Dear Editor,
When in passing I hear people saying that the police don’t care, it hurts me. Why should it hurt me? It hurts me because if it gets so far that the civilian can reach to that conclusion, that tells me that this is a pattern.
There have been instances in which I also have witnessed certain behaviors in the community which I can certainly say that in my days we would not pass that without attending to it. But I know that sometimes we would go come back because of what has priority.
You might ask yourself then why am writing this letter to you? After church on Sunday I had to stop in the area of the Sundial School because of the traffic. There were two ladies standing at the side of the road and I heard when one them who was referring to the supermarket opposite the school say: “They couldn't even pick up the empty bottles.” When I looked at what she was referring to, I saw the empty bottles on one of the three benches that were intentionally put there to accommodate whoever wanted to sit there and have a drink or perhaps also a snack.
I do not get any pleasure in having to mention this, but this is nothing in hiding. I believe, no I am sure that everybody who is involved in policing this country have seen this scenario. And not only there but by too many supermarkets. I do not know if the laws have conveniently been changed to accomodate the permit holders of supermarkets (of which, by the way, several are locals). In my days we did not know anything about a permit for a supermarket including a restaurant and bakery.
And with the same breath I have to mention that no kind of control is done by these supermarkets. (Prove me wrong.) I know that I will be mashing some corns but nobody can tell me that Chief John is not aware that by several supermarkets on Sint Maarten the proprieters have put benches on the outside of their place of business and whoever is passing by, whether with children in the car or not, can see people openly drinking alcohol. Are there not anymore laws in the books governing drinking in public?
I expect a reaction like "what about those people playing dominoes by the same Sundial School? My answer to that is “Exactly.” They are playing dominoes and the same way that question exists, the same way that question about openly drinking in front of the supermarkets should also be asked.
I am aware that two wrongs don’t make a right, so this would be playing right back to what should be done. Control and regulate the permits that everyone could get their fair share.
Those who are disregarding their duty as parents by hanging out in front of the supermarkets every afternoon, go home and supervise your children so that we would not have to be constantly hearing what the children of today are doing. And to the parents let me say this, especially the mothers, “Believe it or not, when you walk the street with your ‘inside, outside’ you turn off more men than you attract. Men do not stick with women who are “cheap”. And I know for a fact that “children become what they see, much quicker than what they are told.” Dress your children appropriately. Especially your “girl-children”. Leaving the children up to themselves is also a no-no.
I have asked this question on several occasions. This time I will direct it to the Minister of Justice. "Waarom maakt U geen gebruik van de Algemene Politie Verordening (APV)? The traffic ordinance regulates the behavior of the drivers. The APV regulates and sanctions the behavior of the general public. Loitering, the use of obscene language in public, nudity in public, public drunkenness, illegal assembly, etc.
I was very pleased to read about the intended investment for a drug rehabilitation facility. In this way those who are drunk will not be able to referring back to those who are “high” in public.
Let us make a start, but we have to be vigilant because, like I always say, I can stop my mouth from talking but I cannot stop my ears from hearing.
Someone was commenting on the last Parliament meeting. This person said that there was talk about who locking up who. When I heard who was involved I said to myself, “they not going to get my opinion in this.”
What we need is responsible parenting. We need parents having heart-to-heart talks with their teenage children. We need parents who can coordinate with their children’s teachers on a regular basis. And whether she is already a mother or not, a 13-year-old girl is not a woman. She is a female and even a mother, but she is not a woman.
Russell A. Simmons
Voting in Parliament
Dear Editor,
I listened to MP de Weever’s explanation about why she voted against the budget of the government she supports. While I fully respect (and given the explanation SHE gave, may even agree with) the MP, I am of the opinion that one must NEVER vote AGAINST the budget of a government one supports. Be absent, go the bathroom, fake a nausea spell, tell ’em your belly cramping, do whatever you have to do NOT to be present when voting on the BUDGET of YOUR Government is against your personal principles.
And voting against supporting even a short term program to serve breakfast and/or lunch to schoolchildren that now go to school hungry, I say: a short term program is better than no program. While the short term is ongoing, with your wit, your talent, your contacts, your smarts, your smile, YOU can help find solutions, ways and means to turn that short term school feeding program into one that is year-round and longterm. Our school children will appreciate and applaud you.
Michael J. Ferrier
Dear Editor,
Some weeks ago, I wrote about clean audits and dirty truths, how pristine financials didn’t stop collapses at GEBE, TelEm, or the Port of St. Maarten. This is part two. ENNIA shows what happens when red flags are ignored, truth-tellers are fired, and oversight arrives too late.
In 2017, KPMG, then ENNIA’s auditor, flagged inflated assets, shady intercompany deals, and one outrageous sum: Mullet Bay, booked at NAf. 770 million. Independent appraisers valued it closer to NAf. 90 million. This wasn’t blind optimism. It was a smoke-and-mirrors stunt used to justify over NAf. 700 million in dividend payouts to Parman International, which is owned by Hushang Ansary.
When KPMG raised the alarm, ENNIA didn’t correct its course. They fired KPMG. In came Baker Tilly Dutch Caribbean. Their auditors, Victor Bergisch and Eric Vesseur, signed off on the numbers that kept the illusion alive.
By then, the myth had taken root. Even as cracks appeared, defenders clung to the belief that Mullet Bay’s beachfront location and future potential somehow justified the inflated numbers. However, speculation is not an accounting principle, and wishful thinking is not a vision. It’s fiction. And that lie became the foundation for dividends that should never have been paid, especially not with money meant for pensioners.
Meanwhile, the Central Bank of Curaçao (CBCS) and St. Maarten had been raising internal warnings since 2015. But their hands were tied. The law did not allow them to act until the collapse became unavoidable. Emergency supervision wasn’t a bold preventive move. It was damage control. “We did not come to this measure lightly,” said the CBCS in 2018, as it stepped in to protect NAf. 1.2 billion in commitments to policyholders.
The Court of First Instance 2023 ruling confirmed that inflated valuations of Mullet Bay enabled illegal dividend payments at ENNIA. By 2025, four accountants had been suspended by the Dutch Accountantskamer (the disciplinary board for accountants in the Netherlands) for approving those numbers: Bergisch and Vesseur of Baker Tilly Dutch Caribbean and Rokx and Pupping of Mazars. The disciplinary actions cited their failure to challenge the valuations and apply professional skepticism.
This wasn’t an isolated mistake. It exposed a system where warnings were ignored and accountability arrived too late, a failure not just of individuals, but of the very safeguards meant to protect the public interest. Auditors rely on management’s honesty and depend on supervisory boards to act. But when truth-tellers are fired and boards rubber-stamp financial fantasies, the process stops being oversight and becomes theater.
These failures reflect deeper, long-standing habits and pressures in our system. When weak supervision becomes the norm and speaking up is discouraged, it is easier for problems to be ignored. Add a central bank with delayed enforcement powers, and one gets a perfect storm. One that cost thousands of ENNIA policyholders their peace of mind and nearly their pensions.
Once again, the public is left asking: at what cost to the taxpayer?
If we do not fix the system, we will continue to relive the same failures. St. Maarten cannot afford to wait for the next disaster. Strengthening the General Audit Chamber is an essential first step to ensure that local oversight is robust and independent. However, local reforms alone are insufficient. Audit oversight in the Dutch Caribbean is divided, with each island setting its own standards and enforcement policies. This patchwork approach allows firms to exploit the gaps between jurisdictions.
To truly protect the public interest, we need a region-wide authority built with input from each island’s Audit Chamber, empowered to review audits, enforce standards, and hold firms accountable. Establishing such a body would require collaboration between island governments, agreement on shared standards, and sustainable funding, steps that demand political will and regional cooperation. Only then can fragmented supervision be transformed into a shared shield.
So long as these gaps remain, so will the risks. Without real reform, the pattern will hold: truth-tellers will be sidelined, and those meant to protect us will either look away or arrive after the heist. We are not preventing collapse; we are rehearsing it. This time, it was illegal dividend payouts. Next time, it could be your savings, your healthcare, or your future.
Silence isn’t neutral. It’s expensive.
Angelique Remy-Chittick
Financial Strategist and Consultant
Financial.ish
Dear Editor,
The extension of the 2025 budget debate was nothing short of a circus. It is evident that the younger they are, the less poised and intellectual they portray themselves to be. No matter how much they try to conceal their intentions, their comments and behaviours, always reveal who they are. This conduct underscores the saying, “The leopard doesn’t change its spots.” All that these Members of Parliament need is the right timing and situation to display their selfish desires.
Surely, there is a huge disparity between earning a degree and having the ability to apply that knowledge towards personal and professional development. After three days of fiery commentary, I’m still trying to figure out the real purpose for the continuation of the revised budget. I was expecting to hear meaningful discussions on the amendments that were induced into the budget by Members of Parliament and Justice Minister Nathalie Tackling.
What happened to that discourse? The public was waiting to hear the discussions on the various modifications and how these changes would enhance the justice ministry and parliament. Instead, the population was blindsided with tons of senseless questions and motions that these MPs could not even present with conviction. But again, what was their true intention? Based on what has transpired, it is clear that their aim is to topple the government, one way or the other.
These are the same officials who professed that they are there to work with the ministers. But these 3 days of deliberations did not indicate that willingness. Their behaviour was a cry of desperation to return to the executive branch, because they have unfinished business to take care of. So, by the hook or the crook, they have to get back in there. Furthermore, this budget debate was as if the majority of these MPs were carrying out a directive from the man with the golden key.
This is why I’ve pleaded repeatedly that we need a new breed of prosecutors and national detectives – law enforcement who could do their job effectively. As I said before, if they were doing their job, half of parliament would not be sitting there today. MPs who mean well do not threaten their colleagues in the executive branch via motions. They dialogue with them, to further understand the challenges that they are faced with, and then offer assistance where necessary.
It was amazing to see how the issues about ankle bracelets, early release and the rights of prisoners dominated the debate. It was as if the justice minister or the entire council or the rest of the population handcuffed the prisoners and threw them in prison. It is they who made the choice to be locked up. What about us, who abide by the laws of the land? What about human rights for all of us; the victims whom they have hurt? Who is looking out for our rights, Members of Parliament?
I wished that MP Ottley and MP Lacroes would exert that same “passion” for women who are victims of domestic abuse; children of sexual abuse; victims of robberies; murders; and how can I forget the bikers? Where is the “passion” for them – those whose lives are being cut short because of the lack of direction? What about them, MP Ottley? Are they just good for taking over the streets during election time, when you scour the neighbourhoods to look for votes?
MP Frankie Myers, you are restraining my comments right now. But sometimes it is better to watch and let things play out. However, I’ll make a few brief remarks. MP Myers, I know that you are aware that you are torn between your nephews and the justice minister. Guaranteed, they don’t feel the same way. Blood is thicker than water. So, we all know why MP Ottley is adamant that the minister deals with the matters of ankle bracelet, early release and human rights for inmates.
MP Frankie Myers, I don’t think that you are defending Minister Tackling enough. You want her to do an exceptional job, but you are not paying attention to the change of dynamics in parliament. They want to get rid of you, because if they do, they get rid of the minister also. MP Myers, you are in their way. Definitely, if you were not part of this coalition, the government would have fallen already.
Prime Minister Luc Mercelina, you need to dive head-on into political reform, post-haste. It's time to return to the original format of selecting persons with integrity to serve in the legislative branch, rather than continuing with this current status that is destroying the country, election after election.
Joslyn Morton
Dear Editor,
If there is no order this causes disorder. I think that nowadays that is the direction we are heading in. Too often of late I have to ask myself where did it begin?
I am at any time willing to calmly and preferably individualĺy talk to anybody who is willing to accept what I will explain concerning their behavior in traffic and hopefully come to consensus that their behavior in traffic is not according to the traffic laws.
Some might ask why wouldn’t I go on the radio and explain it. Even though I’m aware that unity is strength, I’ll go along with “one, one full the bucket”.
But it is not only people on motorcycles. I stand corrected but I believe that confusion is contagious. Why am I stating this? When I drive from the Longwall Road via the Little Bay road up to the beginning of the Welgelegen Road, on paper I do not know where I am.
So here we go. Where is Belair and where is Cay Hill? Where is the St. Maarten Medical Center located? Is it eventually the intention to rename the Raoul Illigde Ball Park? Where does the Little Bay road end and where does Welgelegen road begin? Not letting Minister Gumbs off the hook, but I do not believe that he was there when this all began.
To put an exclamation point on what I want to illustrate, will somebody explain to us why is there a traffic sign obliging drivers to stop (8) and one cautioning drivers to yield (7) at the same T-junction?(Cannegiterstreet Windward Island Bank.) Please help me to untie this knot.
Russell A. Simmons
