GREAT BAY--Member of Parliament Sjamira Roseburg, representing the Unified Resilient St. Maarten Movement, URSM, stood apart from the governing coalition on Friday when she voted against the motion of no confidence tabled against Minister of Public Health, Social Development and Labor Richinel Brug.
Roseburg was the only coalition Member of Parliament to vote against the motion. Her vote was especially notable because she too represents the URSM, the same party at the center of the political dispute surrounding Minister Brug’s position in the Mercelina II Cabinet.
Before casting her vote, Roseburg delivered an emotional and reflective explanation, making clear that her decision was not made lightly.
“This is not a light matter for me today. It is a very difficult position I am in,” Roseburg told Parliament, adding, “Heavy is the head that wears the crown.”
Roseburg apologized to the people of St. Maarten for the amount of time spent on the matter, saying the hours could have been used more effectively to deal with the concerns affecting the country.
“I truly would like to apologize to the people of St. Maarten, and I do believe that the hours could have been used more effectively,” she said.
She stressed that she was not taking sides with Minister Brug, Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina or the URSM as a party structure. Rather, she said her responsibility was to the people of St. Maarten.
“I am not siding with anyone, not with the Minister of VSA, not with the Prime Minister, not with the URSM. I am here for the people of St. Maarten,” Roseburg said.
The motion of no confidence was tabled after the URSM indicated that Minister Brug no longer enjoyed the confidence of the party that nominated him. The motion argued that the breakdown in the relationship between the Minister and the party had reached a point where continued collaboration within the governing coalition was no longer attainable.
Roseburg, however, questioned whether Parliament had reached the point where the strongest political action against a minister was the only remaining option.
According to Roseburg, a motion of no confidence should be reserved for extreme circumstances, such as serious failure by a minister, mismanagement of public funds, or conduct that causes representatives of the people to lose faith in that minister. She cautioned that such a motion should not be used as a political weapon to settle internal power struggles or personal disagreements.
“A motion of no confidence should be used in extreme cases,” Roseburg said. “It is not intended as a political weapon, a measure to settle internal power disputes or personal disagreements.”
She said Parliament was still awaiting important answers from both the Minister of VSA and the Prime Minister. In her view, the country had been brought to what appeared to be the final stage of the matter without MPs being fully informed.
“One must ask themselves, are you fully informed to take a decision?” Roseburg said.
She said that when political pressure is high and people expect an MP to “fall in line,” it becomes even more important for elected representatives to know who they are and what they stand for.
“At the end of the day, for me personally, politics will come and go, but you cannot escape your own reflection,” Roseburg said.
She added that a Member of Parliament’s highest constitutional and moral duty is to vote according to conscience.
“As a Member of Parliament, your highest constitutional and moral duty is to vote your conscience,” she said. “I need to be able to look at myself in the mirror every night.”
Roseburg also questioned whether every available avenue had been exhausted before Parliament was asked to support a motion of no confidence. She asked whether the Council of Ministers had used all available tools to resolve the internal dispute, whether the Governor had played the role available to him, and whether mediation had been explored at all levels.
She warned Parliament to be careful not to create a precedent in which Parliament becomes the place where disputes between ministers are settled, instead of focusing on its role of controlling ministers in the execution of their duties.
“It is important for us to be mindful and not set a precedent that Parliament will oversee disputes between ministers above our task of controlling ministers and performing our roles,” Roseburg said.
She also questioned whether there was sufficient evidence before Parliament to conclude that the Council of Ministers had been affected to such an extent that government could no longer function effectively.
Based on the information available to her, Roseburg asked whether Parliament could truly conclude that the functioning of the Council of Ministers had been damaged to the point where governance was being hindered.
At the same time, Roseburg acknowledged that the situation had to come to an end. She said St. Maarten’s elected officials were not sent to Parliament to make friends or to like every person in the room, but to work for the people.
“We did not run for office to make friends or to like each other, but to work for the people of St. Maarten,” she said.
Roseburg said the wiser course would have been for the parties involved to sit down, look each other in the eye, come to a mature understanding, and if necessary, bring in a mediator before moving to the last resort of a no-confidence motion.
“Isn’t it the wiser idea to sit down, look each other in the eye, come to a mature understanding, and if needed find a mediator and focus on work in the benefit of the people?” she asked.
Roseburg admitted that she felt conflicted. She said she had taken time to reflect, including on the values of the movement she represents.
She said she returned to the meaning of the name Unified Resilient St. Maarten. She explained that “unified” means being brought together into a single cohesive whole, rather than operating as separate parts. She described resilience as the ability to adapt, find inner strength, learn from difficulty and bounce back to a healthy state of functioning.
“That is what I signed up for: Unified Resilient St. Maarten,” Roseburg said.
She urged the movement to return to those core values and show the people of St. Maarten what unified resilience really means.
“If we believe in that, we should go back to those core values and show the people of St. Maarten what Unified Resilient really means,” she said.
Roseburg said she still had hope that even in difficult moments, the movement could recover and become what it said it would be.
“It is never too late as long as there is willingness,” she said.
Join Our Community Today
Subscribe to our mailing list to be the first to receive
breaking news, updates, and more.
