Dear Editor,
When an organization has acquired a reputation for operating in a deficit mode, is it wise to compose a delegation that comprises the “principal” members of that organization? Is it not that such a decision would create an imbalance of work ethics and a blurred sense of direction for that entity?
These views reflect the lobby group that is currently attending the IPKO meetings in the Netherlands. From observation, it seems rather irresponsible that Chairlady Wescot-Williams would travel to Holland with the sole colleague from her party, along with the first and second vice chair of Parliament. When all of the above mentioned MPs are in Holland simultaneously, then who is in charge of Parliament in their absence? In the same breath, should there be an emergency that is linked directly to Parliament, what happens then?
This inequality has been practiced throughout the existence of Parliament, but it does not reflect the proper governing of such an important body. Gone are the days when Parliamentarians are selected as a tag along; intellectuals have become the demand in today’s world. With this vivid picture, it is always mind-boggling to see the MP, who told Holland to shut up, that consistently craved to be a part of a delegation that sits with the same country that he despises. Then what is his true motive in this educational process?
MPs who contribute nothing to the advancement of Parliament should not be allowed to participate in these vital discussions. In fact, why would the same individuals consistently demand to be in charge of certain committees when these very local commissions have remained dormant for years? It is time that the Chairlady of Parliament restructures the manner in which MPs are selected to these committees and insert a more stringent method of how they are managed.
This would avoid retaining the same persons to be in charge of committees, just to enjoy the glamour of travelling and having a title attached to their names.
While in this vein of deficiency, often times one can hear members of Parliament complaining about the lack of legal representation of the organization. If this is the case, then what purpose does their legal advisor serve? Likewise, why do Parliamentarians who arrive late, choose to walk directly in front of the cameras? Why can’t they enhance the production of the broadcast by using the lanes to sign in and to sit or exit their seats?
The population is at the stage where the consciousness of the people has been heightened more than ever. Therefore, this community will no longer accept the notion of Parliamentarians attending vital meetings within the Kingdom and then return as if they were on a vacation.
The people want to know the intricacies of the discussions. Details like: How does this dialogue regarding education and youth affairs fit into the situation of St. Maarten? How does Parliament intend to integrate the information and when? This means that there must be a discussion in Parliament – one that will give us full understanding of the value of the IPKO meetings and the seriousness of our Parliamentarians engaging is such dialogues.
This responsibility now lies in the hands of Chairlady Wescot-Williams, who must exercise her expertise in bringing about meaningful change that would stem the entity from this consistent mode of running on autopilot.
Joslyn Morton
