Saba’s Executive Council has a point. As reported in last Thursday’s edition, they opposed a planned expansion of the island’s governing and legislative bodies in a letter to the Dutch Second Chamber of Parliament. Some might wonder why any territory would refuse the full political representation they are entitled to based on the number of inhabitants, but Saba argued that there is not enough time left to “prepare for a structural change of considerable magnitude”.
Their response came after caretaker Dutch State Secretary of Kingdom Relations Eddie van Marum urged the Second Chamber in the Netherlands to declare this matter as non-controversial, which would open a path for related legislation to be passed in time for the next Island Council election in March 2027. “If we don’t act now, the islands will remain under-represented for another four years compared to Dutch municipalities with a comparable population,” he stated.
Van Marum had assured Members of Parliament (MPs) that the Executive Councils of Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba did not object to the expansion, but the latter’s authorities now contradict his claim. They had not opposed the move in March 2024 because then there were still three years to get ready for a “significant and far-reaching institutional change”.
One practical issue mentioned is that The Hague did not allocate enough money to implement the adjustment. There was apparently a combined US$300,000 earmarked for the three so-called BES islands, but Saba says it already spends $100,000 a year in rent for office space due to “a persistent lack of available housing for a growing organisation”.
According to the letter, a bigger local government will not address the high cost of living, the lack of affordable and reliable connectivity or the recurring situation in which schools begin the academic year without sufficient teachers. These remain the most pressing problems facing the island.
The Executive Council acknowledged that St. Eustatius’ Island Council wanted to increase seats as soon as possible, and lobbied for the bill to be changed to allow them to go ahead in 2027, while Saba’s would be delayed to 2031. In their opinion, “differentiation in timing does not weaken democracy. It strengthens it by ensuring that reforms are introduced when institutions are prepared, resources are available, and local priorities are not displaced. This approach safeguards governance stability and allows continued focus on the urgent, day-to-day challenges that most directly affect the lives of our residents.”
Saba has consistently shown a prudent and responsible attitude in public affairs, particularly regarding sustainable finances. Enough reason to take their concerns seriously.
