~Says Sint Maarten has talked long enough while neighbors have benefited for decades~

PHILIPSBURG:---  More than two years after making prepaid electricity one of the central pillars of his 2024 parliamentary election campaign, former parliamentary candidate Julian Rollocks Jr. is renewing his call for the Government and NV GEBE to stop talking and finally implement what he describes as a proven solution that would benefit every household and business in Sint Maarten.

Rollocks' renewed appeal comes in response to recent statements by GEBE official Patrick Drijvers confirming that the utility company is working to introduce a prepaid electricity system.

While welcoming the update, Rollocks questioned why Sint Maarten continues to lag behind other Caribbean islands that have successfully operated prepaid electricity systems for decades.

"I commend Mr. Drijvers for being transparent with the public," Rollocks said. "But if we are still not ready today, then when will we be?"

Rollocks reminded the public that prepaid electricity was one of the issues he consistently advocated during the January 2024 parliamentary election campaign, arguing that it would provide immediate financial relief and greater control over electricity expenses for consumers.

According to Rollocks, the neighboring island of Curaçao introduced prepaid electricity as early as 2002, proving that the technology is neither experimental nor complicated.

During his campaign, Rollocks said he personally discussed the system with the director of one of Curaçao's largest electricity companies, who explained that implementing prepaid electricity had been relatively straightforward.

"That raises a serious question," Rollocks noted. "Why does every technological improvement somehow become so complicated in Sint Maarten?"

Promises Stretch Back Years

Rollocks revealed that discussions about prepaid electricity did not begin during the election campaign.

He said nearly three years ago, he also spoke extensively with the late former GEBE Temporary Manager Troy Washington, who at the time assured him the utility company was already working toward introducing prepaid electricity.

"Three years later," Rollocks observed, "the public is still hearing the same message—that GEBE is working on it."

He also expressed disappointment that the political party on whose ticket he contested the 2024 parliamentary elections is now part of the governing coalition, yet has not aggressively pursued the proposal despite what he described as overwhelming public support.

Meanwhile, Rollocks noted, several neighboring islands are already expanding beyond prepaid electricity by introducing prepaid water services.

Putting Consumers in Control

Rollocks argues that prepaid electricity functions much like prepaid mobile phone service.

Consumers purchase a specific amount of electricity before using it, allowing them to monitor and manage consumption without worrying about receiving unexpectedly high bills at the end of the month.

"If someone buys only 30 kilowatt-hours," he explained, "they know they must carefully manage how they use electricity. They may decide to use a fan instead of the air conditioner or simply reduce unnecessary consumption."

He believes this approach gives consumers complete control over their monthly spending while encouraging more responsible energy use.

Benefits for Consumers and GEBE

According to Rollocks, prepaid electricity would deliver multiple advantages across the country.

Among the key benefits he identified are:

• Easier household budgeting and improved cash-flow management.
• A simple "pay-as-you-go" system similar to prepaid mobile phones.
• Greater awareness of electricity consumption encourages energy conservation.
• Elimination of disputes between landlords and tenants over unpaid utility bills, while reducing the administrative burden of changing accounts between occupants.
• No unexpected high monthly electricity bills.
• Real-time monitoring of electricity usage through mobile applications, allowing consumers to track consumption before their credit runs out.

Rollocks also believes the system would significantly improve GEBE's financial position by reducing outstanding receivables and improving the utility company's cash flow through advance payments.

Cost of Living Demands Urgent Action

With many families continuing to struggle under the rising cost of living, Rollocks said Government and GEBE should treat prepaid electricity as an urgent priority rather than another long-term project.

"Our people are struggling," he said. "Any measure that allows families to better control their monthly expenses deserves immediate attention."

He stressed that prepaid electricity is no longer an innovative experiment but a well-tested utility model that has been successfully operating throughout the Caribbean for more than two decades.

Rollocks concluded by thanking GEBE for updating the public on its progress but maintained that the time for discussions has passed.

"The people of Sint Maarten deserve action," he said. "Prepaid electricity is a proven system. The question is no longer whether it works. The question is how much longer the people must wait before it finally becomes reality."

BONAIRE:--- The Bonaire Human Rights Organization (BHRO) and James Finies distance themselves from the conference held in Washington, D.C., titled "Right of Return and Self-Determination: Double Standards and Selective Approaches," organized by the Baku Initiative Group (BIG), an organization from Azerbaijan.

Contrary to Google search information and other media outlets, BHRO and James Finies did not participate in this conference held recently in Washington DC.

In addition, James Finies distances himself from the statements made by Aruba, Curacao, St Maarten, St Eustatius, and Saba, including One St Maarten made by Rhoda Arrindel, National Alliance made by Christopher Emmanuel, St Eustatius’s Charles Woodley, Curacao's Na Kaminda Pa Libertat made by Disrael Orpheline, and other participants from Aruba and Saba.

Baku Initiative Group sent an invitation to James Finies and BHRO to attend this conference, which BHRO, as we are following a United Nations-level, diplomatically led trajectory, foreseeably advised against, and we made the decision not to participate and respectfully declined the invitation. 

BHRO and James Finies, therefore, wish to distance themselves from this conference ("Right of Return and Self-Determination: Double Standards and Selective Approaches”) and from any statements, positions, conclusions, recommendations, agreements, or declarations arising from this event made by representatives from Aruba, Curacao, St Maarten, St Eustatius, and Saba. 

Such views should not be interpreted as reflecting the position of BHRO, James Finies, and the people of Bonaire.

As an independent organization, BHRO and James Finies carefully evaluate all invitations, partnerships, and initiatives to ensure that participation is consistent with its mandate, principles, strategic objectives, and wishes, and wishes to reiterate that, in our view, this conference was not in line with the above.

BHRO remains focused on advancing the rights and interests of the people of Bonaire through constructive dialogue with member states of the United Nations and reiterates that BHRO support to James Finies international trajectory that is not seeking independence from the Netherlands but protection of Bonaire peoples under the UN Charter as the Bonerians being the majority over 70% after 2010 were reduced today to less then 30% facing demographic and cultural erasure according to CBS statistics.

This catastrophic erasure is not the case in Aruba, Curacao, St Maarten, Saba, or St Eustatius. 

Therefore, BHRO and James Finies distance themselves from this conference and the statements made by the representatives of the Baku Initiative group, St Maarten, St. Eustatius, Curacao, Aruba, and Saba.

~Parliament says approving a budget is no longer enough—government must now prove it can deliver.~ 

PHILIPSBURG:---  If there was one message that emerged from Friday's Central Committee budget debate, it was that Members of Parliament are no longer satisfied with approving millions in public spending without measurable results.

Using Finance Minister Marinka Gumbs' new policy-based budgeting framework as the foundation, MPs repeatedly argued that the government should now be judged by performance indicators, completed projects, and quarterly progress reports instead of promises.

Leading that charge was MP Francisco Lacroes, who called on the government to table key performance indicators (KPIs) for every ministry and commit to submitting quarterly reports to Parliament.

He questioned what consequences ministers would face if they failed to achieve the targets attached to their approved budgets.

"If ministries fail to meet their approved targets in 2026, what consequences or corrective measures will follow?" Lacroes asked.

Demand for measurable government

Lacroes also requested detailed information on every ministry's revenue stream, asking the government to identify:

• how much revenue each ministry generated;
• how much remains outstanding;
• how much income was lost because permits or licenses were delayed;
• which consultancy contracts were awarded;
• and how much additional revenue improved tax compliance is expected to generate.

He argued that staffing shortages are costing the government money because delayed licenses, permits, and approvals postpone revenue that should already be entering the Treasury.

Lewis demands accountability

MP Lyndon Lewis followed with one of the longest rounds of questioning during the debate.

Rather than concentrating on political criticism, Lewis repeatedly asked ministers to provide measurable benchmarks for virtually every policy objective contained in the 2026 budget.

Among his requests were:

• targets for reducing violent crime;
• police recruitment numbers;
• waiting times for specialist healthcare;
• labor inspection targets;
• scholarship beneficiaries;
• teacher vacancies;
• school maintenance schedules;
• affordable housing construction;
• road rehabilitation timelines;
• landfill milestones;
• drainage improvements;
• tourism growth targets;
• and measurable returns on public investment.

Lewis also questioned whether the government has introduced sufficient financial oversight to ensure ministries actually execute the projects Parliament approves each year.

Justice, roads, and housing

The Justice Ministry received particularly close scrutiny.

Questions focused on the construction timetable for the new prison, rehabilitation programs for inmates, police staffing levels, witness protection, youth crime prevention, immigration reforms, and the status of electronic monitoring.

The Ministry of VROMI faced equally detailed questioning regarding unfinished road projects, Dutch Quarter Road, Welgelegen Road, drainage improvements, landfill rehabilitation, waste export, affordable housing, consultant dependence and delays in capital project execution.

Revenue versus spending

Throughout the debate, MPs repeatedly returned to one central concern.

The government has presented a larger budget with higher projected revenues and expenditures, but Parliament wants evidence that ministries can actually execute the projects they propose.

MP Lacroes questioned whether the government would finally require audited financial statements from government-owned companies and introduce sanctions when boards fail to comply.

He also sought quarterly financial reporting on state-owned enterprises, including GEBE, cash flow statements, debt positions, and government guarantees.

Parliament raising the bar

Friday's debate demonstrated a noticeable shift in Parliament's approach.

Rather than arguing solely over individual line items, Members demanded implementation schedules, measurable deliverables, and regular reporting.

With Finance Minister Gumbs introducing policy-based budgeting—designed to link spending to results—MPs made it clear they intend to use the same framework to measure the performance of every minister over the next 12 months.

As ministers prepare their responses next week, they will not only have to defend their budgets but also explain exactly how and when they intend to deliver the promises attached to every guilder Parliament is being asked to approve.

~MPs challenge the government on revenue generation, GEBE, healthcare, policing, housing, tourism, and billions in public spending.~

PHILIPSBURG:--- What began as Finance Minister Marinka Gumbs' presentation of a Cg. 647 million national budget quickly turned into a marathon of scrutiny as Members of Parliament fired hundreds of questions at the Council of Ministers, demanding concrete timelines, measurable results, and accountability for virtually every ministry.

Rather than focusing solely on expenditure, opposition MPs repeatedly challenged the government to explain how it intends to generate additional revenue, deliver long-delayed projects, and ensure taxpayers receive value for money from the largest budget in the country's history.

One of the dominant themes throughout Friday's Central Committee meeting was that St. Maarten cannot continue increasing government spending without simultaneously increasing government income.

MP Francisco Lacroes made that point clear when he argued that every budget debate focuses on expenditure, while revenue generation remains largely absent.

"No budget debate is complete without a credible plan to earn, collect, enforce, and protect St. Maarten's revenue," he stated before announcing that many of his questions would focus specifically on the government's revenue strategy.

Revenue generation under the microscope

MP Omar Ottley questioned why the government has not reintroduced temporary fuel tax relief similar to measures implemented in 2021 and 2022 when gasoline prices surged.

He reminded Parliament that previous governments successfully provided relief at the pumps and asked Finance Minister Marinka Gumbs why similar measures cannot be implemented now, despite the government's stronger-than-expected first-quarter financial results.

MP Lacroes also questioned why Parliament has still not held the long-requested meeting dedicated exclusively to revenue-generating measures.

He noted that Parliament requested the meeting in December 2025 but said it was repeatedly postponed without explanation, despite the government continuously complaining about insufficient financial resources.

Among his proposals were introducing annual licensing fees for foreign company directors, maintaining property taxation for foreign investors while exempting locals, and examining additional revenue streams similar to neighboring islands.

MP Lyndon Lewis also pressed the government on its projected increase in tax revenues, asking what assumptions underpin the projected Cg. 647 million revenue target and how much additional revenue the government expects to generate through stronger tax compliance rather than higher taxation.

He demanded updated figures on outstanding tax arrears, the value of collectible taxes, and the government's strategy for modernizing tax administration and digitizing financial services.

GEBE dominates questioning

The troubled utility company again emerged as one of Parliament's biggest concerns.

MP Ottley demanded an update on the approximately Cg. 74 million to Cg. 76 million loan approved to purchase new generators, asking why no generators have yet been delivered despite taxpayers already assuming responsibility for repayment.

He questioned whether inflation has made the generators unaffordable and asked the government to explain exactly where the procurement process currently stands.

MP Lacroes expanded the questioning significantly.

He asked who is politically responsible for GEBE, whether the Prime Minister or another minister serves as shareholder representative, what legal authority the Bureau of Telecommunications and Post (BTP) actually possesses over electricity tariffs, and requested clarification on the resignation of a GEBE Supervisory Board member.

He further requested the curriculum vitae of every current board member, questioned whether their vision aligns with the government's policy objectives, and sought a detailed chronological timeline explaining why Parliament-approved financing for new generators has yet to result in their purchase.

Healthcare and SAHA

Healthcare financing generated another lengthy exchange.

MP Ottley warned that General Health Insurance, now referred to as SAHA, can no longer remain on the drawing board while healthcare deficits continue increasing.

He asked whether government still intends introducing the legislation this year, questioned the planned Cg.800,000 allocation for SAHA, and warned that continued delays could deepen the financial problems facing SZV.

He also called for the government to finally implement health insurance coverage for sole proprietors, bus operators, and taxi drivers—legislation he said has been awaiting action since receiving advice from the Council of Advice in 2024.

Questions for every ministry

Members also challenged ministers across the entire Council of Ministers.

Among the issues raised were:

• Fire Department staffing shortages, outstanding overtime, salary corrections, and retroactive payments.
• Police manpower, Coast Guard salary allocations, and delayed justice reforms.
• Affordable housing, cemetery space, drainage works, and road rehabilitation.
• Tourism marketing effectiveness and diversification beyond cruise tourism.
• Delays in business licenses and building permits.
• Teacher shortages, school maintenance, youth programs, and sports funding.
• Mental healthcare, ambulance capacity, and specialist waiting lists.
• Public sector vacancies, reliance on consultants, and digital government initiatives.

The budget debate now moves into the response phase, where ministers will be expected not only to defend their spending requests but also to answer one of Parliament's recurring questions: how the government intends to pay for its expanding responsibilities while delivering measurable improvements to the people of St. Maarten.