MP Veronica Jansen-Webster: Review St. Maarten’s institutions, but says checks and balances must be protected

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦’𝘴 𝘛𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘯𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘔𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘛𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢 𝘷𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘚𝘭𝘶𝘪𝘫𝘴-𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘻 𝘢𝘵 𝘐𝘗𝘒𝘖.

GREAT BAY--Member of Parliament Veronica Jansen-Webster says St. Maarten must take a serious and comprehensive look at whether its institutions are delivering real value to the people, but she cautions against rushing into eliminating or merging entities without first understanding their mandates, overlaps and effectiveness.

Responding to statements made during IPKO by Maria van der Sluijs-Plantz that St. Maarten has too many institutions for its size and too little capacity to properly operate them, Jansen-Webster said the country’s challenge is not simply the number of institutions, but whether they are sustainable, properly staffed and adapted to the realities of a small island state.

1. Maria van der Sluijs-Plantz stated at IPKO that St. Maarten has too many institutions for the size of the country and too little capacity to properly staff and operate them. She echoed the PM's statement of October 2025. Do you agree with that assessment, and if so, which institutions, councils, chambers or entities should Parliament seriously review for downsizing, merging or removal?

I agree that St. Maarten faces significant capacity challenges. We are a small country with a population of approximately 43,000 people, yet we are expected to operate many of the same institutions that exist in much larger jurisdictions such as Curacao (150,000) and Aruba (110,000). This reality affects not only government, but also the private sector, as there is a limited pool of professionals available to serve in specialized functions such as (legislative) lawyers, policy advisors, accountants, engineers, economists, doctors, inspectors, etc. This forces us to use the same individuals to serve on multiple boards and committees and institutions. Let us not forget that we went through many changes in government, a devastating hurricane and the Covid pandemic.

This is why I do not believe the conversation should be about “identifying institutions to remove”. Many of our institutions exist to safeguard democracy, accountability, transparency, and good governance. Before discussing elimination or mergers, we should first undertake a comprehensive review of how effectively these institutions are functioning, whether there are overlaps in mandates, and whether resources are being utilized efficiently.

Every year, the high councils of state come to parliament to present their annual reports including their financial report from the previous year, but what is lacking is the comparison of the reports over the various entities to determine if there is overlap. Parliament can look at opportunities for greater cooperation, shared services, administrative streamlining, and modernization where appropriate, while preserving the checks and balances that are essential to a democratic society. There could, for example, be a joint administrative team for the 4 high councils of state where possible by housing all four in the same building.

The question should not simply be whether we have too many institutions, but whether each institution is delivering value to the people of St. Maarten.

2. St. Maarten has often defended its constitutional status and autonomy, but Van der Sluijs-Plantz’s comments suggest the country model adopted after 10-10-10 may be too heavy for our actual capacity. Should Parliament now open a formal discussion on whether St. Maarten’s current constitutional and governance structure still fits the country’s reality?

Almost sixteen years after attaining country status, it is reasonable to evaluate what has worked well, what has proven challenging, and where improvements can be made.

However, this does not mean that we have to abandon country status. Rather, it is a question of ensuring that our institutions, policies, and governance structures are fit for the purpose and capable of serving our people effectively. Every country periodically evaluates its systems, and St. Maarten should do so as well.

The constitutional status of St. Maarten represented an important milestone in our history. I remember that proud feeling we all had after the results of the referendum and then again after attaining status apart in 10-10-10.

The challenge now is therefore not whether we should reverse that achievement, but whether we have adequately adapted our institutions to the realities of our size, economy, and available human resources. Maybe we can look at dropping the number of appointees to councils from 5 to 3.

Those are legitimate discussions that deserve careful study and broad public engagement. The constraints we now face are all constraints that we knew about before we accepted the new status in 10-10-10. We need to examine what we intended to do about it back then, what was done and what still can be done to improve our status.

3. What concrete steps will you support in Parliament to reduce the burden on the government apparatus, strengthen capacity where it is truly needed, and prevent St. Maarten from continuing to carry institutions it cannot properly operate?

I would support several practical measures.

Firstly, a comprehensive review of government entities, advisory bodies, and statutory organizations to identify duplication, inefficiencies, and opportunities for modernization and cooperation.

Secondly and to me most importantly, greater investment in human capital development. Capacity challenges cannot be solved solely by restructuring institutions. We must also develop, train, and retain the skilled professionals needed to operate those institutions effectively. Scholarships, professional development, succession planning, and workforce retention strategies should be priorities. In 2005, government started a program for civil servants to get a bachelors or masters in public administration.

Many policy advisors graduated out of those classes. Many went on to become heads of government departments and even members of parliament, ministers and secretary generals. Government should partner with local institutions like USM and offer these educational opportunities again. We already have great local opportunities for education in accounting, law and education to grow our capacity but not enough knowledge of governance and governing.

Thirdly, greater use of shared services and regional cooperation in highly specialized areas where maintaining standalone expertise may not always be practical or cost-effective. I have championed the idea of solving the shortage of legislative lawyers in judicial affairs by creating a pool of legislative lawyers of the kingdom who can work as freelance consultants with the department of judicial affairs. This way, the arduous task of attracting qualified professional legislative lawyers to our small island can be mitigated and we will avoid bringing professionals who we cannot afford to pay for a fulltime job.

Fourth, continued digitization and modernization of government processes to improve efficiency, reduce administrative burdens, and allow public servants to focus on delivering services rather than managing unnecessary bureaucracy. The E-Government program currently being executed is already moving us in that direction.

Ultimately, the goal should not be to weaken our institutions, but to ensure they are sustainable, effective, and capable of meeting the needs of the people of St. Maarten both today and in the future.

‍