Dear Editor,
The proposed law “Wet herstelvoorziening St. Eustatius” is designed with the idea that this step, once approved, initiates the actions needed that would result in the restoration of the democratic processes on St. Eustatius. This step can further be seen as the second phase of what is projected to be a plan to create a renewed and sustainable governing structure on St. Eustatius. The State Secretary has based his actions with regard to St. Eustatius on the Report of the “Committee of Wise Men”. These actions seem to be divided into 3 phases.
Phase 1: Intervention (2018-2020)
Phase 2: Transition from intervention to government process as defined in WOLBES (2020-2024)
Phase 3: Restoration of governing process in accordance to WOLBES , FINBES and other regulation that govern the 3 BES Islands. (2024 and beyond)
In order to comment on the draft law is it important to view this particular phase as a part of the totality of actions as laid out by the State Secretary. The report of the “Committee of Wise Men” provided credible arguments supporting the need for a form of intervention that would address the disregard for law and order and general dysfunction of the local Island Government.
The report also expressed the need to address the failure within the existing supervisory structures (island governor, kingdom representative , CFT, minister) which contributed to the deterioration of the rule of law of and breakdown in relations between the Island and Federal Governments.
The Phase 2 as laid out by the state secretary focusses on the strengthening of Island Government and supporting structures necessary to create an environment that would result in sustainable government in the future. Less attention has been placed on the strengthening/improvement of the supervisory structures which play an equally important role in the creation of a sustainable governing structure.
The first step of the intervention plan included the removal of Island and Executive Councils and Island Governor. These were replaced by the function of Government Commissioners whose task was the restoration of supporting government apparatus and improvement of Island Infrastructure that should have created the conditions needed for subsequent phases.
In addition, the State Secretary proposed the postponement of elections in order to allow the Commissioners to execute their task outside of a politically charged environment. Recognizing the need for community involvement, an advisory council was installed in order to provide the Commissioner with feedback with regard to actions planned and executed.
The sudden removal of Island and Executive Councils while immediately ending the chaos on local level created an environment of exclusion and lack of information. Without the checks and balances provided via the division of authority (trias politica) between legislative and executive branches of government and the void in public dialog of the Island Council the community of St. Eustatius was excluded from the process of restructuring their government.
The participation of the public via the democratic process is imperative to creating a sustainable governing structure. The experience of phase 1 has shown that the use of town hall meetings and the creation of the advisory council does not adequately provide information to, nor ownership of, the processes within the community that are necessary for long term success. Within a democratic society it is important to realize that sustainable solutions can only be found via the strengthening of the democratic process, checks and balances, and the ownership that this creates.
Phase 2. The proposed law “Wet herstelvoorziening St. Eustatius” which is designed to transition from phase one into phase 2 for all practical purposes will likely be experienced simply as an extension of phase 1.
The creation of an Island Council without the authority to influence the affairs of the Island significantly undermines the credibility of such an Institution and the “democratic” process designed to create it. While it seems logical that a transition is needed in order to gradually transfer authority from the current governing structure to the structure as defined in 10-10-10, the currently proposed legislation proceeds to once again place complete executive and legislative authority on the same body (government commissioner), in fact simply resulting in an extension of phase 1.
In reading the draft legislation it appears that the state secretary is of the opinion that insufficient progress has been made to commence phase 2, which should be the restoration of authority. By drafting legislation which in practice undercuts the idea of transfer of authority there is a further risk of undermining the democratic election process which will likely be viewed by the public as symbolic resulting in lack of participation on all levels.
In order to move toward with the creation of a sustainable governing structure it is important to clearly identify the benchmarks necessary to move from one stage to the next. If the benchmarks are not achieved the extension of the phase is in order. This creates a structured approach establishing what milestones are required and the recognition of the accomplishment by the progression to the next phase.
Adoption of the law in its current form creates uncertainty with regard to the transition, raising questions such as, when will the Executive Council be appointed? When will the Island Council regain its authority? And most importantly, what are the conditions under which these dates will be established?
In conclusion, the current draft legislation does not accomplish the purpose for which it should have been intended, namely the transitioning from phase 1 into phase 2. It can be argued that in order to move forward toward a sustainable governing structure the steps from one phase to the next should be significant in impact, both seen and felt.
Assuming that there is a general consensus, which can be concluded based on the draft law, that insufficient progress has been achieved in the past 2 years to commence phase two, then it is advised that phase 1 be extended.
If it is assumed that sufficient progress has been made or other circumstance dictate that the time for phase 2 is now, then it is recommenced to reinstate both Executive and Island Councils while maintaining the Government Commissioners with Supervisory and VETO authority. This allows for the Government and supporting apparatus to enter the new phase while maintaining far reaching Supervisory Authority.
In addition, this further allows the community to recognize their involvement via their elected officials while being provided with the assurance of supervision. Such a step allows the Island and Executive Councils to resume their responsibilities under guidance and supervision and enables the supporting government apparatus to resume functioning, taking into account the roles of Island and Executive Councils. This is a necessary step in order to move to phase 3 in which restoration of authority outlined within the WOLBES can be achieved.
Referring to the report of the Committee of Wise Men regarding the strengthening of the supervisory authorities as defined in WOLBES, FINBES by introducing a phase 2 which allows for the re-instatement of Island and Executive Councils under enhanced supervision, attention can be placed on the step needed to strengthen the supervisory authority of, for example, Island Governor, Kingdom Representative, CFT, Minister BZK, as it relates to the supervisory roles in relation to the Island Governments.
I am of the opinion that the main goal of the intervention is restoration of the democratic processes and government of St. Eustatius in line with existing laws and legislation; however, I believe this should be accomplished through responsible, inclusive and transparent processes.
Central to any sustainable solution must be the recognition and involvement of the people of St. Eustatius. With the failure to recognize the importance of the democratic ownership of the people of St. Eustatius in this process, we run the risk of making the time, effort and finances spent an exercise in futility.
Gerald Berkel
Dear Editor,
Does denying the fact of one’s suffering help? The negation of hardship is itself the denial of life, as suffering and its myriad of forms is one of the impersonal and neutral possibilities of human existence. During the course of our lives we build towering dykes to protect and surround ourselves from the all too present chaos; but everything including our marriages, bank accounts, friends, families, health, etc. could be ripped away from us. None of us is entitled to anything.
Adversity and hardship are not inherently bad or good, they do not possess an innate purpose; rather it’s our thinking that makes them so. Suffering doesn’t have the power to harm us unless we give our consent to, as X and Y could be exposed to similar circumstances but choose to walk away with different experiences and perspectives. X chooses to look and mine for the diamonds that are always present while Y being in victim mode waddles in the muck and mud unmindful of the treasures present. The final battleground is always the conscious projection of our thoughts, we retain the element of choice at all times.
Whatever we choose to see will inevitably be what will always be reflected to us. If we look upon the world in a rational manner the world will in return present a rational response, it’s all mutual. True transformation resides and begins first with acceptance. Accept the moment as it presents itself. Resisting the itch to attach to it any label, thought, emotion or desire will give us a sense of distance. As Eckhart Tolle said, “Become a friend to the moment.”
Separating ourselves by preventing our thoughts, emotions, desires and feelings from becoming contaminated, we can then look at the moment from afar as something that is separate and apart from us. With this awareness we then get to choose our response by deciding what thought or emotion we will deploy and utilize to define the here-and-now. In this state, whatever we choose to ascribe to our present situation will always emerge first from within and control what is without, the internal ruling the external. As the biblical maxim says, “we reap what we sow”; sow joy and reap its bliss, conversely if we sow sadness, worry and anxiety we can be assured of its debilitating depression.
Trying to wrestle with an undesirable and unpleasant situation some of which are entirely outside of our control will almost always tire us out. Whatever we resist will persist, where our thought goes energy flows. If we think more about our unwanted situations we will invariably receive more unwanted situations in our lives and abundantly so, too.
Instead let’s consciously choose to focus and concentrate our thoughts and energy on the circumstances we desire, choosing to focus on creativity and productivity rather than scarcity and fear. It is counterproductive and futile to center our thoughts on something we are not desirous of experiencing. We ought to concentrate on the outcomes we desire.
To experience hardship is to live, as it is what makes us human. And I don’t know the extent to which someone can claim to have lived rich and fulfilling lives that were devoid of adversities. Those among us who shun and constantly try to evade hardships may be circumventing opportunities for discovering unknown capacities of the human spirit.
These missed opportunities can serve to put us out of sync with humanity; failing to unite us at our core, making us less aware of our collective experiences of hardship. This is quite understandable as many among us are not psychologically prepared to face or endure adversity. And with a low threshold for its tolerance they will quickly collapse and disintegrate, unable to recover.
Eschewing conditions that invite us to flex our spiritual muscles and test our state of mental preparedness in the face of adversity will leave us uncertain and without confidence. We then become quickly consumed by despair and anxiety to the point where we are unable to make healthy choices when faced with novel experiences.
Misfortunes are indifferent to all of us, in some cases it is of our own making while entirely outside of our control in others. Lacking the spiritual and mental resources to endure adversity when we are confronted by it doesn’t help, since none of us are immune or exempted from it.
Affirming our own suffering is a given of life, experiences gained can increase our range of coping mechanisms. It teaches us if we are willing to learn lessons about ourselves. Some of the most beautiful and inspiring works of creative artistic expressions were produced by individuals while exposed to some of the most soul-crushing human conditions.
William Ernest Henley wrote the poem “Invictus” while under difficult and trying circumstances, Viktor Frankl “Man’s Search for Meaning” and Primo Levi “If this is Man” are accounts of what life was like while being prisoners at Auschwitz. These men are a few among many men and women who refuse to be defined by their external circumstances, but choose instead to marshal the powers of their minds to motivate, inspire and encourage themselves and others. Two of the most quoted lines of the poem “Invictus” sum it all up: “I am the master of my fate” and “I am the captain of my soul.”
We should never allow the power to choose our attitude and response in any given set of circumstances to depart from us.
Orlando Patterson
Dear Editor,
Twenty-nine years ago, in August 1991, the Internet went public. Those of us who grew up on this island before there was a World Wide Web came of age in a world in which information was not easy to access and, therefore, knowledge was more difficult to acquire than it is today. Way back then, but still not that long ago, very few of us could afford to learn by traveling to Europe, to the USA or to anywhere else in the world. The schoolhouse, books and magazines, one or two local newspapers, movies, magazines, radio, and (later) television were the means from which we got our information/representations and could acquire some knowledge.
Nowadays, propaganda (information/misinformation/disinformation) is plentiful and much easier to access. Consequently, knowledge is also more readily accessible for those who are curious, and who have the time and the means to do the research required to become well informed. It is unfortunate that there are still folks on this island and elsewhere in the world who, for all sorts of reasons, do not own a computer or a smart phone that would enable them to communicate with others instantly both locally and globally, allowing them to obtain information online, on Internet sites all over the world.
Three months ago, minus a few days, in my “Payback and Projection: the Impeachment of President Trump” (letter to the editor of The Daily Herald, January 30, 2020), I argued that the US Senate impeachment trial of President Trump was an “ill-conceived exercise in progressive projection and propaganda … the staging of a narrative designed to project onto others, onto the Republicans and onto President Trump, in particular, the corruption of the Democrats.” I opined that the US Senate trial was “a kitchen fire: lots of smoke” that had to be “deprived of oxygen; snuffed out promptly lest it erupts into an inferno precisely when the nation may have to battle a real world menace: the Coronavirus.”
Today, almost three months later, the Coronavirus/COVID-19 is a pandemic, a worldwide inferno. Have the Democrats and their powerful allies in the mainstream media (mass media) learned anything from their witch trial in the US Senate, their earlier failed coup d’état and Mueller Investigation? Not one bit! On the contrary, they have grown more enraged. Now, today, they are accusing their President of having fiddled while Rome was burning: of having procrastinated while COVID-19 was contaminating the US and the world.
In reality, this virus originated in communist China. Officials of China’s repressive communist government manipulated and misled the World Health Organization (WHO) on the matter. They also refused (are still refusing) to allow the WHO and Western scientists to participate in an examination of the outbreak of the virus in Wuhan province.
Today, officials of the communist Chinese government are engaged in a cover-up of their misdeeds, but the proof of their perfidy is indisputable: shortly after the outbreak of the virus, they suspended all travel from Wuhan province to other parts of China, thereby protecting all other parts of their country while allowing travel out of Wuhan to other parts of the world (to Europe, to the US, and to everywhere else). This may account for the rapid spread of the virus in Europe, in the US (despite President Trump’s January 31, 2020, early wise restriction of travel into the US from China), to Australia and throughout the world.
In his Republic, one of the world’s most influential works of philosophy and political theory, if not the most influential, Plato reviews a number of key philosophical ideas. “Justice,” the “just person,” the “just city,” the “origin of knowledge,” the “nature of reality” and the “problem of representation” are some of the key-subjects considered. Plato advises us to beware of representations: the “shadows on the wall of the cave” in which we are imprisoned. He urges us to break loose from our confinement; to exit our cave and examine representations in bright sunlight. But he warns us that once we have probed and pierced the veil of the shadows, once we have viewed them in bright sunlight, life back among our fellow cave dwellers will become a most challenging and dangerous enterprise.
Projection is a defense mechanism in which individuals attribute to others characteristics they find unacceptable in themselves. Reader, these are trying times. If you have access to a computer, Google: “YouTube out of shadows,” the interesting and informative video that was posted on the Internet earlier this month.
Gérard M. Hunt
Dear Editor,
As your elected Member of Parliament and confidant, I take this platform to communicate various updates, government initiatives, etc. with my beloved friends and community.
At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, our government’s decision of lockdown has made us introspect and retrospect various permutations of its execution.
This was not an easy decision to make and continues to challenge the implementation part of it.
It may seem that we are just a small island. However, the undeniable fact is, our exposure to tourism cannot be calibrated at a miniscule level. With over a million tourists visiting us, our exposure has been immense to contract more cases and fatalities. Hence, keeping this crucial thought in mind, social distancing and subsequently lockdown has proven to be beneficial to minimize the global outbreak.
Just like everything, the decision of lockdown dawned on us with economic, social and legal repercussions.
Government has diligently taken some applaudable measures to curb trickling issues like emotional stress, by facilitating Mental Health Foundation support.
It has enabled bodies to tackle abusive and violence cases.
We see our government leveraging food support to incapacitated income people.
Our front-line members, who on daily basis mask their fears without any second thoughts, muster courage and take a lead to battle this crisis relentlessly.
All the initiatives are meticulously taken by maximizing with available resources we have in existence on our island.
Despite their own alarming cases and fatalities, our biggest and consistent portal of support, our kingdom partners, have been expediting lifesaving support to us. They have sent us law enforcement team, economic relief, medical equipment, etc., for which we will continue to be grateful.
Whilst we accolade the response to many aspects, we have to be astute about the unfortunate limitations we hold in-house when it comes to financial independence. We cannot turn a blind eye to austerity of our financial inabilities.
It’s heart-breaking to see low-income, undocumented, daily wage group of people being agonized for their basic needs of existence.
Our small business owners are nervous with the thought of how long they will be able to hold their fort before drastic decisions would be a mandate for them to execute.
We as a community, citizens of St. Maarten need to accept that we may not be able to leverage enormous support externally. This, in turn, challenges us to map out our own road for recovery.
I, with lots of anticipation, reach out to all the veterans of the island, who have always been instrumental in building and protecting our island from collapsing.
Your contributions like organizing masks, gloves, medications, test kits for our front liners could be weighty.
We are reaching out to leverage support in any form that will minimize the financial burden our government is being subjected to.
We are resilient, that’s been proven time and again. All we need is a robust economic support mechanism. So, my dear fellow blessed friends, please come forward and contribute towards our elevation.
God bless us all.
Sidharth “Cookie” Bijlani
United People’s (UP) party Member of Parliament
Dear Editor,
1) Parliamentarians in meeting of April 22 said things like: … being sick and tired of us (St. Maarten) having to run to Holland every time (there is a need) to beg.
2) Alternatives of go-to private investors who might be ready, willing and able to bail out St. Maarten were offered by name. But what was not mentioned was: at what price to the people?
When it comes to looking for money to get us out of the mess we are in, we all know there is no such thing as “a Free lunch”, so even if under the present 10/10/10 rules we could go the route of private investors, at what cost financially and, more importantly, at what cost to our democracy will that be? Will we be selling our Government to these investors named by the Parliamentarian on the floor of Parliament? What would those investors consider an acceptable return on investment?
3) The President of Parliament suggests (demands) that the CBCS [Central Bank of Curaçao and St. Maarten – Ed.] “be called to order”, issue a license for a to-be-established National Bank of St. Maarten, fund it by repatriating some or all of St. Maarten’s share of the CBCS’ money abroad, and cut the umbilical financial cord with Curaçao.
4) Economist Arjen Alberts on April 22, 2020, explained “What can the CBCS do for us” in layman’s terms (he thinks possibly a band-aid for up to 6 months, after which financial disaster).
These 4 points I use to preface the following that I wrote on April 9 last, while pondering the pickle we are in:
Food for thought: What if, as the Corona virus pandemic hopefully starts getting under control, we get another Cat 5 (or more) hurricane this September? Who do we turn to? The Kingdom Gov’t again?
My take: After almost 10 years of trying, circumstances have proven that St. Maarten on so many levels cannot sustain itself as a “country”.
We lack self discipline.
We lack cohesion.
We lack the ability to raise enough taxes to afford to run an efficient government organization under normal circumstances.
We have a government apparatus that is too expensive for the quality and quantity of services available to the population.
We have government-owned companies that pay better than Fortune 500 companies.
We lack enough qualified human resources to properly and efficiently serve our population.
We lack mutual trust between consecutive governments and the population.
With 9 governments in 10 years, our elected and appointed officials (including me) have proven that they collectively lack enough maturity, knowledge, and often integrity to properly manage the affairs of the people.
On top of all of that, Hurricane Irma and within 2½ years now this COVID-19 pandemic have proven without a shadow of doubt that because of a myriad of reasons, we are financially, socially and economically unable to sustain the illusive dream of being an autonomous “country”.
By virtue of the size in numbers of our population and our total dependency on a single (now proven very fickle) pillar of economic sustenance (tourism), we seem to be destined to be an integral part of a larger community to which we will have to contribute in “good” times so that we can blindly and unconditionally depend on it in “bad” times (read: disasters, both natural as well as man-made).
As far as I am concerned it is time to admit: This “country status” experiment has failed on St. Maarten for, amongst others, all the reasons mentioned here above.
Time for a change of direction.
Time for a new referendum!
Michael J. Ferrier
St. Maarten
April 9, 2020
And today April 23, 2020, let me add:
Time to cut the financial monetary union with Curaçao (I agree with the President of Parliament on this).
Time to dollarize.
Time to get every resident of St. Maarten (legal and illegal) tested for the COVID-19 virus (I agree with another Member of Parliament).
Michael J. Ferrier
