Dear Editor,

  Over the years, the words good government, integrity and transparency have moved to the forefront of consultant’s and internal government reports. In St. Eustatius efforts were made to “teach” the government representatives what and how they were expected to adhere to these words and their underlying principles.

  The dissolution of the locally-elected government in February 2018 was justified based on these words. Today in Sint Eustatius, the question remains whether, under the “new taskmasters” direct rule, they are themselves adhering to and implementing these words and their principles.

  While the present direct rulers have embarked on a number of improvements island-wide, there remains something amiss.  Under the abrogated regime there would have been a number of Island Council meetings in which the opposition would have taken the government to task as to the process of awarding contracts, the amount these projects would cost, the time period of the projects, and whether the local contractors were able to secure participation in the projects, etc. Eventually, the government would usually approve the projects.

  If there were any time delays and cost overruns a similar show-down would have taken place. However, this process would have been open to the public, it would have been broadcast and there would have been summaries in the local newspapers. The entire process would have ensured transparency. The Executive Council would have had to answer questions pertaining to advices and the process. Contrast this to now. The tendering of the bolstering of the teetering Fort Oranje, how did the process go? The road project, what was the delay and how much extra might that cost? The public has a right to know. 

  The greatest transgression to the transparency principle is surely the organizational restructuring of the civil service. The high-handed manner in which the government has thus far acted is symptomatic of the total disregard for transparency. On April 23, the government as represented by Mervyn Stegers, held a session for the civil service to inform them of the steps that will be taken in the restructuring process.  However, during this meeting the government representatives left out cardinal information about how the structure is to be developed. Scant plausible information was provided concerning what this restructuring will look like.

  There are a number of questions that Stegers failed to address. For example, how many people will be moved?  Will there be new departments created?  Are there any new job descriptions?  Which positions will be eliminated?

  Does not the failure of the government officials to provide this information breach the practices of good governance?   Does there not need to be more transparency in the process? Compounding the problem is that the government officials are asking the civil servants to take a leap into the unknown and commit to his plan without a clue as to the major implication for their future within or out of government.

  How many new units will be created? How many actual positions will be eliminated due to downsizing? Does not this lack of transparency raise a question as to the integrity of the entire process?  One wonders if the government officials just assumed that the civil servants would agree with an unknown plan.  It seems that they underestimated their intelligence and critical thinking capacity.

  During this meeting, when pushed to clarify the re-structuring process  Stegers answered by stating that too much information would ensue chaos. But transparency is not the nurturer of fear. Rather a lack of transparency will ultimately increase fear and lead to chaos.

  Stegers divulged that within two weeks each civil servant will be individually presented with their new role, and by July 1^st the new structure will be in place. In evaluating these profound issues, the effort seems more an exercise in obfuscation rather than transparency.   Sandra Alvarez once stated, “Lying by omission breeds mistrust. Once the person you have been hiding things from finds out, the likelihood of them trusting you again has gone out the window.” 

  Transparency is intended to breed trust. By failing to have public debates on the issues, and by curtailing the information flow, trust is ravished and transparency becomes murky in the process.  The lack of transparency is not a characteristic of good governance and is surely leading to integrity issues.  It is interesting that over the years, we Statians have been told that we were lacking in these three areas.  Perhaps it is time the lessons were reciprocated in the opposite direction.

The EUX Writers Club

The pen is mightier than the sword

SRA, JHR, TEL

Dear Editor,

  A very interesting article appeared in the daily newspaper of April 20, 2019, entitled “St. Maarten delegation leaves The Hague with good feeling.”

  In one of their public meetings scheduled for June this year, the draft proposal on the Dispute Regulation submitted by State Secretary Knops will be handled in the Second Chamber. We have read statements from our St. Maarten politicians such as they sympathize with us, or have understanding for our plight and the discussions were fruitful. But in the final analysis they support their own.

  I don’t mean to be sarcastic, I would love to be positive, but we must face reality. It has been more or less 5 years now since the discussion began on having a dispute regulation. I believe it was Mr. Recourt, the then-chairman of the Committee for Kingdom Relations, who said in 2015, and let me paraphrase, that he would be very disappointed if a solution was not found within a year. In 2016 during the IPKO [Inter-Parliamentary Consultation of the Kingdom – Ed.] meeting on St. Maarten, the Caribbean parliamentarians wanted to submit a draft proposal on the dispute regulation, but the Dutch delegation felt it would be premature to do so. Need I say more?

  Mr. Kapppen of the First Chamber warned at the time, and I paraphrase, “The dispute regulation for the Netherlands is politically sensitive. As we know, The Dutch Caribbean Parliaments are not in agreement with the text and content of the Kingdom Law proposal to establish the dispute regulation as submitted by the Dutch government and State Secretary of Home Affairs and Kingdom Relations Raymond Knops (a Junior Minister).

  Do we honestly believe that they will vote against their own proposal? We all know of article 12 and afterwards article 12A as the latter was to help the other states/Dutch Caribbean Parliaments at the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles. The charter called for a ruling that would resolve conflicts within the Kingdom.

  Do you believe they will give us equal treatment in the Kingdom when they themselves say we are not equal? Do they have an integrity chamber? Do they have a constitutional court? Does corruption only exist in the Caribbean part of the Netherlands and not the Netherlands?

  I agree with most of the statements made by members of the Council of State Maria van der Sluijs-Plantz and Schwengle who, according to the article “We have to embrace integrity”, “spoke about integrity and good governance and the importance of the rule of law.” The many points relating to crime, society and her relation to our political culture.

  This is so true. What we should not lose sight of, however, is the reality of “The Democratic Deficit” that exists in the Kingdom. The charter is constructed in such a way that the Netherlands has complete dominance. Where is the integrity in that?

  What we have to take note of also, is that as it relates to the judicial system, although not perfect it is already functioning and addressing the behavior of those who have acted against the law.

  A sign of goodwill towards the people of the Dutch Caribbean would be approving the draft proposal of the dispute regulation coming from this side of the Atlantic. Let the advice of the Council of State be binding. They are independent and non-political.

  How can we expect to win a dispute with the one who has the final decision? I am not optimistic about the outcome. Will they prove me wrong? This is left to be seen.

George Pantophlet

Dear Editor,

  The yachting industry of St. Maarten has bounced back faster post-hurricane than most economic activities and once again made a huge contribution to the economy at a time when it was much needed. It is an industry with a potential that provides many of the ideal features of any industry that a small Caribbean island might consider attracting to its shores.

  Competition in this industry is increasing as many Caribbean islands try to attract an industry that provides high-paying jobs, spinoffs at the high end and a long-term future.

  But like every growing industry, the countries that win this “new business” will be those that make their offering the most attractive with competitive prices and best service.

  St. Maarten can be one of the big winners in the Caribbean in this market. There are some matters that need to be dealt with for St. Maarten to come out the winner.

  The country and the government must fully see the value and benefit of the industry. In order for this to happen it would require that the government, parliament and the people can track the revenues coming out of the industry directly as well as indirectly. No government is going to invest in an industry unless they see its potential and to do that they need dependable data and information. To date this is not available.

  Then there are some other small matters that would quickly lead us to the dynamic industry that the country would appreciate and benefit from. Like every new industry it would need some enabling and facilitation. So, somewhere in government there needs to be a policy advisor who really understands the issue and can give good advice to policy-makers. This policy-maker would understand the complexity of the industry and realize it cannot be marketed by the same people who handle stayover tourism or cruise tourism.

  The policy-maker would be able to advise on which parts of yachting would create the greatest employment for the country. The policy-maker would be able to advise how best to tax the industry to ensure competitiveness and still provide a return. This policy-maker would identify how to ensure that a well-trained work force at both high- and low-skilled levels makes use of the opportunities. The policy-maker would see the value of a passionate marine/yachting community who would develop skills that would pass on from generation to generation.

  Country Sint Maarten has the outstanding opportunity to enjoy the benefits of hosting this lucrative industry, but in order to do that, a well-thought-out enabling and facilitation plan based on the real circumstances of the industry must be developed and executed by knowledgeable parties.

Robbie Ferron

Dear Editor,

“An unjust law is itself a species of violence.” Mohandas K Ghandi. It is almost 700 years that our black ancestors were gutted from our ancestral lands. The course of History is very painful to teach and to study. The negro race has barely overcome that traumatic experience – which is manifested in the daily walk of those of African heritage. Neither have we stopped blaming our African ancestors back home (in Africa) for such despicable actions, trading in their own blood.

Were they aware of the disastrous circumstances surrounding their people? Were their leaders forced under pressure, ultimatums or perhaps they were told they were too scattered and were better organized in a body. Since we are their products…we are left with no answers but heartaches for over 700 years.

Today, we, the prodigies of the enslaved in the Eastern Caribbean are caught in that similar trap. Europe is again, deliberately trying to eradicate and deprive us of our cultural heritage.

Here, with our mouths agape and eyes wide open, we are drugged and dragged kicking and screaming in traps in which we are totally ignorant. This appears to be similar to the “triangular trade”. The sellers in Africa, kidnapped, drugged, and tricked by any means and got their cargo. What is the difference now? By any means in the 21st century, the colonial masters’ objectives are accomplishing in their colonies.

Remember, after emancipation, the West Indies were left swimming without life-vests in the turbulent Atlantic ocean and Caribbean sea. All the European businessmen and planters abdicated as the economic climate collapsed. Forgotten by the European nations, our ancestors’ survival modes set in consolidated by our natural creative instincts and built our nations.

Now they are returning in the same manner. Devastated by the greatest recorded hurricane, our aid is tied to conditions. Emergency operation is needed, but they refused to diagnose and operate unless detrimental contracts are signed.

There is no education process – everything is rushed to puzzle and scare the politicians. Just like in Africa, burn up the houses as they run to escape to safety, they were caught. There is no difference. Forced all the bills one time – they will be puzzled, confused, mentally fatigued and paralysed, so the leaders will have no objections.

Remember, it started in Europe. The blacks have progressed too far, so they must round them up – only to their advantage. Where is our leaders’ national pride? The last visionary leaders have all died or been strangled.

The Caribbean basin peoples had longed for “One Nation” evolving from their lions – not imported from Europe who dragged them here kicking and screaming from Africa. So, the Caribbean people have interacted and bonded themselves without the interjections of the Caribbean governments. Namely, the Custom bodies , Immigration, teachers, nurses, police, secretaries, fishermen, Church and voluntary organizations, Boys Brigade, Scouts, Carnivals , and festivals.

Every year there is an endaba on a different Caribbean island: there solid relationships, appreciation, love, tolerance and understanding are exercised. In that environment, a nation is created and built! Only the myopic leaders of the Caribbean refuse and fail to heed the clarion call Unite, Unite, Unite. You ask, why are they so reluctant? The Caribbean leaders are proud to be kings of sand castles.

In reality, the new breed lacks creativity and vision and is most insular. This was detected by the European powers – so they initiated their cancer packages to suck us and to destroy our national pride. What are these? Sanctions, bills, trade embargos, and acts that so grossly will rip us apart – enslaved and demonized us. These financial institutions were slave traders; the enslaved progenies have advanced beyond their expectations, so they must curtail them by any means.                                                                                                

The pages of history will recall that our 21st century Caribbean leaders have sold out and re-enslaved their own black brothers. Their constituents can read and write, and information is deliberately withheld, and we are led like sheep to a slaughter.                                        

Lena A. Gumbs

Anguilla