Finance Minister Marinka Gumbs responding to questions, while PM Dr. Luc Mercelina and Gumbs’ support staff look on.
~ Record 15 motions, two amendments tabled ~
PHILIPSBURG--After three days of sometimes intense debate and two marathon sessions, the Parliament of St. Maarten passed the new 2025 budget early Tuesday morning.
The final vote came at 4:29am following a 17-hour continuation meeting, during which Members of Parliament (MPs) tabled a record 15 motions, two amendments, and posed many questions. The budget passed with nine MPs voting in favour and six against. Voting in favour were MPs Lyndon Lewis of Nation Opportunity Wealth (NOW); Viren Kotai, Dimar Labega and Sarah Wescot-Williams of the Democratic Party (DP); Sjamira Roseburg, Christopher Wever and Veronica Jansen-Webster of the Unified Resilient St Maarten Movement (URSM); Raeyhon Peterson of the Party for Progress (PFP); and Franklyn Meyers of the Soualiga Action Movement (SAM). Voting against were MPs Ludmila de Weever of the PFP; Omar Ottley and Francisco Lacroes of the United People’s (UP) party; and Ardwell Irion, Darryl York and Egbert Doran of the National Alliance (NA).
Of the 15 motions tabled, five were submitted by MP Lacroes – one of which he later withdrew following discussions with the Minister of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure VROMI, Patrice Gumbs. MP Doran submitted three; MP Ottley, two; MP Roseburg, two; and one each came from MPs York, Wever, and Irion. Several of the motions passed, and the two amendments were rejected (see related stories).This was the second time Parliament voted on the 2025 draft budget. The version passed in January did not go into effect due to technical inconsistencies, prompting a revised submission and renewed scrutiny.
During the session, MPs debated a range of issues, including utility relief, prison reform, food security, and support for displaced marketplace vendors. Taking up a major chunk of the discussion were the proposed dividend withholding tax and the Soul Beach Music Festival.
A number of MPs motivated their reasons for voting the way they did. MP Lewis said he supported the 2025 budget because it reflected work done under his tenure as Minister of Justice and Acting Minister of Education, Culture, Youth and Sport (ECYS). He acknowledged that much of the budget was a “copy-paste” of the original version and said it would be hypocritical to vote against a document he helped shape. “I would be hypocritical today to say I am going to be against a budget that I helped put together when I was Minister of Justice and Acting Minister of ECYS,” Lewis stated. He added that future budgets would be judged differently, as he would no longer be directly involved in their preparation.
MP De Weever said this was the closest she had ever come to supporting a budget. “This is the absolute closest that I’ve gotten to approving a budget, because since December 2024, when we started the Central Committee, I’ve had very simple questions throughout the entire process,” stated de Weever.
MP De Weever said she did not want anyone to think she was going to compromise on her findings or questions. “Every question I’ve had since December has been answered – except one. And if we had more time, I would have accepted a ‘nota van wijziging’ from the government for the one simple error that I asked about since December, which was a complete list of rental properties. I have discussed this at length with the Minister of Finance, so she understood my position. But again, that goes back to me not compromising for one minor thing, because if I start to compromise on one minor thing, for me, it’s the worst thing that I can do when it comes to my interpretation of the budget. I’ve had a very good conversation with the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, and they understand my position very clearly. And it’s really based on the incomplete listing of the rental properties – I will not support the budget.”
MP Ottley said he remained undecided, pointing to both positives and negatives in the draft budget. “For the first time, I am still in limbo with the budget. The budget had some negatives and some positives,” he said, explaining the negatives and indicating that a clear explanation was not provided when he asked about them. MP Ottley acknowledged some positive steps. “We asked a lot of questions, and some of the ministers were forthcoming with documents, and I got an answer for the first time on the process of the budget. I am still in limbo with the budget. I ask God to guide me with this decision. I am not for or against it at this moment when it comes to this budget.” He ended up voting against the budget.
MP Wescot-Williams made several recommendations for future budget processes. “I strongly recommend to the government that attention is paid to the amended budget which is supposed to come and that we can get this matter of amendments – especially budgetary amendments by MPs – straight. Secondly, I have asked, not only this time around but before as well, for the government to look at the subsidy list that is attached to the budget. We cannot have a subsidy list that refers to subsidies and, as the course and basis of those subsidies, a decision of the Executive Council of St. Maarten is mentioned. We can’t have that.”
She also called for clearer explanations of the budget. “The elucidation to the budget – especially now that we are going over to basically eliminating some of the line items in the budget – that the elucidation, the toelichting, is very clear and can be put against the budget for MPs to understand: this post covers these expenses or these revenues. And then fourthly, I want to encourage the government strongly to follow the reporting schedule according to the Accountability Ordinance of St. Maarten. That is a reporting to Parliament, separate from the reporting that comes because of the CFT legislation. That’s reporting based on our legislation that I’m referring to.”
