Dear Editor,
Imagine that you have studied hard and as result enjoy a good salary. With this income you bought a humble cunucu house and a fuel-efficient car and even have money to spare to do nice things or to save to hold you over when times are tough.
And imagine that your younger brother who just turned 18, got a job and with his first pay-check immediately buys a Hummer which uses 100 florin fuel in three days. You don’t think that this is wise, but your brother is an “adult” and does not tolerate your meddling in his affairs. A little later he buys a two-story home with a big garden and a pool. He employs a cleaning lady and a gardener. He sends his two kids to the International School. That brings him to the end of his tether financially, a large part of his pay-check is practically completely spent within 5 days covering all these costs. He has just enough left to buy food. Your advice to lower his spending by getting a cheaper car and house, have less staff and a less expensive school is met with outrage: that never!
In the meantime, the Hummer has a serious technical defect and requires a substantial revision. His house requires substantial maintenance, the sewage broke down and his staff want a raise. Together with the school fees for his kids this means that he is in financial dire straits.
Imagine that your brother in his predicament comes to ask you for help. What do you do? Would you help him with your hard-earned savings because he is your little brother? I don’t think so! Who helps someone financially who maintains a lifestyle which everybody knows cannot be carried? So, you refuse to help as long as your brother does not choose for a more humble lifestyle.
Your dear brother then goes to the bank and succeeds to get new personal loans. But with the additional interest payments he sinks deeper in debt. The debt burden eventually becomes so heavy that even more desperate this time he comes to ask your help. You want to, but again under your “old” conditions. And again, he refuses, as result of which the situation escalates further.
Until there is a crisis and he loses his job and his income. He cannot pay the interest and repayment of the debt to the banks and is not able to get a new loan. In total desperation he knocks on your door again for help. What do you do? Of course, you help him as brother, but you too are affected by the crisis and have to get by with less income. So, you help him under but the sole condition, that he finally and immediately executes all the advice that you (?) repeated year after year without delay. And indeed, your brother chooses to take it, not leave it.
And imagine now that you are the Netherlands and that your headstrong brother is Aruba. And imagine that you have warned your brother all those years and given advice which also other friends of his have done. For Aruba these friends were the Council of Advice, the Central Audit Service, the Algemene Rekenkamer, the Central Bank, de Comision Financiero, the National Commission on Public Finance, the International Monetary Fund, etc. All that good and expensive (!) advice which structurally has been relegated to the trash bin by our successive governments. The result of this is shown amongst others by the totally derailed government finances, failing social services, education and the fight against crime, infrastructure and severe damage to the environment.
Then it is not too hard to imagine that just as the little brother has to take big steps to “survive”, Aruba also has to take necessary steps and lower its costs drastically if it wants to be considered for financial assistance to survive. It is then inconceivable that groups within the community, however important, can get a rain check for these adjustments.
In the end, many in Aruba carry a co-responsibility for the current financial-economic situation, even if this was by opportunistic voting behaviour and the chase for preferential treatment. And the complaint of politicians that our “autonomy” is violated by the severe conditions, should not be aimed at the big brother, but to the small “adult” brother who never even wanted to listen to advice of his best friends.
Armand Hessels
Armand Hessels is connected to the foundation Deugdelijk Bestuur Aruba
(www.deugdelijkbestuuraruba.org)
By Alex Rosaria
Curaçao has, so far, dodged the worst of the COVID-19. Team Gerstenbluth is doing an excellent job based on an effective science-based approach. We are, however, facing a choice between a risky reopening to tourists and further economic collapse. The trade-offs are perhaps starker considering our dependence on tourism and the fact that our tourists come mainly from places where COVID-19 is still spreading.
Yet, some decision-makers are irresponsibly pushing to quickly re-open our borders to save the economy. Firstly, the sorry state of our economy is only partially due to COVID-19. The bigger picture here is the lack of fundamentals (inflexible labour laws, a burgeoning civil servant structure, no export network, and salaries-on-steroids in state-controlled entities). Our dependence on tourism and lack of revenue diversity remain a real weakness.
After the cautious reopening of local businesses, our priority should be response requirements such as in-country testing and repatriation of stranded citizens. We need to be designing new economic policies that are in sync with the global reality. We need to redesign the NOW and other initiatives aimed to cushion the economic blow. It’s been proven that not much thought has gone into the institutional aspects of the aid package. There are already signs of corruption and misallocation of funds due to weak targeting.
Yes, we need to think about eventually opening for visitors since we will not be able to rapidly diversify our economy as long as we don’t take care of our weak economic structures. We must carefully weigh when to ease restrictions that would save jobs but risk the virus running amok. Imprudent opening is chilling to imagine and could cause a lot of unnecessary anxiety with our people. We are better off not ignoring the science.
~ Alex David Rosaria (53) is a freelance consultant active in Asia and the Pacific. He is a former Member of Parliament, Minister of Economic Affairs, State Secretary of Finance and UN Implementation Officer in Africa and Central America. He is from Curaçao and has an MBA from University of Iowa (USA). ~
Dear Editor,
It is interesting to see how Government is managing its negotiations with the unions representing government workers.
While on May 19 the Government presented to Parliament a so-called “take it or leave it” deal from the Kingdom Government and an attached deadline, from media reports it appears as if Government has some maneuvering space or at least, the Government seems to think it has maneuvering space to decide “don’t cut here, cut there.”
It is either that Government is not telling the whole truth regarding the conditions imposed by the Kingdom Government or the Government is taking the civil servants and their representatives for a ride.
Remarkable is also that during the discussions in Parliament, the members were not provided with the official communication to the Government of St. Maarten. Then you had the letter fiasco. One thing was clear in that exchange, however, both letters must have had the approval of the Prime Minister of St. Maarten.
It was a valiant attempt by the Minister Plenipotentiary to take responsibility for the “unconditional” letter, but it does not work like that.
What the Parliament did receive was Government’s proposed cost cutting measures dated May 13, which were nowhere close to the conditions imposed by Mr. Knops and agreed to by the Government of St. Maarten in its unconditional letter.
The Government is now intentionally downplaying this part of their agreement with Mr. Knops, whilst announcing the payments that are taking place in the context of the Stimulus and Relief Plan.
What will happen when this catches up with us? And catch up it will.
It is in my opinion high time that the offer by the Prime Minister be taken up to enlighten Parliament as to Government’s alternatives to this agreement with the Dutch and Kingdom Governments (one and the same), because obviously this brinkmanship cannot last.
Or was this announcement by the Prime Minister about alternatives to the Dutch conditions just another attempt to keep Parliament quiet and see how this situation will unfold?
I have posed the following questions to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.
* Has the Kingdom Government formally presented to the Government of St. Maarten its approval of the “COVID-19 loan” to St. Maarten and the conditions attached thereto? If so, please share this communication from the Kingdom Government.
* Does the Kingdom Government leave it open to replace their stated conditions with other cost-cutting measures? In other words, can the Government of St. Maarten fill in how they apply these conditions?
* What is the latest offer on the table for the unions that represent government workers?
* Is this a realistic and doable offer?
* How much negotiating space does the government of St. Maarten have?
* Has the Kingdom government demanded an overall quantitative reduction in the budget of the country or a reduction in specific items such as salaries and related benefits?
* When will the necessary (emergency) legislation be presented to parliament to effectuate the changes as proposed by government, including the budget amendments?
Sarah A. Wescot-Williams
Member of Parliament of St. Maarten
United Democrats party
Dear Editor,
While everyone is tightening their belts as the Prime Minister Silveria Jacobs suggests, no one is looking at some of the companies that will continue to earn as if nothing happened.
Insurance companies have not expressed any compassion. I paid the same bill for my insurance. I’m to be collecting a reduced salary yet have to pay the same bill. My car was parked for months. I should expect at least my car insurance should cost me less?
Our major insurance companies sit there quiet and continue to collect as we, the ordinary folk, collectively suffer.
They will claim, I’m sure, that property insurance has to be the same because if claims are made they have to pay in full. But I’m sure their profit margins on property insurance, after not having to pay out any major claims in the last two years, have the insurance sector buoyant.
Our government is touting cuts across the board. However, to the best of my knowledge the government has failed to address the need for the private sector to play their part. What is the profit margin of the insurance companies? Can they afford to cut rates for this year to 20 per cent?
Government so busy cutting our income they fail to address the reasonable fairness expectation of major companies to follow suit and help to cut our cost of surviving in St. Maarten.
Hoping to see a credit on my insurance bill or hoping the St. Maarten Government quickly realises they have to look into how to encourage the highly profitable private sector to pay their share.
Justin Ebenezer
I’m an outsider to your island, and I admit that freely. I am a tourist when I share the uncommon ground of Curaçao with you. But, along with my wife, I am a repeater. We keep returning to Curaçao. If we get down this year, it will be our fourth trip. Next summer we plan to bring our daughters as their high school graduation gift. Your island has gotten under our skin and, of all the places we’ve traveled, separately and together, Curaçao is the one place that my wife and I agree is the best place in our world. We feel at home – guests, yes, but welcome guests – whether we’re standing on the Swinging Old Lady or watching another splendid sunset sinking over the bay at Cas Abou.
