There are moments in politics when a party reveals exactly what it truly considers important. Not during campaign season, not on a stage filled with flags and celebration, but during an internal power struggle where nobody can hide behind slogans.

What MFK did on May 19 was exactly such a moment.

A party that depended heavily on Javier Silvania as its electoral magnet in 2025 has now not only denied him the party presidency, but has effectively pushed him completely out of the new leadership structure. That sends a message louder than any press release: the party leadership prefers control over popularity.

Anyone who looks at the facts can immediately understand why this is controversial. In 2021, Silvania was not yet an electoral giant within MFK. He received 228 votes, while Gilmar Pisas received 16,912. But in 2024, Pisas publicly placed him second on the party list for the 2025 elections as recognition for his performance.

That turned out to be far more than symbolic.

In the March 2025 elections, Silvania received 18,264 votes, leaving Pisas far behind with 11,583. That is not something ordinary in Curaçao politics. That is a major personal mandate.

And yet today, the party is essentially saying: thank you for the votes, but the keys to the party will go elsewhere.

A political party has every right to make such a choice. There is no need to romanticise it. A party is not an applause meter, but a power organisation. However, in a case like this, honesty about the reason is also necessary.

This clearly has little to do with a lack of support. It is about a lack of trust.

Since the conflict with Alfonso Trona escalated in October 2025, Silvania stopped being viewed as an asset inside MFK and increasingly became viewed as a risk. At that time, the party leadership did not choose political protection, but disciplinary language: transparency, discipline, and respect.

Shortly afterward, Silvania left the cabinet through what was described as a “mutual agreement” meant to restore calm and create space for investigation.

Translated from political jargon, it essentially meant: the party believed he had become administratively too explosive. But the more interesting detail is this: the Silvania affair was never only about tone, personality, or temperament. Behind the dispute with Trona was a much deeper conflict involving how power is exercised in Curaçao around taxes, collections, favours, and exceptions.

The SOAB findings and later NOS reporting described a tax authority where interventions allegedly occurred outside formal procedures, discussions took place through informal channels, and government revenues may have been placed at risk.

Silvania’s own narrative is that he wanted to close those loopholes completely and that this reformist line created political enemies, including within his own party. People may disagree with that version of events, but it cannot simply be ignored.

If even part of that narrative is correct, then his exclusion from the party board is not merely personal politics, but also a strategic choice against a certain type of institutional confrontation. That also explains why Ramón Yung became such a logical choice.

Yung is not the man of electoral explosions, but of organisation. A loyal party figure, reliable, previously trusted with internal leadership responsibilities. His first message after being elected was clear: consolidate, rejuvenate, educate, and protect the party’s 13 parliamentary seats.

That is the language of party machinery. No charisma politics. No disruption. No uncontrolled gravity inside the party.

In other words, MFK did not accidentally choose Yung. The party consciously chose continuity of the machine over the uncertainty of a powerful and highly popular solo figure. In the short term, that decision is defensible.

MFK controls 13 seats and essentially governs alone. Silvania alone cannot bring down the government. There is no immediate political crisis, no overnight coalition collapse, no reshuffling of ministers simply because one man is frustrated.

Anyone claiming today that the government will collapse tomorrow is viewing politics as a telenovela rather than as power dynamics. But that does not mean the risk is small. On the contrary. The real danger is slower and far more poisonous: a party that systematically sidelines its largest vote magnet creates a latent tension between formal power and felt democratic legitimacy. And on a small island, that type of tension can remain hidden beneath the surface for a long time before eventually exploding. The question therefore is not whether Silvania will break away tomorrow.

The question is whether he still has a reason not to. Until now, he has repeatedly said he does not intend to become independent or create his own party. At the same time, he continues positioning himself as someone speaking on behalf of his 18,000 voters. That is exactly the phase that makes political parties nervous: formal loyalty combined with informal independence. Not outright rebellion, but a parallel mandate. Not a split, but an alternative source of authority.

MFK has now made a strategic choice, not a moral one.

The party can either keep Silvania within a controlled orbit – visible, respected, but contained – or continue marginalising him while hoping his personal support base slowly fades away. The latter is a gamble. Because voters may forget many things, but they rarely forget who they elevated and who was later pushed aside by the very party that benefited from them. Especially if that politician continues presenting himself as the man willing to expose what happens behind the scenes inside Curaçao’s tax and financial systems.

The conclusion is simple. This is not yet an implosion of MFK. But it may be something potentially more dangerous for a party that wants to govern long term: there is now a bomb ticking inside the movement, with a very long fuse. MFK chose internal control over electoral logic.

That may prove rational – but only if that control eventually delivers results, stability, and a convincing explanation that party supporters truly accept. If not, MFK may have elected a new president this week, while simultaneously creating tomorrow’s internal conflict.

Orlando Meulens

Activist and columnist

Dear Editor,

Freedom of speech is not a limited nor concise concept. However over the years, I have experienced why under various circumstances and occasions my parents would remind me to "Think before you talk" Not doing so has been detrimental to a whole lot of people who neglected that. I will give an example and leave it to the discretion of your readers to explain what is wrong with this:

*Invoice date – 08 May 2026

*Due date – 08 June 2026

*Period from – 02 April 2026

*Period to – 03.May 5.2026

One would want to know where am I coming from. Definitely not in defence of NV GEBE. There is a person who I believe is misinterpreting the information on an invoice from NV GEBE and instead of he making sure what he understood is what is printed on the bill, that person got on social media and used all kind of obscene and indecent language to ridicule NV GEBE.

My parents used to warn us that “not because someone is known go be a well-known thief, that person is responsible for all robberies”.

That rant is all over WhatsApp so by time this letter is in the paper, social media should have been overflowed by that rant. My question is: "Where in those four dates is the consumption for the month of June 2026 mentioned?

Russell A Simmons

Dear Editor,

The Caribbean now stands at the threshold of one of the greatest transitions in human history. Artificial intelligence, automation, quantum computing, digital finance, autonomous logistics, and data-driven governance are rapidly reshaping the global economy. Nations that adapt will prosper. Those that hesitate risk becoming permanently dependent consumers in a technological world designed elsewhere. For the Caribbean, digital transformation can no longer be viewed as a luxury, a slogan, or merely another government conference theme. It must become a regional survival strategy.

Small island developing states face mounting pressures from climate vulnerability, rising global instability, supply chain disruptions, cyber threats, economic concentration, and accelerating geopolitical competition. The answer to these challenges is not to retreat. The answer is intelligent adaptation. The Caribbean possesses extraordinary human capital, creativity, cultural influence, geographic positioning, and youthful potential. What has too often been missing is long-term regional coordination and the strategic courage to invest in the future before crisis forces action.

Artificial intelligence and emerging technologies should not be feared. They should be harnessed carefully, ethically, and strategically to strengthen Caribbean resilience. AI can help modernise public administration, improve disaster response, optimise energy systems, expand agricultural productivity, strengthen healthcare delivery, and enhance education across dispersed island populations. Properly implemented, digital systems can reduce inefficiency, improve transparency, and create entirely new sectors of economic opportunity.

But transformation cannot occur without people. The Caribbean tourism workforce – the backbone of many regional economies – must now be retooled and reskilled for the digital age. Hospitality workers, small entrepreneurs, civil servants, educators, and young professionals must be equipped with digital literacy, AI fluency, cybersecurity awareness, and technological adaptability. The future worker in the Caribbean may simultaneously operate within tourism, digital services, remote commerce, creative media, and intelligent platform economies.

This requires a massive public education initiative across the region. Our schools, colleges, universities, and vocational institutions must begin preparing Caribbean citizens not merely to use technology, but to shape it. Digital transformation without public understanding creates dependency. Digital transformation with education creates sovereignty.

Equally important is the issue of regional data ownership. In the emerging global economy, data has become a strategic resource. Caribbean citizens must not become passive exporters of behavioural, economic, biometric, and cultural data into systems entirely controlled abroad. The region must begin serious discussions about digital rights, ethical AI governance, secure regional cloud infrastructure, and trusted frameworks that ensure Caribbean people retain meaningful ownership, participation, and benefit within the data economy of the future.

The Caribbean should aspire not simply to consume digital systems, but to help build trusted digital ecosystems rooted in transparency, dignity, privacy, and regional empowerment. Infrastructure modernisation must also accelerate. Expanding connectivity across the Caribbean is now as important as roads, ports, and airports. Broadband access, resilient communications networks, secure data infrastructure, smart energy systems, and digital public services must become central pillars of national development strategies. Long-term resilience must be embedded into both infrastructure and operations from the outset.

At the same time, governments, universities, and private industry must align policies regionally to encourage innovation, talent development, responsible investment, and cross-border digital cooperation. Fragmentation weakens us. Strategic coordination strengthens us. The world is changing rapidly. The Caribbean cannot afford to remain positioned merely at the margins of the technological future. We must become active participants in shaping it.

This is not simply an economic issue. It is a civilizational one. The Caribbean has survived colonialism, exploitation, hurricanes, debt dependency, and geopolitical marginalisation. We now face a new historical turning point: whether we will become digitally empowered societies capable of shaping our own future – or digitally dependent territories managed by external systems beyond our control.

The time has come for the Caribbean to think boldly, act collectively, and build intelligently. The digital future is already arriving upon our shores. The question is whether we are prepared to meet it together.

PJ Fameli, Beacon Hill

Dear Editor,

The people of St. Maarten deserve clear answers.

For more than a year, Prime Minister Luc Mercelina and his government have repeatedly promised relief to GEBE customers as the cost of living continues to climb. Families and businesses were assured that help was on the way and that the government understood the growing pressure on households.

Yet electricity bills keep rising. The GEBE fuel clause has increased once again, gas prices continue to climb, and the promised relief has yet to materialise. For months, the government blamed the previous GEBE board for blocking relief measures and necessary reforms.

That excuse was repeated publicly time and time again. In February, however, this same government appointed a new board.

Now the public is left with serious questions:

*Who exactly sits on the new GEBE Supervisory Board?

*Why was the public not properly informed about the appointments?

*What are the qualifications and experience of these individuals?

*Did they undergo the required screening and corporate governance vetting?

*Most importantly, why did the first major decision under this new board result in yet another increase in the fuel clause – including a retroactive adjustment – instead of delivering the long-awaited relief?

Did the management board contradict the house rules/laws by increasing the fuel clause without taking the correct steps as stipulated in the laws?

The timing could not have been worse.

As St. Maarten enters the hotter summer months, families will use more electricity to cope with the heat, resulting in even higher bills at a time when groceries, rent, fuel, and necessities are already unaffordable for many. The silence from coalition Members of Parliament is becoming impossible to ignore.

*Do the coalition MPs support the current handling of GEBE?

*Do they agree with the decisions being made by the new board?

*Are they fighting for the people, or simply protecting political interests?

*Leadership is not about repeated press conferences and unfulfilled promises.

It is about delivering tangible results that citizens can feel in their daily lives. After more than a year of assurances, the people of St. Maarten have seen no meaningful, broad-based relief.

What they have seen is continued increases in an essential service they cannot do without. The public deserves transparency, accountability, and honesty. The government and the new GEBE board must explain – clearly and urgently – when and how the promised relief will actually reach the people. St. Maarten cannot continue placing this heavy burden on its citizens alone.

Gromyko Wilson

Concern Citizen