After the speech, the test

Prime Minister Luc Mercelina used the Governor’s Symposium this week to set a scene: St. Maarten has built institutions that do not fit our size or capacity. He spoke of an “illusion of country,” then urged a redefinition of roles within the Kingdom, with shared responsibilities in, among others, defense, health care, and education. As an accomplished surgeon, his diagnosis is clear and many agree with it. The open question is the treatment. What does government plan to do next?

The first turn in this story is ownership. Does the Prime Minister speak for the full Council of Ministers, and by extension the coalition, or for himself? The public, including those entities that he referred to as "too big", deserve to know whether a personal view is now the government’s line. He also pointed to pressure from advisory and oversight bodies, and to a chain of communication he sees as slow and costly. If the Council of Ministers agree, the discussion moves rapidly from speeches to significant policy changes.  

That takes us to the budget, the most visible test. The draft 2026 budget will show whether the speech is a preface to change or a standalone critique. If institutions are too heavy, the numbers should show lighter structures, trimmed costs, and clearer priorities. If the numbers do not move, a fair question would be why the budget fails to reflect the Prime Minister’s concern.

Process is the third test. Streamlining must respect the Constitution, the Kingdom Charter, and case law that guards checks and balances. If the Prime Minister intends to consolidate, he should present a legal path that preserves independence where required, and improves efficiency where possible. His stance relegated the notion of political independence down to hypnotic fixation, though the people will have the final say about that part of a political process.

The Prime Minister also advocated for less dependency on the islands to the south (Curacao and Aruba) and closer ties with islands closer to us. He champions regional cooperation which offers a practical lane. However, if St. Maarten will share services in health care and education, the country should see first steps eg: a CARICOM or OECS technical working group or a joint plan with French St. Martin on defined services. Small pilot projects can show whether cooperation delivers, they can also reveal real costs and real savings.

Then there is Parliament. The highest body also belongs in the arc of the PM's speech. At some point, Parliament can invite the Prime Minister to state whether the remarks signal a change in policy, then test that claim against legislation, timelines, and appropriations. Debate, afterall, gives the public a record.

None of this dismisses the core concerns outlined by the Prime Minister. A small country must match ambition with capacity. Institutions must be credible, and they must be sustainable. Good governance depends on both. But if the Prime Minister is willing to say this in public, he should be ready to act in public, with the law, the budget, and Parliament aligned.

One can only assume that he expressed these positions with conviction, albeit probably without consensus. He asked the country to face reality. If the country says 'ok PM, we have faced it', then the next respectful response is to ask the PM/government to show the plan. If leadership is willing to announce, it should be twice as willing to execute. Put differently, if there is courage to speak, there should be resolve to deliver.

Otherwise, what was the point?

‍