten’s Hillside Policy, reinforcing the urgent need for legally binding legislation to protect our natural landscapes. As has been reported in the media, ongoing hillside developments such as the Concord Residence in Pelican Key and extensive excavation on Cole Bay Hill have sparked public outcry, with concerns over deforestation, erosion, and the long-term consequences of unchecked construction. While the VROMI Ministry has defended the policy, it is clear that its guidelines alone are not enough to prevent the degradation of our hillsides. The same can be said for the Beach Policy, which similarly lacks the legal weight to prevent overdevelopment and encroachment on the very coastlines that define our island’s identity.
The Hillside Policy, implemented in 1998, was intended to regulate development in elevated areas, ensuring that construction does not compromise the island’s green spaces, biodiversity, and natural defenses against flooding and landslides. However, without legal enforcement, the policy remains largely advisory, allowing developers to proceed with projects that undermine its very purpose. The policy’s restrictions on high-density construction and its call for environmental consideration are routinely bypassed, as demonstrated by the continued clearing of vegetation and the alteration of slopes for commercial and residential expansion. Without clear penalties or a legal framework mandating compliance, these activities persist, threatening not only the island’s natural beauty but also its resilience to extreme weather events.
Similarly, the Beach Policy fails to provide sufficient protection against the privatization and exploitation of our shores. Beach access for residents continues to be reduced, with new developments pushing further into what should be public coastal spaces. The encroachment on dunes and beach vegetation contributes to erosion, making the coastline more vulnerable to hurricanes and sea-level rise. Yet, without a law to enforce setbacks and ensure sustainable coastal management, our beaches remain at the mercy of unchecked development.
The lack of legally enforceable hillside and beach protections has far-reaching consequences. Deforestation on slopes exacerbates runoff and soil erosion, leading to increased flooding in lower-lying areas. Unregulated coastal development not only depletes marine biodiversity but also limits public access to what should be a shared national resource. These developments often proceed without comprehensive environmental impact assessments, leaving communities vulnerable to disasters and reducing the natural defenses that help buffer Sint Maarten against the impacts of climate change.
If Sint Maarten is to truly embrace sustainability, it must move beyond non-binding policies and implement laws that prioritize long-term environmental security over short-term economic gain. It is time for parliament to take decisive action and introduce both a Hillside Protection Ordinance and a Beach Protection Ordinance that ensure development does not come at the cost of our island’s natural defenses. Failure to act now will not only result in further environmental degradation but will also undermine the resilience of our communities in the face of climate change. Protecting our hillsides and beaches is not just an environmental issue—it is an urgent necessity for the future of Sint Maarten.

Sincerely,
Tadzio Bervoets
Belair
+1 721 5864588

Dear Editor,

St. Maarten has always had a complicated relationship with gambling. For years, concerned voices in Parliament have spoken about the dangers of unregulated lottery booths, the pervasiveness of casinos, and the gambling addiction that plagues many of our people. Among the loudest critics? None other than MP Sarah Wescot-Williams and MP Raeyhon Peterson are now coalition partners in the very government that just gave the green light to yet another casino.

That’s right. Another casino in the Sunset building has officially been granted a permit, thanks to the decision of Minister of Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport, and Telecommunication (TEATT) Grisha Heyliger-Marten. And now, she’s scrambling to justify it, saying the previous government issued a promissory letter and her hands were tied. But let’s be honest, since when does a promissory letter from a former administration mean a done deal? If she truly opposed it, she could have reversed it just as she has reversed many other decisions since taking office. So, quite frankly, this sad attempt of an excuse is unacceptable. 

So, the real question is: Does she agree with opening the casino, or is she just playing both sides?

A Government Out of Sync. Who’s Fooling Who?

This move exposes the deep hypocrisy within the current coalition government. Sarah Wescot-Williams, the leader of the Democratic Party (DP) and a senior member of the coalition, has spent years railing against the spread of gambling institutions. In 2022, she grilled the government over casino revenues, demanding transparency on agreements between casinos and the government. In earlier years, she questioned the issuance of new casino licenses, emphasizing the need for strict regulations. Now, her own coalition partner and party member, the Minister of TEATT, has handed out a new casino permit on a silver platter.

And what about Raeyhon Peterson of the Party for Progress (PFP)? He has been vocal against lottery booths, even pushing for policies to restrict their numbers. Most recently, during the budget debate, he even called for casinos to be shut down. His stance has been clear: gambling should be regulated more strictly, not expanded. Yet, his government just signed off on a brand-new gambling establishment. Will he speak up against his own coalition, or is he conveniently silent now that the political winds have shifted?

This administration claims to stand for “the people,” but which people, exactly? The hardworking St. Maarteners who struggle to make ends meet, or the well-connected business elite who continue to rake in profits while the rest of the island drowns in economic disparity?

The Classic St. Maarten Double Standard

This government is proving, once again, that it operates on two sets of rules: one for the haves and another for the have-nots. If you’re struggling, you’ll be met with endless red tape, excuses, and delays. They’ll tell you to be patient, that the budget is tight, and that solutions take time. But if you’re a casino owner or a well-connected businessman, suddenly, doors open, permits are issued, and excuses are made.

The House Always Wins

The approval of this new Casino isn’t just about one more casino. It’s about who this government really serves. And from what we’re seeing, it’s not the struggling families, not the working-class citizens, and certainly not the people who have been warning about gambling addiction for years.

This isn’t just hypocrisy; it’s a blatant slap in the face to everyone who believed this coalition was different. So the question is, will MPs like Wescot-Williams and Peterson stand up and call out their coalition’s double standards, or will they let this government continue to cater to the few at the expense of the many?

Because in this game, the casino always wins, and it seems like the people of St. Maarten will be the ones left paying the price.

Concerned Citizen.

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.

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