Dear Editor,
Thank you, MP Wescot-Williams, for laying out the sequence of events so clearly. It helps the public better understand what truly transpired.
There was an understanding between Curaçao and Sint Maarten that the chairmanship would rotate. Simple and fair: one country takes its turn, then the other. That is how partnerships work.
We now hear there was no formal agreement and that no explicit promise was made about rotation. Very well. But this raises an obvious question: if there was disagreement with Sint Maarten’s turn, why was no objection raised at the time Sint Maarten put forward its nomination?
Not a word. Not a single objection.
If there was a concern, that was the moment to raise it. Instead, the issue surfaces an entire year later. Why the delay?
Mr. Sylvania stated on his FB.
“Mi no a papia ni a hasi ningun promesa tokante rotashon di e presidensia. No tin ningun akuerdo formal riba esaki.”
English translation:
“I did not speak nor make any promise regarding rotation of the chairmanship. There is no formal agreement on this matter.”
But leadership is not defined solely by what is written on paper. It is measured by integrity by honouring longstanding understandings and acting in good faith. A gentleman’s agreement may not be formal, but it carries weight. It sustains trust. It keeps cooperation intact.
Of course, perhaps we must now modernize the phrase. Since the Minister of Finance is a woman, maybe a “gentlewoman’s agreement” does not carry the same weight? Or perhaps agreements only matter when convenient?
The focus again, as MP Wescot-Williams rightly stated, should be on the dysfunctional SBOD of the CBCS. Who does it favour? Who benefits from the status quo? What does this ongoing dysfunction say about the future of the monetary union?
Are we witnessing routine disagreement or the early signs of something deeper? Is a “divorce” inevitable? Is this yet another signal that Curaçao wants out of the union?
While politicians in Curaçao are closing ranks for Curaçao, let us now see what our politicians in Sint Maarten will do. Will they stand united in defence of Sint Maarten’s interests or remain silent?
We also have a unique situation here at home.
Our Prime Minister, Mercelina and MP Roseburg both have ties to Curaçao. That in itself is not improper. But in moments like these, the public will naturally ask: where will their advocacy lie when Sint Maarten’s interests are at stake? Will they unequivocally defend Sint Maarten?
At this point, perhaps the most prudent course of action is to allow the courts to decide the way forward. If there is disagreement about understandings, procedures, or authority, then let it be tested where it belongs in a court of law.
This is bigger than one appointment. It concerns principles, partnership, and the future of the monetary union itself.
Alfred A. Bryan
