Dear Editor,
Whilst Caribbean economies claim to be looking out for opportunities to diversify their economies, in practice they have been slow to grab the opportunity that is presented by yachting.
The yachting industry is a more complex industry than stayover accommodation or cruise ships and this complexity is a big part of the reason for the slow take-up. The yachting industry is also highly stable and offers high-paying employment when the appropriate skills are offered, something that is often mentioned as a criterion for new industries to be considered in the Caribbean. Much of the employment also stimulates skill development.
Some territories are blessed with well-endowed geography to suit yachting and some are without that geography. Dominica and mainland St. Vincent fall into the latter category. Antigua, Grenada, St. Maarten and BVI [British Virgin Islands – Ed.] are in the former.
The industry is really a set of industries, connected only by the fact that a floating vessel is common in all. The “cruisers”, the superyachts, the day charter industry are all very different with different economic drivers and challenges.
The complexity of the industry would appear to be the most significant factor for Caribbean island nations. The territories that have done the best in recent years are those where policies are influenced by locals who have a high level of insight into the industry.
The manner in which different territories recently dealt with the opening up of the territories after the lockdown provides insight into government capabilities in sustaining or growing this sector.
The “cruising” part of the yachting industry involves a flotilla of boats of whom a great many cruise the islands in the winter season but return to the southern islands when the hurricane season approaches. But this season these islands had closed their ports in connection with the corona virus even though many were opening up when the season started.
The territories of Grenada and Aruba both created an opportunity that yachts could come in as long as they quarantined for a period on their yachts without contact ashore (usually 14 days) thereby attracting business whilst bearing no risk. Other territories, Trinidad and Curaçao decided they were closed and even though there was no infection risk when quarantining takes place (can be supplemented with testing) they deprived their marine industries of significant business. A powerful example of how governments may have to be adaptive and flexible with this complex industry.
The willingness of governments to understand this industry and appoint parties with insight to their policy-making institutions is a major factor. They must be prepared to explore yachting-suitable and country-suitable solutions in the fields of immigration, indirect taxation, marketing, event management and infrastructure investment in a manner that develops the industry and advances the country’s economic and social interests. Again and again one sees nonflexible policies undermining potential simply because it involves approaching a problem in a different manner.
They cannot pretend that yachting is the same as stayover tourism and can be dealt with in the same fashion. It is fundamentally different and requires different policies and facilitation.
The costs of facilitating the industry are relatively small compared to the costs of firstly attracting other attractive industries for diversification. Many of the niche industries that would be worth attracting would involve costs from a “standing start”. The yachting industry already has many years of operation in the islands and there are in some cases data on what the industry produces and costs. (Some islands have simply not collected obvious data.) The islands already know what the industry can produce in some respects; with facilitation and management it could be significantly more, but in any event more predictable that currently untested options.
Robbie Ferron
Dear Editor,
I listened to two radio programs on which matters of our constitutional nature were discussed. I do not claim to be a constitutional expert, however, it is expected of me as a representative of the people to be knowledgeable of the Constitution of St. Maarten, the rules of order of Parliament and the Kingdom Charter, amongst others. Note the order in which I listed them, however, fact is, the Kingdom Charter is a higher organ than the Constitution of St. Maarten.
A statement was made by this person, dubbed the constitutional expert, that St. Maarten is free. I emphatically disagree with that statement. We are not free. Indeed, they are correct in saying that the majority of the people voted to remain part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the June 23, 2000, referendum. Prior to this, in 1994 they voted to remain within the constellation of the Netherlands Antilles. Though I was not involved in politics until 3 years later, in my opinion the people voted to remain as part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands because the leaders of the respective parties were united on this option, and as a matter of fact campaigned for this status.
The person dubbed the constitutional expert began the discourse on one of the programs by reading the preamble of the Kingdom Charter of October 28, 1954, and placed emphasis on the statement “of their own free will”. In other words, the majority chose this status. Again, this is true. I, however, want to place emphasis on another phrase of the same preamble which says, “On the grounds of equality”.
And here is where the difference will be highlighted. Although equality is mentioned, the Dutch government highlighted in Article 3.1 what their competences are and that these cannot be changed by stating that, regardless of what is mentioned elsewhere in the Charter, competences of the Kingdom are, and it goes on to list what those are in the article with the letters a to h.
The same article states in point 2 that other subjects can in a general discussion be declared competences of the Kingdom. This means they can add more competences if they so desire. Article 55 is applicable in such a case. Article 55.1 states; The amendment of this Charter is done by Kingdom Law. Point 2 says, a proposal to make an amendment by the Second Chamber will not be approved by the King before it is accepted by Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten. This acceptance takes place by National Ordinance of Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten. Keep in mind that the Charter is a higher law than a national ordinance. What is noticeable is that if the proposal deviates from the Constitution (Grondwet), to be exact the Dutch Constitution, which is a higher law than the Kingdom Charter and higher than the national ordinances of Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten.
This is not being free. This is legal abuse, because if the Charter is in conflict with the Dutch Constitution in which we have no say, the Dutch Constitution will be the deciding document as it regards changes to the kingdom Charter. As to the issue of the “Entity”, what the Dutch government is also trying to do with this proposed entity is force governments to bind the elected representatives to an agreement without due process.
Article 38.1 of the Charter says the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten can make agreements amongst themselves. But here is the catch; in mutual deliberations it can be determined that such regulations and amendment of such can be determined by Kingdom Law or Kingdom General Measures.
Let us look at articles 15 to 22 of the charter as it relates to the process or procedure to be used when establishing a Kingdom Law. The process is started similarly to that mentioned in article 55.1, the difference being that the Ministers Plenipotentiary of Aruba Curaçao and St. Maarten are authorized to submit a proposal of its handling to the Second Chamber. The representatives of the country where this law will become applicable can – before its handling in the Second Chamber – investigate this and if such is needed, make a report before a
to-be-determined time frame.
The Minister Plenipotentiary can attend verbal deliberations of the First and Second Chambers and give information to the chambers if he so desires. The Minister Plenipotentiary can request one or more extraordinary delegates who are also authorized to attend the verbal meetings and give information. They are not liable for what they say or present in writing in the meetings of the First and Second Chamber. They can propose changes to the draft.
Article 38a says, the countries can among themselves make regulations/provisions to handle internal disputes. But the Kingdom council of Ministers decided unilaterally to shelve the different proposals for a dispute regulation for 3 years. Is this being free? We talk about these charters and constitutions.
My conclusion is that, and I share the statement made with the young man who acted in the movie called “The Great Debaters” said, “An Unjust Law is No Law at all.
George Pantophlet
Member of Parliament
Dear Editor,
To begin with, I would like to congratulate President Daniel Gibbs and Mr. Jean Hamlet for all their efforts and hard work in the creation of SAS TINTAMARRE corporation. This newly formed organization will go a long way in providing the beneficial services to the French community, and will also open the door for new development opportunities on French St. Martin. Such an important business venture came at a time when Dutch St. Maarten is desperately looking at new ways to diversify its economy. As new ideas and awareness of businesses are made possible on a daily basis, I am one who stands alone in recognizing any individuals for their outstanding work in the community for new development projects.
However, more important information on the organization can be found in The Daily Herald, July 6, 2020, Vol.30 No. 040. First of all, as previously stated in the newspaper, TINTAMARRE will provide the people of French St. Marten with some form of economic stability and financial prosperity in the near future. According to the promotors: The organization was in the making for the past three years, and it came a reality in 2020. This initiative was taken by President Daniel Gibbs and Mr. Jean Hamlet to create employment and generate income tax revenues for the Collectivité, and most importantly to provide an essential high speed Internet and other services for the community as well.
The investment capital is made up of 48,000 euros contributed by the Collectivité, representing 40 per cent of the number of shares in the corporation. Electricity de France (EDF) contributed shares of 60 per cent representing a value of 52,000 euros in the organization. The purpose of SAS TINTAMARRE was created to manage underground digital networks, and the development of high speed Internet in event of destructive storms. To maintain electricity and digital services after a hurricane. It is also responsible for burying and maintenance of the networks, but Internet services will remain the responsibility of private operators. The promotors made it very clear that the organization is a management company providing additional services such as burying cables and maintenance of networks etc.
Now, a careful look at some of the formation process regarding public corporation, public limited company (PLC), and private limited company (Ltd). Some of the characteristics of these organizations are quite different from a corporation; for example, a corporation is created by an act of parliament by the minister responsible for its trading activity with the general public. This type of organization is managed by a board appointed by the minister for the daily operation of the business on behalf of the public. The board must be held responsible for the way it makes use of public funds. Government established a corporation because some services are too important to be left in the hands private people.
Public corporations usually enjoy “economy of scale” because it usually has access to large-scale financing, and could afford to provide services much cheaper than its competitors in the marketplace. It provides employment to people in the community and also protectx jobs for citizens in the country. If President Gibbs controls 40 per cent of the stake in SAS TINTAMARRE it is a good decision for the people on the French side. The 60 per cent shares issued to EDF is also important because it has the experience and technological skills to handle cable operations in the country.
As the Collectivité emphasizes, it is only involved in the managerial operation of the company. EDF will handle the cable operation and other high-tech services that go with it. The transfer of shares to private individuals: If Gibbs sells 10 per cent of his share to an outside operator, he will leave 30 per cent. The new shareholder with the 10 per cent could join with EDF, and Gibbs will lose control of his position in the organization. If EDF sells 10 per cent of their shares, they will leave with 50 per cent. That new holder can link up Gibbs and give him the same control as EDF.
This strategy is common in corporations. Shares can change hands in the business even when it is operating. I think operator(s) who want to be part of SAS TINTAMARRE or get involved should do so by contract of work instead of looking to earn shares in the company. I also noted where President Daniel Gibbs is seeking for governance control in Semsamar. This is also a good initiative because he earns 51 per cent of the shares in that company. The people should support him to be in that position.
More on public and private limited companies: A company is a legal entity. It is an incorporated body separated from the people owning it. A public company must have a minimum of two directors and an authorized share capital of about US $50,000, and allotment of that amount in shares in order to trade with the public. It must have a minimum of two directors. It can issue its shares for sale to the public, and can advertise it shares on the Stock Exchange. It can issue debentures or bonds in order to raise loan capital. It must carry the initials (PLC) after its name.
A private company usually has one director. It doesn’t have a limit requirement to raise capital. It cannot advertise shares to the public. It usually controlled by family members or close friends. It must carry the initials (Ltd) at the end. There are other abbreviations in different languages associated with companies such as GMBH, SARL, BV, N.V., etc.
In summary, it is important to note that a company is a separate entity from the people owning it. A good book for young adults to read today is the The Richest Man in Babylon; very inspiring!
Joseph Harvey
Dear Editor,
It is becoming more and more obvious that Holland is not being forthcoming with St. Maarten. Action speaks louder than words.
Within one month’s time Marnix van Rij twice publicly decided the status of COVID-19 of St. Maarten. Last month around June 16 I sent you a letter concerning Van Rij deciding and publicly stating the status of COVID-19 on St. Maarten. In today’s paper again Statia has increased the level of COVID-19 risk in St.Maarten from low to medium and as a consequence Winair will discontinue its flights from St. Maarten to Statia. That is why I want to know why is Holland doing this?
It did not dawn on me the last time but today I realized that it is only Statia behaving this way towards St. Maarten. In a case like this I would have expected the news to be that Winair discontinues flights to Statia and Saba owing to the fact that the same Winair leaves from the same medium-risk country to go to both Statia and Saba. which are both Caraibish Nederland.
Is there already a rift between the islands that we are not aware of or is it so that Europees Nederlander Van Rij is playing the game while Caraibish Nederlander Johnson refuses? I am eagerly awaiting an explanation.
One would think that the risk of acquiring the virus would be the same for both islands, so why one and not the other?
Please let us know if there is something else that we on St. Maarten are not being made aware of. When things like these happen, people begin to speculate. Owing to the fact that it concerns Winair, what crossed my mind is the difference in the airports. Many different planes can land on Statia, but up to now only helicopters and Twin Otters on Saba.
Russell A. Simmons
Dear Editor,
It annoyed me, the recent lobby letter written by the employers’ organisation VNO-NCW about financial aid to Curaçao, Aruba and St. Maarten. A group of famous Dutch people demanded that our country should not set conditions to this support. I understand that Hans de Boer, foreman of the large companies, took this initiative.
Many Dutch entrepreneurs, consultants and tax specialists earn a lot of money on the islands. The poor people on the island don’t benefit from that. However, I was amazed at the support for this lobby by Alexander Pechtold (D66) and Paul Rosenmöller (GroenLinks). Politicians who know the islands very well. Rosenmöller has even investigated corruption in Curaçao in the past.
The islands are rich, but the differences between the people are painful. If the Netherlands does not set conditions, that money will not reach the poor who desperately need the support. It doesn’t reach the people who have lost their jobs and the families where children haven’t got enough to eat.
George Jamaloodin became the first minister of finance of the new country of Curaçao in October 2010. Now this politician is in prison and has been sentenced to 28 years in prison for his involvement in the murder of MP Helmin Wiels, his coalition partner back then.
At the beginning of 2010 Jamaloodin had bribed the head of security of the secret service of Curaçao VDC. One month before Curaçao would become an autonomous country on October 10, 2010, Jamaloodin travelled to St. Maarten, together with this head of security at the VDC. They had a private meeting with Gerrit Schotte, the future prime minister of Curaçao; with Theo Heyliger, who was the most powerful politician in St. Maarten, and with Francesco Corallo, the Italian gambling boss. Schotte and Heyliger, meanwhile, have been sentenced to long prison terms for fraud and corruption. Corallo is on trial in Italy for large-scale fraud and bribing politicians.
Criminal plans
I know about this remarkable meeting through reports I have received that show how, before October 10, 2010, criminals made plans to take over power in the autonomous countries of Curaçao and St. Maarten by a devilish trinity of the gambling industry, with ties to the Italian mafia, consultants, often from the Netherlands, and some local politicians that could be bribed.
The VDC was ransacked a year after Schotte came to power on Curaçao. All information was destroyed, copied or stolen. In addition, information from the Dutch secret service AIVD and the American secret service CIA would also have come into the hands of criminals. Schotte also tried to make Corallo or his financial right-hand man the president of the Central Bank of Curaçao and St. Maarten. This was prevented at the last minute, partly due to the actions of a number of Dutch Members of Parliament.
Bad relations
Relations between the Netherlands and the other countries of the Kingdom are bad, we must conclude 10 years after the autonomy of Curaçao and St. Maarten. The support that our country wants to give in fighting the consequences of the corona crisis has led to accusations against the Netherlands, mainly because of the conditions set on helping. Yet these conditions are not that strange, they must above all ensure that the money ends up with the people most affected by the crisis.
The Netherlands also requests that local politicians make a contribution by discounting their often very generous allowances. It is also requested that the many millionaires on the islands make their contribution and pay decent tax. That has not happened in the past 10 years. If the supporters of VNO-NCW were to behave more decently, the countries of Curaçao and St. Maarten would be financially healthier and could invest more.
In 2005, Minister Alexander Pechtold came to the Senate to speak to the senators about the future of the Kingdom. That year a referendum was held in Curaçao, in which the population had chosen not to become independent, but an autonomous country within the Kingdom. The same was the choice of the people in St. Maarten.
At the time I was a member of the Senate. Pechtold received questions about the negotiations and proudly said that the Netherlands had pledged more than two billion euros in debt restructuring. There was a deep silence in the small room in the Senate. An old senator took the floor and asked what the minister had in return. The answer came as a shock: nothing at all. No demands for good governance and good finances. After Schotte and his ministers took office, it turned out that no screening had even taken place.
No confidence
In 2010 I voted against the new relations. I wholeheartedly wanted the people on the islands to have their autonomy, but I had no confidence in the future of Curaçao and St. Maarten, because the islands were just not ready for this. Also, because the relationship with the Netherlands remained unclear. These countries were autonomous and responsible for their own politics, but the Netherlands remained responsible for good governance and healthy finances.
It was not clear how we could fulfil that responsibility – and our country did not succeed. Money disappeared soon after Heyliger and Schotte came to power. The judge said in Schotte’s conviction that the prime minister had behaved like a “puppet” of the gambling industry. From bosses like Corallo, whose accounting was done for years and was approved by KPMG’s accountants.
On my initiative (in a proposal adopted in April 2015), a large-scale investigation started into the connection between the criminal and the political world on all the islands, in particular between the gambling industry and politics. This has partly led to Schotte and Heyliger being under lock and key and many other politicians, consultants and gambling bosses have also been convicted or have been subject of investigation (lately also in Aruba). This is important because the islands have no future as long as they are under the control of the criminal world. But it is especially bad that the Netherlands has let it come to this. That we made these autonomous countries 10 years ago and let them fall into the hands of criminals. That is a heavy responsibility for all politicians in the Netherlands, also for Pechtold and Rosenmöller.
Intimidation
In July 2015 I received a letter from Gerard Spong, a famous Dutch lawyer. He filed a lawsuit because I called his client Francesco Corallo a mafia boss. However, it never came to an actual case, because Corallo is a mafia boss. Corallo is now on trial in Italy for large-scale fraud and money-laundering and bribing politicians from the Berlusconi government.
I was not surprised that Corallo sent me that letter. Unfortunately, this kind of intimidation is common on the islands. However, I found it remarkable that the lawyer Spong lent himself for this intimidation of a Dutch MP. Many politicians on the islands will not stand up to this kind of scare. I know that there are many politicians in Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten who want the best for their beautiful island, but who no longer dare to speak freely in the last 10 years.
I wholeheartedly support the help that the Netherlands will offer to the other countries in the Kingdom, which we are obliged to our fellow citizens. But at the same time, we must put an end to the diabolical trinity of Antillean politics. As an MP, I have tried to make my contribution by tackling the gambling mafia, such as the research into politics and the gambling industry, and by addressing the consultants who make money laundering possible.
I am proud that KPMG was closed in the Caribbean last year. But it hurts me that we now have to solve problems that the Netherlands has also caused itself. The dirty gambling bosses, or the dubious consultants, are often people from outside and not from the islands themselves. A small wealthy group on the islands enriches itself thanks to bad governance. The poor population in particular pays the price for this.
Failed Kingdom
In every government capital in the Kingdom they are thinking about the future. In The Hague, in Willemstad, in Oranjestad and in Philipsburg, everywhere the conclusion must be that we cannot go on like this. This Kingdom has failed and it is now up to the inhabitants to decide how to proceed. Let the inhabitants of the islands make a choice. What do they want their own politicians to do, and with what matters the Netherlands should no longer interfere? What tasks do they prefer the Netherlands to perform, whereby The Hague should also be given the opportunity to really do this?
In July last year, the Second Chamber passed my proposal asking all four countries to give their views on the Kingdom and who is responsible for what. With the support of the parties of Pechtold and Rosenmöller. I continue to advocate for help to those on the islands who deserve our help and support. At the same time, we will have to learn from the past mistakes.
Ronald van Raak
Member of the Dutch Parliament’s Second Chamber for the Socialist Party (SP)
