Dear Editor,

  Is the Parliament of St. Maarten being run by a dictator? Is the chairlady the only person that was elected in 2018 to the parliament of St. Maarten? This chair of parliament is hell-bent on running the parliament the way she deems is right in her own eyes; she takes the elected members of the NA and the USP parties for granted; and she adjourns meetings that are seemingly not going the way she thinks they should go. She interprets urgently-called meetings by the elected members of the NA and USP as not really urgent and schedules and adjourns them at her own convenience if ever at all.

  In the meeting called to discuss the substitute Member of Parliament to replace MP Heyliger on Friday, March 29, after not receiving a quorum in the prior two meetings, the chair was hell-bent on doing it her way. She assigned a committee consisting of three members all from the UD/SCMP, while there were 2 other elected MPs signed in to the public meeting of parliament. The chair did it her way.

  When asked at the end of that exercise if a decision was taken, the chair told parliament and the people of St. Maarten no decision could have been taken, in agreement with the comments of NA S. Jacobs and USP R. Brison as it was stated in the constitution. Yet we heard later that the dictator made a decision to send up the report and credentials to the Governor in order that he invite the substitute to be sworn in anyway.

  Is this chairlady serious? Was she trying pull something on the Governor? Then she has the brass to go on radio and create the idea that Governor is not doing what he should be doing. The governor is not there to serve MP Sarah Wescot and her dictatorial behavior. His Excellency has a role as defined in our constitution to uphold the law of the land – nothing less and nothing more.

  It is time that members of parliament stand up and let the chair know that we will no longer accept the way she is running the parliament of St. Maarten as if it is her private business, and everyone else must adhere to her wishes. Let me be clear, when I speak of members of parliament I am speaking about the elected members of the UD and the SMCP.

  The situation is bigger that Sarah Wescot – this is about St. Maarten. If this continues as is, the shame will not be on the chair only but on the other 7 members of parliament who do not have the fortitude to stand up and let the Chairlady know that enough is enough. The 7 of you like the other 7 took an oath to vote their conscience, unless you don’t have a conscience because something got it.

  This country is heading in a very bad direction because no one supporting the government is willing to stand up and be counted. So we have created a dictator in the Chair of Parliament.

  That is my 2 cents.

Harold Richardson

Dear Editor,

  Who is supervising the World Bank as to how it is managing the 470 million euros ($580 million) that Holland promised St. Maarten for the reconstruction after Hurricanes Irma and Maria?

  We heard of the 470 million that was placed in the St. Maarten Recovery, Reconstruction and Resilience Trust Fund. Forgive my ignorance, but how was it opened? Was it placed on a current account? Was it placed or opened as a savings account, if so at what interest rate and how much has it earned so far?

  I hope these questions can be answered expeditiously. I don’t want to hear responses such as privacy laws and confidentiality. Don’t preach it unless you are living it.

  Transparency is the buzzword. We need an accurate account of how much the World Bank has collected for its services. I am sure it will be deducted from the grant.

  We heard of different projects to which some of the funds have been allocated. Does the common man on the street know who they are and what they do? No. Most of us have no clue.

  What have they accomplished visibly for St. Maarten? We know that they have strict rules and are responsible for ensuring that the money is spent properly. If my memory serves me right, there is $50 million that supposed to go to the government, who in turn will lend it to Princess Juliana International Airport. We have heard of the $25 million set aside for the new hospital.

  Is Sunwing still waiting on financial assistance from government? We have all read its demands.

  As far as I can see, St. Maarten’s path to recovery is mainly due to the resilience of her people, the insurance companies and the different organizations such as the Red Cross, who have assisted in some way or the other. And by the way, some insurance companies have increased their premiums by 60 per cent. Am talking from experience. Can you imagine persons with no or a reduced income having to deal with increase in food cost, rent, construction materials, interest rates and all kinds of banking fees?

  During the banking crisis, the giants received some $750 billion in bail-out funds; who is going to bail us out? At a time when interest rates should be lowered, they are being increased. This is another subject for another time. It will call for a discussion on what their policies are and their legal anti-social and immoral jargon.

  Got side-tracked for a moment.

  The trust fund of 470 million euros apparently has 3 interested parties; the one granting the money (Holland), the one managing the money (the World Bank) and the recipient (St. Maarten). It is time for the World Bank to be called to Parliament and it has to be a plenary session. After all, the people have a right to know.

George Pantophlet

Dear Editor,

  My reaction to today’s meeting and the new low it reached towards the Chairperson of Parliament:

  The business of parliament and the governing of the country were at the mercy of the opposition, since the coalition had lost one member. They knew that and took advantage.

  As chair, my first priority was to restore a full parliament, all the insults notwithstanding.

The thinly-veiled charade by those MPs who should know better was not lost on the citizens of this country.

  Ironic though, my actions dubbed today [Monday, April 1 – Ed.] by the opposition as “shady,” “hypocritical,” “illegal,” etc., etc, were lauded by some of the very same members of parliament, when I was on their side of the table, as brilliant, the best Chair ever.

  And furthermore, I have, even when differing with the governor, always shown respect for the person and the office he holds. Not every opposition MP can say the same thing.

Sarah Wescot-Williams

Chairperson of Parliament

From the Pedestal

Dear Editor,

  I am not a lawyer, I am an educator, and a very concerned Sint Maartener. In my postgraduate leadership training, I learned much about observation and unconsciously I practice it every minute of the day. I walk into a room and see everything at once because I am always alert and I want to share an observation that annoys me somewhat.

  It has been a while since I attended a court session at the Courthouse in Sint Maarten. It was on a Wednesday morning in March and the case I attended was already in process.

  I listened carefully to the defense presenting their viewpoint and as intrigued as I was with the information presented, I realized that I was constantly distracted and forced to reset my attention to what was being said. The distraction came from the fact that the Public Prosecutors (two) were constantly giggling with one another, with exchanges between them that seemed to have nothing to do with the presentation of the defense. I assumed this was not about the case as they never put pen to paper, which would have been something one would do when an opposing view is presented.

  This behavior carried on for a while. The Judge allowed this to occur, maybe because he did not see it, or he was focused on the defense and could not see what was happening at his immediate right, but as I stated earlier, I am an observer.

  This situation made me wonder what the Judge would have done if it had been the attorneys engaging in this type of behavior. Surely the seating arrangement would have been the basis for such behavior not to be missed by the Judge.

  This brings me to the seating arrangement in our Court. The Public Prosecutor is seated to the right of the Judge and at the same table, and any one viewing this arrangement could assume that this/these persons function in relation to or by extension of the Judge. The seating arrangement gives reason to assume that the Public Prosecutor takes in a position elevated above the attorneys who present the defense. This arrangement is literally seen as though the Public Prosecutor shares the elevated pedestal with the Judge. All looking down on the defendant and the defense attorneys.

  My understanding is that the Public Prosecutor must make the case, not just state it but bring forward the evidence to support it. It means that the Prosecutor just like the defense has to put on a fight in court to ensure that the court gets that conviction that this position is proven.

  If both parties have to fight to get the conviction of the Judge, why is one placed below and the other placed next to the Judge? Is the message not sent that one on the right of the Judge is easier believed than the one below who has to try so much harder just by the fact that they are not on equal footing from the start.

  I am an observer, but this is my analysis during this case. The fact that the Public Prosecutor seemed to be permitted to disrespect the court bothered me and distracted me, and probably distracted the Judge as well.

  As an educator, I feel that if I am in charge of a space, no one will disrespect that space in my presence and I would have to call them out on it. I do not understand why the Judge allowed this and why the Public Prosecutors felt comfortable enough to display this behavior so flagrantly.

  I believe that the seating arrangement is the cause of the Judge not seeing all that is happening around him in his own court room and much slips because the Public Prosecutors are not seated before or in front of him as the attorneys are.

  I can imagine how difficult lawyers have it to convince a Judge because they already start from a disadvantaged premise. As an observer I did observe other points such as the Public Prosecutors having the advantage of hearing all witnesses they wanted, but that same privilege is not granted to a lawyer who is making a defense.

  With all that I have experienced and observed in the last year and months on Sint Maarten, I wonder about the Justice system and question if we are equally served from that pedestal? I question so many areas within the system.

  When someone has to appear in court, no matter how small or big the case may be, that defendant is fighting for his or her life, freedom, reputation, and name, and Mr. Judge, giggles and chit chats during the court sessions are offensive and disrespectful in this matter, because it can hinder the fairness and integrity of our Justice system.

  Let me conclude by saying that it may be time to take a second look at the Pedestal from which Justice is served.

Josianne Fleming Artsen