In responding to MPs: Finance Minister says preparation doesn't mean pushing for CBCS split

GREAT BAY--Minister of Finance Marinka Gumbs on Tuesday pushed back against suggestions made by opposition Members of Parliament that her presentation on the future of the Central Bank of Curaçao and St. Maarten (CBCS) amounted to an effort to force a break-up of the monetary union, telling Parliament that preparation is not the same as advocating separation.

Responding after Members of Parliament questioned her presentation in the Central Committee of Parliament, Gumbs said at no point did she state that it was her intention or position to dismantle the union. Instead, she said her responsibility as Minister of Finance is to ensure that St. Maarten is not caught unprepared if Curaçao formally moves in that direction.

“I don’t know which part of my presentation there was the sentiment about me wanting to dismantle the union,” Gumbs said. “At no point did I, Minister Marinka Gumbs, Minister of Finance, indicate that it is my opinion, it is my position to wanting to dismantle.”

She noted that the discussion about dismantling did not originate with her. Rather, she said, the issue arose out of statements and developments coming from Curaçao, and Government’s duty is to be ready to respond responsibly to any scenario that may emerge.

“But I am not going to be held in a position where I am, at least not prepared, or preparing the country, that in the event someone knocks at my door to tell me they want out, that I am not prepared to handle that separation,” the Minister said.

With that clarification, the debate in Parliament shifted sharply from broad questions about the future of the union to pointed concerns from Members of Parliament about the facts underlying the discussion, the present state of the CBCS, the cost of any future transition, and what some Members viewed as the risk of creating a public impression that separation is already being actively pursued.

Among the most direct interventions came from MP Ardwell Irion, who questioned whether the Minister’s presentation gave a sufficiently grounded picture of the current realities and consequences tied to any possible departure from the monetary union. Irion said he had expected more hard data and fewer broad impressions, particularly given the seriousness of the issue.

He argued that Parliament should have been given a clearer picture of what St. Maarten currently receives from the central bank and what financial gap would have to be filled if that arrangement were to change. He pointed to central bank dividends as one example, saying that if St. Maarten were to lose that stream of income, Government would need to explain how the resulting shortfall would be addressed.

Irion also questioned statements in the Minister’s presentation suggesting that St. Maarten had been consistently outvoted over the years. He asked for concrete facts to support that claim, including how many times such outvoting had actually taken place. He further pressed for the basis of the Minister’s assessment regarding Curaçao’s sentiments and motivations, asking whether those conclusions came from formal communication, media reports, interviews, or direct discussions.

In addition, Irion raised concerns about governance on St. Maarten’s own side, noting that Government still has outstanding responsibility for the appointment of board members. He questioned how Parliament could be expected to place confidence in preparations for a far more complex monetary future when key matters that are already within St. Maarten’s control remain unresolved.

The MP also sought clarity on the proposed task force announced by the Minister, asking what parameters would govern its work, how members would be selected, whether there would be a financial cost attached to it, and what practical timeline Government envisions for such an initiative.

MP Egbert Doran similarly challenged the tone and implication of the Minister’s presentation, saying that what he heard sounded less like a neutral exercise in preparedness and more like a briefing on dismantling the union. He said many of the statements made appeared to frame Curaçao as already moving toward departure while leaving Parliament without full access to the documents, minutes, and factual record needed to independently assess how the current conflict reached this point.

Doran questioned what he described as an overreliance on second-hand information and public narrative, saying Parliament needs more than media reports and impressions when dealing with a matter of this magnitude. He asked whether the Minister had been blocked in any way from appointing St. Maarten’s board members and whether advice had been sought from persons previously involved in the broader central bank and Ennia matters.

He also pressed for clarity on what he called the “real issue at hand,” arguing that Parliament should be able to distinguish between speculation, public friction, and the actual substantive dispute driving the current tension between the two countries. Doran warned against allowing emotion, selective emphasis, or political energy to overtake a matter that has major implications for the people of St. Maarten.

Other Members of Parliament also brought forward a range of concerns, questions, and perspectives that together reflected both support for protecting St. Maarten’s interests and unease about how the issue is now unfolding in the public domain.

MP Viren Kotai focused on the technical and financial implications tied to the Ennia resolution, the CBCS’ commitments, and strategic assets such as Mullet Bay. He questioned how long-term obligations linked to the currency transition and Ennia resolution funding would be handled if the CBCS were dissolved or its role altered. He also raised questions about investment strategy, dividend performance, the handling of gold reserves, and who would remain responsible for carrying forward key recovery and accountability processes if the institution’s structure changes.

Kotai warned that if changes are approached tactically while others are thinking strategically, St. Maarten could find itself exposed to responsibility gaps, shifting obligations, and risks to national assets. At the same time, he emphasized that he stands firmly with St. Maarten and with anyone defending the country’s interests.

MP Francisco Lacroes also declared his support for St. Maarten and welcomed the Minister’s statement that the country would not be bullied. However, he questioned how the disagreement over the chairmanship escalated to the current level without earlier and clearer intervention from Curaçao if, in fact, the issue was always as clear-cut as some now claim. He said he would like to see the minutes of the relevant meetings, arguing that the country needs a better understanding of how a matter that once seemed stable has now become a source of uncertainty and potential cost.

Lacroes also asked what share of the central bank’s income is effectively generated by St. Maarten and whether Government can show what the country’s financial position might have looked like over the last few years if it were already operating with its own central bank, taking costs into account.

MP Lyndon Lewis took the view that as an autonomous country, St. Maarten must ensure that if matters move in the direction of separation, the country receives its rightful share. He linked the discussion to the wider history of constitutional change in the former Netherlands Antilles and indicated that St. Maarten must be prepared to defend what belongs to it.

MP Veronica Jansen-Webster kept her questioning concise but sought clarity on whether there had been any concrete agreements with Curaçao and what the general figures might look like in terms of liabilities and the division of assets. Her questions reflected concern about the financial dimensions of any possible restructuring of the union.

MP Omar Ottley said he too stands with St. Maarten, but asked, “at what cost?” He linked the current debate back to earlier discussions around Ennia and said many of the questions being asked now are questions that should also have been asked before. Ottley said he is willing to defend St. Maarten, but wants to first see the documents, facts, and record that show exactly what happened and whether the country was misled. Without that, he cautioned against blindly following a path that may carry serious long-term consequences.

Chairlady Sarah Wescot-Williams, while not minimizing the seriousness of the situation, also stressed the importance of distinguishing between being prepared and overreacting to public statements and soundbites. She said she did not interpret the Minister’s presentation as a call for immediate exit, but rather as an effort to ensure the country has the data, facts, and institutional groundwork necessary for a proper national discussion if the issue advances further.

Wescot-Williams also underlined the need for St. Maarten’s own board positions to be fully in order and stressed that any future parliamentary discussion on whether to remain in or leave the union must be based on facts, data, and clear information, not fragments pulled from different places.

MP Sjamira Roseburg focused on the current state of affairs, asking about the status of temporary board members, whether St. Maarten will move to full board capacity, and whether communication is currently taking place between the two countries beyond public statements and media exchanges. She also asked whether some form of facilitation or mediation might become necessary if direct communication does not improve.

MP Ottley and others also raised broader concerns about ensuring that the people of St. Maarten are not dragged into uncertainty without first being given a clear explanation of the risks, options, and practical consequences involved.

MP Dimar Labega, speaking earlier in the exchange, welcomed the fact that Government is taking a proactive rather than emotional approach and said St. Maarten must calmly reassess what is best for the country rather than simply reacting to Curaçao’s rhetoric. He said there is nothing wrong with revisiting a relationship and determining whether it is best to remain, adjust, or move on, provided the process is handled responsibly and in the interest of the people.

‍