Unbiased look at the Sint Maarten Elections
The motion passed during yesterday's Parliament meeting to close the legislative year (see related story) may have surprised some. After all, the new cabinet being formed won't start until October 10, so the incoming NA/DP/US coalition just has to wait its turn.
Having said that, it's not the first time such action has been taken to prevent outgoing public administrators from making decisions that could commit the country financially or legally and hamper the next government. In the former Island Territory similar motions had been adopted by the then-Island Council directed at the Executive Council and individual commissioners.
In this case the prime minister basically is being asked to tell the other ministers not to hire people, sign contracts, issue permits or do anything else that could jeopardise St. Maarten and its people. Governments with a caretaker status in principle should handle only running affairs and not entertain any new policies.
On the other hand, as Minister of Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport and Telecommunication (TEATT) Ted Richardson stated in Saturday's paper, the ministries have to deal with present issues to ensure continuity. The reality is also that one hardly can stop governing the country for more than a month, because there are responsibilities to meet, expectations to fulfil and bills to pay.
But certainly where it regards having ministers who are shareholder representatives of government-owned companies instruct supervisory boards and managements not to enter into long-term obligations, the question can be asked whether this would be in keeping with corporate governance and whether the ministers even possess such authority.
In practice it's a bit of a grey area and the motion approved by the majority on Monday should be seen as a reminder that the election result and its final political outcome must be respected. Of course, the fact that current DP leader Prime Minister Sarah Wescot-Williams is also part of the incoming coalition probably will have an influence, as well as the fact that most of the other cabinet members can be considered "professional ministers" in the sense that they are not active politicians.
In conclusion, the motion was probably a bit superfluous on this occasion, but at the same time it can't hurt to remind those involved what are the rules of the game.
