Dear Editor,

  In reference to the governing of an island or country, St. Maarten could have accepted Incapables who were appointed Ministers, or Ministers who turned out to be ineffectuals for personal, political, family, neighborly, economic, and other types of reasons. Understandable to a certain degree.

  Now we cannot do so. And should not anymore in the future. Why? Too much is at stake and it has gone on for too long, coupled with the unfortunate and fortuitous corruption factor.

  Yes, St Maarten is so-called blessed. But the time has ended to take such labels and situations for granted. The stakes are too high. People’s lives are at risk and the people need to be able to breathe, live decently, and enjoy life without our worrying about tomorrow. Anyone, and I mean any Incapable, can govern in half-decent times. But it takes a crisis to demonstrate if someone can govern well or not.

  So far, it has not gone good. Memories are short so we tend to forget. But not those persons and families who have lost someone during this pandemic. In light of this drastic time, it is essential we get it right on many fronts.

  We seem to be always two or three steps behind, not thinking ahead nor through, providing inept news or updates, while at the same time thinking of ourselves as the opposite – brilliant, on top of things, transparent.

  Only a fool, and an existentialist, has no sense of reality and surrounds him or herself with fungibles. And the current increase in COVID-19 cases proves the point.

  We should have begun tightening our belts progressively and congruently the moment the borders were being opened. Now we are in this mess again, heightened vigilance, uber careful, and on edge.

  Fathers, mothers, children, aunts, brothers, sisters, grandparents, uncles, cousins, guardians, etc. – all are at risk and some could die. Yes, we need to open. But we needed to protect and to mitigate (note the use of “mitigate” instead of “prevent”) as best as we can.

  Only a blind man could not have foreseen the current situation, from the party boat to the large gatherings whether in clubs or the lax attitudes in wearing face masks and not social distancing. In addition, with the opening to the region and rest of world it doesn’t take a genius to see that we needed to start tightening the belt, to withdraw from gatherings, and reduce our social privileges.

  Why measures weren’t taken is not a mystery; it’s pure lack of minimal competence. I resign.

Pedro de Weever

Dear Editor,

  Whilst Caribbean economies claim to be looking out for opportunities to diversify their economies, in practice they have been slow to grab the opportunity that is presented by yachting.

  The yachting industry is a more complex industry than stayover accommodation or cruise ships and this complexity is a big part of the reason for the slow take-up. The yachting industry is also highly stable and offers high-paying employment when the appropriate skills are offered, something that is often mentioned as a criterion for new industries to be considered in the Caribbean. Much of the employment also stimulates skill development.

  Some territories are blessed with well-endowed geography to suit yachting and some are without that geography. Dominica and mainland St. Vincent fall into the latter category. Antigua, Grenada, St. Maarten and BVI [British Virgin Islands – Ed.] are in the former.

  The industry is really a set of industries, connected only by the fact that a floating vessel is common in all. The “cruisers”, the superyachts, the day charter industry are all very different with different economic drivers and challenges.

  The complexity of the industry would appear to be the most significant factor for Caribbean island nations. The territories that have done the best in recent years are those where policies are influenced by locals who have a high level of insight into the industry.

  The manner in which different territories recently dealt with the opening up of the territories after the lockdown provides insight into government capabilities in sustaining or growing this sector.

  The “cruising” part of the yachting industry involves a flotilla of boats of whom a great many cruise the islands in the winter season but return to the southern islands when the hurricane season approaches. But this season these islands had closed their ports in connection with the corona virus even though many were opening up when the season started.

  The territories of Grenada and Aruba both created an opportunity that yachts could come in as long as they quarantined for a period on their yachts without contact ashore (usually 14 days) thereby attracting business whilst bearing no risk. Other territories, Trinidad and Curaçao decided they were closed and even though there was no infection risk when quarantining takes place (can be supplemented with testing) they deprived their marine industries of significant business. A powerful example of how governments may have to be adaptive and flexible with this complex industry.

  The willingness of governments to understand this industry and appoint parties with insight to their policy-making institutions is a major factor. They must be prepared to explore yachting-suitable and country-suitable solutions in the fields of immigration, indirect taxation, marketing, event management and infrastructure investment in a manner that develops the industry and advances the country’s economic and social interests. Again and again one sees nonflexible policies undermining potential simply because it involves approaching a problem in a different manner.

  They cannot pretend that yachting is the same as stayover tourism and can be dealt with in the same fashion. It is fundamentally different and requires different policies and facilitation.

   The costs of facilitating the industry are relatively small compared to the costs of firstly attracting other attractive industries for diversification. Many of the niche industries that would be worth attracting would involve costs from a “standing start”. The yachting industry already has many years of operation in the islands and there are in some cases data on what the industry produces and costs. (Some islands have simply not collected obvious data.) The islands already know what the industry can produce in some respects; with facilitation and management it could be significantly more, but in any event more predictable that currently untested options.

Robbie Ferron

Dear Editor,

  As a community minded person, I am getting very “concerned” as people know the COVID-19 measures and information campaign is still relevant today as it was in the height of COVID-19 national emergency and shutdown, but a lot of people are complacent and not adhering to the public health guidelines and the proper use of masks as promoted by the Government of St. Maarten. This is a life and death situation, and everybody has a part to play by being responsible and adhering to the measures.

  People are still wearing their mask wrong under their chin, nose and even above their head even though there is information available on the proper use of masks. Mr. Editor, you can find all of this information on the Government Website, DComm mediums or Community Council Centers in the different languages. We just need to follow the health measures from Government.

  A “vast majority” of people I have seen in public are not wearing their mask properly and some not even wearing a mask or social distancing of 2 meters (6 feet) from each other in public and other areas where it concerns social gatherings by businesses. In certain grocery stores I have seen people come in without a mask and the store staff does not tell them anything

  That is where the public health and business guidelines are “extremely important” to ensure COVID-19 spread stays at a low level. Government inspectors need to continue enforcing the COVID-19 business guidelines. We are all in this together and I reiterate that everybody has to do their part including those within Government.

  Right now, Government should change the social norm to ensure people understand the importance as well as maybe providing the less fortunate with masks in their community.

  Mr. Editor, it is all about everyone making the right choices and decisions. We all have our role to play in protecting each other and the most vulnerable by being smart and adhering to the COVID-19 health measures. We cannot let our guard down.

  If we are not careful and take the new norm COVID-19 seriously, we will run the very risk of having a further increase in numbers and having to close down things again, which I know nobody wants to have.

  In closing, let us continue to remain vigilant and keep reminding the general public to keep adhering to the COVID-19 health measures and business guidelines and prepare for the 2020 hurricane season because we are all this together.

Maurice Lake

Dear Editor,

  I listened to two radio programs on which matters of our constitutional nature were discussed. I do not claim to be a constitutional expert, however, it is expected of me as a representative of the people to be knowledgeable of the Constitution of St. Maarten, the rules of order of Parliament and the Kingdom Charter, amongst others. Note the order in which I listed them, however, fact is, the Kingdom Charter is a higher organ than the Constitution of St. Maarten.

  A statement was made by this person, dubbed the constitutional expert, that St. Maarten is free. I emphatically disagree with that statement. We are not free. Indeed, they are correct in saying that the majority of the people voted to remain part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the June 23, 2000, referendum. Prior to this, in 1994 they voted to remain within the constellation of the Netherlands Antilles. Though I was not involved in politics until 3 years later, in my opinion the people voted to remain as part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands because the leaders of the respective parties were united on this option, and as a matter of fact campaigned for this status.

  The person dubbed the constitutional expert began the discourse on one of the programs by reading the preamble of the Kingdom Charter of October 28, 1954, and placed emphasis on the statement “of their own free will”. In other words, the majority chose this status. Again, this is true. I, however, want to place emphasis on another phrase of the same preamble which says, “On the grounds of equality”.

  And here is where the difference will be highlighted. Although equality is mentioned, the Dutch government highlighted in Article 3.1 what their competences are and that these cannot be changed by stating that, regardless of what is mentioned elsewhere in the Charter, competences of the Kingdom are, and it goes on to list what those are in the article with the letters a to h.

  The same article states in point 2 that other subjects can in a general discussion be declared competences of the Kingdom. This means they can add more competences if they so desire. Article 55 is applicable in such a case. Article 55.1 states; The amendment of this Charter is done by Kingdom Law. Point 2 says, a proposal to make an amendment by the Second Chamber will not be approved by the King before it is accepted by Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten. This acceptance takes place by National Ordinance of Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten. Keep in mind that the Charter is a higher law than a national ordinance. What is noticeable is that if the proposal deviates from the Constitution (Grondwet), to be exact the Dutch Constitution, which is a higher law than the Kingdom Charter and higher than the national ordinances of Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten.

  This is not being free. This is legal abuse, because if the Charter is in conflict with the Dutch Constitution in which we have no say, the Dutch Constitution will be the deciding document as it regards changes to the kingdom Charter. As to the issue of the “Entity”, what the Dutch government is also trying to do with this proposed entity is force governments to bind the elected representatives to an agreement without due process.

  Article 38.1 of the Charter says the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten can make agreements amongst themselves. But here is the catch; in mutual deliberations it can be determined that such regulations and amendment of such can be determined by Kingdom Law or Kingdom General Measures.

  Let us look at articles 15 to 22 of the charter as it relates to the process or procedure to be used when establishing a Kingdom Law. The process is started similarly to that mentioned in article 55.1, the difference being that the Ministers Plenipotentiary of Aruba Curaçao and St. Maarten are authorized to submit a proposal of its handling to the Second Chamber. The representatives of the country where this law will become applicable can – before its handling in the Second Chamber – investigate this and if such is needed, make a report before a

to-be-determined time frame.

  The Minister Plenipotentiary can attend verbal deliberations of the First and Second Chambers and give information to the chambers if he so desires. The Minister Plenipotentiary can request one or more extraordinary delegates who are also authorized to attend the verbal meetings and give information. They are not liable for what they say or present in writing in the meetings of the First and Second Chamber. They can propose changes to the draft.

  Article 38a says, the countries can among themselves make regulations/provisions to handle internal disputes. But the Kingdom council of Ministers decided unilaterally to shelve the different proposals for a dispute regulation for 3 years. Is this being free? We talk about these charters and constitutions.

   My conclusion is that, and I share the statement made with the young man who acted in the movie called “The Great Debaters” said, “An Unjust Law is No Law at all.

George Pantophlet

Member of Parliament