Real People

MP Omar Ottley’s handling of the Social Economic Council (SER) process around his draft initiative law has added a new layer to an already important debate in Parliament. The main issue on the table remains the proposed changes to the admission and expulsion ordinance, but the way Ottley navigated the advisory track has raised a wider, practical question about governance in St. Maarten: what happens when a law meant to address real problems meets an advisory system that cannot move at the same pace.

Ottley did not ignore the advisory process. He sent the draft through the required legal route, responded to recommendations where possible, and anchored his case in real-life examples, along with regional reference points such as Aruba’s approach. Where he drew the line was at waiting indefinitely for a final SER advisory after the SER requested additional information. His position, stated plainly, is that the SER is an advisory body, and elected officials cannot keep putting pressing matters on hold for months while residents expect Parliament to deliver.

To be clear, this is not a simple “advice versus no advice” argument. It is more a question of timing and capacity. If the SER has a serious backlog and limited resources, then delays become predictable, and the public often does not see the behind-the-scenes steps that MPs must go through. The risk is that people conclude nothing is happening, even when draft laws are moving slowly through procedures. In that context, Ottley’s decision to proceed can be seen as a choice to keep the legislative process moving while still taking the guidance that is available into account.

It also connects to Prime Minister Luc Mercelina’s recent remarks that St. Maarten’s systems can feel heavy and overly bureaucratic for a small country, especially when the public mood demands action. Ottley’s approach does not settle that debate, but it does put it into sharper focus. If advisory processes are consistently long, then government and Parliament may need to look at improvements such as clearer timelines, better staffing, and more streamlined rules on when advice is required, so “waiting on advice” does not become a default reason for delay.

What will be most interesting now is how this affects others. MPs who have draft laws sitting at the SER will watch closely, because Ottley’s choice may signal a new willingness to proceed when advisory steps stretch too long. That does not mean advisory bodies are irrelevant, it means the country may need a better balance between careful review and timely decision-making. If St. Maarten wants both strong governance and real delivery, the answer likely lies in strengthening capacity and setting clearer expectations, rather than allowing the process to drift endlessly.

Ottley's move did not come over as some sort of revolution to discard safeguards, because St. Maarten’s challenges are too complex for improvisation and, again, he did use the correct route. Rather, it felt like a call to stop pretending that bureaucracy is neutral. Delays decide outcomes, and delays shape lives. MP Ottley, by moving past an advisory process that may not close quickly, whether one agrees with it or not, forced the country to confront whether its governance machinery is designed to serve real people, stuck in real problems, or to manage risk so cautiously that action becomes exceptional.

‍

‍