Dear Editor,

There has been a lot of discussion in “The Daily Herald” regarding a few issues plaguing St. Maarten that have simple solutions or at least partial solutions that could be instituted quickly and with little difficulty.

Problem – vehicles that have excessively tinted windows.

Solution – have the vehicle inspection station do a test to determine if the tint is too dark. If it is, fail the vehicle and make the owner bring it back in a condition that will pass. This inspection occurs every two years and is required to get updated licensing. More controls should happen to enforce any offenses seen between inspections and fines levied.

Problem – traffic is getting worse and will deter tourists from returning to visit the island. We need to acknowledge that there are too many cars on the road, it is too easy to import one and there is no central control over ownership.

Solution – while we are waiting for a comprehensive traffic study to be done by UNOPS, which will likely take a long time, we need to limit the import of new vehicles to the island. This can be accomplished by establishing a small import duty that is used to fund the removal of a vehicle for every new one allowed in. There are many abandoned vehicles taking up valuable parking spaces and making the country unsightly, that should be removed. This duty tax would create a fund to do so and would simultaneously keep the balance of vehicles at status quo. Any excess funds could also be used for ameliorating the proliferation of potholes on the roads.

A central titling system should be established where an owner gets title to a vehicle and when sold has to transfer the registered title to the new owner. Initially, this can be done at the same time as an owner getting new plates for their vehicle. Subsequently, upon importation of new vehicles to the country, an SXM title is issued. This would allow the government to know who last owned a vehicle and be able to charge that owner for removal, if abandoned. The titling and registration of vehicles will also have a positive impact on diminishing the rate of occurrence of sales of stolen vehicles to unsuspecting buyers.

Problem – curtailing the use of single use plastics.

Solution – most residents are using reusable bags for their grocery shopping and will likely get used to taking those bags into other stores, as they keep some in their vehicles. Tourists, on the other hand, do not have reusable bags readily available. Rental cars could have a bag or two in the trunk. Hotel rooms, timeshares and condo rentals should also have some in their properties.

All retail establishments should charge a nominal fee for each bag, paper, or plastic that they give a customer. That charge, less an administration fee to cover the turnover tax and cost of the bag, should be turned over to the government to fund a separate fund used to beautify the country. New public trash receptacles (hopefully designed to allow recycling) should be placed along the roadsides in heavily trafficked areas, by both vehicles and pedestrians. The fund would also be used for periodic trash cleanup and beautification.

Encourage communities to establish a neighborhood watch and adopt a one-day-a-quarter cleanup of their own neighborhoods, to include children, which will have the effect of creating buy-in to good stewardship of the environment at an early age.

These suggestions are relatively simple partial solutions to much discussed problems. The implementation of a vehicle import duty and or a titling fee and a bag tax are a bit more complicated, but it is not rocket science.

R. Paul Speece

Simpson Bay

Dear Editor,

The race to the conclusion of the 2025 budget debate was long, and winding and fascinating and surprising, all at the same time. This marathon was an unforgettable display of knowledge, wit and stamina – a performance that grabbed the attention of many viewers and listeners; curious to be informed of the final decision.

Although it was 5 days of intense deliberation by the Council of Ministers and Members of Parliament, the nucleus of this article would be centered on the latter group only, as I bring into focus three MPs who really captured my interest – deeply impressed with not just the content of their presentations, but their disposition that interlocked with the sincerity of their individual messages.

During the budget debate, it was crystal clear that these MPs were independent thinkers, because they have studied the document, which provided them with the insight not to pose lots of questions that would result in superficial answers. Instead, they assessed the pros and cons of the budget, linked their evaluations and recommendations to the reality of the various situations, and then dialogued with the relevant ministers, via the Chair.

Based on space availability, I can only highlight a brief version of their presentations, starting with MP Veronica Jansen-Webster. From the start, she acknowledged to be very comfortable in her new position as an MP and that she would live up to the expectations that are required of her. This admission expressed maturity to move on and embraced her current role, in order to work in the best interest of the people.

When this MP spoke, her demeanor was so calm, and her choice of words were simple and well-measured. She linked her own experiences to solidity her advices to the ministers. I was very much touched when she revisited the Tourism Master Plan to extract information that has relevance today. This jolted my memory, because I can recall clearly when this document was put together, roughly 20 years ago.

MP Jansen-Webster urged the ministers to monitor their progress on a spreadsheet, to see what they have accomplished. This is up my alley because I started writing a similar article and I left it unfinished. To top it off, she pleaded with the ministers to recognize and encourage the good people who are around them and vowed to keep the ministers accountable for their actions.

MP Ludmila de Weever had a similar approach in her delivery, where her findings and requests were clearly defined. This MP stressed the need to present the budget with precision, to reflect the current year, and to make the document complete. She agreed with the principle of continuity, but was critical about new items added to the budget to incur more debts, which disputed the core meaning of continuity.

She also expressed the lack of unity among the Executive branch to focus on the issues that have plagued the country for months – matters such as safety and security for all; garbage disposal; road neglect; traffic congestion; economy and tourism. She encouraged cooperation across ministries, but reiterated that the Council of Ministers need to come together to work on these pressing issues.

The most crucial matter for me was when MP De Weever described the responsibility of Bureau Telecommunication and Post – how it failed to report matters in a timely fashion – and questioned if the organization’s personnel have the experience and knowledge to manage this entity, because of her experience with this institution.

The MP further emphasized that there was no oversight, and begged Prime Minister Luc Mercelina to look into the operation of BTP, to ensure that the supervision is carried out professionally. I really appreciated the explanation because all along I thought that BTP was only responsible for the regulation of telephone companies.

Hats off to MP Sjamira Roseburg for doing a fantastic job as the Vice Chair of Parliament. It was not an easy task to chair the debate for three consecutive days, especially when two days of these deliberations ended around 1:00am. This was a test of stamina. If anyone had tuned in for the first time, he or she would not have known that this was her first-ever, presiding over a budget debate.

She followed the Rules of Order to the best of her knowledge, and at times when the chatter among teammates rose above the acceptable level, she reminded her colleagues to maintain the decorum that is required in The People’s House. Great job, MP Roseburg!

What a memorable experience the budget debate of 2025 has been!

Joslyn Morton

Good day, Honourable Premier,

Thank you for last evening’s Election date announcement.

I write again as in the previous three times.

At the onset of this New Year I send this communication requesting some information of Anguillian national significance.

Can you please share in detail why a NDA was signed concerning the .ai Domain Name contract with Identity Digital? Especially given that your party promised full transparency to the citizens and that no agreement was needed with our local, Vince Cate?

How can the Anguillian general public truthfully and rightly hold leaders accountable to an ID five year projected figure and help account against theft, mis-use and/or abuse of it, if they don’t know what that figure is?

How can the Anguillian general public correctly make their individual and collective appraisals of the financial wisdom of government’s decision without the requisite contractual information?

I am cognizant that your time is in high demand but many other citizens are concerned about the responses to the above questions. Thank you for your response.

Avenella Griffith

Resident Anguillian

Dear Editor,

The debate on independence seems to be split between those who decry ongoing attachment to the colonial power and the remaining controls exercised by that power. The other side of the debate are those who appreciate the stability of remaining colonial attachment and the usability of the passport.

Permit me to suggest that the debate misses future considerations which I believe to be the important ones.

We can easily agree that exploitation by colonial powers has been the major part of Caribbean history. Currently there are many independent countries and much greater autonomy in others. But we can clearly see that in the future, new exploitative and imperialist structures are beginning to form that are different to earlier colonialism. Powerful countries are in control and other powerful countries want to have more control. Small and weak territories like Greenland, Panama and St. Maarten will likely be the victims of future imperialism. New forms of colonialism driven by different forms of power are likely in the future.

In the future, given that likely confrontations of the major sovereign powers (mixed in with private mega corporations that have significant control), it might be more favorable for St. Maarten to be attached to a power block that will provide some protection and guidance.

Robbie Ferron