SXMElections.com

Mention of the counterpart policy in Prime Minister Marcel Gumbs’ New Year’s speech has led to several reactions. The idea for such a mandatory regulation when employing expatriates has been contested from the start, because of the feared detrimental effect on the local business community.

Then again, that the policy would be part of the incoming cabinet’s plans was to be expected, especially as now-independent (former DP) parliamentarian Cornelius de Weever had cited the intention to leave such out of a governing programme for the originally envisioned NA/US/DP combination as his main reason to “jump ship” and support a UP-led coalition instead. DP leader Sarah Wescot-Williams had queried the latter, explaining that the article in question was in the law, but that its execution would require well-thought-out consultations with especially the private sector.

De Weever, then still caretaker Minister of Labour, insisted that it was a matter of principle for him, to which Wescot-Williams in turn replied that the – now former – Council of Ministers had approved the counterpart proposal already on August12. However, it was to be introduced as a pilot programme in cooperation with the social partners and some individual companies willing to work with it.

What Gumbs’ address in fact said was that it’s “necessary to implement deliberate and integrated policies like the counterpart policy, employability through training and skill-building for young adults, strengthening workplace compliance and formalisation of the informal economy that complement economic growth and reduce unemployment in order to create sustainable development.”

The reality is that, as with the implementation of most measures, a lot depends on how this is done. It was suggested in this column on various occasions that, for example, one could consider softening the negative impact at least somewhat by limiting the rule to new employment permit requests only and not extensions for foreigners currently holding jobs in St. Maarten.

Even then, each case ought to be looked at on an individual basis, as specific circumstances differ greatly and may warrant a varied, tailor-made approach. What’s more, in any event there should be accompanying incentives such as an exemption on wage tax and social premium payments for the counterpart.

So, while the new government seems determined to implement this controversial policy, the proof of the pudding will be very much in the eating.