Government leaders and health spokespersons need to have a rational, adult discussion with the public regarding the coronavirus.
First, the truth is there is no cure for numerous viruses, including the common cold, influenza, AIDS, dengue fever, and Ebola. Even with advanced modern medicine, the search for cures, vaccines, and treatments often takes years of research and trials. Therefore, it is highly unlikely a vaccine – let alone a cure – for the coronavirus will be available soon. The reality is that we will be living with this virus for the foreseeable future. Even the World Health Organization has finally admitted as much.
Second, given that the coronavirus is possibly here to stay, it is of great importance that the public understand that “cases” does not necessarily mean illnesses. News sources report millions of coronavirus “cases” throughout the world, but often fail to acknowledge that only a fraction of these “cases” developed the illness.
A more informed understanding of the actual risks posed by the coronavirus and the many reasonable ways to manage them contrasts with the safety-at-any-cost approach of most risk assessment and public health officials. Minimizing health risks is a noble goal but until a vaccine or cure is developed, public health authorities such as doctors might never declare the world safe from the coronavirus. Should these people be dictating public policy? Delaying border openings, for example, will not make the coronavirus or any other viruses go away. One could argue it is more dangerous, as isolation will prevent natural immunity from developing within the population. Keeping one’s head in the sand hoping the problem will miraculously disappear is pointless and counterproductive.
The European Union and the United Kingdom have a combined population of roughly five hundred million. About two million more than that of the United States. The EU and UK have around 181,0001 COVID-19 deaths of late and the U.S. about 113,0002.
Despite the anti-American slant of European news sources, the math hardly adds up to the United States being the epicenter of the virus. Referring to the United States as “dangerous and too risky” as epidemiologist Dr. Izzy Gerstenbluth of Curaçao recently did is highly irresponsible. Does the good doctor really believe visitors from the U.S. pose a greater risk to Curaçao than those from Europe? The numbers suggest the opposite.
Nonetheless, whether visitors from Europe or the United States are allowed in or not will make no difference as one is not more virus-risky than the other actually. The virus exists plain and simple. Just like other viruses.
Clearly, walking back the coronavirus hysteria after months of media investment in it will require re-educating the public on what the coronavirus is and is not. It is not air-born Ebola. It will not kill you on contact. Most people exposed to the coronavirus have mild to no symptoms. The coronavirus is not the plague.
Importantly, the elderly and immune-compromised persons are at greater risk to all viruses, not just the coronavirus. The common cold virus might kill someone weak from old age if contracted too.
Irrespective of the particular virus strain, humans do what they can to lessen the impact of the outbreak, but living in a bubble should not be one of them.
Gunsor Buther
Curaçao
Dear Editor,
The peculiar race-based history of the Western Hemisphere has bequeathed to all the people and nations of our region of the “Caribbean and the Americas” the central mission of eradicating the scourge of anti-black racism and developing societies in which the inherent dignity and worth of the black person is upheld and respected.
The people of the Caribbean region recognize therefore that the struggle against anti-black racism in our hemisphere is an inter-related one, and that we in the Caribbean are as invested in the USA, Brazilian, Colombian or Canadian components of that struggle as these nations are invested in our Caribbean component of the struggle.
Thus, whenever we witness or become aware of even isolated or random acts of anti-black racism anywhere in our hemisphere, we cringe and recoil in anguish, for we know that failure to uphold the dignity and worth of the black person in any one nation imperils the entire hemispheric mission.
And much more so is the case when what we witness are not mere random incidents, but acts that are suggestive of the continued existence of systemic, institutionalized anti-black racism.
It is against this background therefore that we Caribbean people wish to express the deep sense of revulsion that we felt when we witnessed the televised images of the callous, heartless and totally unjustified killing of the African-American George Floyd by a white police officer in the city of Minneapolis in the USA.
We suspect and fear that Mr. Floyd’s tragic death – one of a sequence of similar killings of unarmed black persons by white police officers – is evidence of the continued existence of systemic anti-black racism.
We would therefore wish to urge the Government and people of the USA – our sister nation of the Americas region – to redouble their efforts to confront and overcome this social evil.
I know that I speak for all right-thinking Caribbean people when I say that we extend our profound sympathy to the distraught immediate family of Mr. Floyd, and also to his extended African-American family who have been deeply hurt.
We would also wish to assure the Government and people of the USA that there are many organizations within our Caribbean region – a region that has confronted the scourge of anti-Black racism with some degree of success – that would readily share the insights that they have gained from our own struggle and that would be very willing to assist the US authorities in any way that they could.
David Comissiong
Dear Editor,
The hypocrisy that prevails in this country is unbelievable. One minute we say locals should be at the helms at certain companies and the next minute the same persons are being crucified. Some of the MPs are emulating the call to unite for George Floyd and even “black out on Tuesday” to only use the parliament meeting of Friday, June 5, 2020, to discriminate and belittle our own. What is the difference between what’s going on in the United States by officials there and our elected officials here?
The behavior sickens me so much that I can’t breathe. So many important things to be done and here are our parliamentarians grandstanding to belittle persons as opposed to helping.
Please focus on the things you said you were going to do:
Lay the foundation to give us the 1,000 homes.
Fix the jail for our inmates, because they too have rights.
What is really being done for our elderly?
Is the landfill no longer a concern?
Where is our economic recovery roadmap?
Ann Gumbs
Dear Editor,
Just like empathy, integrity is hardwired – you either have it or you don’t. For this mere fact, the population must bear in mind that most people are predictable in their choices; therefore, individuals who are imbedded in the principles of integrity do not entertain dishonesty. And, those who are entrenched in trickery will always wrestle with the laws of integrity.
The recent handling of the Code of Conduct was received with mixed feelings as this important issue got very little attention from the MPs who were in attendance. Imagine, the Chair of the committee had to beg for their participation and it took them roughly one minute to start the deliberation. Was this not a continuation of their open rejection?
There is this constant pushback and unwillingness to embrace this vital principle. Nevertheless, one MP put it best when he described the situation as “The wish of many but not a desire.” How appropriate! But, was it a genuine statement, or was he flirting with the public’s trust, in the hope to change their perception of him?
This dishonesty is the motivating force that has crippled our parliament and the many governments over the years. It is also the method that several politicians have used to divide the people – some with their predatory smile, while others capitalize on their ability to articulate the message.
The meeting also reminded me of the situation that Abraham Lincoln faced when his friends deserted him because they wanted to select another nominee for an opposition convention. As he assessed their move, he remarked, “I have faith in the people. They will not consent to disunion. The danger is, they are misled. Let them know the truth, and the country is safe.”
Politicians have failed to present the people with the facts, which has allowed them to make too many decisions in isolation and for self-gratification. Therefore, the population demands that the Code of Conduct reflects the core values of the people and not the wishes of crooked politicians and their unscrupulous associates.
This transparency deficiency that has infiltrated the government apparatus for decades must come to a halt, to increase the country’s prosperity, through the principles of integrity. For this reason, more checks and balances are needed, especially when contracts are awarded. Why do some MPs feel that preference should be given to their friends and family, even if they are incapable of doing the job?
Since 10-10-10, some members of parliament have set a dangerous trend in condoning the actions of politicians who were condemned by the court. Even MPs who have censured the disgraced politicians are praising them today. So how does the population expect them to apply any form of maturity towards the principles of integrity?
How about the many classified discussions that are held behind closed doors and later debated on air? So, what was the real purpose of these private meetings and doesn’t this kind of conduct breach the integrity of parliament? Likewise, since 10-10-10, countless meetings have been postponed due to a lack of quorum and, sad to say, all at the expense of the taxpayers. But what do they care? Their salary and pension are fully secured, whether they choose to work or hang out somewhere.
In some instances, an incoming minister would be forced to accept cabinet members from a defunct government. Why should a minister be subjected to such control? Similarly, is it not a violation of integrity that the executive management team of Princess Juliana International Airport and other government-owned companies were forced to occupy the building of a disgraced MP, even though the rental agreement at the airport was still valid?
This is a classic example of why Juliana Airport is bankrupted today – the evil hands of outside forces are in play, controlling the government and dictating to parliament. It is high time that politicians secure the people’s patrimony and stop making a mockery of integrity.
Joslyn Morton
Dear Editor,
I have attended many IPKO [Inter-Parliamentary Kingdom Consultation – Ed.] meetings and what always stood out to me is the fact that they are only of a consultative nature because the final decisions have to be carried out by the governments of the respective countries.
But it has been proven that the one who definitely has the final decision is the Kingdom Council of Minsters especially when we look at the process that takes place in connection with Articles 15 to 22 of the Kingdom Charter.
This has caused many disputes, which brings me to our famous Dispute Regulation.
As a matter of fact, former Member of the Second Chamber Mr. van Laar in 2001 and later picked up by Second Chamber Member van Oven presented a draft proposal to make amendments to article 14 and 38 of the Kingdom Charter which would give the other countries more authority as it relates to disputes within the Kingdom.
I listened to Member of Parliament Mr. Buncamper who wanted to know the status of the Dispute regulation. To my colleague let me state the following: in 2010 a new article 12a was inserted into the Kingdom Charter, giving instructions to the legislators of the Kingdom to make provisions to have disputes between the Kingdom and the countries established by kingdom law. The intention was, and still is, to have disputes handled by an independent organization. The Council of State was targeted to be such a body; however, the Kingdom Council of Ministers did not want the decision or advice of the Council of State to be binding.
Now after some 10 years of deliberations, proposals and meetings on this regulation, the Kingdom Council of Ministers have decided to put the dispute regulation on the back burner for 3 years, as in their opinion there are more important matters to be addressed.
I believe that the governments of the countries of Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten should protest against this and have it placed again on the IPKO agenda.
Another matter which I think is related is the document the “Democratic Deficit” prepared by the late Mavis Salomon and her colleagues. Former Minister of Justice of the Netherlands Hirsch Balin I believe in 1997 made reference to having this dispute dealt with.
I would like to know the status of this report. And I think it should be discussed in a meeting of parliament.
Mr. chairman, an issue that might not be related to the upcoming IPKO meeting but one that is ongoing for quite some time now. I am talking about the challenges our students who have studied in the Netherlands and received loans from DUO are facing. They earn guilders but are forced to pay their loans in the euro currency.
I understood that in Curaçao a special account was set up where these loans can be repaid in the local currency. I would like to know the possibilities of having such a system established in St. Maarten.
George Pantophlet
