Dear Editor,
Public commentary plays an important role in shaping opinion in a small community like ours. People turn to the opinion pages to understand different viewpoints, to hear concerns, and to follow discussions about leadership and accountability. Because of that influence, commentators carry a responsibility: if they choose to speak on issues of integrity, they must be consistent in how they apply their standards.
Over the years, the name Joslyn Morton has appeared frequently in this newspaper’s opinion section. Her letters often focus on leadership failures, moral decline, and political misconduct. Strong criticism is her right, and criticism when balanced can be healthy. But what creates concern is not the criticism itself; it is the silence that follows when similar or even more serious issues arise involving individuals or parties she chooses not to confront.
For example, Morton has written repeatedly and firmly about Minister Grisha Heyliger-Marten, Minister Melissa Gumbs, MP Raeyhon Peterson, former MP Rolando Brison, and former Prime Minister Silveria Jacobs, often portraying them as responsible for many of the issues she highlights in her letters. These letters are usually intense, sweeping, and uncompromising.
But when a matter arises involving others, matters that directly relate to procedure, or political influence, that same intensity suddenly fades.
A recent example is the court proceedings involving MP Ardwell Irion and attorney Jairo Bloem regarding the CBCS nomination. According to witness statements reported from the hearing, Mr. Bloem said he went on radio to defend his own appointment at the request of Democratic Party leadership. He also acknowledged he had personally reviewed the official advice regarding his own nomination, something in the reporting described as unusual, since nominees do not typically review or receive their own appointment documents.
These are serious concerns involving influence, procedure, and ethics, the very issues Morton claims to champion. Yet not a single letter addressed it.
The same silence appeared in her commentary on Minister Heyliger-Marten’s recent exchange with MP Francisco Lacroes. In that piece, Morton focused solely on the Minister’s response, completely omitting the context: both the Integrity Chamber and SOAB reports raised serious concerns about how the former Minister of TEATT and his cabinet staff handled the taxi and bus licensing process. That cabinet structure in which MP Lacroes served is central to understanding why the exchange occurred at all.
Ignoring that context while criticizing only one side presents a deeply incomplete picture.
This is the pattern the public should pay attention to.
It is not the presence of criticism that raises questions, it is the absence of it where it clearly belongs.
When a commentator chooses outrage selectively, the message becomes less about integrity and more about preference. When certain parties, personalities, or political circles are exempt from scrutiny, it becomes difficult to trust the objectivity of the commentary. And when major issues are ignored entirely while lesser ones are amplified, the public narrative becomes distorted.
The problem is not that she criticizes. The problem is what she refuses to criticize. That imbalance says more than any letter she has written.
When criticism becomes selective, it is no longer about integrity, it becomes strategy. And when silence surrounds certain individuals or circles while others face constant attack, the public deserves to ask why.
Consistency is not a luxury in public commentary. It is the minimum standard. Without it, criticism loses its credibility and commentary loses its purpose.
In the interest of fairness,
A Concerned Citizen
Dear Editor,
Whenever someone is being cornered, the nature of the ego is to retaliate, especially when the defeat becomes inevitable. It was expected that Minister Grisha Heyliger-Marten woukd take a moment to digest the requests to relinquish her position and respond with care. Instead, she lashed out at Member of Parliament Francisco Lacroes to challenge his demands on Thursday, November 13, 2025.
Oh I love it when the politicians talk, because they spill all the melee and incriminate themselves without even being conscious of their behaviour. Minister of Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport and Telecommunication Grisha Heyliger-Marten is nervous as the threat of a vote of non-confidence looms. No minister who is faced with such a challenging situation would have responded in that manner, as if she has the authority to fire MP Lacroes.
The minister boldly announced that she was elected by the people to serve and was also duly appointed, and that she would continue to do so with integrity. Ha! Integrity? Minister Heyliger-Marten, when have you served this country with integrity? It is because you haven’t done so, are the reasons why you are caught up in this dilemma. You have never been straight with the public, in reference to the Market Place and Soul Beach.
Since integrity is your watchword, I challenged you to speak off the cuff with the MPs and stop giving us these Nancy stories and useless speeches that are prepared by your writer. Look how you twisted the arms of Finance Minister Marinka Gumbs to side with you to compensate the market vendors (I’m not against the compensation) after you made a mess of the project, because you were not truthful to the vendors and the public.
Do you remember that phone call to the program by Minister Marinka Gumbs, when one of the vendors was expressing her frustration with the market? The minister was very clear that you did not discuss the matter with her. But you gave the vendors the assurance that this was the case. The same thing occurred with Soul Beach. And don’t forget this merry-go-round with Minister Patrice Gumbs pertaining to the matter of soil testing, etc.
Do these situations reflect a minister who serves with integrity, Grisha Heyliger-Marten? But you want to get rid of Finance Minister Marinka Gumbs because she is not dancing to your tune anymore. Just last week in parliament, the same MP Francisco Lacroes and MP Ardwell Irion made it known that the call for a vote of non-confidence came from within the Council of Ministers. Madame Integrity, it is no secret that you asked MP Ardwell Irion to fire the finance minister.
Because you know that there are 6 opposition members and the 2 stooges who “support” the Democratic Party that you have wrapped around your finger, you were confident that they would dismiss the finance minister. Be very careful, Madame Integrity! Pay keen attention to the title of this article which states, “One day for the slave, one day for the master.” This does not need any further explanation because Theo Heyliger was also elected by the people and was duly appointed to serve.
Minister Heyliger-Marten, since you will continue to serve with integrity, tell us why you didn’t want the lawyer to take up the position at the joint central bank? Is the Syrian bank still on schedule to flood our market – another almost useless entity that is here to serve itself and not the people of this land? Now it is clear why you wanted MP Viren Kotai to be the finance minister, from the very beginning of this administration.
Minister Grisha Heyliger- Marten, now that your integrity has come into question, the game is on! Let’s hope that parliament will do the honorable thing and send you packing, so that you would always rememeber, “one day for the slave, one day for the master.”
Joslyn Morton
Dear Editor,
As we reflect on St. Maarten/St. Martin Day, it’s an opportune moment to address a longstanding issue that has garnered attention in recent years – the tendency to overlook local professionals and companies, particularly by the government and state-owned entities.
There has been considerable discourse about how government-owned companies often favour international firms for major contracts and leadership positions, while qualified local companies and residents are overlooked. This concern extends to all residents of St. Maarten, and it raises important questions about the long-term impacts of such practices on our local talent pool.
Despite calls for our students to return home and contribute to the development of our nation, many find themselves relegated to mid-level positions upon their return, with limited opportunity for advancement. This phenomenon not only contributes to brain drain but also stifles the potential of highly educated locals who are eager to contribute meaningfully to their communities.
It is crucial to clarify that the blame should not be placed on foreign candidates who apply for these roles. Once they arrive in our beautiful community, it is vital that we extend the renowned friendliness and hospitality that St. Maarten is famous for. Welcoming newcomers with open arms fosters a spirit of collaboration and inclusion, rather than division.
The root of the issue lies with the policies and practices of those in power. Government agencies often procure the services of international consulting firms for recruitment without a clear mandate to prioritize local talent. This continues to perpetuate a cycle where qualified residents are overlooked, undermining the potential benefits these local professionals can bring.
Additionally, we must examine the allocation of Dutch funds managed by the World Bank. It is troubling that a significant portion of these resources seem to be awarded to foreign companies. The imperative for local employment cannot be understated; when contracts are granted to local firms, the economic benefits circulate within our community, enhancing tax revenues and bolstering our local economy. Diverting these funds to foreign entities undermines our economic stability and perpetuates the cycle of exclusion.
This is an opportunity for reflection among our leaders and stakeholders in St. Maarten. As we listen to speeches emphasizing unity and nation-building, it is crucial to recognize that actions must align with these sentiments. Building a resilient nation involves ensuring that local companies and professionals are given priority in government contracts and hiring practices.
Let us advocate for policies that prioritize local talent and contribute to the economic advancement of all residents. The strength of our community lies in empowering its members and fostering a collaborative environment where everyone can thrive.
Kendall Dupersoy
Local professional
Dear Editor,
Don’t ask me! Instead, I asked AI itself for you by interviewing a ChatGPT. A ChatGPT, or just chatbot, is a computer program that uses large language models to produce human-like text in conversation either through text or voice. It can answer questions, provide information, or perform tasks by interacting with users in natural language
A: “AI feels ‘so freaking smart’ because it combines massive data, advanced algorithms, and lightning-fast processing to mimic certain aspects of human intelligence. AI can analyze millions of examples (images, texts, sounds) and detect patterns humans might miss. It processes information in milliseconds, far faster than human brains. AI doesn’t forget – it can store and recall vast amounts of data instantly. Through machine learning, AI improves over time by adjusting its models based on feedback.”
But here’s the catch. AI isn’t “smart” in the human sense. It doesn’t understand meaning, emotions, or context the way people do. It’s only as good as the data and design behind it. If the data is biased or incomplete, AI can make flawed decisions. AI lacks creativity and values, it can generate ideas but doesn’t have purpose or wisdom. One type of AI can be trained for specific tasks so that it performs them with near-expert precision.
Q: How does AI see itself?
A: “AI doesn’t ‘see itself’ in the way humans do. Self-perception requires consciousness, subjective experience, and emotions – things AI does not possess. Instead, AI has functional self-models: systems that track performance, monitor errors, and adjust behavior. So, AI ‘sees itself’ as a set of metrics, probabilities, and feedback loops – not as a being with feelings or identity. AI doesn’t have subjective identity, no ‘I’ in the human sense.”
AI monitors performance by tracking accuracy, efficiency, and error rates to evaluate its own outputs. AI adapts and adjusts models when feedback or new data show. AI can limit recognition and flag when it lacks data or confidence, which is a practical form of self-assessment that some humans don’t have.
Q: Is AI a savior?
A: “AI is not the savior, it’s the ally. Human wisdom is irreplaceable: AI lacks values, empathy, and cultural grounding. A community’s true strength lies in its people, culture, and resilience. AI can amplify those strengths if applied with simplicity, ethics, and community-first design. There are risks of misuse, as surveillance, bias, or over-commercialization could harm communities. It has infrastructure limits like availability of energy power, Internet access, and governance systems. The must be strengthened and secured to support AI safely.”
Q: Could AI function as a savior for the Caribbean?
A: “AI can certainly feel like a potential savior for the Caribbean, but the truth is more nuanced: it’s not a savior on its own – it’s a strategic tool that, if guided by human leadership, culture, and ethics, can help the region leapfrog challenges and build resilience. AI could be transformative in the following areas:
* Climate resilience: AI can forecast hurricanes, floods, and sargassum blooms with precision, giving communities more time to prepare.
* Economic diversification: AI supports agriculture, fintech, eco-tourism, and creative industries, reducing dependence on tourism alone.
* Healthcare access: AI diagnostics and telemedicine bridge gaps in medical expertise across islands.
* Education and youth empowerment: AI tutors and adaptive learning platforms expand opportunities for students in remote areas.
* Governance and transparency: AI dashboards track spending and project outcomes, building trust in political leadership.
* Cultural preservation: AI can digitize Caribbean languages, oral traditions, and music, ensuring they thrive globally.
“However, without identity protection and safeguards, AI could dilute Caribbean authenticity.”
Q: How can I thank an AI chatGPT for letting me do an interview with this chatbot?
A: “A thoughtful way to thank an AI for an interview is to frame it like you would with a human guest, acknowledging the exchange, highlighting what you gained, and expressing appreciation for the opportunity. Since AI doesn’t have feelings, the gratitude is more symbolic, but it still shows respect for the collaboration.
“Would you like me to help you craft a polished closing statement for your interview transcript or a short thank‑you note you can publish alongside it? Here it is: Many thanks to chatbot for joining me in this interview. The exchange was thought‑provoking and highlighted how AI can contribute meaningfully to human creativity and inquiry.”
Cdr. Bud Slabbaert
Dear Editor,
On many occasions when discussing the ability of a person, words are confused. For instance he has a nice voice as opposed to he knows how to sing. In baseball some people would say he has good stuff, while others will say he knows how to pitch. And this counts for almost everything that we do. Ì had a conversation with a person on the phone on Monday as a consequence of a news article in the paper. One thing brought the next and that comparison that I began this article with also came up. For instance one can be head of the government, but does not know how to govern. I believe that that is the case with our government.
Let me be clear that you don't get to be a medical doctor and surgeon by being a fool, so in no form or fashion I am being dismissive, I am merely voicing my opinion. Neither am I advocating for change of government, but it still remains that in my vision the people of Sint Maarten will not get anything done with the way the present government is proceeding. Even though I try to avoid repeating what some would call it, there is empathy there. What I still do not understand is what is the real reason that after so many years we still have not learned to make use of what our status affords us. Pointing fingers and denigrating does not make for good leaders.
The members of Parliament have so much idle time on their hands, still I am sure that the majority of them will be gobsmacked if someone would confront them with a question pertaining to the Constitution. By the way, does anybody in government think of asking Ms. Jacobs about her endurance? How she is the only one in these first fifteen years who weathered the tumblings of the Sint Maarten governments' storms?
Honestly speaking, I would be the last one to participate in getting rid of the TEATT Minister, and even if I did, I probably would have sugar-coated it. I must add that 'we'll see' seems to be the motto of the governments, which my opinion is a consequence of instability in government and governing. I always believe in country before self, but I also believe that in dynamism. And I believe that the SER is underscoring my thoughts, after reading Wednesday's paper.
Russell A. Simmons
