WILLEMSTAD--PAR and MAN-PIN have formally requested an urgent plenary session of Curaçao’s Parliament to discuss what they describe as serious structural and legal problems at the Training Institute for Law Enforcement and Security Services ORV. The request was submitted in a letter dated 20 February 2026 to Parliament President Fergino Brownbill (MFK).
In it, the two factions invoke article 64 of the Rules of Order, Parliament, which allows for the convening of a public meeting of an urgent nature. According to the opposition parties, this is necessary to address ongoing concerns surrounding the governance, legal basis and future functioning of ORV.
They refer to a question hour held on 19 February 2026 with the Minister of Justice, during which several critical issues were raised. These included the legal foundation of ORV through its establishment decree, the status of professional secondary education and the recognition of ORV diplomas and certificates, the legal position of staff under national decrees and the Kingdom Police Act, the possibility of a transition period and risks related to the institute’s operational continuity.
Despite that session, PAR and MAN-PIN state that many concerns, uncertainties and insecurities remain unresolved. They argue that the lack of full clarity raises serious questions about governance, internal control and ministerial responsibility.
Given what they describe as the gravity of the situation and the extensive public attention surrounding ORV, the two factions believe Parliament must debate the matter. Such a gathering would allow the public to follow the discussion directly and require the minister to provide further explanations about the structural problems affecting ORV.
PAR and MAN-PIN conclude their letter by urging the chair to convene the requested public meeting as soon as possible, stressing the urgency of the matter.
~Why the Treaty of Tlatelolco matters in 2026~
Dear editor,
In February 2026, the Western Hemisphere finds itself at an inflection point. Great-power rivalry has intensified, military postures have hardened, and maritime spaces once treated as commons for trade and cooperation are increasingly viewed through a strategic lens. The Caribbean Sea – small in geography but immense in significance – sits uncomfortably close to this global turbulence.
It is precisely in this moment that the Caribbean Sea Neutrality & Peace Doctrine deserves serious public attention.
This doctrine is not a call for naïve idealism, nor an attempt to wish away geopolitics. It is a sober, legally grounded assertion that the Caribbean has both the right and the responsibility to define its own security identity – one rooted in peace, restraint, and international law. At its core stands a treaty many outside the region forget, but which Caribbean peoples should never overlook: the Treaty of Tlatelolco.
A forgotten cornerstone of Caribbean security – The Treaty of Tlatelolco, concluded in 1967, established Latin America and the Caribbean as the world's first Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone. It was not imposed by external powers; it was a voluntary, principled decision by regional states who understood that nuclear weapons have no place in societies defined by proximity, vulnerability, and interdependence.
For the Caribbean, this treaty is more than a Cold War artefact. It is a living legal instrument that affirms a simple but powerful proposition: our sea is not a staging ground for nuclear risk.
In today’s climate – marked by renewed nuclear rhetoric, expanded naval deployments, and blurred lines between deterrence and provocation – Tlatelolco provides the strongest “hard law” foundation for a Caribbean peace posture. It gives regional governments both standing and legitimacy to insist that nuclear weapons, nuclear deployments, and nuclear brinkmanship remain outside Caribbean waters and ports.
Neutrality is not weakness – Critics often misunderstand neutrality as passivity. The Caribbean Sea Neutrality & Peace Doctrine argues the opposite. Neutrality, as articulated here, is an active policy choice – one grounded in sovereignty, not submission.
The doctrine aligns squarely with the Charter of the United Nations, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, and regional cooperation frameworks. It does not seek to ban lawful navigation or ignore international realities. Instead, it sets clear expectations: no coercive military posturing, no escalation by proxy, and no erosion of the Caribbean’s non-nuclear status.
This is especially relevant for small island territories such as St. Martin / Sint Maarten, whose prosperity depends on open sea lanes, tourism, trade, and environmental stability. Militarisation brings none of these benefits – only risk.
Why Peace matters now more than ever – The geopolitical landscape today is markedly different from even five years ago. Strategic competition in the Atlantic, the re-militarisation of global politics, and the normalisation of “gray zone” operations have increased the likelihood that small regions become collateral spaces rather than respected communities.
Against this backdrop, silence is not neutrality, it is vulnerability.
By reaffirming a Caribbean Sea peace doctrine now, regional leaders can proactively shape how external powers engage with the region. They can say, collectively and lawfully: This is a sea of commerce, culture, and cooperation – not confrontation.
A regional voice, not an isolated plea – The strength of this doctrine lies in coordination. Through regional mechanisms such as CARICOM and existing diplomatic channels, Caribbean states can harmonise port-access policies, promote transparency around military exercises, and insist on de-escalatory conduct without threatening anyone or violating international law.
Most importantly, invoking the Treaty of Tlatelolco reminds the world that the Caribbean has already chosen its security path. It chose life over annihilation, cooperation over brinkmanship, and peace over posturing – long before such choices were fashionable.
The choice before us – The Caribbean Sea has been many things throughout history: a crossroads of cultures, a site of exploitation, a theatre of conflict. In the 21st century, it must become something else entirely – a model of maritime peace in an unstable world.
The Caribbean Sea Neutrality & Peace Doctrine does not ask permission from global powers. It asserts a regional consensus grounded in law, history, and lived reality. And in January 2026, with tensions rising and margins for error shrinking, that assertion could not be timelier.
The Caribbean has already shown the world one path forward with the Treaty of Tlatelolco. It is time to walk it again – together, deliberately, and without apology.
By PJ Fameli, Beacon Hill
Dear Editor,
Yesterday I attended atop of the scenic mountain, Bells Lookout point, and saw a large pig and multiple chickens there. The Pig is unwell. Chicks are dead.
There was no water and the Pig wasn’t moving even when stimulated. I gave it water and it took the water. Other people were feeding the pig and the chicks. Even though it says not to feed.
This is a real shame and the buses of people / onlookers felt overwhelming sad about the condition of the pig and the chicks – one chick was found dead.
If this is Animal Defenders responsibility, as a volunteer organisation, it fails.
The pig needs proper placement and the top of that mountain with no water is unacceptable. The young birds / chicks also need water. One chick was found dead near the Pig.
This is heartbreaking and not what the island represents. Surely you should place the pig, chicks and animals atop this dry mountain somewhere else. Leaving the animals to be fed by the tourists is not right and they need water and a proper location.
It doesn’t take much to fix this situation. Someone has to do it. Tourists were / are disgusted that they were left in this location and position.
Please see to it that they are relocated and properly treated. Someone has to say / do something.
Concerns Tourists, – lifetime SXM travellers:
Jaimie Noel
Rita Roy
Eric Brisebois
Lilianne Roy
Dear Editor,
I generally stay away from weighing in on Sint Maarten issues lately. There is too much going on, and most public commentary is noise. And for two decades I worked relentlessly for this island, so now that I’m more active regionally I tend to hold my tongue. To keep my peace when I am at home with my family. This one crosses a line with me though.
Dear Editor,
In a small island state like Sint Maarten, government decisions are felt directly by residents and businesses. At this moment, the legal position of taxpayers is under pressure. Not because the tax laws are weak, but because objections to tax assessments are not being handled on time.
When the Tax Inspector does not decide on an objection within the legal nine-month period, that deadline simply expires. This is not just a technical issue. It forces taxpayers to file an appeal with the Court of First Instance to protect their rights.
In other words, administrative delay leads to court cases that could have been avoided. This increases legal costs, creates long periods of uncertainty, and puts financial pressure on families and businesses. What should have been a careful internal review becomes formal litigation, only because the objection was not processed in time.
Under the General National Tax Ordinance (ALL), the Inspector must decide on an objection within nine months. If that does not happen, the taxpayer has no real choice but to go to court. The objection procedure then loses its purpose. Instead of being a serious reconsideration, it becomes a step toward litigation caused by the backlog rather than a real disagreement about tax law.
Recent developments in the Netherlands show that a different approach is possible. After the childcare benefits scandal, Dutch administrative law shifted course. Authorities were urged to act less rigidly and more fairly. Greater attention was given to proportionality, transparency, and practical solutions. Objection procedures were treated as a real opportunity to correct mistakes, not as a formality before going to court.
This shows that a government does not become weaker by avoiding unnecessary litigation. On the contrary, it gains legitimacy. Respecting deadlines and resolving disputes early strengthens public trust.
Tax enforcement is essential for fiscal stability. But enforcement must also protect taxpayers’ procedural rights. Appeals to the Court should be exceptional – not the structural consequence of mounting backlogs.
Marco Aalbers
