Dear Editor,

As a former teacher I always speak up about both global and local issues with differing responses. In some cases, people will support my messages, in others, people are indifferent. Such indifference oftentimes comes from a position of privilege – “I am not affected by the injustice, so why should I put effort into changing it?” And the status quo remains.

I would want to raise an issue that should, however, concern all of us. And luckily, many are already raising the issue. Our children have been and continue to be subjected to daily discrimination and racism. Not necessarily by people but by institutions. The focus of this letter is to shed more light on hair discrimination rules in schools on St. Maarten.

A few days ago, a friend of mine shared her experience when she took her son to the barber; her son was clearly upset and was crying when he had his beautiful curls cut off. It is a reoccurring event that many parents and their young children have to go through every few weeks. Yet, the school rules are clear. Boys need to adhere to the pre-set school rules that as a boy, your hair cannot exceed the length of 2 inch.

One could argue that this is just a kid that cries and there are many things kids cry for like cleaning their room or doing their homework. However, I believe the hair policies touch on something much more fundamental. They touch on children’s sense of self. They tell our children they are not good enough as they are or how they identify themselves by imposing a breach on their physical integrity. Thus, criminalizing young children’s hair. It is very different from cleaning your room, which focusses on hygiene and creating order or doing your homework that ensures that skills such as reading and writing stick.

Schoolboards – and from personal experience I know the Catholic school board in particular – pride themselves that these rules (hair discrimination) are for discipline and to not create distraction within the classroom. These arguments hold no value because these claims are not backed up with evidence-based research. Something that should be important for a schoolboard if you profile yourself as a knowledge institute. In fact, scientific research into hair policies has shown that such policies are often more damaging than doing any good to the student population subjected to them. Eventually it leads to low self-esteem which then negatively impacts the child’s learning abilities.

The origin of these hair rules come directly from our colonial past where enslaved people from African descent “had to be tamed” by their white owners. Forcing hair into submission was a symbolic reinforcement of the master-slave relationship, where total submission was expected. To this day, hair policies also affect boys and girls from African descent more than their Caucasian or (South) Asian classmates and neatness is racialized in the execution of the hair policies.

Discussing about what is perceived as ‘neat’ can be argued in great lengths because there is no objective definition of what can be viewed as neat; it’s like beauty: it all depends on the eye of the beholder. Yet, schoolboards seem to be steadfast in their stubbornness and teachers have to send humiliating letters to parents and argue with young schoolchildren that their hair cannot be too long. Not a teacher’s task, I would say.

What will it take for these schoolboards to enter the 21^st century?

While many surrounding islands and countries in the Caribbean have come to the realization that this mental slavery needs to be dealt with, St. Maarten is somehow lagging behind. We need to fight for change harder and need to be willing to enter into uncomfortable confrontations. Something that seems foreign to a small “friendly” island like St. Maarten. I would like to appeal to the morality of the people of St. Maarten; if we are not willing to show social discontent, nothing will change. We have to make it everyone’s business to speak up against injustice.

Maybe the unjust, racist history behind the hair policies is not reason enough for you to stand against the continued injustice. Then, let’s see what hair policies do to our children. As I said earlier, our children are being told that they are not good enough and that their personal sense of identity is not important. The fact that hair policies are almost always racialized also results in separation within the classroom. It is in school where the foundations of our children’s future life are laid. Do we want these foundations to be racist and discriminatory? Or do we want to develop strong individuals, who care for each other as persons, rather than focus on assimilating to fit in the box? Should we not create safe spaces where (cultural) diversity can be celebrated and where there is also a foundation to feel united in a collective?

Moreover, hair policies do not stop at the school gate. Unlike a uniform, you cannot simply grow your hair for the rest of the day, and have it short the next morning for school. The rules are therefore also a violation of the bodily integrity of our young! How did we allow this to happen? Have we become so disconnected from the way things work on the island that we stop resisting even the straightest form of racism? Even if it’s for our own kids? And no, “black faces in high places are not going to save us.” Meaning that sometimes racist rules might be reinforced by the same people that should know better.

Schoolboards unfortunately do not listen to any of these arguments. DEI recently became a dirty term in the USA – for these schoolboards it was seemingly already the case. Complaints have fallen on deaf ears, for decades now. One school even lost a court case in 2016 for expelling a child for wearing his hair in locks. The ruling unfortunately also showed the limitations of the local legislation as it did not, in principle, condemn the hair policy practices by the Catholic school board. Special Education (such as the religious schools) have the freedom to organize their own school policies according to their wishes. But to what extent? And is it worth degrading young children for? Instead of deconstructing these discriminatory hair rules, parents are forced to sign a document during enrolment of their child that they agree with school rules, reminding them once more not to dare speak up about these controversial hair rules. Who is the master and who is the slave?

It is time for change and the schools should learn rules are not written in stone. Rules change all the time! Luckily, the issue is brought forward more and more, and not by just a small group of people. Recently, a brave mother started a petition to ban discriminatory hair rules in all St. Maarten schools. The petition received more than 1,000 signatures. Parents joined forces and organized themselves with an eponymous Facebook page called “Abolish Hairstyle Rules in Sint Maarten’s Schools”.

The youth is mobilizing as well and last year, Teen Times shared a draft legislation to MP Roseburg. Parliament discussed the issue and unanimously supported the cause. Also last year, a hair festival was organized to celebrate diversity in hair culture and to address the discriminatory hair practices in schools and the workplace called “Hair Stories” at University of St. Maarten. Minister of Education Melissa Gumbs has also committed to address the issue and to work on changes in the law and policies.

Seeing all these initiatives, why are schoolboards not developing along? Do we really need to take them to court to get justice? Is this something we want? Ideally not, as you would want change to come from an intrinsic motivation. Though many people want to stop these hair restrictions, we need more people to join forces and speak publicly about how this idea of taming children’s hair should be reduced to a harmful practice from the past. Make it your business to speak up about injustice!

Humera Alam

Dear Editor,

MP Ardwell Irion has been loud about budget delays and government spending without an approved budget. Accountability is crucial, but his own history as Finance Minister contradicts the very claims he now makes. The same late budgets he now condemns? They happened under his leadership. The same unapproved spending he calls unconstitutional? Sounds too familiar.

He accuses the government of illegally spending public funds on events like Soul Beach, Carnival, and consultancy contracts without proper approval. He also claims the 2025 budget remains unpublished and flawed, citing errors in Nota 3. At the same time, he criticizes unpaid justice workers and civil servants, calling it selective enforcement of budget rules.

Let’s take a walk down memory lane because not all of us suffer from selective amnesia.

Under Irion’s leadership, not a single budget was on time. The 2021 budget, due in September 2020, didn’t reach Parliament until mid-2021 and wasn’t passed until September – nine months late. The 2022 budget? Also late, despite his promises. By 2023, the pattern continued, with St. Maarten repeatedly missing deadlines, forcing the Kingdom Council to step in and extend the approval process. Now, MP Irion speaks with authority on budget delays, as if he weren’t one of the main offenders himself.

At the same time, his government was spending without an approved budget. Because his budgets were always late, the government had to operate for months without an approved financial plan, relying on interim measures to keep functioning, the very thing he’s now criticizing.

In 2020, the General Audit Chamber found unauthorized expenses, meaning money was spent without budgetary approval under Irion’s watch. The same thing happened in 2021, his government spent public funds for over eight months with no adopted budget before rushing a late approval. He’s acting as if this is some unprecedented crisis, despite having played a key role in creating the same problem.

Ironically, back in 2019, when Irion was in opposition, he supported a no-confidence motion against then Finance Minister Perry Geerlings – one of the key reasons? Late budgets. However in 2021, when Irion’s own budget was nine months late, there was no no-confidence motion against himself. Where was that same energy?

MP Sarah Wescot-Williams summed up the hypocrisy best in 2022 when she called him out: “The minister confidently stated that the draft 2022 budget would reach Parliament by September 1. [But] during the opening of the parliamentary year, we learned … the 2022 budget will reach Parliament in November. No further explanation was given as to this delay. In politics, what you say can come back to haunt you.” And now, here we are, it’s haunting him.

Beyond budget delays, MP Irion is now warning that the government has “no money” for essential services. He’s not wrong that St. Maarten faces economic struggles but here’s the thing: those problems didn’t appear overnight.

Under Irion, St. Maarten ran massive budget deficits every year. The 2021 draft budget projected a NAf. 228 million shortfall, covered by Dutch loans and wishful thinking. The General Audit Chamber repeatedly flagged mismanagement, and the government’s own internal auditor (SOAB) found serious compliance failures.

By the end of 2021, even Irion himself admitted, “The country does not have any buffer.” St. Maarten was operating month to month with no reserves, a dangerous financial position. Meanwhile, critical reforms to fix tax collection, reduce costs, and stabilize public finances were delayed under his leadership. The Committee for Financial Supervision (CFT) warned that failure to act would lead to an untenable situation for Sint Maarten’s finances. MP Irion had the power to fix these issues but he didn’t.

Focus on real issues, not political games.

MP Irion has all this energy for a budget delay, but where is his energy for the real issues crippling St. Maarten? The skyrocketing cost of living, lack of access to international financial markets, and economic stagnation to name a few. His complaints about delays and reckless spending might sound convincing until you look at his own track record as Minister of Finance. A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black!

If MP Irion truly cares about fixing St. Maarten’s financial struggles, he should start by owning up to his own failures, not playing political games. Instead of recycling old political drama, let's push for real solutions: timely budgets, financial discipline, and economic reforms.

Until then, let’s take his budget criticisms with a grain of salt.

Angelique Remy-Chittick

Financial Strategist and Consultant – Financial.ish

By Jeff Sybesma

Recently, the media reported that Cpost incorrectly delivered ballot cards, with the worst incident being in a neighbourhood where the cards were even found on the street. In an attempt to limit the damage, Cpost responded with a press release. In this release, the company announced an internal investigation to determine whether there had been any failure to follow procedures.

Cpost then stated that its responsibility is to deliver the ballot cards to the address listed on the card. As a possible explanation for the mishandling, the postal company pointed to a lack of mailboxes: not every house may have a mailbox.

Cpost refers to the Postlandsverordening 1998 (Postal Ordinance 1998), which stipulates that every home must have a mailbox and that it is the resident’s responsibility to ensure it is easily accessible. Additionally, the house number must be clearly visible.

This argument by Cpost is noteworthy. In rhetorical terms, this way of reasoning would be categorized as an argumentum ad hominem. Instead of addressing the core issue – was the mail delivered correctly or not? – Cpost shifts the focus to the recipients by questioning their credibility and responsibility. In other words, rather than acknowledging its own mistakes, Cpost points to the lack of mailboxes and unclear addresses as the cause of the problem.

This raises a larger question: why are ballot cards delivered to homes, while other official mail, such as tax forms, bills and letters from the Netherlands, are deposited in a Community Box (Cbox) in many neighbourhoods? This raises doubts. If the Cbox is sufficient for other important mail, why not for ballot cards? If my mail is delivered to a Cbox, why would I still need a mailbox?

Cpost might defend itself by referring to a ministerial decision from 2016 that allows the use of Cboxes. However, this argument does not hold up. The Ombudsman concluded in 2016 that the Cboxes violate the Postlandsverordening 1998, which provides no legal basis for delivering mail other than in a regular mailbox.

The Ministerial Regulation of September 20, 2016 (PB 2016, No. 63), which permits the use of Cboxes, contradicts the law. Therefore, all mail must still be delivered to the mailbox at home. And Cpost is not doing that.

It is high time for the Ombudsman to revisit this issue. The Regulatory Authority Curaçao (RAC), which oversees Cpost, should also take a more active role in this matter.

~ Jeff Sybesma is a retired lawyer and biologist. He is a member of the Advisory Council, a judge at the Joint Court of Justice, and a board member of Carmabi. This opinion is written entirely in his personal capacity. ~

Dear Editor,

In 2016, my family faced one of the toughest challenges of our lives when one of us was diagnosed with cancer. After a long and difficult battle, recovery came, and with it, the hope of moving forward. But just as we began to rebuild our lives, Hurricane Irma struck in 2017, changing everything once again.

Our home on French St. Martin was destroyed. We lost nearly everything – over 70% of our belongings gone in a single night. With nowhere else to turn, my wife, our two daughters, and I relocated to Dutch St. Maarten, where we spent the next three years slowly rebuilding from scratch. Like so many other families on the island, we were left with nothing but each other and the determination to start over.

During that time, gathered around the kitchen table, we realized that rebuilding couldn’t just be about fixing what was lost. We needed to build something better – something that would help protect the island and its people from the growing risks of climate change, waste, and future storms. That’s when my family and I created Green Dream Projects.

In 2018, Green Dream Projects made its first appearance at the MAC Comprehensive Secondary Education (MAC-CSE) on World Environmental Day June 2018. There, students presented innovative ideas focused on sustainability, recycling, and protecting the environment. The energy and creativity they brought to the table confirmed that change begins with the next generation.

With the strong support of the MAC school community and the leadership of Ms. Rose Hughes-Coram, Green Dream Projects continued to grow. Later that same year, we expanded our work across the border through the Eco-Friendly Upcycling Festival on French St. Martin, building partnerships and encouraging cross-border cooperation in sustainability. During this time, my family and I had the honor of meeting with the Sous-Préfet of France, who recognized our efforts and encouraged the ongoing development of our work.

Just as we began to find momentum, the COVID-19 pandemic arrived in 2020. The shutdowns and restrictions created new difficulties for the island, but even in those uncertain times, Green Dream Projects stayed active, finding ways to support schools, families, and community initiatives focused on sustainability.

Today, as President of Green Dream Projects, I continue to work alongside my family to keep our mission moving forward. We are committed to creating a cleaner, stronger, and more resilient island by focusing on education, waste reduction, upcycling, and youth engagement across both Dutch and French St. Maarten.

Our story is one of survival – through cancer, a catastrophic hurricane, and a global pandemic. But through those hardships, Green Dream Projects was born, turning personal struggles into a community-wide vision for a better future.

What began around our kitchen table has become an island movement focused on lasting change. And we know this is only the beginning.

Claude Javois

President Green Dream Projects