Dear Editor,
Many years ago, before I came to St. Maarten, an American couple came to the police station with a road map asking for directions to a restaurant. The desk sergeant attended to them and I noticed from their reaction that they did not understand what was been explained (lack of knowledge of the English language.)
I stood there contemplating how to intervene, at the risk of embarrassing my superior or permitting these tourists to leave with the wrong impression – that not even by the police station they could not get correct directions. I decided not to let them leave without the correct information, and in what I thought was a tactical way asked them to show me that they had understood what was explained while correcting them. In doing so they got the information they wanted and left thanking us and commenting on the willingness of the people to help.
Later on in the evening another major called me and told me that the desk sergeant was not pleased because he had felt that I had showed him up. I explained to him that in contemplating to act I relied on the desk sergeant to understand that in that instance for me the name of the country had priority, and that he should consider my action as me coming to his rescue and not showing him up.
Because this story was getting a tail I had decided that I would refrain from intervening when anyone was having a problem attending to the public in English, and to avoid not serving the public adequately I requested a meeting with our boss and the desk sergeant to explain the reason for my action at that time. It was decided that if the desk sergeant noticed that he needed assistance with the English-speaking public he would call on me when possible.
A rock and the hard place; the lesser of two evils – when do we make that choice? Should not this be investigated thoroughly? We are in the middle of trying to solve integrity issues and because a person decided to choose the lesser of two evils he is threatened to be taken before the courts. Who is above the law? Press conferences, the gazette, newspapers, opinion page in the newspapers, editorials, Facebook, Twitter, e-mail, g-mail etc. As it seems to be accepted nowadays at some point in time, from the highest to the lowest government employee has used the previous media to communicate government information to the public.
Is A. M. wrong for letting the public know, via the same media which government employees at some point in time have used, that a high-ranking public servant did something wrong? Whether or not the way it was done was wrong, was the content of the message factual or not? Does that take away the wrong-doing of that high-ranking official or differently, does it make what the minister did right because that employee did not use the right procedures?
What message are we sending to those who we ask to give tips on wrong doing? Are we telling those who are against snitching that government also is against snitching? Are we telling the people who could know something about the spate of robberies and shootings that they should be careful and not give information? When one snitches is it not almost always about something that really happened? If we continually say “know better do better” and people do better are they wrong? So will both the situations be dealt with? And if both parties willingly did what they did, which one weighs more – the one who did wrong, or the one who used the common method of communication nowadays to let the public know about the wrong-doing of that high-ranking public servant?
What I know is if I am coming from the right, even though I am driving in the wrong direction of a one-way road and there is a collision at the intersection, I am not wrong for the accident because I am fast traffic from the right. I will be fined for driving in the wrong direction.
Being a minister should not exempt anyone of wrong-doing. Had that employee known about the wrong-doing of the minister and did not do anything about it would he to be cited for omission to report it, if proven that he knew? Is the Justice Department really going to waste taxpayers’ money to deal with A. M's situation? To do what, mess with another young St. Maartener because of lack of integrity of a high-ranking government official? Is sweeping it under the rug not worse than spilling the beans? What message are we sending?
Russell A. Simmons
