Mr. Editor,
I listened with great interest to the radio interview given by former member of Parliament, Mr. Theo Heyliger, on Monday, 22 June 2020. Firstly, it is excellent to see Mr. Heyliger in good health after his diagnosis in 2019 and I wish him continued recovery and health.
This is the second interview given by the former MP in a week, and while it was unclear what the overall purpose of the media blitz was, after the first interview, and subsequent press releases by the party he once led, I think the people can see the story being shopped around.
Revisionist History has been done by key groups throughout history: those who win wars, those who become dictators and, the largest and most controlling group, those who colonize (France, the Netherlands, England, etc). Colonization, and the resulting trans-Atlantic slave trade, has allowed the mentioned countries to tweak global history to their favour. They have erased or twisted facts that did not suit their story and we still feel the effects of their revision today.
Mr. Heyliger tries to quote this revisionist history by claiming that the Netherlands is attempting to “destroy” Sint Maarten through the justice system, by arresting and prosecuting politicians and other prominent individuals in the community. He cautions that the “hierarchy of the country” is being targeted and will be removed, and that this is how the country will be taken over. He warns the new “millennial” politicians that there is history behind ‘a lot of what goes on’ and that we cannot come in and “bulldoze the place to the ground.” This is a neat way of saying that change, so desperately needed, cannot come as long as the so-called “hierarchy of the country” exists. It would seem that Mr. Heyliger is creating his own version of history, something that he and several of his former colleagues have done since before 10-10-10. He uses this Revised Version of History to explain the state the country is in; I believe that the actual version is much more insightful, not to mention accurate.
Heyliger spent the interview lamenting the state of our education, healthcare and social welfare systems, but he lays blame for the state of these sectors squarely at the feet of the Netherlands. This is where the new history begins. While now, with a conviction-under-appeal, it has become incredibly transparent what is going on, it’s pretty masterful how slips of truth mixed with a healthy dose of delusions of grandeur have been spun to sound like a systematic takeover by anyone other than organized criminals.
Heyliger states that the Grand Plan is to turn us into the European Dutch person that he seems to so vehemently dislike (when not engaging them to bring construction companies to the island, that is). He rejects this notion but makes strange statements to support his rejection. He states, among other things, that we are not a people that “saves all our money,” saying that Holland complains that we drive cars and live in houses that are too big, and that our salaries are too high, and that we “cannot change.” He blames this last fact on the technical assistance received by Dutch technocrats, stating that we had to pay “high salaries” to them and so we had to match salaries to our locals. As we outlined in our livestream about our motion to cut 15%, the salaries of St. Maarten politicians before 10-10-10 were never high. They have been set by the architects of our constitutional status: the last Island Council of St. Maarten. Is the former MP saying that the people of St. Maarten cannot change? Is it really a goal that we remain a people who lack financial literacy and who do not save our money for rainy days or retirement? Is that not encouraging the continuation of poverty and paycheck-to-paycheck living that plagues many in our society? This is not the situation for Heyliger; the Estate continues to pay well, so what need is there to save for those with guaranteed income? I prefer the facts: region-wide, efforts have been made to encourage a more fiscally responsible population by promoting planning for retirement, savings, investments, and smarter spending.
Continuing the interview, it’s no surprise to hear a complete lack of knowledge, whether by truth or by design, of geo-politics, displayed by the former MP. He continues the same false statements we hear on the floor of Parliament, where the claim is that the Netherlands gave condition-free money to Dominica after Hurricane Maria and that money is now being used to build homes. This is a bold-faced lie; a simple bit of research shows that Prime Minister Skerrit, in his own words, has constructed and repaired homes, schools and bridges with money earned from the Citizenship by Investment Programme that is so popular with the Chinese, Russian and Taiwanese billionaires Mr. Heyliger wants to court so much. I’ll share the research with him, no strings attached, to ensure that he nor anyone associated with him make this false statement again. At this point, it’s cringe-worthy to hear it.
Heyliger continues that, when we’re independent, “he” can say he wants Americans coming in with no issue, or he can say he wants Dominicans or anybody (Italians, maybe?) to come in without any issues. This is in contradiction to the government his former party supports, as Honorable Minister Anna Richardson is currently attempting to resolve our immigration issues. Is the former MP saying that we should continue an open-door policy for all who wish to come to St. Maarten, thus continuing the burden on our infrastructure and our systems?
Enough of the megalomania and back to our failing systems. Throughout the interview, Heyliger fails to discuss his own role and indeed, the country’s successive governments’ roles, in bringing us to our current state. How did Heyliger spend his time in Parliament and Government? Did he address the same education system he expresses such worry about in the interview, and urge businesses to buy bonds from the Central Bank to build a school for special needs children and teens? No…but he made that effort for the construction of the Causeway, even going so far as to chastise GEBE and PJIA for not participating in that project. Parents of special needs children must either struggle through or, if they can afford it, leave the island to find help elsewhere. Because the message remains the same: the only way to ‘develop’ St. Maarten is to build physical structures. Heyliger’s focus has never been on developing the people of this country and that is perhaps the saddest part, because that mentality has trickled down throughout his former party. The level of ‘out of touch’ is so thick, it can be tasted.
On the floor of Parliament, we questioned the “urgent need” for the completion of the decolonization process. We were told that it is a priority, like everything else right now. But that’s just the issue: if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. This is the confusion that has allowed false information to guide the way our country has operated before and since 10-10-10.
One thing we do agree with Mr. Heyliger on: the process to bring us to Country St. Maarten was indeed rushed. We’re just very confused as to why he seems to be saying that the road to bring us to independence should also be hurried through. And so the challenge question to the people is this: Who does this rushed process serve? Here’s a hint: not you.
Melissa D. Gumbs
Party for Progress
Party Leader
Dear Editor,
The laws of St. Maarten protect human rights. They, for example, guarantee the rights of due process and forbid cruel and unusual punishments. Over the course of the last 10 years, the governments of St. Maarten have not been able to guarantee the human rights of prisoners.
Various reports by the law enforcement council and progress committee show that there has been no improvement at all, despite various plans. So, one may conclude that all the plans have not yet resulted into action.
In the political arena, it appears that there is only attention for the deplorable situation of detainees once prominent politicians are involved. The rest of the time, there does not seem to be any political concern about the ongoing violations of human rights.
Kingdom laws are also law of the land. There is a particular section in a Kingdom law that states that the Kingdom must safeguard the human rights once a country is structurally not able to uphold those rights. The activation of the so-called “guarantee function” implies limiting the autonomy of the country. The guarantee function may not last forever. The law makes clear that it only lasts for the period of time that the country is not able to carry its responsibility.
For me as Dean of the Bar Association it is evident that at this moment in time, St. Maarten is not able to guarantee the human rights of prisoners. As last week’s court case made clear, a solution cannot be reached without the assistance of the Kingdom.
For that reason, via an attorney, I have sent a letter to the Kingdom Council of Ministers to no longer close their eyes for the deplorable situation of Pointe Blanche and have requested to take proper measures, whether that would be in cooperation with the government of St. Maarten or not.
The motion of Van Dam (see Daily Herald 22 June 2020) also shows that the rest of the Kingdom no longer closes its eyes for the fact that St. Maarten has a lot of trouble protecting human rights.
In closing, I would like to remark that it is my sincere hope that the situation improves quickly. And for those that feel that it concerns a particular infringement on autonomy, I would like to say that it still is up to the independent judge whether or not prison time is imposed.
Geert Hatzmann,
Dean of the Bar of Lawyers of St. Maarten
Thanks to the Party for Progress (PFP), Melissa Gumbs and Raeyhon Peterson who submitted questions to the Honorable Minister of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure VROMI Egbert C. Doran.
We at Dolphin Defenders SXM (DDS) are very curious about the reply of Minister Doran, in particular pertaining to the 14,000 square meters of water rights in long lease in the sea area by Sunset Bar and Grill, in the vicinity of the Maho Bay. We also are concerned as to what the purpose of this long lease in the area would be and what the plans are for the area, which borders Princess Juliana International Airport and is the first impression of our island to all airborne arriving guests.
We have seen previous plans submitted to VROMI that are for the construction of a large breakwater and pier (marina?) and include a large enclosed area between the breakwater, pier and shore. Besides the huge environmental impact of such a massive construction there is the very real concern about long-lasting and irreparable hurricane damage that has left so many abandoned structures around our island that are both dangerous (past construction on beaches) and an ugly spot on our number-one tourism product, our beautiful St Maarten nature (the old walk on the rocks at Mullet Bay).
In addition, of concern to Dolphin Defenders SXM is that we have heard of plans for this enclosed area within the breakwater and pier to house an aquarium and/or dolphinarium.
More and more all over the world, keeping dolphins captive in entertainment facilities/dolphinariums is considered cruel, with an increasing number of countries banning these facilities. The mentality of the public has changed drastically thanks to two very intriguing documentaries called “The Cove” and “Blackfish”. These eye-opening films are still making lots of people aware and no longer do many people wish to see these beautiful creatures in captivity doing tricks for food.
The world is switching and prefers nature as it should be, natural and free. Instead of boosting tourism, dolphinariums now generate negative feelings and negative publicity. It portrays the opposite of a sound and sustainable tourism product.
Dolphin Defenders SXM has opposed 5 different plans for a dolphinarium before in the past 20 years. In October 2011, for example, there was yet another plan for a dolphinarium in St Maarten. Dolphin Defenders SXM informed the public and tourists on the island and gathered 6,768 signatures opposing such an establishment. This petition, including a draft law to ban all cetacean captivity on St. Maarten, was presented by ourselves and Mr. Ric O’Barry to then-Prime Minister the Hon. Sarah Wescot-Williams. It is very clear by the number of signatures collected in a very short amount of time that a large number of our citizens, residents and tourists do not want a captive dolphin facility on St Maarten.
Dolphin Defenders SXM are not happy with animals in captivity, do not like the idea of an aquarium and consider a dolphinarium much worse. No matter if the dolphins are in a tank or in a sea pen it is still captivity and it is cruel. We would like to know now about any plans for a captive dolphin facility on St Maarten. We, the SXM citizens, residents and tourists are entitled to some answers and transparency.
So please Mr. Doran, share with us answers to our questions:
* Are there plans / business proposals / discussions for the construction of a captive dolphin facility on St Maarten?
* Has a business / construction permit for a captive dolphin facility been requested?
* Has a business / construction permit for a captive dolphin facility been issued?
* Are you aware that research has been done twice on the location and that a negative advice has been given twice?
* Are you aware of all the dangers in connection with hurricanes in our region, specifically the impact on our marine areas?
Has the following been taken into consideration?
* How big and how deep will their confinement pen or tank be?
* Where the dolphins will come from and when they will arrive?
* How many dolphins will be imported, what kind of dolphin species will they be?
* What is the hurricane contingency plan for the safety of the dolphins?
* Where will the dolphins be housed after a hurricane destroys their pen or tank?
And is everyone in government aware of the following?
* The hidden costs for the island’s environment on land and below the surface – the risk to our reefs and beaches?
* That polluted water (dolphin waste) exiting the pen or tank, depending on the daily changing current, can get as far, or even farther than Long Beach on the French side?
* The health risks for the dolphins and the health risks for the people who swim or interact with them, including those innocently swimming downstream of the facility?
* The high risk of injuries dolphins in captivity can inflict to humans?
* The negative impact of losing repeat (timeshare/cruise conversion) tourists who will not return to the island because of their ethical reasons against a dolphinarium?
* That dolphins are listed as a CITES species and are listed as protected under the Cartagena Convention?
* That the captive dolphin industry has a proven history of miseducation and lies?
There are so many other creative and compassionate ways to invest in entertaining our tourists and local community alike without the use or abuse of animals – for example, a Water Park with all the wet and wild adventurous splashing rides for kids and adults.
Or simply, rather than sinking the beauty of our island under more concrete, realize that it is the natural beauty of St. Maarten that attracts our tourists in the first place and invest in preserving, protecting and rejuvenating that for a sustainable tourism product for generations to come!
Let’s put St Maarten on the map for environmental leadership, beautiful, natural coastlines, beaches and hillsides, sustainable tourism – not for an outdated, cruel captive dolphin facility that is destined to become yet another hurricane-ravished concrete hazard.
Dolphin Defenders St. Maarten
Mercedes De Windt
Dear Editor,
On Monday, June 22, 2020, at 7:00am St. Maarten time, Chris van Dam, Member of the Dutch Second Chamber, will be presenting a motion to the Second Chamber in which he is requesting the Dutch Government to establish that the prison system of St. Maarten be taken over completely by the Kingdom Council of Ministers for a period of 5 years at the expense of Country St. Maarten.
Mr. van Dam sent a copy of this motion to our Members of Parliament with a letter explaining his reasons for submitting it. He ends his letter by writing, “Should you have any questions about the motion then feel free to contact me.”
As the Coalition in Parliament and the Government seem to be paranoid when it comes to matters concerning Dutch takeover, I would have expected them to have already sounded the alarm and warn the people that “the Dutch are coming”. But instead, there is only silence from Government and from the Coalition. I expected the Chairman of Parliament to call an emergency meeting of Parliament to discuss this matter and the Government to take a position on this issue. As Second Chamber Member van Dam, was so courteous and respectful to inform our Members of Parliament of this pending motion, our Parliament should have replied, post-haste, letting him know whether they agree or disapprove of this motion.
Greek philosopher Plato said that “silence gives consent.” Should one then conclude that no reaction from our Parliament and our Government means that they are in favor of the complete takeover of our prison by the Kingdom Council of Ministers at St. Maarten’s expense?
Does St. Maarten have the finances to support such a takeover? Knowing the current precarious liquidity position of St. Maarten, why would the honorable Chris van Dam even dare include in his motion that the takeover would be at the expense of the Government of St. Maarten? Is the Dutch thinking that the expenses of the takeover can be deducted from the liquidity support?
Besides paying, what other roles and functions would St. Maarten be playing in this Dutch takeover? Would locals serve as counterparts and/or be trained to be able to take over the management when the Dutch expertise leave? These are questions that our Parliament and Government should be asking. If they do not have questions, they should at least take a stand and let it be known to the Dutch prior to the motion being passed.
I am sure that no one will dispute that our prison system is in shambles as far as management, staffing, building, detention capacity, facilities, resources and in every other way. The Government is still paying the salaries of the three past directors who are at home. The prison system is so bad that in December 2017 the European Court of Human Rights declared the detention of a detainee in a St. Maarten police cell as unlawful. The St. Maarten Progress Committee, that evaluates on a regular basis whether agreements made to improve the prison system are being carried out, has registered very little progress and improvement in our prison system during the past 10 years. The Dutch Kingdom has come under fire by the European Human Rights Council because of our prison system being way below the acceptable human rights standards.
All of this is known to the current Coalition and Government who blamed, criticized and figuratively crucified the former Minister of Justice, Mr. Cornelius de Weever, for doing nothing about the prison. As Parliamentarians, Silveria Jacobs and Egbert Doran, our current Prime Minister and Minister of VROMI [Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure – Ed.], visited the prison in July 2019 and promised that they would continue to look into the matter of the prison. The current Coalition and Government having had so much criticism about the prison system, one can only expect that they will do whatever is necessary to fix it.
One thing can be said about Mr. van Dam, who was a former prosecutor, and that is that he has been consistent in his efforts to see the prison system in St. Maarten improved. In October 2019, he presented a similar motion to the Second Chamber which was adopted. Since then he has been asking questions and requesting reports and other documentation concerning the prison system in St. Maarten. When the motion was presented in 2019, State Secretary of Home Affairs and Kingdom Relations Mr. Knops was not in favour as, according to him, it restricted the autonomy of St. Maarten. Besides that, he felt that the motion was not opportune at that time, given the political situation of St. Maarten.
As the Pointe Blanche prison and the police detention cells in Philipsburg do not meet the human rights standards, they put the Kingdom of the Netherlands in a bad light within the European Court. I do not know if this could be the driving force behind Van Dam’s motion to improve the prison system in St. Maarten. But what I do know is, that his efforts will certainly help to raise the standards of our prison system. Our Parliament and Government should take Van Dam’s efforts seriously and do whatever lies in their power to support the various efforts that would lead to a prison system where our buildings, facilities, personnel, management, legislation, etc. meet the European Human Rights standards.
I ask our Parliament and our Government to let the people know if they are in favor of Van Dam’s motion to enable the Dutch to take over the prison system, at the expense of the Government of St. Maarten, for a period of 5 years.
Wycliffe Smith
Leader of the St. Maarten Christian Party (SMCP)
I was pleasantly surprised and extremely pleased to hear the Honourable Prime Minister declare during the Council of Ministers press briefing on June 17, 2020, that her Government is living up to the agreements made by the Marlin-Romeo Government. The PM’s exact words were: “Government has done everything, and I mean everything, to live up to conditions set on us by previous agreements set by previous governments, we have maintained those agreements.”
For the past eight months I have been waiting for the Jacobs Government to chart a new direction for St. Maarten because the past opposition in Parliament, she was very much opposed to the agreements that the Marlin-Romeo Government had reached with the Dutch and the World Bank. Yet to date, the PM still refers to living up to all the agreements made by the former Government which she and her party at that time considered bad decisions that were aimed at selling St. Maarten out to the Dutch. I also wonder if the coalition also supports the PM in her decision to maintain the agreements signed by the former Government.
The Marlin-Romeo Government was branded as the worst Government in St. Maarten history. The NA/USP/Mercelina/Brownbill opposition in Parliament, led by then-MP Jacobs, categorically refused to lend any support to the Marlin-Romeo Government to carry out these agreements. The agreements that needed to be made with the World Bank in order to release funds for the airport were blocked. Laws pertaining to money-laundering and anti-terrorism that would keep St. Maarten from being blacklisted on the international market were stagnated. Conditions set by the Dutch regarding, for example, the reduction of the salary of Members of Parliament were considered by the opposition as allowing the Dutch to interfere in St. Maarten’s internal affairs. The Marlin-Romeo Government was also highly accused of not being transparent and of withholding documents and information from Parliament.
Yet shortly after taking office, the Jacobs Government does the same things that it accused the Marlin-Romeo Government of doing. The Prime Minister flies off immediately to Washington to sign the agreement with the World Bank and the Minister of Justice heads to Antigua to try to avert St. Maarten from being blacklisted. The Jacobs Government and the NA/USP coalition agrees for the salaries of Members of Parliament and civil servants to be reduced.
It is ironic to see that Members of Parliament who were once intensely opposed to the Dutch dictating what their salaries should be, end up themselves presenting a motion to cut their own salaries so that they could comply with the conditions stipulated by the Dutch.
As far as the issue of transparency is concerned, the Jacobs Cabinet collated the very same documents that had already been sent by the Marlin-Romeo Government to Parliament, in two binders and resent them to Parliament. Unfortunately, this transparency was not long-lived, as today Parliamentarians and members of the Coalition publicly complain that the Jacobs Government is no longer transparent.
So, why would former Members of Parliament, who are now Ministers themselves, accuse the past Government of accepting the conditions set forth by the Dutch and of signing agreements with the Dutch to sell out St. Maarten, when they are now doing the exact same things that they were opposing. This causes one to think that it was not that the Marlin-Romeo Government was not doing a good job, but rather, it was merely about bringing down the Government in order to usurp the power themselves.
In my opinion, one should not criticize something and then, when given the opportunity to improve it or change it, do the exact same thing. In other words, how can PM Jacobs vehemently oppose the conditions and agreements of the Marlin-Romeo Government while she was a Member of Parliament, but now being Prime Minister she turns around and does everything possible to live up to and maintain the conditions and agreements that were established by the previous government.
This tells me that the Marlin-Romeo Government was not that bad after all.
Wycliffe Smith
Leader of the SMCP
