SXMElections.com

Dear Editor,

On January 30, the budget of country St. Maarten was passed by Parliament after some marathon sessions, which were necessary if our country wanted to make the CFT deadline of January 31.

The CFT will now have to render its advice on the approved budget 2015. As is often the case, the closing part of the budget debate saw several motions being presented. Some motions were approved by a majority, others unanimously approved, and yet others rejected.

Five motions were presented and one amendment. The difference? A motion is a "statement" by Parliament that encompasses an opinion, a desire, a request or even an instruction and can be submitted by any member and if supported by at least two other members, is then voted upon by Parliament.

An amendment is a proposal to Parliament to amend that which is before it (the Parliament). In the case in question, the proposal before Parliament was the budget, which is approved in the form of a national ordinance (law).

I will examine the motions presented:

Motion No. 1 (on Education): To reduce a specific budget item and increase with the same amount several specific budget items. Well specified. The reason for the motion was due to the information provided by the relevant minister that the amount allowed in the budget would most probably not be used as intended in 2015. So the motion was a realistic one. This motion, therefore, in my opinion was one that totally met the criteria for a budget amendment. By presenting it as a motion, the message is clear, but had it been approved by Parliament, a formal budget amendment would still have to be prepared and approved.

Motion No. 2 (on GEBE): A position taken by Parliament. Good to know, but in essence one could argue that we have not heard Parliament take a position on a reduction in the cost of fuel. Now we know that all factions support a reduction. Will that bring any quicker relief? I doubt it. Hypothetically: Government calls in GEBE and tells GEBE see what I have in my hand, a motion from Parliament. GEBE listens respectfully, nods in agreement, but does caution that it can't happen immediately because of the listing, the stock, the financial system etc. etc. A month passes, two months, nothing happens. Government calls again, GEBE says it is against the interest of the company. Government fires the board, which in itself is an entire procedure, but government would need to show Parliament and the people that it acted firmly. Conclusion: the motion is not going to get us relief any quicker than GEBE can or wants to incorporate this. But, at least the people know all their representatives are in favour of an immediate reduction in the cost of fuel.

Motion No. 3 (taxes): We have been talking for decades about the need to change our tax system. A change that would simplify the system as well. There seems to be a general consensus to move more from direct to indirect taxes. Right now we have a mixed system. In the budget meeting the minister presented some broad ideas he has with respect to the changes to the tax system. The coalition partners present and passed a motion, basically given their minister a direction to take without overseeing all of the consequences and without making a connection and knowing that a complete system overhaul is under review. So we know that a majority (the coalition parties) in Parliament favours an increase in TOT and a reduction in Income Tax. So a shift. Ok!

What amounts will offset the other? A 20 per cent TOT? 25 per cent? Is that acceptable? The minister should not be forced in a direction, especially not for a topic like taxes, without being able to give Parliament the scenarios, the pros and the cons, because any change brings all of these along. We don't know, because we have not seen a total picture to then make choices. If you reduce income tax with 20 per cent, can you suffice with a TOT of what 10 per cent, 17 per cent? What does the motion do for the topic? Not much. Did the coalition have to tell their minister what they think in a motion? Not really, e.g. the minster had a proposal for property tax. Before he even came to Parliament, he was told, "That's a no go."

Motion no. 4 (social and sickness insurance): A draft law is in preparation. A very vital one, I might add. The coalition proposes to have the minister execute this law before it is law; and while in exceptional cases this could be done the Council of Ministers must have decided on the draft law and officially informed the Parliament of such, and the Parliament must have a debate on whether it will permit the minister to execute before the law is passed. Usually that is done within very specific cadres. If the way the motion was done would be norm, we would not need advice on draft laws. We would not need Parliament to pass legislation.

Motion no. 5 (Education): This was actually the original motion as under No. 2. The authors took over the original motion, but changed the part where the specific items were mentioned to a more general description leaving it up to the discretion of the minister where to apply the funds. This is not done. In addition, a formal budget amendment for this still has to come to Parliament. With some collaboration, this could have worked as follows: the motion was presented as a budget amendment in the first place; a sub-amendment follows. It is still the votes (majority) that would decide, but this would mean: 1. You have a budget amendment. 2. The original author (minority) gets part of his/her motion in.

Amendment ML: Right format. No additional financial implications. The total capital amount (33.9) for VROMI was already on the VROMI budget. The amendment moved part ($8.3 m.) of this capital budget and put this under the purchase of land with a specific mention of Vorst. My objection was to this specific purpose and the way the purchase was manipulated from the get-go. However, more important is the question, how will the remaining NAf. 25.650.000, be prioritized, when according to the Ministry's estimates, the execution of Link 6 and the Ring Rd. (phase 1) alone is approximately 20 million. What about Dutch Quarter upgrade, estimated at 8 million? What about Union Road etc. upgrade, estimated at 6 million? What about the waste water treatment plan and network connections? What about the structural maintenance of roads? The hard surfacing of trenches etc.? What about?

Sarah Wescot-Williams