Dear Editor,

  Let me start my letter by stressing that there is absolutely nothing personal directed at no one. but I believe if we should be in this together, then together should be the key word.

  There are certain letters written to you, of which just by reading one or two paragraphs I have an idea by whom they were written. I try to avoid reading the name of the person writing to you before reading the letters to avoid being prejudiced while reading.

  On reading “We are all in this together” I recognized the genre. I can clearly remember my father asking me when I became a policeman, “Did you look up the meaning of the word policeman or police-officer in the dictionary? You are just 19 years old. Before you go out there beating on your chest telling people that you are a policeman you should know the meaning of the word and what it stands for.”

  Those things from my parents have always lingered with me, so using my dictionary and Googling is not strange to me. I am trying to avoid using the term “politician” because when I googled the definition of the word “politician” it is stated “a person who acts in a manipulative and devious way typically to gain advancement within an organization.” When I Google the word “devious” it states, “showing a skillful use of underhanded tactics to achieve goals” and the explanation given is “he’s as devious as a politician needs to be.” Reason why I usually write “people in government”.

  Emergency loans from Holland have always been necessary and as we should know, with Holland nothing is for nothing. For that matter there have always been conditions when countries lend others money – for instance, “you have to support me in the UN”, etc.

  I believe that as time went by, moneys allocated have ended up in the hands of the politicians, among others, so Holland knows who to touch for certain things to be exposed and here we have politicians trying to use the guilt-trip tactics on the civil servants.

  I am not a politician in no sense of the word and when I do not agree with certain decisions taken by government I usually look for someone close to government and let them know, before I write to you about it. I would expect if we are all in this together then we should get together and enlighten each other of how it has happened in the past and let each other know who we are dealing with.

  COVID-19 does not discriminate neither should we. What I know is that if I have 10 guilders and the other person has 1,000 guilders and both of us lose all our money, the person with the 1,000 guilders lost much more than me. That is my explanation for “the bigger you are the harder you fall.” There are some points in the last paragraph of that letter that I agree with, but as I mentioned before, yes, we are all in this together. “Together” being the key word.

  Speaking about together, there are a whole lot of “small supermarkets” in every corner of the island, which really have not been affected by the pandemic as other businesses were. When I look at who is working in those “small supermarkets” I do not or hardly see someone looking like me working in those “small supermarkets”, but we know who the owners are, and that is a type of business that we all have to patronize, whether there is price-gouging or not. Is the new normal going to be stringent (price) control on all businesses and permit holders?

  I have also noticed that there is an increase in the cement business and the drivers of dump trucks with particular nationals with two specific speaking accents. The new normal should become “St. Maarteners first” and nobody should dare accuse any St. Maartener, or for that matter anyone who is of that opinion, of discrimination.

  Do not we expect more people to be locked up? Do not we really know that Holland knows where the moneys have been going? And who is partners with who? I will repeat: The bigger you are the harder you fall.

  Share, do not hoard. I did not say “bad spend”, I said “share”. People’s patronization enables one. Share.

Russell A. Simmons

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,

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)

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