Dear Editor,
On Monday, September 23, a town hall meeting with Mr. Knops was held. The event was streamed live on Facebook. Many appreciated the fact that Mr. Knops took the time out to address the people of Statia directly.
Mr. Knops informed the people of Statia that some progress has been made in regard to governance and the execution of projects on the island. However, he argued that there is still much work to be done. Against this backdrop, Knops proclaimed that there will be a gradual return to democracy on the island. In other words, he expressed his wish to organize Island Elections in October, 2020. By doing so, the people will be able to elect their own island Council representatives, he said.
But in the same breath, he stated that the Netherlands will maintain the responsibility for the Executive Council and the Governor until full democracy is restored. Full democracy will be restored once there is sufficient guarantee that the changes made are sustainable.
Persons in the audience expressed their concerns about the slow pace at which projects are executed, the lack of transparency, the absence of local participation in the decision-making process and the prolonged absence of democracy. However, Knops was not moved by anything expressed.
The manner in which Knops interacted with the audience certainly sheds light on the current Dutch political worldview as it relates to Statia. A worldview that states, “It is our duty and obligation to insert ourselves into the lives of Statians, in order to fix the chronic problems. Even though some citizens are against our practices, we come with good intentions. We are actually here to make the lives of Statians better. In the end, Statians will thank us for it.”
As long as this worldview guides the actions of the Dutch political establishment, persons such as Knops will not be sympathetic towards the alternative worldview that emerged during the town hall meeting namely, “While we appreciate Dutch help, our democracy must be fully restored, as we empower ourselves and each other to take ownership of our community and our own lives.”
Xiomara Balentina
Dear Editor,
This weekend the National Alliance (NA), United St. Maarten Party (US Party) and two newly declared independent Members of Parliament (MPs) Dr. Luc Mercelina and Chanel Brownbill have formed a new nine-member majority coalition. The question is based on which governing accord, and which governing program?
Three members of the UD deserted the UD/SMCP coalition. What happened in the United Democrats that three MPs left the party and declared themselves independent?
Each of the three MPs who declared themselves independent gave their own personal reasons to explain their disaffiliation of the United Christian Democratic Governing Coalition. Why they cannot longer support their own government coalition? None of the three coalition members of parliament gave as a reason non-compliance of the governing coalition with the 2018-2022 governing program “Building a Sustainable St Maarten.”
Remember that both the party leaders, the Members of Parliament of the United Democrats and the incoming Ministers of the governing coalition have signed the governing program to be executed. Are MP Brownbill and MP Mercelina still in agreement with the “Building a Sustainable St. Maarten governing program which they signed last year? And what about the NA and US Party parliamentarians? What is their governing program in the interest of the people of St Maarten?
Will eradication of poverty be a priority in the new governing accord? The Anti-Poverty Platform has drafted for all political parties to sign before the last two elections held the Declaration to Eradicate Poverty. The St. Maarten Christian Party had signed the Declaration of Poverty and as such has committed to prioritize the eradication of poverty in the governing period, contrary to the other three political parties (UD, NA, USP) of which none of them signed and only the US Party board in a letter to the platform committed to address poverty eradication if elected in Parliament or in government.
With no commitment from the UD to eradicate the poverty, the negotiations with the SMCP resulted only in a paragraph heading “eradication of poverty” in the governing program. Only a poverty line study to be realized within the 4-year governing program of the UD/SMCP coalition was the consensus reached between the two parties.
Is the new NA-USP-Brownbill-Mercelina majority formed in Parliament willing to adopt the eradication of poverty declaration in their coalition agreement?
Dialogue requested before and after governing accord. We have requested the UD/SMCP Council of Ministers on three occasions to have a dialogue with the Anti-Poverty Platform, which dialogue did not take place until today! For us the fall of the UD/SMCP government could have been prevented if the Council of Ministers had reached a consensus with the Platform on the eradication of poverty and the realization of the right to development of the people of Sint Maarten.
With the Central Committee of Parliament only one meeting took place with the Anti-Poverty Platform, and no consensus has been reached on the eradication of poverty! Since all MPs have to represent the interests of the people of St. Maarten, we the co-coordinators of the St. Maarten Anti-Poverty Platform hereby publicly call upon all political parties and all parliamentarians who want to form governing coalitions for a dialogue with the Platform before they agree on any governing accord.
After guaranteeing in that governing accord the interests of the 13.000 poor and needy households, the dialogue should continue to guarantee in the governing program that policies to fully realize the right to development of the people of St. Maarten are explicitly included.
Dialogue also before and after new parliamentary elections. With the decision of the Council of Ministers to invoke article 59 of the Constitution and to dissolve Parliament and call elections for November 23, 2019, we expand the dialogue request to all aspiring political parties to the November elections.
We want to remind all politicians that we the co-coordinators of the Anti-Poverty Platform represent the following social organizations: seven of 8 labor unions in St. Maarten affiliated to the Windward Islands Chamber of Labor Unions, the Seniors and Pensioners Association, and all the NGOs [non-governmental organizations – Ed.] affiliated to the St. Maarten United NGO Federation (SUNFED).
Neglecting to dialogue and to reach to a consensus with the Anti-Poverty Platform will be explained to all members of our affiliated organizations as a refusal to defend the interests of the more than 13,000 poor and the needy households, to be taken into consideration when they have to cast their vote in the upcoming elections!
St. Maarten Anti-Poverty Platform
Dear Editor,
My dictionary of the English language, which was edited in 1949, defines the word “farce” as a ridiculous parade, b: empty pageantry, c: a mere show, d: a ridiculous sham.
When I google the word “farce” it stated “a comic dramatic work, using buffoonery and horseplay and typically including crude characterization and ludicrously improbable situations.”
A little while ago I wrote to you that government should take the law prohibiting the use of cell phones while operating a motor vehicle off the books, because everybody including the police, break this law on St. Maarten 24/7. In the same way I am suggesting that they change the constitution, where it pertains to the swearing-in of members of Parliament. It has become a farce.
On various occasions Oprah has said that many years ago Maya Angelou told her that “when people show you who they are believe them.” Dr. Mercelina, who tended me in the past, is a very good doctor and I would recommend him to anybody, but since he entered politics he has shown me who he is as a politician, so I believe him.
So, is he someone who I can depend on to guarantee a stable government? Not from what he has shown me so far.
A similar case can be made for MP Brownbill. When I read the oath of Members of Parliament it states, “I swear (affirm) my loyalty to the King and the Charter for the Kingdom, that I shall always help to uphold the Constitution of St. Maarten and shall support the welfare of St. Maarten to the best of my ability.”
When I joined the force, we discussed the oath that we were going to take before we were sworn in. During that discussion one of my classmates from Bonaire made the observation that he would not add “to the best of my ability” to an oath because that is providing space for a cop-out. And that has always remained with me.
After 45 years for almost nine years straight I have been seeing here on St. Maarten what my classmate meant come to pass on a regular basis. “To the best of my ability.” Wow. It is a shame. In a country with a 40-hour work week, that not one of those Members of Parliament past or present can boast that they have earned their salary.
At the ceremony the governor usually adds that by taking the oath you unconditionally swear to always dedicate yourself to foster the wellbeing of the people of St. Maarten. In taking the oath of office you agree to accept and commit to carry out the serious responsibilities entrusted to you by the people and for the people.
I would challenge everyone who have been in government to prove to we the people that they have truly dedicated themselves to foster the wellbeing of the people of St. Maarten. Is lay waiting, governing? Yes, that’s the question, because all I know is that they are laying and waiting for the other one to make a mistake and then jump on it.
No one should even think of mentioning bus-stop huts, because I do not think that is anything to brag about either. It also seems that every project that was brought forward was stagnated because there is a discrepancy of funds or financing. And then almost always after that, there is some investigation with weird names like the Iguana case and the Mongoose case. Right now it’s the Boat and Airplane cases.
There is very little change in the scenarios but our people seem to prefer to take their chances with the prosecutor’s office than simply going out there and doing what they are well (over)paid to do.
Should we not do away with the swearing-in of people in government? Indeed people, that sermon on Sunday last needs serious contemplation.
Russell A. Simmons
Dear Editor,
I try my best to inform people for the past 15 years why St. Maarten government will be experiencing this confusion we are in.
The truth is that 70 per cent is the electorate or the voters of St. Maarten fault. The other 30 per cent is the so-called leaders’ fault. St. Maarten electorate is a market where people can easily be deceived. (Reason – our population have a very low general knowledge.)
In politics, people can easily be deceived when they do not know what they stand for. In political value it means what is your political ideology. When there is no political ideology the only thing left is ego and greed. When there is no vision (political terms – the approach on how to accomplish an objective) all is left is deception and empty promises which are not realistic.
A political party is an organized group of people who have the same ideology, or who otherwise have the same political positions, and who field candidates for elections, in an attempt to get them elected and thereby implement the party's agenda. The party ideology is its approach on how to accomplish matters and needs of the people in that country. The main topics are the economy, healthcare, national security, labor participation, and immigration. Then are the topic of social issues and morality. In the bigger picture the quality of life to make a nation prosperous and as healthy as possible.
To accomplish these objectives an ideology has to be established. And this is what the voter for him- or herself has to find which ideology that identifies with their values to vote for a political party.
The main 2 ideologies are free-market capitalism or socialism in the political spectrum, free-market capitalism which is conservative ideology and democratic socialism which is liberal ideology.
The matter is for people not to like you or agree with you. The matter is for you to know who you are and what you stand for. Based on who you are will make you find out and demand a political party to expose what ideology they believe in.
Free market capitalism is a free market system, an economic system based solely on demand and supply, and there is little or no government regulation. In a free market system, a buyer and a seller transact freely and only when they voluntarily agree on the price of a good or service.
Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
These key psychological differences can determine whether you’re liberal or conservative.
Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.
Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional values, and a strong national defense.
Liberals believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.
Do not vote for someone just because they are educated. They should have many of your values and beliefs. Also, ask about their social values and morality.
When a political party is formed on ideology the party’s chance of stability in government is much greater because the ideology is in sync with how successfully they govern. The results depend on if the electorate or voters establish a better quality and more prosperous life when election time is at hand.
The conclusion is to find out who you are (what is your political ideology) and that is the party in your opinion you should vote for. Choices have consequences, choose wisely. This is the only manner on how to accomplish stability in government.
The Patriot Miguel Arrindell
Dear Editor,
This is the last throw of the dice for politicians, who slither into the pores of politics, just to discharge their dirty tricks. For too long, the country has been under siege, held by strategic geniuses of corruption. To hear MP Franklin Meyers express disgust and frustration of the political direction, but fail to identify the culprits, does not do justice to the people nor the country.
His vague statements still entertain the false perceptions, perceived by many. That is how corruption in this country multiplies, because no one is singling out the crooks. Everybody just going along to get along. MP Franklin Meyers, if you have taken a stand, then how could your conscience allow you to mingle with these same politicians, who continue to forsake the ideals of integrity?
To stay in this awkward situation does not reflect a man who appears to have some streak of honesty. A politician who refuses to join his colleagues in destroying the country will not put himself in a position that further compromises his integrity. The most suitable and dignified decision you should have made, was to bow out gracefully, and leave behind an uncommon legacy.
I must give you credit for revealing the strategy that was orchestrated by the opposition and their stooges on air, to overthrow the Council of Ministers one by one and leave the Minister of General Affairs isolated. For months, this plan to force her into a corner was whispered in some corners of the society, but it did not work out as anticipated.
The opposition always feel that they are squeaky clean and superior to the other parties. But as time goes by, their true colours have defined them. When it’s convenient, they try to fool the public that there is cohesion within. But if the people are paying attention, they would realise that the opposition is split into four sections, and will disintegrate further, as the battle for control roars on.
MP Franklin Meyers, you needed to come clean and tell the population why U.S. pre-clearance has dominated the minds of the opposition and some coalition members. The two main reasons for this collective pact are: first, the opposition is not controlled by their respective parties anymore. Second, this greedy politician intends to erect a building on the airport road to housed stranded passengers, whenever the pre-clearance comes into swing.
What is very dangerous is to continue the precedent, where you fully well know who is holding this country hostage; yet, you are not brave enough to tell the constituents the truth – the same people who you will be soliciting their votes next elections. Is this fair to them, knowing there is a strong possibility that the results will not change, because the identical players are still in the game?
MP Franklin Meyers, you too have to be blamed for this calamity, because more often than not, you never came to Parliament to give the coalition a quorum. This behaviour was a playground for the opposition. And when you did show up, you had nothing much to contribute to the economic development of the country. Instead, you rather said nothing or took pleasure in cursing the Dutch.
As a veteran politician and a scholar of quotes, you should have used these political turbulences as teaching moments for those who you claimed have good intentions, but lacked the proper guidance. And, if you don’t have the conviction to expose the politicians who are going to make the road rougher for St. Maarten, then your stance means absolutely nothing.
Joslyn Morton
