Dear Editor,
Prior to the United Nations’ rejection of the Kingdom Charter in 1955 via UN Resolution 945X, the Netherlands’ first attempt to decolonize the Netherlands Antilles was initially rejected in 1951. According to Steven Hillebrink, a Dutch national, who presented his Doctoral Thesis entitled “Political Decolonization and Self-Determination: A Case of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba” to the University of Leiden in 2007, the Netherlands introduced the “Interimregelingen” (Interim Orders) in 1951 which “listed the areas of government for which the Netherlands remained responsible” and “established the principle that the Netherlands Antilles … were autonomous in all other affairs.”
Shortly thereafter, the Netherlands decided to cease the transmission of information regarding the Netherlands Antilles, as prescribed under Article 73e of the UN Charter, without giving prior notice to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (Hillebrink, p. 201). The Netherlands was under the false impression that the Interim Order of 1951 had granted the Netherlands Antilles a full measure of self-governance and a right to self-determination. “It soon became clear to the Dutch delegation that a majority among the non-administering (UN) members of the Committee (African, Asian, Latin American states) were not at all inclined to accept cessation of transmission of information.” (Hillebrink, p. 203)
The aforementioned African, Asian, and Latin American UN member states feared that the “autonomy” given to the Netherlands Antilles under the Interim Orders of 1951 was only temporary rather than permanent. According to Hillebrink, they also “considered the autonomy of the Dutch Caribbean territories insufficient to be termed a full measure of self-government.” (p. 205) Bear in mind that due to the 1947 Indonesian massacres committed by the Netherlands, “the Netherlands had gained a bad reputation among the non-administering states because of its attitude in the Indonesian conflict.” (Hillebrink, p. 203)
The Plenary of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) rejected the Interim Orders of 1951 by a vote of 33 to 13 with 8 abstentions. In 1953, the Plenary of UNGA decided that the Netherlands should continue to report on the decolonization of the Netherlands Antilles via UN Resolution 747 (VIII). The UNGA declared to the Netherlands, via UN Resolution 747 VIII, that they were to continue negotiations with the Netherlands Antilles in order that “a new status will be attained by the Netherlands Antilles … representing a full measure of self-government in fulfillment of the objectives set forth in Chapter XI of the Charter.” A year later, the Netherlands returned to the UNGA with the Kingdom Charter and that too was rejected.
Pro Soualiga Foundation
My name is Joel Reiph and I read the article that was published in The Daily Herald in November 2020. That article gave me the courage to write my story to you.
In 2017 I was convicted of an armed robbery and I paid my debt to society and was released in 2020. Upon my release in 2020 I was back in society and unfortunately I was associating myself with friends I had before and these friends were already being investigated by detectives and the prosecutor for robberies that I could not have been involved in because I was just released out of prison.
Unknowingly, the phone of my friends were tapped and conversations I had with them were being monitored together with my past and misinterpreted conversations. The prosecutor decided to abuse its power and lump me in the arrest of my friends, of the robberies that I could have never been involved in because of my release from prison at that time.
Based on the phone tap the prosecutor used conversations such as, “Bro you got your clothes ready?” and for instance, “the place open” and “I going to check you later” to place me under arrest, but even though that is already a terrible situation, what is even more terrible is that I have been incarcerated from March 3, 2020 until the present based solely on these conversations and a search of my home that produced absolutely nothing. Even more terrible is the fact that I have been put in solitary confinement since September 2020 without any provocation to be in solitary confinement.
Since my incarceration in March 2020 I have been questioned by detectives and prosecutor only once, so in eight months without any evidence that would prove my guilt whatsoever, I have been behind bars.
It’s very convenient for the prosecutor to look at my past and use that to punish me even though there is no credible evidence, and this is a prime example of the abuse of power that the prosecutor is using. The prosecutor is trying all different scenarios to come out with a win of this case and is not interested in the truth. The prosecutor is using their power to mislead and exaggerate the facts, in fact the lack of facts, to unlawfully incarcerate me.
During my incarceration my girlfriend has brought my son of less than a month into this world. Because of the above abuse of power, I am unable to produce and take care of my family. Knowing that my girlfriend was pregnant at my first release I had decided to change my life to provide for my family, but the prosecutor used my past against me.
I know I have made stupid mistakes in the past, but I was young and foolish. I am 24 years old now and I would like the opportunity to make a better life for me and my family, but the prosecutor is not allowing me that opportunity.
An example of this is the current Qredit opportunity that is currently going on for the citizens of St. Maarten. If it was not for the abuse of power of the prosecutor, I could have participated in such an opportunity which could have changed my life completely.
I hope my story has given you another example of how the prosecutor abuses its power, and that the Parliament of St. Maarten continues to look into and be critical of the Criminal Procedure Code and ultimately lessens the power of the Public Prosecutor’s Office of St. Maarten.
Joel Reiph
Dear Editor,
Hugo de Jonge as Dutch Health Minister needs to review the way responsible care is delivered by his civil servants from the ZVK (Care Insurance Office) on St. Eustatius and Bonaire. As a recent patient in need of support from these offices, I was treated with a lack of empathy, flexibility and communication skills.
Diagnosed with acute appendicitis, I was faced by a life or death situation. The St. Eustatius hospital – with immediate consent of my Dutch insurance company – swiftly organised an air ambulance bound for Bonaire and an urgent medical operation.
When it came to my return to St. Eustatius, it was suggested to me by several knowledgeable people on St. Eustatius and Bonaire to contact ZVK. It was a reasonable proposition. The ZVK operates two direct medical flights per week between the two islands and as a Dutch pensioner, resident and taxpayer, I thought it would not be unreasonable to ask for this service paid for by taxpayers’ money. Furthermore, I was prepared to pay for a seat on one of their sizeable planes.
Previous non-ZVK patients were granted this favor. Why not me?
“No!” came back the email from a dispassionate officer inside the ZVK Kralendijk office. This bleeped response was not accompanied by any explanation or sensitivity for my situation.
I then turned to the crisis management “adviser” on Statia whose typical civil service advice was to ignore my crisis and deflect the problem higher up the chain to the Ministerial Czarina for the ZVK on Statia.
And now the crunch: “I am not involved with individual cases,” this unfeeling and dismissive Dutch Mandarin informed me.
So much for responsible care! Instead of a two hour flight to recuperate at home on the Historical Gem, I was obliged to spend a painful two week journey back via Curaçao and St. Maarten with all the inconvenience of infrequent flights, COVID tests, hotel and restaurant bills not to mention eventual quarantine.
Given that Hugo de Jonge is a Christian Democrat, I am tempted to exclaim: Jesus wept! However, a choppy meteorology discounted a walking back to Statia on water.
This is not the first time that the ZVK has been criticised for lack of responsible care and false economy. Over the years, the ZVK has squandered many millions on delaying the return of many Statia patients treated in Colombia and other medical destinations – if only to save a few nickels on cheaper flight tickets. Some patients have nearly expired before repatriation.
My lesson for ZVK and its Minister de Jonge is to rely on personnel who are prepared to listen, care and respond accordingly. The skies of Statia are punctured by parachuted administrators from the mainland whose talents, experience and qualifications are rarely pre-checked even at the highest levels.
As a Dutch taxpayer, I expect the State to work at the service of the individual and not the reverse. I shall take this matter further since it displays a complete lack of flexibility, communication skills and more importantly responsible care.
Chris Russell
I would like to express my shame that an extremely expensive force is being “appointed” for a few months during a pandemic, in a small country where more than 60,000 food parcels have been distributed, where people are fed daily through charity and private organizations. where people are still without water and where children, partly due to the dire poverty, have fallen behind because many cannot participate in online lessons.
We live in a country where this government places most of the blame on the increasing positively tested people on the population, and that while you as a government are still unable to trace people.
What a disgraceful government you are all, especially because many of the ministers still allow themselves to be photographed without masks while you are imposing this on the community. You are acting irresponsibly.
Josef Martina
Curaçao
Dear Editor,
Nowadays there are three topics that dominate the news: Donald Trump's behavior, COVID-19 and the financial aid for St. Maarten as a consequence of COVID-19. And then there is what has become normal for several years now: the questioning, arrests and indictments with or without convictions of government employees and/or politicians.
I believe that I have mentioned this before also, but Dutch politicians in the highest offices for years now have also been accused of criminal wrongdoing and also convicted. A few months back someone showed me a list of the names of 21 members of a certain Dutch political party who between 2007 and 2015 were convicted for bribery, driving under the influence of alcohol, embezzlement, fraud, manhandling, money-laundering, tax evasion, tax fraud, and more So, yes, politicians from Holland also are known to be bandits and corrupt.
I will never say to anyone that he or she must not defend themselves.
The difference between the politicians in Holland and the Antillean politicians is that the politicians in Holland when they are caught, accept the fate and take French leave. Our politicians try to defend themselves up to the highest court in the Kingdom, and even leave themselves without an ace in the hole, even though the majority of them end up being convicted, so that most of the people who were not aware of what was happening in the beginning eventually read about the whole saga at the end.
All of this contributes to the fact that “Do what I say” is no longer effective while correcting children. Along with that as a consequence of modern technology (cell phones) more people physically see what is taking place as it is happening, so more and more the youth are following what they see. We take the bible out of our schools, but we go out of our way to engrave and print “God zij met ons” and “In God we trust” on our guilder and the US currency.
Why is that not hypocrisy? Children taking their parents to court for inappropriate scolding. When this is permitted by law, is this not also hypocrisy? Is not the government stopping the parents from loving their children? The last time I read Proverbs 13:24 in which it is written that he who loves his son disciplines him promptly and if you hate him you spare the rod. The GNT reads “If you do not punish your children, you don't love them. If you do love them you will correct them promptly.” In Dutch “Die zijn roede inhoudt haat zijn zoon, maar die hem liefheeft, zoekt hem vroeg met tuchtiging”.
So, can I come to the conclusion that the Dutch do not really care about us when for years they have employed “laat ze maar rotzooien”, which would coincide with “die zijn roede inhoudt, haat zijn zoon”?
I have been asked several times if I do not like the Dutch and my answer remains I do not condone wrongdoing and I have a problem with accepting hypocrisy. I believe that if one teaches me anything but solely wants me to use it to his/her benefit, then there is something wrong there. Which boils down to “voor wat hoort wat”. What happened to “Doe wel en zie niet om”? A lot of good can be done in this world, why do we go out of our way to do that which is not good?
Russell A. Simmons
