Today there will be elections in the country. In the last formation of government, the Ombudsman has advised on a wide coalition basis to be formed. This advice was not followed and we are now heading to the next election since we got a new constitutional status on 10-10-10.
Generally, it is unfortunately during the political elections too much about doing favors for family and friends. It is sad that there are still candidates who are on a list as “job seekers”. “I have to get a job out of this” is not thinking on a country level. The mindset should be transformed into “How do I use my skills for the country to move forward?” You can do this through various ways. The political arena may be one of the vehicles.
But, why would I actually vote in the first place?
Because it is my democratic right, I want to use with dignity. Voting is the act of citizenship per definition. Democracy is working with my voice. Voting protects my freedom in general and specifically my freedom of choosing officials. Casting my vote gives me the opportunity to choose the leaders I want to represent us; we would like to choose people who we trust, who view our ideas best.
There are many countries where people cannot choose who is pulling the strings. Fortunately, we have democracy in Sint Maarten.
Your vote makes no difference? My vote does not matter, is a common excuse not to vote. That is literally not making your voice heard. My individual vote might not be decisive, but in a democracy, it is the right to all those votes together. My vote carries to the total, bringing with it all those other votes to shape the future of the country. In this way my voice definitely makes a difference. The government plays a vital role in our daily life, with my voice I can influence that. Therefore, yes, my vote makes a difference.
No idea who you should vote for?
For such a small population and island like St. Maarten, there are many candidates, so lots of choices out there. All parties have good intentions and manage to bring their great ideas forward. You do not need to agree on every single detail of a party. You can make it clearer for yourself to choose. Begin with putting the parties aside which performed terribly. Or, those politicians who have been sitting enough in the seats of government in the past, but have achieved little of their promises. Consider which topics you find the most important and see which parties connect to these themes in your opinion. You can then easily compare the few remaining ones.
A “Voting Guide” would be able to help. So far, I did not see one in St. Maarten.
I believe that we really need to move towards installing a performance assessment of our members of parliament. What have they accomplished during their governing period? We should develop relevant performance indicators for this. Based on their presence in meetings, their experiences and their performance they should get their salaries.
In former elections, my substantive “content-driven campaign”, in an environment with few friends and no family in St. Maarten, did not result for me to become a member of parliament. However, I will definitely vote for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
With still too few women in leadership positions and in the political arena, there is no real balance in power. There are enough intelligent, energetic women out there, so there is hope for a better future.
We need those reliable, transparent, hard-working women at the forefront. Women need to claim their leading roles in government, NGOs [non-governmental organisations – Ed.] and the private sector, as they do so in their households.
I would furthermore opt for a constructive cooperation with our kingdom partners and with similar countries in the region. I believe that that is the way to go for our national development.
Finally, my advice to voters would be: Use your voting right. Let democracy work. Vote wise, look at content and actions, with a sustainable development of St. Maarten in mind, and give energetic, transparent women a chance.
Loekie Morales
Dear Editor,
The claim by a sitting US president that major General Qasem Soleimani, the former head and now deceased of the Quds forces of the elite Islamic revolutionary guards, was planning “imminent attacks on US personnel and diplomats in the region, hence his unilateral decision to terminate him”, has, thus far ,amounted to nothing but a plain and frank assertion. And begs even further the question, who is next? Numerous media houses with mixed agendas have packaged and sold this assertion to millions of viewers and readers globally, in the process popularising and in many cases justifying the actions of Trump.
There are still, and will continue to be, legal uncertainties as to whether Trump had a legitimate basis for ordering the hit, murder or assassination (interpretations abound) of General Soleimani on foreign soil. And by extension whether these legal uncertainties, if remain unsettled, will serve to further embolden Trump to act again in similar circumstances on the basis of an assertion.
The gathering and employment of credible intelligence and evidence in furtherance of military operations is the hallmark of most successfully executed operations. The US, however, to the detriment of many, has over the decades been able to concoct a myth around its intelligence apparatus, portraying it as the source of absolute, infallible, credible and competent information that can withstand legal scrutiny and be found credible in any functioning international court or any functioning judiciary for that matter; this is the epitome of arrogance.
This imperialistic tendency to discredit without consideration or due diligence has long catapulted the US intelligence services to a position tantamount to being on a pedestal. Just the mere mention of the claim “the United States has intelligence that X is planning an attack on Y” (Y being its interest) is sufficient grounds for X to be eliminated. Interestingly enough, there are usually no other methods available to contain or address the “threat” posed by X. X must be murdered or assassinated almost whimsically, under the powers granted to one individual (so much for self- advancement and self- gratification). This individual is at the centre of the universe which in turn revolves around him or her.
If a group of persons is empowered by a state, in this case the US, to operate under a veil of secrecy, whose mandate it is to police and report on the activities of its citizens and non-citizens whom they perceive to be acting or harboring intentions that are potentially harmful and destructive to the safety and well-being of others, then there ought to be evidence to substantiate such a perception or assertion. Until this is forthcoming, claims continue to be just what they are – claims.
And if this is the modus operandi of the US intelligence services, and the trend seems to suggest it is, then it is reasonable to assume that a simple claim or assertion unaccompanied by substantial evidence which should be independently verified is more than enough to arbitrarily select and terminate individuals anywhere on the planet.
Who polices the intelligence services and their operatives that supply information and intelligence for decision-making at the highest levels? These are individuals whose lives are lived almost entirely in the shadows and in some instances literally don't exist.
How can the observing public say, with any degree of certainty, in the absence of proof, that the claim made by Trump that General Solemani was planning “imminent attacks” has any semblance of truth? One can argue that with support for Trump waning domestically, largely as a result of been embroiled in US history’s third impeachment, where his very moral integrity and authority are also on trial in itself can erode his moral capital for making claims to truth elsewhere.
The office of the US president, and by extension its holder, is seen as the custodian of moral authority. Now with this character trait severely compromised on the home front, does he continue to enjoy the moral superiority essential for him to be trusted domestically and internationally?
There are quite a few interesting analyses, particularly from Stratfor, as to what and who may have been primarily responsible for the demise of General Solemani. Geopolitics aside, one has to look at what happened fundamentally, and it was clear that one individual decided to act solely on the basis of an assertion yet to be proven, to terminate the lives of others. It was a case bordering on jungle law where the judge, jury and executioner are in the likes of one person.
Orlando Patterson
Dear Editor,
Again, during another unfortunate election cycle, the environment, sustainable development and conservation are taking a back seat amidst the current political discourse engulfing our country. This despite our country needing to develop amidst the uncertainties which we will face due to a changing global climate.
St. Maarten needs a Green New Deal. Democrats in the American House are doing it. The European Parliament is in the process of implementing it, yet here we are on our beautiful rock in the Caribbean dragging our toes in the sand. During this “Silly Season” of political discourse I have yet to come across a party platform where the conservation of the environment, the protection of natural areas and species, the move towards sustainable energy, the placing of sustainable social, environmental and economic development are a central tenet. There are a few candidates who, to be fair, have pushed certain elements of sustainability, climate change resiliency and conservation as a fragment of their campaigning, but definitely not enough.
Dear Editor,
By now the people of St. Maarten who are faithful readers of The Daily Herald are aware that on many occasions I have called for civics to be added to the curriculum in our schools. Children have to know from an early age how their country is governed and they should also know their obligations as well as their rights and they should also know who their leaders in government are and how they got to be in that position.
One would think that after so many times of toppling the government, politicians from St. Maarten would have mastered the rules and regulations guiding the political elections. To my surprise two days before election I read in the paper that there are many misconceptions about “time off to vote” and that candidate Samuel calls for Election Day rules and regulations to be crystal clear, while outlining the different rules that were used for the many political elections that we have had in just nine-plus years. And then, as if it is a favor or novelty, the Minister of Education is making sure to save his hide by announcing, again just a few days before elections, that schools would be closed on election day.
Do these things really have to be emphasized? One would think that those laws, rules and regulations would be known and if there were any changes then these would be made known in time and published. This again tells me that our people in government, especially the seasoned ones, never took time and are still not taking time to establish laws, rules and regulations so that the people can be duly informed.
One of the things that caught my attention during conversations in the presence of Claude “Chacho” Peterson was his command of the laws of the Constitution of St. Maarten. Something that I have wanted and still want is for the people of St. Maarten to be well-versed in civics.
One has to know what his/her country is about to be able to be stable and also be able to represent what his/her country.is. Sad to say, two days before elections I have to read in the paper that many people are not aware of simple rights. One would think that with professional educators who have been in leading positions in government for years as well as politicians who have made use of the schoolchildren to promote themselves they would be sympathetic to educating the people of the land, but this is not conducive because we are going to make the people aware.
Russell A. Simmons
First of all, we have to correct a longstanding misunderstanding. We all think that our 15 Members of Parliament (MPs) are members of one of the 4 parties represented in Parliament, namely NA, UD, SMCP and US Party. This is a wrong assumption! We have on St Maarten a one-party system: The “Me Only Foh Me“ party!
The so called parties are a subdivision of the “Me Foh Me“ party. The MPs are solely interested in their own financial gains and those of their cronies. St. Maarten is being plundered by these smooth talkers who are only interested in we the people on election day.
Also, we cannot speak of the often mentioned “ship jumping”. The MPs cannot jump ship since they are already all on the same ship. They move from port to starboard to find new “soulmates”. How else can you be one day party leader of a party and the other day the party leader of another party? You guessed right – Same ship, the S/S “Me Only Foh Me”. And so, the story goes on. More plundering by the same faces. Nothing really changes.
Therefore, it is time for a change and to vote out all the established so-called “parties.” It is time for 15 new faces in Parliament, of people who have St. Maarten at heart, a “We Foh St. Maarten People” party. Not solely on election day interested in we the people, but during their whole tenure in Parliament.
Name withheld at author's request.
