MPs Challenge Soul Beach figures, funding and process in Parliament

GREAT BAY--Members of Parliament Egbert Doran, Darryl York and Ardwell Irion on Wednesday raised a series of pointed questions in Parliament about the Soul Beach Music Festival, focusing on the reliability of the data used to measure the event’s impact, the handling of public funds, and whether the proper procedures were followed by government.

Their remarks came during Parliament’s debate on the 2025 Soul Beach festival and the Social Economic Council’s review of the event.

MP Darryl York focused heavily on the numbers and assumptions used in the SER report, saying the document raised more questions than answers. He pointed to the report’s own description of the US$7.26 million tourism income figure as an upper-bound estimate and questioned how the SER concluded that 2,556 visitors stayed for all five days of the event.

York asked why Parliament and the public should accept the higher estimate as a measure of success when the same report also presents a lower, more conservative scenario of about US$4.3 million.

He also challenged the source of the attendance figures, noting that the numbers appeared to come from the event promoters themselves. York questioned how those figures were independently verified and asked why no third-party audit was done of the visitor numbers before they were used to support the event’s economic claims.

He further questioned the hotel occupancy figures cited in the presentation, referencing data from the St. Maarten Hospitality and Trade Association that he said reflected a much smaller increase than what had been presented in Parliament. York argued that if the underlying figures differ so widely, then the economic claims surrounding the event require closer scrutiny.

York also raised concern over what he described as missing cost data. He noted that the SER report points to a lack of full information on public-sector costs such as security, traffic management, sanitation, and administrative support. Without that, he argued, government cannot credibly claim that the festival was a net positive for the public purse.

He also referred to parts of the SER report that described irregular financial practices, lack of adherence to the subsidy ordinance, and the absence of the necessary legal and financial preparations. York stressed that these were not his own words, but points contained in the report itself.

On the social side, York said the report appeared to lack data on public safety, traffic impact, resident experience, and community satisfaction. He asked whether the minister could provide evidence of how the event affected the daily lives, safety, and well-being of residents, or whether social impact was being reduced to online reach, hashtags, and influencer activity.

York also questioned the reported 24 million digital impressions, asking whether that number reflected only the period surrounding the festival or a broader span of time across 2025. He further asked whether other promoters bringing reports to government would have their numbers treated with the same level of seriousness as those submitted by Soul Beach.

MP Egbert Doran made clear that his issue was not with Soul Beach as an event, but with what he described as the improper use of public funds and the failure to follow proper procedure.

Doran said he supports initiatives that generate revenue and activity for St. Maarten, but argued that when public money is involved, the process must be correct. He said that when procedures are not followed, the result is the type of controversy now surrounding Soul Beach.

He first asked why Soul Beach left St. Maarten after one year and whether any official communication was given to government explaining why the festival would not continue. He said Parliament should be told whether the organizers formally communicated their reasons for leaving.

Turning to the SER review, Doran questioned the methodology used in gathering stakeholder information. He noted that the report referenced targeted interviews with hotels, car rental agencies, and one taxi dispatcher, and asked what the sampling pool was for such conclusions. He specifically questioned how one taxi dispatcher could be used to reflect the experience of the wider taxi sector.

Doran also asked whether the hotels interviewed by the SER confirmed that the increased occupancy during the event period was directly related to Soul Beach, rather than part of wider visitor movement already taking place on the island.

He challenged the independence of the review, saying the main source of key information appeared to be the Soul Beach Music Festival Foundation itself. Doran asked how the report could be described as independent if the core information being analyzed largely originated from the entity under review.

He repeatedly stressed that the central issue was process. Referring to the SER report, Doran pointed to warnings that failure to comply with prescribed financial procedures may constitute a breach of statutory obligations. He also highlighted the report’s references to the National Ordinance on Subsidies and the need for transparency in how subsidies are granted, advanced, and accounted for.

Doran asked whether the support for Soul Beach went through the customary review process within government, including the legal and administrative channels normally used before matters reach the Council of Ministers. He again called for the legal advice that justified the payment arrangement for Soul Beach and asked whether the organizers ultimately received the full US$700,000 referenced in the debate.

He also pressed for disclosure of all the data and documents submitted to the SER, including what information was provided on September 4, 2025, what was later provided after October 14, 2025, and whether the ministry would supply Parliament with the full data set used in the review.

To better gauge the actual economic effect of the event, Doran also asked for concrete figures on flight arrivals, visitor arrivals, and turnover tax income for the relevant period in 2024 and 2025, arguing that such figures would provide clearer evidence than broad promotional claims.

MP Ardwell Irion’s contribution centered on the quality of the information provided to the SER and the purpose of Parliament’s questioning.

Irion reminded Parliament that the meeting had originally been requested to understand how Soul Beach came about, how the subsidy mechanism was used, and to gain information that could align with wider oversight and investigation into the matter.

Later in the debate, Irion pushed back against any suggestion that Members of Parliament were trying to discredit the SER. He said that was not the case. Instead, he argued, MPs were highlighting what the report itself states.

Irion specifically referred to the report’s statement that earlier submissions of data were inaccurate and that the information received on September 4, 2025 did not meet the standards needed for the institution to conduct a thorough assessment. In his view, Parliament was not undermining the council, but echoing the council’s own findings about the limitations of the information initially provided.

‍