Dear Editor,
The execution of the following two articles 33 and 59 of our relatively young Constitution has been the point of discussion by many of our Politicians and readers /supporters. Thus I shall build my elucidation around said articles of our Constitution in this edition.
Article 33 paragraph 2 of our Constitution reads:
“IF A MINISTER NO LONGER HAS THE CONFIDENCE OF PARLIAMENT, HE SHALL RESIGN.” Paragraph 3 of the same Article says that by National Ordinance further rules may be established with respect to paragraph 2.
This simply means that when the majority of the elected representatives, MPs, representing those that elect them, express to have no further confidence in the Executive body, the council of Ministers they must resign.
To use the words of Mr. Heyliger in an article he had printed in a local newspaper in the year 2013 when a similar situation occurred, the so-called “Mexican stand-off” and I quote: “The people of the country would like the impasse created by the National Alliance to be over and governance returned to the country! There is a crystal clear parliamentary majority in place! The Governor needs to take his decision based on this.” Unquote.
It should at no time be viewed as a crisis, as dramatically put by Prime Minister Mr. Marcel Gumbs when the majority of parliamentarians cast their vote against the Council of Ministers which he presides over and who the majority of Parliament feels are not doing the job that they were put there to do by this same Parliament.
Mr. Gumbs confirmed that his cabinet is getting nothing done when he made it clear to the Nation that his cabinet was only putting out fires and cannot get around to do the people’s business. He went further with his statement in which he expressed that certain constituents, that he has sworn to represent, should put a weight around their neck and jump.
When Parliament cast their vote in favour or against, it cannot be considered or termed to be a crisis if it goes against certain political interest. It is the basis of our democracy, freedom of expression and not a crisis. You win some and lose some, this one you lost.
It is considered to be a crisis in the making when Parliament expresses the many wrong doings taking place at the various Government companies that are not being handled. Is it not a crisis when Parliament requests information and cannot be provided through the concerned minister and Parliament takes action of not having confidence in the minister or ministers? Are we to consider the fact that Parliamentarians are fed up with being treated like subordinates/children who do not deserve answers from Ministers/CEO’s to know what is going on in Government on behalf of the people that elected them?
Permit me again to refer to Mr. Heyliger’s article of 2013 in which he stated:
“The longer this impasse goes on leads to more speculation that something is amiss. A parliamentary majority is in place and this should be respected by the Council of Ministers.”
Yes, Mr. Heyliger, those were your words uttered in 2013. Don’t they sound familiar? As we would say KARMA IS A B….
To create more confusion Mr. Prime Minister states the following:
“None of the Cabinet members were given the opportunity to address Parliament before the vote was taken. I feel this defies the rules of propriety and common decency which Parliament should observe.”
Mr. Prime Minister I have duly read the Constitution and have overlooked or failed to encounter that section or paragraph that describes the mentioned path when parliament has no confidence in a Minister. With due respect to your cabinet whom I frankly believe meant well, but there were stronger forces that did not allow the smooth executions. Face it!
Regretfully Mr. Prime Minister I have lost all respect for the mentioned professor you have quoted from the Curaçao University who in 2013 considered this process as Constitutional and in this cycle under the same identical situation views it different. I hope he will face the music and correct this embarrassing situation as a professor. He lied then or is lying now, if I can trust the word of the Prime Minister to be factual.
Mr. Prime Minister I believe and understand why you are presenting the case to be a crisis situation as this would allow the application of article 59. This should only be used when decisions cannot be reached in Parliament amongst those 15 elected MPs. Then and only then shall the Prime Minister step in and after different attempts to consider disbanding Parliament and call for new elections. That is a crisis situation.
Mr. Gumbs here follows one of those “Cigar expressions:”
“This means that Government, struck by a Parliament that withdraws its confidence, has the power to strike back by calling for elections.”
Mr. Gumbs, it is not about striking at the peoples representatives it is about the will of the people shall be the basis of authority wherein you and your cabinet, excluding Mr. C. Connor, do not fit. Taking it back to the people at this time will not stop the jumping and will not solve the recurring conflict before the changes are brought in the electoral laws. As long as vote buying is the evil root to electoral success, this great tree called democracy is a farce. In addition, Mr. Prime Minister, I cannot believe that you said that the intention of our lawmakers were to arm the Prime Minister when the MPs strike.
Those who knowingly created an unnecessary standoff have therefore once again tarnished the good name of the country (taken from Heyliger’s article).
They have permitted to send the wrong message once again to the outside world, especially the foreign investor and the visitor to the island (taken from Heyliger’s article).
I fully concur with His Excellency the Governor's statement released in 2013 by his cabinet for all stakeholders to do all that is necessary to maintain and protect the integrity of our constitutional democracy, and to foster actions in keeping with our constitution and saw no reason not to uphold the decision of Parliament, when coming to his decision of the so-called Mexican standoff then and now.
I do hope that the appointment of a new President of Parliament that will be forthcoming, followed by a new Council of Ministers, to work in the interest of the people and the country could be the start of a new beginning.
A parliamentary majority is in place and this should be respected by the Council of Ministers, in particular those that claim to be READY members of the UP.
I believe that the parliamentary majority has presented its case to the Governor. The Governor has to now stop dilly-dallying as this only creates doubt in the minds of the voter as to whether the action taken is constitutional or not. He has to act.
There is no difference than what transpired 2013 compared to now! Tell me what is the difference? Elections held within the next couple of months will not change anything. You will still be in the same situation as before where Members of Parliament can leave a party and become an independent member of parliament, and withdraw their support and form a government with another party. That is the political reality that we live in today based on the current electoral laws of our country. In legal terms there is jurisprudence.
Changing the aforementioned is only dealt with by Members of Parliament revising the electoral laws.
Arnel Brown
