PHILIPSBURG — In this weekโs budget meeting, MP Darryl York raised serious concerns about the governmentโs financial priorities, highlighting the contradiction between new taxes on citizens and the millions in lottery fees waived for wealthy individuals. York pointed out that while critical sectors like education, health, and justice are facing substantial budget cuts, totaling millions of dollars, the government is forgiving millions owed by those with influence.
Related recording: Py 2024-2025 Public Meeting #9 – Day 2 Afternoon session
The MP highlighted a $6 million waiver granted to an individual, raising questions about the decision-making process and the criteria used to decide who receives such waivers. โWe must ensure that our systems are not influenced by interlopers with political connections, so fairness and equality prevail for all citizens,โ he said, emphasizing the importance of transparency and integrity in government actions.
York specifically mentioned the $6 million waiver granted to a single individual, questioning how such decisions are made and whether political connections played a role. โIf youโre a big campaign donor to a certain top vote-getter, this seems like a big return on investment,โ he said, suggesting that those with political ties are being given special treatment.
Building on his concerns, York also questioned the disparity in how financial decisions are approached. He noted that tax reforms and utility relief often require lengthy studies and extended discussions, while multimillion-dollar fee waivers seem to be approved swiftly with minimal review. โWhy does it take so long to address basic tax reforms, yet millions in lottery fees are written off so easily?โ he asked, expressing frustration over the apparent inconsistency in the governmentโs handling of critical financial matters.
MP York highlighted the growing inequality between how the average person and the wealthy are treated under current government policies. While the average citizen faces rising taxes and increased financial burdens, the wealthy continue to benefit from preferential treatment, with millions in fees waived. York questioned the inconsistency in the governmentโs approach, asking why ordinary individuals are relentlessly pursued for back taxes and assessments, while certain individuals owing millions are easily let off the hook. โIt raises concerns about why some are held accountable, while others seem to face no consequences,โ he said.
York also raised concerns about potential favoritism, suggesting that political connections might influence such decisions. โWe must ensure that our systems are not swayed by outsiders with political ties, so fairness, transparency, proper governing policies, and criteria should enhance equality that will prevail for all citizens,โ he said. His remarks call attention to the growing inequality between the treatment of ordinary people and the wealthy, pressing for accountability and reforms that prioritize the publicโs trust over preferential treatment.
###
Read our commentary and opinion further below. For paid subscribers only…
PHILIPSBURG — Without mentioning his name outright, MP Darryl York, a member of the National Alliance faction in Parliament, accused Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina of waiving millions in lottery fees. York mentioned โa certain top vote-getterโ as the one behind this waiver. Mercelina won the most votes during the elections in August 2024: 1,315 to be exact.
Recording: https://www.youtube.com/live/A3Ewbdu71wI?si=cvplSgHt9wDL7NDA&t=6167
Rumors now link Mercelina to his childhood friend Robbie dos Santos, the founder of Robbieโs Lottery and to unconfirmed stories that votes for Mercelina were bought through the myriad of lottery booths his company exploits on the island.
York, who won 312 votes in the August-elections, raised his concerns during the parliamentary debate about the 2024 budget. He expressed his concerns about the governmentโs financial priorities. โWhile critical sectors like education, health and justice are facing substantial budget cuts totaling million of dollars, the government is forgiving millions owed by those with influence,โ he wrote in a press statement.
York referred to a $6 million waiver granted to โa single individualโ and he raised questions about the process and the criteria used to decide who received such waivers. โWe must ensure that our systems are not influenced by interlopers with political connection, so fairness and equality prevail for all citizens,โ he stated.
He carefully worded his accusation aimed at Prime Minister Mercelina: โIf you are a big campaign donor to a certain top vote-getter this seems like a big return on investment.โ
York noted that tax reforms and utility relief โoften require lengthy studies and extended discussions, while multi-million dollar fee waivers seem to be approved swiftly with minimal review.โ
###
Political favoritism
By Hilbert Haar
MP Darryl Yorkโs accusation that the government waived million in lottery fees raises several questions. The obvious first one: is this a true statement? In that case the government has some explanation to do.
The second question has to do with the politician who is supposedly behind the waiver. York referred with the term โa certain top vote-getterโ clearly to Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina. but it gets worse (or better, depending how you look at it).
York statement suggests that the waiver is a good return on investment for a campaign contributor. This obviously raises the question who this campaign contributor is. Mind you, as long as you stick to the rules, there is nothing wrong with making a financial contribution to someoneโs political campaign.
But if that contribution includes buying votes for your favorite candidate it becomes a different ballgame altogether. Then we are indirectly talking about buying votes in exchange for a favor like, for instance, waiving $6 million in lottery fees.
In this context, Robbieโs Lottery would certainly qualify as the main suspect – suspect being the key word in this sentence. When there is no proof, there is no case either.
However, if a law-abiding citizen suspects that somebody has committed a crime, the right way to handle this is to take your suspicions to the police. From there, the case goes to the prosecutorโs office and then two things could happen.
One: the prosecutorโs office sees no reason to begin an investigation, because the suspicion is not strong enough. The prosecutor could also decide to do a preliminary investigation that could result in the same conclusion.
If that investigation finds sufficient indications that indeed a crime has been committed, then the real work begins. That is of course a big if, but it is nevertheless the right approach to the suspicion that somebody has committed a crime.
Parliamentarians can say whatever they like during their meetings. They can throw around accusations – true or false – and the law will not be able to touch them. You can smear the reputation of a political opponent anyway you want to.
MP York has not used the term vote-buying in his statement. He has addressed a (possibly) politically motivated decision. Knowing how things work in St. Maarten, his statement could very well be true but it would have been helpful, if only for the sake of clarity and transparency, if he had offered any kind of proof for his claims.
All we have now is a claim that a certain decision – waiving $6 million in lottery fees – was motivated by the connection between the prime minister and a campaign contributor.
True or false? That is something we do not know. In the meantime, a dark cloud is hanging over the reputation of the prime minister and in that sense, MP Yorkโs claims strongly resemble political sable rattling.
###
ADVERTISEMENT
