Dear Editor,
It is confusing. On the one hand the Dutch government offers a very, very considerable sum of money for reconstruction post hurricane, but at the same time the delivery of the benefits is so complex that much unnecessary suffering takes place. It leads to accusations of all sorts, including the claim that the funds are really intended to manipulate local politics.
In order to understand some parts of this enigma, it is necessary to understand the long history of development aid given by the Dutch. This history in many parts of the world has proven that aid funds generally do not achieve their targets. A significant community with a long experience and some retained traumas is employed to try to improve this and improve effectiveness. This community is guided by the political pressures in the Netherlands, where past development aid has been heavily criticized (often for good reasons).
St. Maarten has not been successful in painting a good picture of itself in the Netherlands and extensive press material relating to administrative missteps (corruption?) has got substantial attention.
The result has been the choice of a specialized third party to administer the funds. The World Bank covers a wide range of services that are supported by 189 member countries. Its typical activities involve trying to ensure that development efforts are more effective than they would be. In many cases this results in them making recommendations that are not in the interests of parties in power or with popular movements. In many cases, criticism has been justified and improvements made. In many cases, criticism of the World Bank has been made by parties resisting transparency and democratization. There is a general consensus that increased bureaucratization is one of the greatest downsides of the World Bank.
When the choice was made to have the World Bank manage the disbursement of recovery funds in St. Maarten, the simple analysis will have been that this was a carefully-considered approach that got wide political backing in the Netherlands.
The particular circumstances of Sint Maarten, whereby this sudden massive disaster wipes out a huge amount of infrastructure and economic activity, requires rapid intervention was not the first consideration of Dutch decisions, even though the consequences of slow reaction may have shown up later. (Rapid intervention would have avoided more deficits and losses). The decisions were made by the simple rationale of delivering aid at minimal political risk in the Netherlands.
So, when politicians in St. Maarten start claiming that the Dutch are using the aid to manipulate the politics of St. Maarten, the simple analysis in the Netherlands will inevitably be that the political establishment, with their tarnished history, is resisting transparency, accountability and anti-corruption .
The manipulation claims may have a strong political resonance in St. Maarten, but they further complicate the relationship with the Dutch and future funding and support.
A greater understanding across the ocean divide would be in the interest of kingdom relations.
Robbie Ferron
Dear Editor,
If you happened to be watching the news the other day, you saw Julian Assange carried out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London by the police. Depending on who you want to believe, his crimes are either an outstanding warrant on a questionable sexual assault charge or his timely (or un-timely if you are a Democrat) release of stolen Hilary Clinton/DNC e-mails or his alleged conspiracy to hack U.S. Government computer systems.
Now, if we sort of look at this through the squinted eyes of the cynic, you might see that the sexual assault charge turns out to be a scam orchestrated probably during the Bush presidency to finally shut this guy up, so that charge will probably fail, which leaves the whole Hillary/Democrats e-mail deal and the alleged hacking conspiracy.
Now, all that being said, what I find interesting is the current outrage or actually the complete lack of outrage by the liberal left media over this current prosecution. After all, isn’t Assange a journalist and entitled to the same protections as those enjoyed by the New York Times reporters that published the stolen Pentagon papers in the 60s or the Washington Post reporters that published the stolen classified documents a couple of years ago? No. Apparently not.
Apparently the current standard for determining whether an individual that publishes stolen information is a journalist is whether that stolen information exposes or embarrasses a Republican or his (or her) administration or whether it embarrass or exposes a Democrat or his (or her) administration. Apparently, If an individual publishes stolen documents or classified information that supports a liberal agenda, then that individual becomes a Pulitzer prize-winning Journalist overnight.
On the other hand, if that individual publishes something stolen that attacks the liberal agenda, then that individual certainly is not a journalist but is a criminal worthy of the full weight of prosecution. If that all seems odd to you or even hypocritical, welcome to modern mainstream journalism.
My father was the City Editor of a major daily newspaper for the better part of 60 years. I grew up reading accurate reporting and good writing on a daily basis. His standard was rigid. “Get it right before anything else.” Not any longer. Formerly-great papers like The Washington Post and The New York Times have stopped being sources of objective information and reporting but have become political operatives for the Democratic Party and that is a great tragedy.
When The Washington Post announces that they are dedicating 50 reporters to do nothing but generate negative stories about the Trump administration regardless of truth or accuracy and no one bats an eyelash, things have gone too far. When their headlines are questions, e.g. “Did Trump hire illegals at Mar a Lago?” yet when you read the story it turns out to be some thirdhand gossip that some reporter heard from some guy he doesn’t know in a trench coat behind a bar in Georgetown at 3:00am, then clearly, journalism as the world has understood it for a century or more is surely dead.
The Post, along with other news outlets, is currently being sued for their false reporting of an encounter that a young man had during a demonstration at the White House. In their reporting they maligned this young man, falsely accused him and, essentially destroyed his character for an incident in which he was completely innocent. Was this an accident? A simple mistake? No. They were in possession of the very video tape that proved conclusively that their reporting and characterizations were not simple mistakes at all but willful lies. It will be an interesting case when it gets to court.
Usually newspapers are held to a couple of simple legal standards. If a person is a public figure, he or she is generally fair game and can be attacked at will and even if the newspaper is wrong about something that damages an individual, they have to be proven to have acted with willful malice. That is, they knew what they wrote was wrong when they wrote it and they did it intentionally with the intent to injure or defame. Those are usually tough cases to make in court which is why you don’t see liability cases succeed very often.
In this case, though, I think The Post and CNN and others may well be in trouble. The young man in question is clearly not a public figure . The Post and all the rest knew the reporting was a lie because they had the video, and, most importantly, they have a two-year history of publishing any bit of nonsense and conjecture they could find to make Trump look bad. Why is that important? Because the young man was wearing a Trump hat at the time.
That will be the nexus that the lawyers will use to get the settlements that they will buy their new Gulfstreams with. They will be able to make the obvious and compelling case that The Post et al used this young man as a prop and destroyed his reputation for the simple reason that they saw an opportunity to make Trump and his supporters look bad. This time they got caught red-handed and it’s going to cost them.
Which brings us back to Assange. Is Assange a journalist ? Absolutely. You may not like him and he may be a slimeball but for sure, by any objective standard, he publishes exactly the same type of information that The Times and The Post do in the same public domain, so if they are journalists then so is he.
As such, I suggest that if the case against him succeeds and he goes to trial or even ends up in jail for publishing the Clinton and DNC e-mails then the New York Times reporters that published the Pentagon Papers and the Washington Post reporters that published the classified documents a year ago and everybody that published the Panama Papers better lawyer up right now because you guys may well end up in the cells next to his and deservedly so.
Honestly, in hopes of restoring the reputation and integrity of a great institution and of all honest old school journalists everywhere, I hope that actually happens. Where is Charles Krauthammer when you need him?
Steven Johnson
Dear Editor,
I called myself an observer in my last article, but I am also a digger, someone who digs and digs to get to the root of the issue. People call us investigators but I am pro-bono one. When I question the inequality of the Justice system within the Kingdom, I am not doing so because I want to. On the contrary, I believe it is my duty to inform and empower you because Sint Maarten is in a crisis in challenging post-Irma times. Knowledge is power, people!
This article appeared on January 29, 2014, by reporter Reiner of the Elsevier Weekly paper in the Netherlands. He told a story about the then Junior Minister of Finance of the Netherlands (VVD), who informed the Dutch Parliament in January 2014 during their debate that he would resign his position as he felt he no longer enjoyed the support of a majority in Parliament. He needed this support as he had the responsibility for the Tax Department as Junior Finance Minister.
Apparently, the opposition had made their positions clear and no longer had confidence in him to solve the challenges at hand. Hence, to avoid the motion of non-confidence, the Junior Minister of Finance resigned his position. The scandal regarded the non-payment of house rent allowances to thousands of inhabitants in the Netherlands. It was not the first time the Junior Minister experienced a confrontation with Parliament.
The article continues to report that also in May 2013 he barely survived a debate on the subject of fraudulent acts committed mainly by Bulgarian gangs with the allowances granted by the Netherlands.
Furthermore, the Junior Minister in the year 2012 was apparently the talk of the town when he appeared to have ties with a former councillor in the province of Limburg, a real-estate millionaire, and member of the VVD, accused of corruption in civil service. This millionaire supported him for his candidacy as Junior Minister as reported by “Het Parool” (December 17, 2012) and “NRC.nl (September 11, 2012).
What became of the Junior Minister? He was never prosecuted. Instead, he was appointed post Irma as the Dutch representative of the Steering Committee for the Recovery of Sint Maarten. In other words, he represents the Netherlands in the managing body of the established Trust Fund of the World Bank (Zakenblad.nl), entrusted with the reconstruction of our country Sint Maarten. Hence, a promotion after a dubious act. The Netherlands plays a game. They speak of Integrity Chamber, yet they have none. They speak of them being a population of Integrity, and yet their integrity does not play a role when it involves Sint Maarten. I consider this act a serious breach of Integrity.
They speak of screening and yet their ministers are not screened. Hence, what we need to do is resign from our position before we get a vote of non-confidence and then the authorities will say that the case is under investigation and, of course, the case will go cold and nothing will happen. Then, a few years later we will send you to Holland with a bigger and better position with all expenses paid. Does that sound like an equal plan? Hence, I question the task of the Integrity Chamber at this time with all kinds of persons who are entering our country, whether they should be screened. Not because the Dutch has managed to project themselves as Saints of the World must we accept everyone who comes to work in Sint Maarten. They too must be screened, because when one starts digging, there is much to be desired!
Josianne Fleming Artsen
Dear Editor,
The present situation St. Maarten is in is because we elect people who we do not know.
A political party only can have harmony when the members have the same ideology and agree on the same values and principles. Vetting means to make a careful and critical examination of something or some person. It is to know all relevant information about people. The law can vet you for criminality, but that does not mean the electorate know you.
The law vetting implies that under our judicial system he or she is ok to be a minister or a parliamentarian. But that vetting does not let us know those politicians’ hearts and how and what they think. A political ideology lets you know to a certain extent the individual’s values based on the ideology if he or she is a conservative or liberal. The sad fact most politicians even do not know their ideology, that is why it is difficult to reach a consensus.
Your values, morality and economic policies define who you really are. The point is not for people to agree with you, but for them to know who you really are and understand you. For example, do you know where your politician's stance is on abortion, homosexuality, bestiality, and paedophilia?
Do you know if your politicians believe in the right to defend self and to have a firearm? Do you know if your politicians believe in massive government control or in minimal government control, implying if he or she is a socialist or capitalist? Do you know if your politicians believe healthcare is a privilege or a right, and if they think it’s a right, how much more are they willing to tax people to pay for it? Do you know if your politicians see prostitution as a moral or immoral act? Did you ever ask your politicians how much of your earned money is the government’s fair share to take from you?
The purpose of a government is to provide the best opportunities for people to have a good quality of life and their happiness and to protect them. Do you know the character of your politicians? Did you ever ask them if they believe in freedom of religion? Do you ask them if they believe in Jesus Christ or God? Do you know anything about their personal lifestyle? Knowing that your politicians have an education is good, but that alone does not qualify them to be a leader. Being a good speaker and having a good education is an asset, but that does not mean he or she is the right person.
Many of the politicians throughout the world, many have a graduate degree but look how messed-up the world is. To vote for a person, you have to know their character, their values and the intent of their present lifestyle. There are many educated thieves and educated paedophiles, you want people with ethics and good values with good intent and with education.
The conclusion is to make it your business to know who you are voting for by examining that individual’s character. That is why it is up to you to extremely vet the individual you are going to vote for, and if you do not have enough information do not vote. Because choices have consequences, vet your politicians wisely.
The Patriot Miguel Arrindell
Dear Editor,
It is tax time in our islands and taxpayers are expected to comply and do so on time. Part of the process is gathering all necessary documents and information from various entities such as employer, banks, insurance companies, etc.
One of the requirements for persons that have mortgages and other loans from banks is an interest letter. It is a headache for some clients to get their interest letters from some banks. Sometimes I, as tax advisor, have to take over from the customer and call or send e-mails to the bank imploring them to send these interest letters; sometimes it takes weeks or months to get them in hand; this for something that is recurring annually. Why should it be such a hassle when the banks are well aware of the requirements of the law? I assume bankers are taxpayers too.
The law also requires that taxpayers report the balance of these loans. The tax law of the former Netherlands Antilles already required this and so I believe the same goes for Country St. Maarten.
However, most banks do not automatically include this information on the interest letters they provide their clients. This means oftentimes more phone calls and emails have to be made resulting in more lost time and expense.
Why can’t these banks prepare and send out these interest letters, including balances, to their clients as a matter of fact rather than waiting for each client to call or write to request this?
In Statia we can now file our taxes online and without the loan balance(s) information the process cannot be completed.
I am therefore appealing to all those banks that do not yet do so to provide interest letters automatically at the beginning of each year and include loan balances as required by law.
This will save your customers and tax advisors like myself a lot of time and trouble and save you bankers many harassing phone calls and emails.
Glenn Schmidt
St. Eustatius
