FROM WARNING TO ACTION: Build the People, Strengthen the Institutions, Protect the Country - PART 3

𝘍𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘞𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘛𝘰 𝘈𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯: 𝘚𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘚𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘔𝘢𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘯’𝘴 𝘗𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘐𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘉𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘊𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘴

- 𝘈 𝘛𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘦-𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘚𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘍𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘏𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩, 𝘎𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘙𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘚𝘦𝘭𝘧-𝘎𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 -

The Cft’s concerns about government-owned companies, SZV and the social-security funds point to something larger than individual financial problems. They point to the need for stronger institutional capacity. St. Maarten can adopt an Ownership Policy. It can establish a Dividend Policy. It can introduce risk dashboards and financial monitoring. It can reform healthcare financing.

But policies will not implement themselves. Good governance ultimately depends on capable people, clear responsibilities and institutions willing to act.

If the Professional Pool Is Too Small, Build It

St. Maarten is a small country with a limited pool of professionals possessing specialized corporate governance, financial, actuarial, risk-management, technical and board experience. That reality should be acknowledged. But it should not become an excuse.

Government, working with recognized educational and professional institutions, should facilitate corporate governance, board-development and public-institution governance training programmes. Training could cover corporate governance, financial statement analysis, risk management, strategic planning, integrity and compliance, conflicts of interest, public finance and the responsibilities of directors and supervisory directors.

For institutions dealing with social insurance, the professional capacity required may additionally include healthcare economics, actuarial expertise, pension financing and long-term demographic planning. The objective should be to create a broader pool of trained and qualified professionals capable of serving St. Maarten’s important institutions.

Training should never guarantee appointment. Competence, experience, integrity and the particular needs of the organization must remain decisive. But if the pool is too small:

Build the pool.

Determine the Expertise Before Choosing the Person

Before appointments are made to Supervisory Boards, Government should establish competency profiles. The first question should not be:

“Who is available?”

It should be:

“What expertise does this institution need?”

A telecommunications company has different needs from an electricity company. A housing foundation has different governance challenges from a commercial enterprise. And an institution responsible for social-security funds requires yet another combination of financial, actuarial, legal, healthcare and governance expertise.

Determine the skills first. Then identify the people.

Training Must Continue After Appointment

Appointment should not be the end of professional development. Boards should periodically evaluate their performance and determine whether the required mix of expertise remains present. Board members should receive continuing governance education.

Senior management should similarly be expected to maintain the professional competence required for increasingly complex organizations. A board appointment should not merely be regarded as an honour. It is a serious fiduciary and public responsibility.

Independent Governance Advice

St. Maarten should also establish an independent corporate governance advisory body comparable in function to Curaçao’s SBTNO for matters involving government-owned companies. It could advise Government on appointments, competency profiles, governance compliance, restructuring, conflicts of interest, major transactions and other significant shareholder decisions.

Independent advice does not replace Government’s responsibility. It helps Government exercise that responsibility professionally. For other categories of public institutions, comparable independent expertise should be available where necessary, including financial, legal and actuarial advice.

Integrity Is as Important as Expertise

Competence alone is not sufficient. People entrusted with public assets and public funds must meet high standards of integrity. Clear rules should address conflicts of interest, related-party transactions, confidentiality, disclosure and circumstances requiring someone to step aside from a decision.

The principle should apply across the public sector:

Those entrusted with public assets and public money must know not only what they may do, but also when they must not participate.

From Eight Pillars to a Broader Public Governance Framework

St. Maarten’s approach can be summarized around several practical pillars:

Ownership and Shareholder Policy for government-owned companies.

Financial Health and Dividend Policy so that dividends follow strength rather than weaken companies.

Professional Boards and Management selected according to competency profiles and supported by continuing training.

Clear Separation of Responsibilities so Government governs, Supervisory Boards supervise and Management manages.

Governance and Accountability for Subsidized Entities such as SMHDF, appropriate to their legal status and public funding relationship.

Sustainable Social-Security Governance so that SZV-administered healthcare and pension funds are monitored and reformed before reserves become critically depleted.

Risk and Early Warning so Government sees problems before they become crises.

Independent Professional Advice to improve the quality and objectivity of important governance decisions.

Transparency and Accountability so Government, Parliament and the public understand significant financial risks.

And finally:

Professional Capacity Development so St. Maarten deliberately creates the people needed to operate this system.

The Common Thread: Protect the National Budget

TelEm, SMHDF and SZV are not the same. Their legal structures differ. Government’s powers and responsibilities towards them differ. Their financial problems therefore require different solutions.

But there is one common thread:

When an institution presents a substantial financial risk to the Country, Government cannot afford to discover the seriousness of that risk only after the money has run out.

That is the governance lesson running through this entire discussion.

The Objective Is Bigger Than Avoiding an Instruction

The possibility of a Kingdom financial instruction should concern us. But avoiding an instruction should not become our ultimate objective. Our objective should be removing the weaknesses that could make such an instruction necessary.

The Cft’s own May 2026 warning connected substantial risks at state-owned enterprises with the difficult financial position of the SZV-administered social-security funds and called on St. Maarten to address these risks. That gives St. Maarten a choice.

We can continue addressing problems company by company, foundation by foundation, fund by fund and crisis by crisis. Or we can establish a governance system capable of seeing the Country’s major financial risks as a whole and addressing them before they become emergencies.

The objective is not greater political control. It is better governance, stronger institutions, financially sustainable public services and responsible stewardship of public resources.

We must move from warning to policy, from policy to capacity, from capacity to action, and from action to measurable results. The message to Government, Parliament, government-owned companies, publicly funded entities and social-security institutions should therefore be clear:

Build the policy. Build the people. Strengthen the institutions. Identify the risks. Act before the reserves are gone. Protect the national budget.

If we do that, we accomplish something more important than responding to the Cft. We demonstrate that St. Maarten has the institutional capacity, professional expertise and discipline to manage its own public assets, social systems and financial risks responsibly.

That is good governance!

And that is responsible self-government.

‍