Dear Editor,
It is an undisputed fact that the Public Entity Saba is the only island that received a seal of approval from the independent auditor for their last three financial year reports.This means that the island was able to comply with the financial laws and regulations established by The Hague to control the spending of the islands. It is necessary to be cognizant of the fact that these sets of financial rules and regulations are actually in place to secure The Hague’s dominance in control, and was never expected for any of the islands to be able to completely comply with.
The reason for making such a bold statement is that The Hague knew of the shortcomings of the islands, on one hand the deprivation, poverty and a sluggish economy. On the other hand, the shortage such as manpower/expertise, lack of the necessary tools and financial limitations to fully comply, and yet made no substantial effort to correct these shortcomings. Hence, this leaves the way clear for the continuous dominance and control by The Hague.
Minister Plasterk pledged in a debate last week, in the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament, to start the discussion regarding the transfer of tasks from The Hague to the Public Entity. Take note that I respect the sacrifices Saba endures to reach that point, but what I have an issue with is the fact that this incentive is seen as a reward for the Public Entity Saba for walking the line.
In all honestly, I wonder if speaking of reward is the proper protocol to be used between the mother country and the former colony in dealing with transferring of tasks. Furthermore, although some of the tasks are mentioned, it is in the interest of the islands that an overview is made of which tasks are transferable. Important, of course, is to state the terms and conditions under which this transfer will be executed. Last, but not the least, the level of responsibility during the execution must be clear to all concerned.
The strong belief is that the use of the term reward is simply to make clear to the other islands that if you no longer question our approach, stick to the stipulated rules and regulations handed down to you, then a reward awaits you too. I am also inclined to see this so-called incentive as the wagging finger of The Hague to Statia and Bonaire, to push these islands to just fall in line. The Hague also uses the carrot-on-a-stick strategy to tell the people of both islands that if their politicians stop being rebellious and accept their fate, then better days are ahead. To me, the “reward” to the island should have be simply a pledge to cooperate in the execution of the findings of the evaluation Report 2015.
Spoiler alert! First of all, this unexpected brilliant change of strategy by Minister Plasterk and his Dutch Cabinet is merely to bring about discontent and discord between the islands. Secondly, it is to keep the supporting factions in the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament satisfied. Minister Plasterk is comfortable with this pledge because he is fully aware of the fact that absolutely nothing will change in the relationship between The Hague and Saba in the coming days, weeks and months.
My earnest assessment and conclusion is that this government in The Hague, shortly before an election, will not fulfil such far-reaching commitments. Furthermore, after five years of broken and or half-kept promises there is enough evidence to substantiate that The Hague makes promises, but are terrible at keeping them.
Now the crux of the matter is that the point of departure is different when comparing Saba with Statia. The People of Statia never voted for nor accepted the current constitutional status, and as a result of that is critical of the failures of The Hague in several instances to honour what was agreed upon. A testament to that are the findings of the Spies Report. The cunning aspect of this so-called reward to Saba is also the substantiation of Minister Plasterk to satisfy his argument to the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament that there is no need for change of the constitutional status, against the backdrop of actions taken by Statia for more autonomy.
In closing, if this so-called reward is genuine, time will prove that and it will be then only the Saba People to determine the sincerity and to judge the success of this reward. On the other hand, I do hope that The Hague proves me wrong and that certain tasks are transferred to Saba’s Government. However, I believe it will be a waste of time to cross my fingers in the hope that The Hague will follow through. Observing The Hague’s constant behavioural pattern and knowing that this latest move is again with an eye towards the election of March 2017 – a ploy for political satisfaction and a smoke screen to calm down parties in the Second Chamber.
Elvin Henriquez
Deputy Political Leader of the United People’s Coalition
