Dear Editor,
“Mister Russell they going come at you in the paper, because they say you write about everything, but you one-sided because you don’t write about the police.”
If I am permitted to explain why it seems so, I believe whoever is closely watching, will take more time and pay a little more attention to what is coming from all sides.
Ninety-five percent of the times that people try to condemn the police for something they did or did not do, it is not in accordance with the real story. These stories are mostly hearsay and from a third or fourth party. Because from experience I am aware of this, I hardly pursue whether their accusations are based on facts or not.
People know me to be this way because they always want me to write something for them and I refuse, it is not my opinion. I am not an elected official whose job it is to represent the people.
The opening sentence of this letter is what one of the two people who had approached me said to me. They had summed up some of the plain-for-the-people-to-see infractions against which no action is taken by the police. All color lights all over the vehicles; everybody driving around with hazard lights; anybody closing off the road when they want to do work in the area. Don’t talk about stopping anywhere to let people out of their car and these righthanded cars (cars with steering wheel on the right side) letting people out of the car in the middle of the road.
One of them gave me a sheet of paper and told me to “write about dah.” On that paper was written: You don’t know who is a taxi driver from who is a gypsy because some of them carry themselves more presentable than some taxi drivers. The police tell who they want about using the cell phone. The police does make who they want take off the tint off the car glass.
Ordinarily I would not have written about this but I also live on St. Maarten and what affects St. Maarten affects me also. So if I just sit by without doing anything about it, even though I know better, I will have to shut my mouth when things go wrong. And as we are seeing, things are not going too well with people’s behavior.
I have written about the lighting on cars in the past and there was also a reply in the papers concerning this. This seems to have been to no avail. I will state this. When I look at the road infrastructure of St. Maarten, and I apply the traffic rule governing overtaking another motor vehicle, literally, there is nowhere on St. Maarten where I am allowed to overtake another motor vehicle.
What happens here is that the driver at the back of you, especially drivers of heavy equipment, tailgate you as it were, trying to push you out of the way for them to pass.
Some people have tried to justify the infractions – black glass, etc. – by claiming that the vehicle was imported that way. My answer is: car-dealers should know that they should not deliver cars with infractions according to traffic ordinance. It is like importing a gun without a permit.
What leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, however, is that of late I have to be constantly hearing that the police do not do anything, especially about the traffic, because they themselves do not understand anything about the traffic ordinance.
My reaction to this is: If the people are seeing this and saying it, are those who are in charge ostriches? So many years now St. Maarten has been receiving help from our partner Holland. Is it really so that our sober and matter-of-fact big brother does not have a reasonable solution? Must I continue to be under the impression that “laat ze maar rotsooien” continues to be in play? When are our people in government going to nominate people who are loyal to St. Maarten and not like DJT loyal to them?
Russell A. Simmons
I don’t need to know The colour of your eyes Nor the colour of your hair Neither do I look at your skin colour All I need to know are you competent Do you have good character That is sufficient evidence That you more than qualify For my C don’t stand for colour But for Competence For that will give you the confidence In your ability to rise Above all And never to fall So never let Your colour determine your future Of success or failure But have confidence In your competence That will make the Difference And will determine whether You win or lose You are the only one To choose For if colour is a barrier Then chose competence As your carrier Raymond Helligar aka Big Ray
Dear Editor,
It was not that long ago that Hurricane Irma ravaged our island. It would be an understatement to say that the then-Marlin government failed to take necessary measures both before and after the storm to mitigate what is now regarded as the greatest disaster to befall our island.
We are now poised to feel the effects of another type of storm, an economic one, set to land in November, if we fail to adopt the FATF regulations. We will then be left trying to work our way out of a deep economic chasm that is completely avoidable.
If St. Maarten was a member of the G7 we would have had a say in setting up of the rules of International Trade. Sadly, we are not a rule-maker but a rule-taker. It is our choice, however, if we want to be a rule-breaker, Of course, this is the easiest course, which is do nothing Naturally the NA [National Alliance – Ed.] has taken the lead in this discourse because of their particular forte “paralysis”. But considering that the US dollar forms the backbone of our economy we had best tread carefully.
It seems to me our discussions in Parliament should be focussed on “What are the consequences for the island if we adopt the measure versus the consequences if we do not”. It would be useful if we could have this discussion without the regular and distracting “woe is we” theatrics. Mr. Emmanuel purports to speak for the bankers. But we got bankers, How about we let them address Parliament and speak for themselves.
So, when in doubt, check the Internet. I found there is a wealth of information on this topic. I checked YouTube, where I find the graphic representation of data far more digestible. I learned that the purpose of FATF was to combat money-laundering and terrorist-financing. (Strangely, no mention was made of the Theo investigation.) Failure to comply would mean our overseas financial transactions would involve extra scrutiny, take longer and incur additional costs.
“Once a country is blacklisted, FATF calls on other countries to apply enhanced due diligence and countermeasures, increasing the cost of doing business with the country and in some cases severing it altogether. As of now (this excerpt was published on YouTube March 26, 2019) there were only two countries in the blacklist – Iran and North Korea – and seven on the grey list, including Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Syria and Yemen.
The MOT laws already prescribe that we provide source of funds for transactions in excess of $10,000. So why the resistance to additional measures by our local politicians. Exactly who are they trying to protect?
Mr. Emmanuel’s rant was most revealing. The silence from the aisle that should be supporting our Minister of Justice is just as telling, the concern extends to more than extra paperwork on behalf of our banks. Indeed there are many rich and powerful people on our island who have more to fear than the regular hard-working citizen. Mr. De Weever’s proposal should be a no-brainer, but the political twisting seem to be setting us all up to pay the cost.
Name withheld at author’s request.
Dear Editor,
We know the open era in professional sports; the various open tennis tournaments; the golf open tournaments. In these open tournaments the playing field is wide open with minimal restrictions. It means amateurs and beginners can enter a tournament and compete with the best of them, the professionals. All that is required is the will to succeed and a titanium determination.
Dear Editor,
According to Member of Parliament Emmanuel, as reported in The Daily Herald of August 9, 2019, the Minister of Justice of St. Maarten, De Weever, is “out of touch, CFATF laws biased.”
According to the Cambridge dictionary, one of the top results Google provided to my search, the term “out of touch” refers to someone who is not informed or not having the same ideas as most people.
Next, a little background on “CFATF laws biased” is in order. For that, it is helpful to understand who or what is the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF). It is an organization of states and territories of the Caribbean Basin, of which we form part, that have agreed to implement common countermeasures against money-laundering. CFATF has associate status within the Financial Action Task Force (on money-laundering).
And what are these common measures against money-laundering?
During the 1989 G7 Summit in Paris, the FATF was formed to combat the growing problem of money-laundering. At that time, FATF had 16 members, which by 2016 had grown to 37.
One of the first actions of the FATF was development of a report containing 40 recommendations to more effectively fight money-laundering. After the September 11 terror attacks in 2001, the FATF included terrorist-financing as part of the recommendations.
Practically all major financial centers around the world, not the least of which is the USA, are represented by the 37 members of FATF. Money makes the world go around and no country, big or small, can exist without doing business with other countries.
Without banking relationships with these major financial powerhouses, a country is basically not a part of the international community/economy.
Back to the headline: The Minister of Justice is, in my opinion, not at all out of touch. It is MP Emmanuel who seems to be uninformed. Most people understand that St. Maarten is a part of the global economy and therefore part of the international financial system. As such and as part of the Caribbean Basin, it needs to do its share to (want to) combat money-laundering and terrorist-financing. In fact, the Minister has correctly made Parliament aware of the fact that Country St. Maarten, and by extension all of us, are out of time regarding becoming compliant!
Are these laws that St. Maarten has to change and adopt to meet the (C)FATF recommendations biased? Do they favor one group over the other? Is St. Maarten being bullied? I am no lawyer or scholar but believe I have been blessed with common sense and therefore I try to be practical.
Whether the MP wants to suggest otherwise or not, St. Maarten has no choice. Since the 911 attack on the USA, that country, St. Maarten and the rest of the world have had to implement levels of screening at airports to a magnitude never before even dreamt of. None of us like it, but none of us had a choice. Our harbor and international mega-yacht marinas had to introduce stricter security measures as well. We simply had no choice!
What happens to St. Maarten if we fail to meet the FATF recommendations? According to the FATF’s website, jurisdictions that are seen as non-compliant are a risk to the integrity of the international financial system. Those non-compliant jurisdictions receive a public warning “to address their deficiencies in order to maintain their position in the global economy.” That’s a nice way of saying: either comply, or you are no longer welcome; you are “blacklisted”. North Korea and Iran are on that list. As a small half-of-an-island Caribbean nation, dependent on mostly North American and European tourism, St. Maarten cannot afford to be on that list. But that’s a worst-case scenario.
A more likely result of being on the wrong side of (C)FATF recommendations is de-risking by financial institutions and loss of correspondent banking relationships. In plain English, the banks will not take on customers they feel are a risk for money-laundering and financing of terrorism.
The financial system is global. Local banks that fail to take measures will lose relationships with the big banks in the USA and Europe. Try conducting business on St. Maarten when you can’t send or receive money from overseas. (Here’s a hint: Google “Belize and correspondent banks”).
(C)FATF has been a reality from since before 10-10-10. But that’s water under the bridge. St. Maarten is out of time and we had better deal with that fact, rather than believe (like MP Emmanuel obviously does) that the international community will be intimidated by him, or for that matter all of our Parliamentarians together. Legislation is being pushed through to meet deadlines. Debate and fine-tuning of these laws to find a bi-partisan, mutually acceptable way of meeting international requirements and not hurting our community is now difficult, if not impossible.
That failure is on all MPs and Ministers, past and present (including me)! And yes, Hurricane Irma did not help. But to the rest of the world Irma was never the problem and sure as heck cannot be used any longer as an excuse to kick this can down the road.
If MP Emmanuel wants to take his marbles and go home because he feels the game is rigged and unfair, that’s his prerogative. Good luck with that! The rest of St. Maarten has to meet the reality head-on, because like it or not, we need the rest of the world. The rest of the world does not need us. So, either we play ball and meet the internationally-set standard or become totally self-sufficient (?!) in a big hurry!
And just in case the MP decides to respond to this commentary the way I expect him to, my response to him remains the same.
Michael J. Ferrier
