It will be interesting to see how the Mercelina II Cabinet handles an incident involving access to government facilities by a senior civil servant. Coalition partner United Resilient St. Maarten Movement (URSM) called this an internal matter of the executive branch and said it is mindful of the importance of respecting confidentiality, due process and established administrative protocols.
However, Minister of Public Health, Social Development and Labor VSA Richinel Brug soon revealed that it regards his Chef de Cabinet. He reported being informed through an official correspondence from Prime Minister Luc Mercelina that a decision had been made to suspend the official “based on a supposed incident that took place yesterday, January 7th, in my office without me being present.”
Brug added that “I find it quite unfortunate that such decision was made without allowing the competent authority, which is my person, to hear both parties and decide on a way forward. Nonetheless after having heard all parties involved in this process, I stand in full support of my Chef de Cabinet as based on my own research conducted today.”
What makes this even more poignant is that Mercelina as well as Brug represent USRM. The party’s board said, “Not every issue that enters the public domain is one that should be litigated in public. Internal executive matters must be addressed within the appropriate institutional frameworks, without speculation or unnecessary escalation.”
URSM stressed that “safeguarding the integrity of government institutions requires discretion, professionalism and adherence to clear lines of authority. Public confidence is best maintained when internal matters are handled responsibly and without compromising sensitive information.
“Good governance depends not only on transparency, but also on discipline and respect for internal processes. Premature or incomplete public narratives can undermine trust and distort the realities of complex administrative situations.”
The party further cautioned against drawing conclusions in the absence of official clarification, recognising that executive leadership must sometimes take decisions that are administrative in nature and not intended for public debate. While acknowledging Parliament’s awareness of the situation, the board reiterated that accountability mechanisms already exist within the constitutional framework to address concerns should they arise.
That’s all good and well, but the matter understandably raises questions in the community about what actually took place and why both parties involved were apparently not heard first. The reality is that elected representatives on either side of the aisle have every right to seek clarity on behalf of the people and it can even be considered their duty.
