Dear Editor,
In St. Maarten, GEBE is shorthand for frustration: the outages, billing mess, and infamous fuel clause. People can only take so much. However, the story doesn’t start or end with GEBE.
Behind every bill are two private monopolies that control the island’s energy and water lifelines: SOL Antilles N.V., the only fuel importer, and Seven Seas Water, the exclusive supplier of water purified by desalination. Together, they operate without competition, and their costs flow unchecked onto utility bills.
The government’s own tariff evaluation, finalized in April 2025 by the Bureau Telecommunication and Post (BTP) with support from the Regulatory Authority of Curaçao (RAC), confirmed this problem. The redacted report showed that between 2022 and 2024, GEBE over-collected through its fuel clauses. In regulated markets, excess charges are refunded to the people. In St. Maarten, they disappear into cash flows, with no questions asked.
Take SOL’s 30-year exclusive contract: it locks GEBE into buying oil only from its terminals, with no alternatives available. BTP/RAC reviewers found invoices padded with unexplained “throughput fees”, premiums and losses, with no regulator verifying a single one. With no price cap, SOL effectively writes the bill, and the public pays it. To make matters worse, GEBE’s aging engines, most of which are well past their intended lifespan, are burning more fuel than modern equipment, further inflating costs.
The same story plays out with water. Seven Seas’ 2007 “take-or-pay” contract forced St. Maarten to buy fixed volumes of desalinated water, whether it was needed or not.
After Hurricane Irma in 2017, the country had to pay millions for unused water. An amendment in 2018 lowered the contracted volume, saving about 4 million guilders per year for three years, roughly 12 million in total. However, the monopoly structure remained intact. In 2023, the deal was extended through 2027 because GEBE was still not ready to produce its own water supply. Officials publicized annual savings of about US $400,000. While significant on its own, this amount is modest compared to the earlier multi-million-guilder savings and does little to offset the inflated costs that households and businesses continue to bear.
People remain trapped in a one-sided arrangement where electricity has long been misallocated, and businesses pay four times more than households do. Faced with growing criticism, GEBE tried to defend its position by hiring Reporting, Controlling, and Regulatory Consulting B.V. (RCRC) to produce a counter-review released on July 31, 2025.
RCRC cautioned that simply cutting the fuel clause could destabilize GEBE, estimating a revenue hit of 2.6 cents per kilowatt hour, or XCG 9.2 million, annually. Their warning recalled Curaçao’s 2011 mistake, where regulators forced Aqualectra into steep tariff cuts, only for the company to collapse within two years. Curaçao’s government had to inject millions to rescue it from bankruptcy, and the people ended up repaying the so-called relief through higher bill payments. This is a textbook case of how quick fixes and political tampering can backfire. No subsidy, town hall, or empty promise will solve this problem. Subsidies only recycle taxpayers’ money; they do not cut costs; they simply shuffle them. No town hall can renegotiate monopoly contracts. Real relief comes only from structural reforms.
The BTP/RAC evaluation provided 13 solid recommendations, of which several were noteworthy. Generator fuels (LFO/HFO) must be brought under the same price controls as gasoline and LPG, with every SOL invoice being independently verified. A correction mechanism should be introduced so that over- or undercharging is automatically adjusted on future bills. The water fuel clause must be redesigned to ensure that electricity costs are transparent and fairly allocated. Most importantly, independent regulatory oversight must be established to end utility self-regulation. One more step that costs nothing but political will is to publish supplier contracts, redacted if necessary, so the public finally knows what it is paying for.
While St. Maarten clings to played-out political grandstanding, other islands have taken steps toward energy diversification. Curaçao strengthened its regulators in 2011 after Aqualectra collapsed due to political interference. Aruba began forming global partnerships in 2012 to roll out wind and solar projects and reduce its dependence on fossil fuels. Barbados broke monopoly markups in 2015 by introducing competitive fuel procurement policies. Jamaica went further, launching renewable energy auctions in 2016; by 2019, renewables already supplied 17% of its grid and are on track to reach 20% by 2030. The lesson is clear:
transparency, competition, and renewables are not theory; they are proven practices.
Keeping GEBE chained to fossil fuels while sidelining renewables guarantees higher future costs for the public. If leaders fear “losing control” of GEBE through privatization, then they should form strategic alliances with private partners that bring the technical expertise needed to modernize. The choice is not complicated: either keep paying inflated bills under a broken system or finally modernize the energy sector with real regulation, competition, and renewables.
The shadows behind your GEBE bills are not simple accounting errors; they are monopolies protected by law, one-sided contracts, and political cowardice. As long as these issues remain untouched, any talk of relief is nothing more than a performance. True relief means rewriting the rules of the game. Anything less is political theatre.
Angelique Remy-Chittick
Financial Strategist & Consultant @Financial.ish
Dear Editor,
In The Daily Herald of August 27th, on page 5, I read ’Ruff E Nuff Car & Bike show hailed a success. On that same morning on my way to Philipsburg I had noticed a white car with red lights in front. On that same morning the police who were towing illegally parked vehicles in the Frontstreet told me that I was lucky. My car was illegally parked also and when I saw that they were towing away the illegally parked cars I decided to move mine. I felt good because at last something was being done.
Why I decided to write to you now is because more and more I am proving to myself that when years ago I asked via the Editor what is going to happen with parking in Frontstreet when they put sidewalks on both sides of the street I was told that they were also going to put palm trees and bricks. Those involved, knew that in the long run delivery trucks would have to stop in the middle of the road to offload goods for the businesses. Before you know those schoolchildren were busy again. They said that those involved had already made a deal concerning the palm trees. I am very aware that it is no use crying over spilt milk, but we all know that so-called renovation of Frontstreet is a failure.
Then a few weeks aback I wrote to you mentioning that government should limit the import of motor vehicles because it is more than obvious that the streets of Sint Maarten are overcongested. After leaving the Frontstreet, between looking for a place to park and manouvering through the traffic congestion it took me almost two hours to find a space to park. So my question is why frustrate everybody who are working especially in Philipsburg, knowing that there is no space or very limited space for public parking? I know that the police people themselves do not feel justified in removing illegally parked vehicles because they themselves can't find adequate parking for their personal vehicles.
So my question now is this: Which is more offensive, motorbikes with very loud exhausts, illegally parking in Frontstreet or motorvehicles of which the glasses are completely covered with very dark tint?
Russell A. Simmons
Dear Vromi Minister,
There is a spot on the sea at Point Blanch before Greenfinger where the sea grass or sea weed, how you want to name it, is always gathering and stays there for days, weeks and months, turning all kind of colours. l think government should make it their duty to take out the sea weed at all times.
Cuthbert Bannis
Dear Editor,
There is responsible and then there is responsible. I do not know who is in charge but in this case I am sure that it does not take the Minister of VROMI [Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure – Ed.] to deal with the missing traffic signs and name-of-road signs. Even if it is a question of money, again I am sure that there are enough traffic signs in stock which can replace at least seventy-five percent or more of the missing traffic signs on Sint Maarten.
On Thursday morning on two occasions as I was walking through the Hotelsteeg from the Frontstreet towards the Backstreet I had to stop, first a rental car and later a car with a French number plate, from driving through the Hotelsteeg coming from the Backstreet direction Frontstreet. Fortunately on both occasions the cars had driven only about ten meters into the Hotelsteeg, so I stopped them, helped them to reverse and turn safely onto the Backstreet and after I explained them that they could make a left by the Kadaster to get to the Frontstreet.
I don’t want to sound sarcastic but I made sure to tell them to make a left turn on the Frontstreet because I was not sure if the sign obliging drivers to make a left turn on the Frontstreet is anywhere close to the Oranjeschool.
It is no secret that several government employees as well as leaders in government have been convicted for not doing the right thing with government monies, so since it is a while now that traffic signs have not been replaced, I hope there is no hanky panky and would love to hear a reasonable explanation why can’t those traffic signs and road-names signs, as well as number plates, be made from the old (crushed) cars which are on the Pondfill?
By the way, for those of you who are asking me if I don't feel the difference in temperature between cars with dark tint and light or no tint at all, I cannot say, because the car that I drive never had tint. Permit me to ask this: How much time of the day do people who work during the day spend in their car during the time that there is sunlight? So let’s be realistic and fair. What is more important, to have a car with illegal tint or the disregard for law and order while hiding behind the dark tint?
Russell A. Simmons
Dear Editor,
My name is Darren Wilson. While you may or may not have heard of me, for the sake of context, I identify as a citizen of the Kingdom of God through faith in Jesus Christ and a servant of His Kingdom message. I believe in the authority of Scripture, and I have dedicated more than a decade to studying and teaching biblical principles and concepts with the goal of remaining faithful to their original meaning and cultural context. This experience, I believe, grants me some credibility in engaging discussions related to biblical and spiritual matters.
Having read the Catholic school board’s letter in its entirety, I conclude that this is an example of what occurs when biblically illiterate individuals govern institutions that claim to be founded on biblical principles. (Yes, I said that, and the Catholic school board can come for me if they want to. I'm easily found, and I don’t run from smoke). Nothing provokes my spiritual frustration more than when people misuse Scripture to justify preconceived notions that lack biblical foundation. With this in mind, I will respond to the board’s misuse of Scripture but before I do that, I want to address their appeal to human rights law.
Human rights and selective application
The school board’s letter dated August 18, 2025, cited Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which states:
“No person shall be denied a right to an education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”
However, the school board’s policy indirectly denies access to Christian-based education by refusing admission to and/or targeting children on the basis of their hairstyle. Furthermore, the board omitted the provision that schools may apply admission policies if they are “objective and reasonable” (Council of Europe, 1950/2010). A policy that targets hairstyles while attempting to ground itself in “sacred Scripture” is neither objective nor reasonable. Comparing hijabs with so-called “biblical hairstyle requirements” is a false equivalence and a weak attempt to claim religious discrimination under Article 14 of the same convention.
Applying context: The 5w1h method
The most troubling aspect of the board’s letter is the egregious misuse of Scripture to defend hairstyle restrictions. The board’s statement that it seeks to provide education consistent with its “Catholic faith and biblical convictions” raises serious concerns when those convictions rest on misinterpreted or misapplied biblical texts. For example, the letter cites 1 Corinthians 11:14–15 (English Standard Version [ESV]):
“Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.”
Every biblical text is a “fossil” embedded in the rock of its own moment. This simply means that every biblical text must be understood in its historical, cultural, and social setting. Ignoring the cultural, political, and religious dynamics that shaped a passage results in misinterpretation. This is akin to performing archaeology with a sledgehammer, it destroys the very framework that gives the text meaning. So, for us to understand Paul’s words faithfully in context, we must consider the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the passage.
- Who? Paul wrote to members of the Corinthian church, a diverse community of Jewish, Greek, and Roman believers (1 Corinthians 1:2).
- What? He addressed specific issues regarding the church operations reported directly to him and also raised by the church (1 Corinthians 1:11; 5:1; 7:1).
- When? Paul wrote during the mid-first century (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.-a).
- Where? Corinth, a cosmopolitan port city influenced by Roman, Greek, and Jewish cultures (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.-b).
- Why? To correct disorder in church services and to emphasize that “all things should be done decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40, ESV).
- How does it apply today? In this section, Paul’s teaching emphasizes the principles of order and authority in church services, not permanent mandates about hairstyles.
If we read the entire section of 1 Corinthians 11:2–16, it becomes clear that Paul’s instructions are not about fabric on heads or the physical length of hair. Rather, he used cultural symbols familiar to first-century Corinthians i.e. head coverings and hairstyles, to illustrate respect for authority within the context of church gatherings. When we consider the broader flow of 1 Corinthians chapters 7-14, we see that Paul’s primary concern was about maintaining order during church services.
In this particular passage, his emphasis is on the principle of order expressed through honoring authority during church services, using the cultural norms of Corinth as illustrative examples. His call was for the Corinthian church to represent authority properly under Jesus Christ in ways that resonated with their social setting. Importantly, Paul’s instruction was never intended to immortalize current cultural fashions as timeless law.
This is critical to understand because there were some societies such as other Greek cities like Athens where Paul visited or cities in Northern Africa where head coverings and hairstyles were not a part of cultural norms, but they had believers there, so this example would not have made sense to them. Thus, enforcing a “biblically mandated hairstyle policy” today is a misapplication of Scripture.
Contemporary application
Using Scripture to enforce hairstyle policies as “biblical” is a misrepresentation. There are hairstyles that are culturally expressive but yet neat and tidy, so that is way better than having hairstyles that conform to what you deem to be presentable but have no biblical foundation.
Contrary to your belief, there is no “biblically mandated hairstyle” standard set forth in Scripture. Scripture also emphasizes that character formation is shaped by the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22, ESV), not by hairstyles as hair has no inherent bearing on “disciplinary formation for Christian character development.”
Moreover, the board’s claim that permitting diverse hairstyles would turn schools into “multi-faith exhibition spaces” is misguided. In reality, such diversity reflects God’s creativity and multicultural reality, not theological compromise or a threat to the faith. Suggesting that natural hairstyles such as locs or bantu knots undermine “Catholic education” reveals an inherited, misplaced fear of culture rather than faith in the transformative power of the Holy Spirit.
God is not concerned about, afraid of, or repulsed by hairstyles or other external, cultural appearances. Rather, Jesus consistently criticized religious leaders who elevated human traditions above divine principles. He declared:
“...you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. ... You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” (Matthew 23:23–24, ESV).
The “weightier matters” of education today are not hairstyles but the quality of learning, equity, and spiritual formation. The board’s preoccupation with hairstyles reflects this same pattern: straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel. Greater effort by the board should be directed toward addressing substantive educational challenges and championing comprehensive educational reform in collaboration with government rather than enforcing policies rooted in misinterpretations of Scripture.
Equally concerning is that the school board also claims it will continue to enforce its hairstyle policy despite government directives to the contrary. Ironically, while claiming biblical fidelity, this stance completely contradicts Romans 13:1 (ESV), which instructs believers to submit to governing authorities. So, now I have to ask what exactly are you going to teach your students about respect for authority? Such disobedience raises the question: are you really concerned about “biblical mandates” or are you more concerned about upholding a cultural tradition masquerading as divine law? If you’re going to use the Bible, make sure you use it when it relates to additional matters as well and not just the ones you want to cherry-pick.
Conclusion
While institutions are free to establish rules and standards, the misuse of Scripture to justify non-biblical policies is unacceptable. It is both intellectually dishonest and spiritually harmful. Hairstyle regulations are not matters of biblical command but of cultural preference. This issue is not about “religious discrimination” but about correcting centuries of distorted teaching and misinterpretation that weaponized the Bible to enforce Eurocentric interpretations of Christian cultural norms. Therefore, if institutions wish to maintain such policies, they must do so without falsely attributing them to Scripture. To misuse the Bible is to disrespect the very text you have claimed as authority.
As Jesus warned, human traditions that distort God’s Word disenfranchise people (Mark 7:13). Ripping verses from ancient letters and wielding them as timeless commands sans context is not biblical literacy, it is academic disingenuity.
I urge the Catholic school board: if you insist on maintaining hairstyle policies, then do so based on your institutional preferences, but keep the Bible out of it unless you are willing to interpret it responsibly.
I haven’t even gotten into the section titled “Problematic racial categorization” which is a problematic statement in itself. This is a ridiculously tone-deaf assertion that fails to consider the sociodemographic environment that your institutions find themselves in. That discussion, perhaps, is best reserved for another time.
While I hope I didn’t offend you, based on my experience, I probably have offended you. So, while I apologize in advance if what I said offended you, I do not apologize for what I said. My conviction remains that Scripture deserves to be handled with integrity, interpreted within its proper context, and never manipulated to uphold cultural traditions as divine law. Out of love and reverence for the biblical text, I will continue to defend it against misuse, ensuring that the faith it represents is honored faithfully.
Respectfully,
Darren Wilson, a proponent of the Kingdom of God
