Dear Editor,

I want to commend Ms. Dros-Richardson, Head of Labor, for her recent honesty when she said, “we are not doing well” and “we are failing our people”. Too often, officials soften the truth, so it was refreshing to hear her speak plainly.

But honesty alone isn’t enough. Tourism may be thriving, yet many workers still struggle to pay rent, buy groceries, or make ends meet. Social assistance isn’t enough, and economic growth is not improving the lives of those who keep this country running.

If the Department of Labor is serious about change, it should focus on a few key actions:

1. Living wages: Minimum wage isn’t enough. Workers should earn enough to live on, especially in tourism, construction, and security

2. Stronger enforcement: Labor laws only matter if they are applied. Unpaid wages, long hours, and unsafe workplaces must be addressed.

3. Protect workers: Many, especially migrants, fear speaking up. Complaints must be safe, and abusive employers held accountable.

4. Link tourism success to worker benefits: Booming industries should lift wages, job security, and working conditions.

5. Be visible and approachable: Workers need to know their rights and trust the system to help them.

Ms. Dros-Richardson spoke the truth. Now, we need to see a clear plan and real action so honesty leads to results.

Alfred A. Bryan

Dear Editor,

This week, Saint Martin News Network carried a story on their website about a prison official and gym trainer arrested following allegations of misconduct with a minor, attached to the article was the full name and picture of the suspect. After that the official statement from the public prosecutor was posted, with the initials but no picture provided, this public notification was in line with what we have come to routinely expect from the authorities,

This is what the public knows, but what they don’t know is that the arrest was conducted quite discreetly, no wailing of sirens or commotion. Further to this, the family was kept entirely in the dark throughout most of the day despite their request for information. In fact, they only learned the reason for the arrest once it was published on SXM news network website. The reason that I mention this is that the secrecy with which the investigation was conducted, makes clear that the only way the press could have known anything was from hidden official sources.

It is incredibly farcical that the Public Prosecutor’s office should put out an official notification in the aftermath, adhering to conventional codes of decency while at the same time leaking the information to a press who they must have known would shatter any ethical code they would later try to preserve in their own official notification. I am not saying that the leak was from official sources, it may just have been someone in the organization acting on their own, or perhaps taking a bribe. In any case the damage has been done. Irreparable harm has been done to the reputation of an individual who has yet to be brought before the court.

Not only did the news network leave no question to his identity but they slanted the story to infer guilt. In their words, “He should have acted as a trusted adult”. How do they know he didn’t? On what basis are they making that statement? This is precisely why those confidentiality rules exist. And is the reason why the prosecutor's office should make every effort to identify the source of the leak and plug it, so that cases are not judged in the press before they are brought before a magistrate.

Another question I have is why is this form of injustice meted out to prominent members of our community when the rights of violent criminals are painstakingly respected. How many times do you read a story in the newspaper and are left to wonder who the hooligans are, all we get are the initials, it would be nice at least to know whether they are from the island or from abroad, and if from abroad, exactly where they are from.

It seems that the scathing retribution is reserved for prominent locals who have in the past given freely to the community of their time and expertise. This is no way excuses or pardons wrongdoing, but is it too much to expect that they be extended the same courtesy as the violent bandits that plague our community. I do have a message to the powers that be, it is from the family. They would like their Dad back!

Michael Vieira

The announcement that the Gioia Group is collaborating with VROMI to refurbish part of the Simpson

Bay public dock is being framed as a ‘community investment’, but it reads more like a consolation prize.

In 2014, the government presented draft zoning plans, informed by community input, suggesting a 12-

meter height limit for future developments in Simpson Bay. That vision was clearly not followed. The

Gioia Group development, called Ocean Residences, now rising in Simpson Bay, reaches approximately 30 meters in height. The skyline has permanently changed from several angles. For example, the sunset view from the public bridge, a shared space enjoyed by residents and visitors alike, is gone. It is the loss of a public experience that will not return.

Safeguards, such as limiting height or requesting community and environmental impact protections in the approval process of the large development, seem to have been set aside by successive governments. Here is a timeline:

April 2016: The Council of Ministers decided that the height of any development on the site should not

exceed the Royal Palm Beach Resort (4 stories instead of 8 stories high).

December 2017: The Council of Ministers approved a deviation from its earlier decision, allowing the

permit process to continue despite internal warnings about height, density, parking, and visual impact.

Why? Was this decided in the best interest of the community?

February 2018: VROMI’s own Policy Department & Secretary General warned that the proposed

development, including height and mass, did not align with the draft Simpson Bay zoning plans. They

note that objections from residents should be expected. Also flagged were unresolved domain land issues and parking shortfalls. The memo warned that approving the permit before resolving these matters carried the risk that the developer might not cooperate afterwards.

March 2018: Minister Giterson still approves a building permit for a surface area of 2804 m².

March 2024: Minister Doran approves an extension, more than tripling the approved surface area from

2804 m² to 8817 m². No environmental or social (community) impact assessments were submitted in

support of the decision for this extension.

Let that sink in.

August 2025: While Ocean Residences was under construction, environmental concerns were raised

clearly and directly with the current Minister Gumbs by community members. Both the Nature

Foundation and an environmental consultant advised against filling in the beach or adding breakwaters.

Their advice warned that adding sand and placing boulders could damage coral and seagrass, and that

artificial beaches in this area are unstable and likely to shift during storms. They also noted that no proper environmental or hydrological studies had been completed.

Today, 2026: Yet as this article is being written, boulders continue to be placed, and truckloads of sand

are actively being added along the shoreline in front of Ocean Residences.

The public dock is adjacent to and in view of the entrance of this luxury development by the Gioia Group. 54 condos for sale with prices advertised online ranging from $800,000 to $2,000,000. Considering all of this, the decision to beautify the public pier “for the community” deserves a more sober read.

Corporate social responsibility should not be reduced to selective gestures by developers after irreversible changes have already been made. True government responsibility would have meant respecting their own guidelines and department advice, meaningfully engaging residents before approvals were finalised, considering the realities of strained infrastructure, and refusing to proceed with environmentally risky interventions without proper studies.

So yes, we are cynical. Because experience has taught us that ‘community benefits’ are often offered only once the community has already lost something it can never get back.

Signed,

Conservation Collective

Dear Editor,

I am definitely sure that the doctors on Sint Maarten do not need me to defend them when it pertains to doing their job. I am reacting because of the lack of tact displayed by member of Parliament La Croes who during a meeting claimed to be sceptical of the way our doctors diagnose and evaluate drivers sixty years and older in connection with the renewal of their driver’s licence.

I have mentioned it before and I will repeat it. This is what you get when you make it possible that any Dick, Harry or Peter can, without knowing the fact, go grand standing in Parliament believing that the people of Sint Maarten will be impressed.

Did Parliament member Lacroes do any research to know if and when these drivers over sixty years visited their doctor, were in condition to drive or not? Why did government extend the retirement age to beyond sixty years?

Is it possible that a driver over sixty, can be in good condition to drive today, and his health deteriorates shortly thereafter?

What is stipulated in the Public Transportation Ordinance concerning the maximum age that a permit holder is allowed to drive a bus or a taxi?

In my last letter to you, I mentioned it and I will repeat it. It is time enough that members of Parliament realise that a great deal of voters read and write English well and also have a higher education than several of those fifteen members of Parliament. Because "being overqualified" was a scapegoat, that does not mean that everybody else are "dummies".

Russell Simmons