Let’s address that.
The Parliament of St. Maarten passed 13 motions during the June 24, 2025, budget 2025 public meeting of Parliament, an intense legislative marathon that concluded just before the sun rose, spanning justice reform, tax policy, youth welfare, infrastructure, energy strategy, agriculture, and more. There were applause in Parliament and cross-party kumbaya singing like never before. Fun.
But behind each motion lies a practical question: how will it be paid for? and why vote against the same budget that is expected to fund the motions that was carried?
There is a tendency to celebrate the passing of a motion as though it were equivalent to enacting legislation. In reality, MPs understand that a motion is not binding law, it’s a lightweight instrument. Perhaps that’s why so much effort is spent framing motions as heavyweight declarations of intent. Deep down, MPs likely recognize that while motions may be well-meaning, they also serve a political purpose: to signal action, even if execution is uncertain. Passed or not, the motion allows them to appear engaged and responsive. Such is the nature of politics, where perception often runs ahead of policy.
But in the real world, there are financial implications for these motions and there is an oft-overlooked tension in parliamentary governance; the gap between passing political motions and funding them through the national budget. A budget that some of the initiators of motions, voted against.
Political pundits call it “political schizophrenia”, meaning, passing a motion with one hand and choke its funding with the other. This raises a fundamental question: how can Parliament instruct the government to act, but simultaneously withhold the financial authorization needed to carry out those instructions?
To be clear, this is not necessarily about hypocrisy. There are often political, ideological, or strategic reasons behind budget votes, especially in a coalition government. MPs may have genuine concerns about specific line items or ministries. But the pattern does expose a broader challenge in governance: the disconnect between legislative ambition and fiscal accountability.
𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐅𝐫𝐞𝐞
Most of the 15 motions involve either the introduction of new initiatives or the expansion of existing ones. While some may seem administrative or symbolic, nearly all carry financial implications:
• Motions on justice reform (such as electronic monitoring or early release) involve equipment procurement, staff reallocation. This would necessitate investments in technology, staff training, policy reform, and potentially legal consultant studies on human rights standards.
• Proposals for energy diversification and agricultural strategy will likely require feasibility studies, inter-ministerial coordination, and professional services. Developing a plan for LNG adoption involves legal review of contracts, technical assessments, and perhaps engagement with external energy consultants. Agriculture would demand strategy across ministries and countries implies planning meetings, technical studies, and possibly subsidies or research grants, all requiring budgetary support.
• Fuel Turnover Tax Exemption. Loss of tax revenue from fuel imports must be offset elsewhere. Additionally, studying the legal basis for tax removal would likely require hiring legal consultants or engaging internal legal counsel.
• Social protection efforts like vendor stipends and school breakfast programs come with direct costs, stipend disbursement, meal provision, or coordination with NGOs and contractors.
• Audit requests, such as the motion related to the 2025 Soul Beach event, may appear procedural but draw on the time and resources of oversight institutions like the General Audit Chamber.
• Status of ENNIA Bailout and Mullet Bay Acquisition. If passed, would involve legal evaluations, financial due diligence, and policy analysis, likely requiring external financial and legal advisors.
• Even motions aimed at awareness campaigns or policy frameworks, such as on reproductive health or regional food security, require human resources, public communications spending, or legal drafting support, multimedia production, public education events, and collaboration with health agencies, entirely dependent on funding for success.
• Sterilization Campaign for Stray Animals. Had it passed, would require public health coordination, contractor engagement, and veterinary services, an obvious fiscal line item.
• Suspend Dividend Withholding Tax Implementation. Though MPs were not sold on projections, delaying tax implementation has a direct impact on future government revenue projections. Postponing this revenue stream without replacing it invites a budgetary gap.
Ministers can “want” and “agree” to re-allocate funds, until they have a discussion with their respective Ministries and then realise, it was easier to say in Parliament than to execute in reality.
𝐔𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭: 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐈𝐭 𝐇𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐈𝐭 𝐌𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬
This kind of contradiction is not unique to St. Maarten. Legislatures around the world struggle with similar dynamics. Here’s why it happens and what it means:
1. 𝘗𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘔𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘈𝘳𝘦 𝘗𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘚𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘴
When MPs pass a motion, they’re often signaling policy direction, not guaranteeing execution. But when that motion requires funding, it needs to be backed up by budget support, or risk becoming symbolic rather than impactful.
2. 𝘉𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘈𝘳𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘕𝘰𝘵 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭
An MP may support their own motion, but vote against the overall budget for other reasons, such as disagreements with spending elsewhere. In this way, motions and budgets are linked, but not always aligned.
3. 𝘗𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘋𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘚𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘵
For the public, a motion that passes is expected to be implemented. When that doesn’t happen, because the funding was blocked or not approved, it creates confusion, erodes trust, and undermines the credibility of the parliamentary process.
𝐃𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐈𝐭 𝐌𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞?
From a governance standpoint, passing a motion and then opposing the budget that funds it creates challenges:
• It slows implementation, even for motions with strong public support.
• It burdens ministries with trying to fulfill mandates without allocated resources.
• It can create audit or compliance issues, as agencies attempt to interpret political directives without formal budgetary backing.
That said, these contradictions also reflect a deeper structural issue: the need for more integrated policy-making, where budget planning, and execution are coordinated, not compartmentalized.
Moreover, it is not the intended function of Parliament to use its right to table motions in a manner that resembles wish-list writing. Drafting motions without thorough research or consideration of fiscal constraints may appear politically appealing, but it risks being seen as irresponsible governance.
If one paid close attention during both the Central Committee and Public Meetings, Ministers consistently outlined what was feasible, what was already in progress, and, critically, what was not possible, often due to financial limitations.
A clear example is the Ministry of Justice.
Just months ago, the Minister of Justice addressed Parliament and explicitly stated that while partnerships were being pursued and certain initiatives were in development, significant measures simply could not be implemented under current conditions. The reason? A persistent shortage of funding and personnel. These realities were communicated plainly, yet many of the motions passed seem to ignore them.
While motions call for reforms in justice policy, such as increased use of community-based sentencing or expanded conditional release, there appears to be little recognition of the capacity required to implement these decisions. There has been no corresponding increase in the budget for probation services. It is understood that the service is operating with less than one-third of the staff needed to function effectively. What then will happen when pressures intensify particularly as incarceration capacity remains limited and alternative sentencing becomes more common.
Yet this reality wasn’t quickly acknowledged in the budget debate, where MPs championed motions that promote alternatives to detention, but seem slower to recognize that without sustained funding, such alternatives become impractical, or worse, unsustainable. It’s another example of how well-meaning policy signals must ultimately be matched by financial commitment, or risk becoming symbolic gestures with limited real-world effect.
𝐌𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐌𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐌𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐀𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
The June 24 motions reflect Parliament’s growing appetite to shape national priorities, from youth support to energy sustainability and economic reform. That is a healthy sign of engagement. But meaningful change requires more than good ideas, it requires resourced plans and stable follow-through.
For this reason, bridging the gap between motions and budgets is not just a technical necessity, it is a matter of political coherence. If Parliament is to remain a serious actor in policy direction, motions must be backed with funding, and votes must align with the outcomes MPs seek.
Ultimately, legislative credibility depends not just on what is said or passed, but on what is resourced, executed, and delivered.
𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘳: 𝘕𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘔𝘗 𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘥. 𝘔𝘗𝘴 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦.
Source: The Peoples Tribune https://www.thepeoplestribunesxm.com
View comments
Hide comments