MPs question whether harmonized financial laws are timely, modern, and fit for purpose

GREAT BAY--Members of Parliament raised a wide range of questions and concerns following Finance Minister Marinka Gumbs’ presentation on five draft harmonized national ordinances on financial supervision, with the discussion focusing on the urgency of the legislation, the timing of its submission, its relevance to current realities, and its expected impact on residents and businesses.

MP Dimar Labega opened the questioning by asking for clarity on the Minister’s reference to grey listing. He asked whether St. Maarten is currently on a grey list, whether the country is close to being grey listed, and how long government has known this could become a risk. He also questioned whether the threat of grey listing is the main reason other financial reforms, including digital payment opportunities, have not yet been realized.

MP Sjamira Roseburg questioned the delayed timing of the legislative package, noting that some of the draft laws appear to have already been approved in Curaçao as far back as 2017, while St. Maarten is only now addressing them in 2026. She raised concern that if the two countries are supposed to operate under a harmonized framework, then the laws should be handled closer together in time rather than with such a large gap. She also questioned where the process is breaking down if the laws are supposedly developed jointly.

MP Darryl York raised questions about stakeholder consultation, asking whether the Bankers Association had provided any notes or feedback on the draft laws, particularly the first one, and if not, why not. He also asked whether such input would still be obtained before the legislation advances further. In addition, he asked the Minister directly whether she personally stands behind the laws as currently presented in Parliament, despite the fact that they were submitted years ago and appear to carry a sense of urgency only now.

MP Ardwell Irion raised broader concerns about whether the laws remain suitable in their current form, given how much the financial and technological landscape has changed since they were first submitted. He said he no longer necessarily agrees with certain aspects of the legislation, particularly where St. Maarten is expected to follow international regulations without sufficient room for local innovation. He also expressed concern that the laws may give too much power to the central bank and may not be future-proof enough in light of developments in artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency, and other emerging technologies. He questioned whether the Social Economic Council (SER) should also review the legislation, given its potential impact.

As Parliament moved into discussion of the broader package, MP Viren Kotai asked why the adoption of the uniform national ordinances is considered urgent at this time and what specific regional or international obligations make their implementation necessary now. He also asked what concrete benefits residents, consumers, and local businesses would see from the adoption of these technical laws, how they would strengthen St. Maarten’s framework against fraud, money laundering, and abuse, how the virtual asset legislation would enhance the country’s competitiveness and credibility, and what the consequences would be if the laws are not adopted.

MP York returned to the floor to ask specifically how the legislation would expand digital opportunities for St. Maarten, referencing recent public discussion about PayPal, Revolut, and similar services not being available on the Dutch side. He later asked whether the Minister could confirm reports that these providers were simply not interested in doing business in St. Maarten, as had reportedly been suggested, and whether she herself had been part of any meeting on that matter.

MP Labega also returned to the issue of digital payments, saying he personally had a Revolut card around 2021 before the service was later withdrawn on the Dutch side. He asked the Minister if she could explain why that happened, whether the company entered the market without the proper legal framework, and whether resistance from the traditional banking sector may have played a role.

MP Roseburg again questioned whether the country may be at risk of using limited legal resources to process laws that are already outdated or may soon need to be revised again. She asked whether there were plans to seek updated advice from both the SER and the Council of Advice, particularly given that some of the earlier legal reviews may have been conducted years ago under very different circumstances. She also sought clarity on who actually drafted the laws, whether they were created jointly by St. Maarten and Curaçao, by the central bank, or primarily by Curaçao, saying the current narrative on that point remained unclear. She further asked whether the laws already passed in Curaçao are now active there, how that works within one central bank system, and what would happen if St. Maarten were to amend the draft laws.

MP Irion also linked the discussion back to the Basic Banking Law, noting that government had previously argued that additional laws were coming that would address concerns he had raised through earlier proposed amendments, particularly regarding digital forms of financial access. He asked which of the current draft laws specifically address those concerns and whether the new package would create the legal space for the central bank and commercial banks to develop their own versions of digital services similar to PayPal or Revolut, at least within the Kingdom.

MP Egbert Doran raised a procedural question, asking how amendments proposed by Members of Parliament would influence the harmonized process, especially in relation to Curaçao’s approval, and whether the laws had already been amended by the Minister before being brought to Parliament.

MP Omar Ottley said that while he supports the effort to move legislation forward, he is increasingly concerned by what he described as the growing norm of St. Maarten having to follow Curaçao’s lead. He argued that while harmonization is understandable, St. Maarten must also recognize its own norms and approach. He noted that when Curaçao wants to move something forward, it does so, regardless of whether St. Maarten is in step, and said St. Maarten should not continue appearing to operate behind Curaçao on matters of this scale. He also agreed with calls for SER input, saying legislation of this magnitude should go through that process.

And finally, MP Roseburg clarified that while she understands the legal need for harmonization, she would like to see St. Maarten in a position where Curaçao is also following its lead, rather than St. Maarten always appearing to be behind. She reiterated concern that Parliament should not simply pass laws for the sake of saying laws were passed, but must ensure they are effective, current, and grounded in the realities facing St. Maarten today.

Following the first round of questioning, the Chair adjourned the Central Committee meeting until further notice, stating that continuation of the discussion would take place at a later date to be coordinated with the Minister.

‍