By Alex Rosaria

  Last week, Prime Minister of Barbados Mia Amor Mottley, told the 74th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) that many Caribbean islands will not survive the effects of global climate change, even in the unlikely event that countries abide by the two-degree rise in temperature, as outlined in the Paris Agreement. See video.

  Earlier Ms. Mottley, during the Understanding Risk Caribbean Conference called for greater harmonization, exchange and learning of resilient planning strategies in the Caribbean. Whilst many Caribbean leaders are following Barbados, in Curaçao our policy makers, civil society, and academic institutions have yet to adequately address the needs of our island regarding this matter.

  Not only that. Some politicians here mock the few who tirelessly try to raise awareness regarding climate change by calling them “enemy of the people”. Others want to eliminate the Planning and Zoning Ordinance (EOP) – a nuisance for certain politicians and developers – in favour of total deregulation.

  Thankfully Ms. Mottley spoke on behalf of many of us who are represented by representatives who prefer to remain mute and only concentrate on the periodic cycle of elections, unaware that this topic will not go away and could easily – sooner than later –end up turning into a full-blown crisis.

  Yes, fighting crime, dealing with depopulation, poverty and the education crisis, are acute and should be dealt with. Remember, however, that many of today’s problems were once remote problems we chose not to deal with.

Alex David Rosaria (53) is a freelance consultant active in Asia & 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’s from Curaçao and has an MBA from University of Iowa (USA).

So the government finally fall

At last
What take them soo long
This government was falling
From the day it was form
What government that was formed on a lie
With a majority of one
Could last soo long
This government was
Like a building with four
Crooked wall
Each one waiting for the other one te fall
Then the Dike Man
cleverly pull down
the strongest wall
excuse that Theo ain’t
Straight
So guess what the other
The other not so plumb
Sprang ah leak
And while the crying minister
Busy looking for the leak
Frankly the other wall
Just fall
Then Sarah wall fall
And chucku come
Tumbling after
And with no wall
Surrounding this
Collation
Miss Lina and
The brown bull were
Free to jump
Where the fence is
Low the bull will jump
End of story

Raymond Helligar aka “Big Ray”

Dear Editor,

  No matter how much the opposition tries to convince the population that they had nothing to do with the fall of government, it is clear that their statements are just a diversion of the truth. In every conversation, members of the opposition are adamant that the coalition of eight imploded from within. Liars! Which one of them can honestly say that they did not play a role in destabilizing the government? 

  From the moment the rug was pulled from underneath them back in 2017, their constant cry was to have a broad-based government, for them to remain in power. Even after last year’s election, this cry was echoed on every radio and television program. The second most requested issue was to measure how compatible parties were, in order for them to work jointly, rather than to rush into a relationship just for the sake of putting a government together.

  What have the people witnessed recently? They have observed a consistent nipping at the government from the opposition and a rushed signing of a new majority. Besides, NA was disgusted with ship-jumping then, because it did not benefit them. But it is okay today, because the two traitors of UD fulfilled their wish to form that broad-based government that they so desperately wanted.

  And to cover their tracks, they persuaded the defected MPs to recite statements that both of them can’t even read. Picture this: MP Luc Mercelina signed with the new majority on Saturday, and still had the gall to attend a UD meeting the following day. Luc’s erratic behaviour defines him as a rogue. Imagine, he was recruited by the DP leader, but the moment MP Theo Heyliger was out of office, Luc became an errand boy. So, is this the opposition’s view of exploding from within?  

  Friday’s public meeting in Parliament with VROMI Minister Chris Wever is a clear indication that the sanitary landfill will never get fixed until it is taken completely out of the hands of VROMI. Definitely, games are being played to solve the problem. The minister looked like a wet duck when MP Sarah Wescot-Williams posed her questions pertaining to recent correspondences between the ministry and the World Bank.

  How is it that this minister knows very little about the sanitary landfill, when he was the chief in the cabinet of the immediate past VROMI minister? Something is not kosher. And, this drive to bring EnviroGreen into the mix is going to be another headache. MP Christophe Emmanuel has been pushing this project for a while. Why doesn’t he tell the public which discarded MP introduced him to this company? 

  There is no genuine effort to solve the situation on the dump. The only VROMI Minister who acted in good faith was Miklos Gitterson. He was extremely simple, but he stood firm by refusing to be manipulated. And when he did not please the saboteurs of NA and UD, they forced him to resign.

  This is the worst opposition ever! If they had the proper education, they would never bad-talk their ministers and colleagues in such a derogatory manner. Some time ago, MP Christophe Emmanuel mocked the TEATT Minister about taking a gay cruise. So, what is the difference with his party leader? Is it okay with the population to accept a lesbian prime minister who pledged to be an example for the youth?

  Mr. Researcher, MP Rolando Brison may come across as brilliant, but he is just an impressionist. Whenever he speaks, he is more interested in how he impresses his listeners rather than being genuine with his deliberations. The chain of controversies that surrounds his professional life is a testament of his true character. If this MP cares so much about the people, why doesn’t he investigate the issue with the credit union that was located on Cannegieter Street?  

  Since these fearless politicians’ personal interests have overridden the country’s progress, there is one question you the population need to ask: Where does your future fit into their plans?

Joslyn Morton

Dear Sir,

  The last few years have seen on St. Maarten  the rise of substantial anti-“Dutch” rhetoric and many will be asking why this has arisen so suddenly and strongly.

  The “Dutch” that are targeted are typically not individual Dutch metropolitan people nor specific Dutch institutions as much as the Kingdom and Netherlands government as a whole.

  It would appear to me that the sentiment is particularly strong in the political class and particularly amongst the younger and politically aspirant groups. It would appear that conditions placed on aid and support are what angers this group the most. It is often used as an explanation in relation to the failure in St. Maarten of good governance and political stability.

  The man in the street and particularly  the large part of the population that originate from economic migration in recent years  are less concerned with Dutch administration impositions.

  On the other side of the ocean the ex-colonial power claims the intention of the limitations on aid being for the purpose of improving this governance particularly insofar as it is caused by corruption. There are suggestions by parties on both sides of the ocean that considerable political decision-making is driven by forces operating in the shadows whose interests are in conflict with good administration and integrity.

  Whilst in the face of the opposing claims and intentions there ought to be some common purpose between the extremes in the discussion on the relation between the Netherlands and Kingdom partner, in the conversation that is ongoing in St. Maarten it cannot be found presently. It appears that there are few political groups that find it strategic to support “the Dutch”.

  The complex Kingdom arrangement that St. Maarten is part of has not changed much in recent years and there has not been any recent loss of autonomy. The major issues in the St. Maarten society like cost of living, waste management, deficit management and infrastructure investment do not directly relate to the limitations that the Kingdom arrangements impose. What has changed is a large growth in social media use and the expression of views that were previously not facilitated. What has also changed is an increase in prosecution of financial crimes by the Dutch-managed prosecution services.

  The Dutch government does not meet the charges in the media where they are made, so the conversation on island is one-sided. But many residents of the island would be pleased to understand the phenomenon and be assured that they are hearing all the views and nuances of these issues.

Robbie Ferron