Dear Editor,

Since writing the article “Will giving pensioner tax breaks bankrupt government” about a month ago I have received phone calls and met some pensioners and it is apparent that the situation on the manner which they are being taxed continues unabated.

I don’t go on Facebook nor do I use Instagram or any other available social media so I don’t know if there have been any comments on this subject positive or negative. I have always said that there is no pressure like people pressure. I really hope that government or Parliament addresses this serious concern that the pensioners have regarding the manner in which taxes are being collected from them. It has been ongoing for a long time.

I can remember many years ago someone said to me that I should start saving to pay taxes. I did not understand it at the time but today I do. The way this is functioning now, one stands the possibility of losing their home, their vehicle, their furniture and, yes, your mind. The stress that comes along with it is unimaginable. Keep in mind that you have been filing your taxes faithfully every year but because they are 4, 5 years or more behind with their assessments they can force you to pay in a timeframe determined by the law, it is said, which I think should be made known to the public.

Imagine if you have an apartment or apartments or any other income and as a good civic citizen submit revenues derived from such when filing your taxes, you will be paying taxes for life and such I understood is passed on to your children and grandchildren; you get the drift. Unfortunately, although I don’t agree with this behaviour it is one of the reasons why there are persons who do not submit this information when filing their taxes. Government loses income and then the low-hanging fruits who are abiding by the law are penalized.

The tax collection ordinance has to be amended. A former colleague and I were busy with article 6 of this ordinance, they wanted to make changes in some of the articles. My focus was on Article 6.1 where I wanted just one word to be changed and that word is “can” I wanted to change it to “must” when it comes to making arrangements with the Receiver’s and the taxpayer. The word “can” gives the Receiver’s too much power to determine how much the taxpayer should pay, while the word “must” would allow the taxpayer to pay to have a say in what he or she can afford. As it is now, the taxpayer has no say in the matter.

I can already hear the argument that government depends on tax-generated revenues. My response is: then get your Inspectorate and Receiver’s up to date. I understood that there are persons who are paying taxes as far back as 2017. Please explain which tax law makes this possible. I was told that the taxpayer can take government to court to contest the fact why the Receiver can’t force one to pay more than what they can afford. I heard the Receiver can demand up to 30% of your income without taking into account your other expenses. It is said that the taxpayer would win the case, but how many pensioners or other taxpayers have the finances to go to court?

Another injustice is if you are owed a tax refund, they decide when you will be repaid with no interest for holding on to your money for years. How old are these laws, by the way? 80 years? 50? Where did they originate in the first place? We are living in different times. These are slave laws. Laws are supposed to punish those that break them and protect those that obey them. The Inspectorate nor the Receiver’s can change these antiquated slave laws, it is the responsibility of government/parliament to initiate and amend laws. What are they waiting on? The pensioners are waiting.

George Pantophlet

Dear Editor,

I am writing out of deep frustration and disappointment regarding an ongoing issue that has been plaguing the theoretical driver’s exam process in St. Maarten. As someone who has personally experienced this, I feel compelled to speak up not just for myself, but for the many others who are likely facing the same obstacle.

It is utterly unacceptable that the Internet at the location where the theory exam is held continues to cut out every single day, as confirmed by the very employees working there. Let that sink in: every day, the Internet goes down, and as a result, exams cannot take place. People take time off from work, make arrangements, study hard – and then are told they cannot proceed because the system is down, again.

Sure, there’s an option to reschedule, but here’s the catch: you don’t get a fixed date. Instead, you receive a phone call on the day the Internet happens to be working to ask if you’re available. This means you’re left in limbo, constantly on standby, and never knowing when you’ll actually be able to take the test. It’s an unreliable, stressful, and frankly unfair situation. How can one properly prepare for an exam that may or may not happen on any given day?

It is no wonder, then, that the traffic situation in St. Maarten is as chaotic and unsafe as it is. If this is how difficult it is just to take the theory exam, we can only imagine how many people are getting their licenses without being properly prepared or tested. This isn’t just a bureaucratic inconvenience – it’s a public safety issue.

I call on the government and responsible authorities to take this matter seriously. Fix the Internet. Fix the system. Provide a functioning, scheduled, and dependable process for taking this crucial exam. We deserve better, and so does the safety of our roads.

Sincerely,

A frustrated but hopeful citizen

Dear Editor,

There are more frustrated people (if I may use that word) on the island than it seems. I dare state this because of the feedback I have been getting from prominent citizens of the country. I can possibly fill the centre page of the paper if I would take time to write a little part of the observations made by those who can know.

But I will limit it to my part. A lady who not so long ago gave birth to a baby girl wanted to know if she could call the police for the driver (not sure if he is the owner) of a car with black tint who plays very loud music next to where she lives. Because in the past I had heard that the police can’t do anything about the tint, which remains unbelievable to me, I decided to try and get the correct information about the problem with black tinted glass on motor vehicles.

You see, if I am a professional then I am supposed to know everything about my profession.

When I worked as a police officer I never and I will repeat “never” answered anyone who wanted information “I don’t know”. I made sure to direct them to where they could get the information they needed.

Nowadays all of the different instances are advocating to go online, whereas continuously the systems are down. And I can go on and on.

Not so long ago a lady said to me, “Russell, in all you days we used to see police and all you didn’t have airconditioned cars.” They know me by now, because in cases like that I always smile. I smile because it is not only the police. The public in general is not being served by another human being, but by a phone, a (talking) machine or you are told to submit your complaint in writing.

The lack of personal contact is manifesting itself into violent discourse. In this day and age with modern and sophisticated telecommunication, one would think that on a sixteen-square-miles piece of land government entities would work hand-in-hand and that telephone contact among departments would be an asset. On the contrary one is obliged to put one’s complaints in writing.

One department cannot approach the other department even though certain things are clear. At least that is my understanding. Probably I am still under the influence “stop it before it gets out of hand”, that is why I am expecting the other law-enforcement entities to be proactive. I continue to maintain that prevention is better than cure. That is one of the sayings I learned from the Dutch at a very young age already in primary school. “Voorkomen is beter dan genezen”. So I am still surprised that this practice is not kept by us.

I strongly believe, no, let me state it this way: I know that when drivers are kept in check tranquillity reigns. And there is no one in authority, male or female, who can try to say that he or she does not understand where I'm coming from.

Do something, do not wait until it hits home.

Russell A. Simmons

Dear Editor,

Every year, millions move through the books of St. Maarten’s government-owned companies. And every year, the financial audits come back clean. But what if those clean reports are just well-dressed illusions?

Let’s talk about TelEm. On paper, everything looked fine. Year after year, auditors said the financials were solid. But behind the numbers? Bonuses quietly doubled and millions were spent on failed side projects. Thankfully, it was the staff who raised the red flags. By 2020, the St. Maarten Communication Union (SMCU) demanded a forensic audit, claiming financial mismanagement dating back five years. Some of the most questionable decisions never showed up in the audit reports. Not because the auditors failed, but because financial audits aren’t built to ask why money was spent – only where it went.

Sadly, this wasn’t an isolated case. Look at GEBE. Before the 2022 ransomware attack, GEBE also had clean audits. No red flags. Then everything collapsed. The billing system went dark and revenue dropped by 60%. Investigators said the company wasn’t cooperating. And we later learned GEBE had been dipping into its cash reserves for years. The signs were there, just buried under spreadsheets and silence.

The Port of St. Maarten was no different. For years, its finances looked pristine until investigators uncovered a fake invoice scheme that drained over $8 million from public coffers. The CEO was convicted, then acquitted on appeal. But the fraud? That was real. And once again, it slipped past the auditors. They followed the rules, but missed the reality. No one looked deeper and that’s the problem.

Many of St. Maarten’s government-owned companies are audited by respected firms like BDO and Grant Thornton. They follow international standards and do their job as required. But the real question is: who’s auditing the auditors? There’s no independent oversight body on the island. No audit inspection board. No system that reviews whether financial audit files missed key warning signs. In places like Jamaica, there are agencies that audit the auditors, public institutions with the power to inspect, question, and correct.

In St. Maarten, we rely on trust and not much else. Some government-owned companies have internal auditors, supervisory boards, or a combination of the two, but those are just internal checks. And without external, independent accountability, even these layers can be sidestepped. Without real oversight, a clean financial audit becomes a stamp, not a safeguard.

This is where the General Audit Chamber has a critical role to play. It’s meant to be our financial watchdog. It has the legal power to audit ministries and, under certain conditions, government-owned companies, especially if they receive public funds or perform a public task. But in practice, its reach is limited. It often needs permission, political will, or public pressure to intervene. By then, the financial damage is usually already done.

We need to give the General Audit Chamber real teeth, not just to audit after the fact, but to dig deeper than any outside firm ever could. Because while financial audits check the numbers, the General Audit Chamber can challenge the choices behind them.

This kind of proactive oversight already exists elsewhere. When Jamaica’s oil refinery, Petrojam, looked too clean to question, their Auditor General didn’t wait for disaster. She stepped in, conducted a deep dive, and exposed nepotism, financial abuse, and procurement violations that no audit had flagged. Because in Jamaica, audits are just the start of accountability, not the end.

We need that mindset here.

If St. Maarten is serious about stopping the next crisis before it starts, we need more than routine financial audits. We need someone watching the whole system. Whether that’s an Audit Oversight Authority or a stronger General Audit Chamber, the goal is the same: independent eyes with the power to act. Because when no one’s steering up front, it’s only a matter of time before the back crashes.

Clean financial audits tell us that the numbers add up. But they can’t tell us what it cost to make them look that way.

Angelique Remy-Chittick