MP Franklin Meyers Urges Stronger Follow-Through on Talent, Laws, and Governance Stability

GREAT BAY--Member of Parliament and leaders of the Soualiga Action Movement (SAM) political party Franklin Meyers addressed a broad set of national issues during a radio interview on Monday, Februsary 9, returning repeatedly to one central theme: St. Maarten has the people, the experience, and the institutional tools to improve outcomes, but too often fails to apply them consistently, especially when governments change direction midstream.

Meyers’ comments touched on education and the workforce, local leadership and public scrutiny, the legislative role of Parliament, the need to close gaps in outdated laws, and the costs of repeated political instability. He also reflected on Kingdom realities, including obligations tied to international standards and limits around certain policy areas.

Education, scholarships, and why talent still leaves

Meyers began by discussing the long-term value of scholarships and higher learning, framing education as a national investment that should translate into stronger human capital for St. Maarten. He acknowledged a reality that many small societies face: some scholarship recipients and degree holders build careers abroad, often because global markets offer more lucrative opportunities and clearer career ladders than those available locally.

He stressed that this dynamic is not unique to St. Maarten, pointing out that larger countries also educate citizens who ultimately work elsewhere. His emphasis was not on blaming young professionals who leave, but on recognizing the scale of the issue and asking what St. Maarten can do to make staying, or returning, more realistic.

Meyers also noted that, statistically, St. Maarten now has more people with higher learning degrees than ever before. From his perspective, that reality should strengthen the country’s ability to staff senior roles locally. He presented this as a practical question: if educational attainment is rising, the system should be producing stronger local pipelines into leadership, management, and specialized positions.

Importing skilled workers, exporting locals, and telling the full story

Meyers questioned why St. Maarten continues to import human resources from abroad while local professionals with similar qualifications are working overseas. He framed this as a two-way phenomenon that is often discussed unevenly, with attention placed on who is hired from outside, while less attention is given to the St. Maarten professionals who leave and succeed elsewhere.

In his view, part of the national conversation is incomplete because it focuses on one side of the equation. He argued that people move for opportunity in both directions, and that the right question is how St. Maarten becomes a place where qualified locals can see stable, credible opportunity at home.

He also pointed to the experience of local professionals when they do attain senior positions, noting that high scrutiny can shape whether people are willing to serve, whether they remain in roles, and whether younger professionals view public leadership as worth the personal cost. I other words, when "our own" gets the opportunity, it is typically "our iwn" who tear them down.

‍

Local leadership and the issue of unequal scrutiny

Meyers spoke at length about what he described as unequal scrutiny of local professionals, particularly within government-owned companies. He referenced past instances where local directors led key institutions and said those directors faced intense public and political pressure, often more concentrated than what is applied when non-local directors are appointed.

He gave examples of local directors at the utility company and recalled the public environment surrounding their leadership. His point was not that oversight should disappear, but that standards should be consistent and fair.

He presented this as a social and psychological question as well as a governance one, suggesting that St. Maarten sometimes accepts outcomes from outsiders that it does not accept from its own, even when challenges persist. He asked whether the country has become conditioned to view local leadership through a harsher lens, and whether that mindset must be “unlocked” for the country to fully benefit from its human capital.

Meyers also argued that leadership turnover is not simply a matter of individual performance, but a product of decisions made within governance and appointment structures. He suggested that when local leaders leave, the reasons are often not discussed with the same seriousness as the impact.

What he sees as Parliament’s role, and why outdated laws matter

In the interview, Meyers returned to the fundamentals of Parliament’s function: legislating. He argued that many of St. Maarten’s laws are outdated and that the country pays a price when legislation does not reflect modern realities.

He used the example of sexual abuse legislation involving minors to illustrate how legal definitions and technical gaps can limit prosecution and sentencing. His point was that public outrage and public expectations alone cannot substitute for laws that are written to cover the full range of harmful conduct. When the legal framework is narrow or old, the justice system can only operate within those boundaries.

Meyers described legislative reform as a process that must be handled carefully, noting that poorly designed changes can create unintended consequences. At the same time, he emphasized urgency, describing the closing of loopholes as necessary work that should not be perpetually delayed.

Meyers linked several topics back to execution. In discussing senior management at government-owned companies, he stated that appointment authority rests with government, which has the ability to choose whether leadership reflects local capacity or not.

He argued that St. Maarten has had local leadership in the past, and that the conversation should include why those leaders were removed or did not remain. He also suggested that after certain local leaders departed, management structures shifted in ways that raised questions about decision-making and accountability.

His broader warning was that St. Maarten sometimes focuses heavily on outcomes, while avoiding sustained examination of who made key decisions and why. In his view, this pattern can contribute to repeated cycles where public frustration grows but structural habits remain.

The cost of governments “falling every two years”

Meyers was especially direct on political instability, arguing that frequent government collapses have weakened St. Maarten’s ability to plan, execute, and complete long-term priorities.

He compared national governance to building a house or running a business, saying consistency is required to finish what is started. He argued that, even under a standard four-year governing term, meaningful results often require continuity across successive terms. When governments fall early and priorities shift, projects stall, agreements weaken, and momentum is lost.

He referenced a pattern of elections and government changes over the years and described it as a recurring disruption, one that prevents the country from seeing the “fruits” of policy and investment. In his view, instability has not only slowed development, but has also created an environment where strategic opportunities can be lost when incoming administrations do not carry forward decisions made by predecessors.

He illustrated this point by describing how negotiations and plans can fail when a new administration deprioritizes what was previously agreed, and he linked that dynamic to lost opportunities and weakened credibility.

Meyers also reflected on what he described as a missing sense of collective responsibility in governance. He contrasted earlier structures where the executive defended decisions collectively, with current dynamics where ministers can operate more independently in their portfolios.

In his view, silo governance makes it harder to drive national priorities because major issues require coordination across ministries and sustained political backing. He suggested that when responsibility becomes fragmented, accountability becomes easier to evade and results become harder to deliver.

The point he returned to was that critical issues affecting daily life should not be treated as someone else’s problem within government, and that collective responsibility is essential for delivery.

Meyers spoke about public services and the people who keep them functioning, referencing issues affecting key sectors and workers. He argued that delayed action, postponed decisions, and inconsistent follow-up can deepen hardship for citizens and demoralize personnel.

He framed these concerns as part of a larger pattern: when execution lags, public trust erodes, and the country becomes more vulnerable to crisis-by-crisis governance rather than steady improvement.

Prison infrastructure, human rights standards, and Kingdom pressures

On the prison project, Meyers argued that the condition of the existing facility does not meet human rights standards, and that this affects both detainees and staff who work in those conditions.

He also pointed to the reality of being part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, explaining that international scrutiny can extend to the Kingdom as a whole. In his view, that dynamic creates pressure to address deficiencies that reflect on broader obligations and reputation, regardless of local political debate.

His framing emphasized that responsibility exists at multiple levels, and that St. Maarten must meet standards that are not optional simply because they are difficult or costly.

Meyers spoke about constitutional constraints tied to Kingdom arrangements, including limits around certain policy decisions. He raised questions about how residents understand citizenship and rights within the Kingdom framework, and argued that public debate should be more honest about what is and is not within local authority.

He acknowledged that such discussions can provoke discomfort and offense, but he argued that meaningful reform requires confronting realities rather than avoiding them.

A call for stability, less spectacle, and more results

Meyers closed by urging a political culture focused on stability and delivery. He said he does not see value in chaos and does not believe progress comes from constant conflict, headline-chasing, or tearing others down to elevate oneself.

He described his current approach as more measured than in earlier years, arguing that maturity and experience should translate into decision-making that is more even-keeled and oriented toward results. He also stressed that coalition governance requires compromise, and that the ability to work together is essential if St. Maarten wants consistent outcomes.

MP Meyers made his comments on SOS Radio on Monday Morning with Billy D.

‍