Dear Editor,

As we reflect on St. Maarten/St. Martin Day, it’s an opportune moment to address a longstanding issue that has garnered attention in recent years – the tendency to overlook local professionals and companies, particularly by the government and state-owned entities.

There has been considerable discourse about how government-owned companies often favour international firms for major contracts and leadership positions, while qualified local companies and residents are overlooked. This concern extends to all residents of St. Maarten, and it raises important questions about the long-term impacts of such practices on our local talent pool.

Despite calls for our students to return home and contribute to the development of our nation, many find themselves relegated to mid-level positions upon their return, with limited opportunity for advancement. This phenomenon not only contributes to brain drain but also stifles the potential of highly educated locals who are eager to contribute meaningfully to their communities.

It is crucial to clarify that the blame should not be placed on foreign candidates who apply for these roles. Once they arrive in our beautiful community, it is vital that we extend the renowned friendliness and hospitality that St. Maarten is famous for. Welcoming newcomers with open arms fosters a spirit of collaboration and inclusion, rather than division.

The root of the issue lies with the policies and practices of those in power. Government agencies often procure the services of international consulting firms for recruitment without a clear mandate to prioritize local talent. This continues to perpetuate a cycle where qualified residents are overlooked, undermining the potential benefits these local professionals can bring.

Additionally, we must examine the allocation of Dutch funds managed by the World Bank. It is troubling that a significant portion of these resources seem to be awarded to foreign companies. The imperative for local employment cannot be understated; when contracts are granted to local firms, the economic benefits circulate within our community, enhancing tax revenues and bolstering our local economy. Diverting these funds to foreign entities undermines our economic stability and perpetuates the cycle of exclusion.

This is an opportunity for reflection among our leaders and stakeholders in St. Maarten. As we listen to speeches emphasizing unity and nation-building, it is crucial to recognize that actions must align with these sentiments. Building a resilient nation involves ensuring that local companies and professionals are given priority in government contracts and hiring practices.

Let us advocate for policies that prioritize local talent and contribute to the economic advancement of all residents. The strength of our community lies in empowering its members and fostering a collaborative environment where everyone can thrive.

Kendall Dupersoy

Local professional

Dear Editor,

On November 3, the Washington Post reports, “fast-fashion” retailer Shein banned sales of sex dolls on its site after a government regulatory agency threatened to bar the company from operating in France and referred it to prosecutors. Some of the dolls sold on Shein's online platform were, it seems, too “childlike” in appearance.

I consider it lazy to assert, as many opinionators do, that “no one” supports, or “everyone” wants, this or that particular thing, but if there’s a subject that commands anything close to societal unanimity, it’s opposition to the sexual molestation of children.

Pretty much all of us who aren’t sexual abusers of children want sexual abusers of children stopped and punished. Many even advocate capital punishment as a permanent individual solution and future collective deterrent, and while I’m opposed to the death penalty myself, I do find the opinion understandable.

It’s odd, then, that so many opponents of child molestation also advocate for laws which increase, rather than decrease, the likelihood that someone with such tendencies will act, in that way, on those tendencies.

Or is it really that odd? These days, public opinion – followed by legislative and law enforcement attitudes – seems largely driven by moral panic. Many people don’t want to just stop actual harmful Activity X, but also want government to suppress anything which might activate the “ick factor” associated with seeing, hearing, or thinking about topics adjacent to Activity X.

Thus the increasing tendency toward banning “child pornography” in which no actual children are involved, and “childlike” sex dolls that, whatever else they may be, are not actual children.

If we want to see actual reductions in the incidence of child sexual abuse, it’s worth considering what economists call the “substitution effect.” Per the Corporate Finance Institute, that effect is the “change in demand for a good as a result of a change in the relative price of the good compared to that of other substitute goods.”

A vanilla example, literally: Suppose you like vanilla ice cream. A scoop of vanilla ice cream made with real vanilla costs $1. A scoop made with artificial vanilla flavor costs 50 cents. You prefer saving 50 cents and putting up with artificial flavor. But suppose the price of the artificial version goes up? If it’s 75 cents or 80 cents or 90 cents, you’re more likely to pay just a little bit extra for the real thing.

I don't keep track of sex doll prices, but so long as they’re legal, they’re presumptively “cheaper” than long prison sentences, mandatory sex offender registration and the handicaps that come with it, maybe even “chemical castration”. Some potential child molesters will opt for the lower “price” of the doll.

Making “childlike” sex dolls illegal brings their “price”, in non-monetary terms, closer to the “price” of actually molesting a child. That, to at least some degree, incentivizes potential child molesters to become actual child molesters.

So, do we want fewer or more child molesters? If the former, we'll stop letting moral panic drive our legal and political demands.

Thomas L. Knapp

Dear Editor,

On many occasions when discussing the ability of a person, words are confused. For instance he has a nice voice as opposed to he knows how to sing. In baseball some people would say he has good stuff, while others will say he knows how to pitch. And this counts for almost everything that we do. Ì had a conversation with a person on the phone on Monday as a consequence of a news article in the paper. One thing brought the next and that comparison that I began this article with also came up. For instance one can be head of the government, but does not know how to govern. I believe that that is the case with our government.

Let me be clear that you don't get to be a medical doctor and surgeon by being a fool, so in no form or fashion I am being dismissive, I am merely voicing my opinion. Neither am I advocating for change of government, but it still remains that in my vision the people of Sint Maarten will not get anything done with the way the present government is proceeding. Even though I try to avoid repeating what some would call it, there is empathy there. What I still do not understand is what is the real reason that after so many years we still have not learned to make use of what our status affords us. Pointing fingers and denigrating does not make for good leaders.

The members of Parliament have so much idle time on their hands, still I am sure that the majority of them will be gobsmacked if someone would confront them with a question pertaining to the Constitution. By the way, does anybody in government think of asking Ms. Jacobs about her endurance? How she is the only one in these first fifteen years who weathered the tumblings of the Sint Maarten governments' storms?

Honestly speaking, I would be the last one to participate in getting rid of the TEATT Minister, and even if I did, I probably would have sugar-coated it. I must add that 'we'll see' seems to be the motto of the governments, which my opinion is a consequence of instability in government and governing. I always believe in country before self, but I also believe that in dynamism. And I believe that the SER is underscoring my thoughts, after reading Wednesday's paper.

Russell A. Simmons

~ In commemoration of the 80^th anniversary of Taiwan’s restoration ~

This year marks the 80^th anniversary of the founding of the United Nations and the 80^th anniversary of the restoration of Taiwan, China. A few days ago, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China set October 25 as Commemoration Day of Taiwan’s Restoration, and stipulated that commemorative activities in various forms can be held, which fully reflects the historical fact that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China.

Some friends may not know much about Taiwan question, so I would like to introduce its origin and nature and the correct attitude we should take on it.

The statement that Taiwan has belonged to China since ancient times has a sound basis in history. The earliest Chinese historical records about Taiwan can be traced back 1800 years ago. Since then, the central governments of China gradually strengthened the administrative bodies to exercise jurisdiction over Taiwan. In 1885, Taiwan was the 20^th province of China.

However, in the late Qing Dynasty, due to the invasion of foreign powers and the corruption of feudal rule, the Chinese nation suffered an unprecedented calamity. In 1894, Japanese launched an aggression war against China, and Taiwan and Penghu Islands as well were ceded by Qing government of China to Japan.

Taiwan question arose from a weak and divided China in the history, but the Chinese nation has never given up its struggle for sovereignty and dignity.

The question of Taiwan’s status was fundamentally resolved on October 25, 1945, when the Chinese people won the great victory of the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression. On that day, the Chinese government, which was called then as the government of the Republic of China (ROC), announced the “resumption of the exercise of sovereignty over Taiwan” and held the “Surrender Ceremony of Taiwan Province in the China War Zone” in Taipei.

The restoration of Taiwan was an important achievement of the victory in the War of Resistance against Japan and an important part of the post-war international order. This victory was won by the Chinese people including our Taiwan compatriots through hard-fought battles and great sacrifices. It shall by no means be undermined by the false narratives of some western politicians.

Shortly after Taiwan’s restoration, China’s civil war and external interference made the two sides of the Taiwan Strait into a prolonged state of political confrontation. But the fact remains unchanged that Taiwan has never been an independent country.

In 1949, the Chinese people overthrew the ROC government, renamed the country the People’s Republic of China (PROC), and established the Central People’s Government of the People’s Republic of China. It was the replacement of the old government by the new one, while China, as a subject of international law, stayed unchanged; and China’s sovereignty and inherent territorial boundaries stayed unchanged. Thus the government of PROC naturally and fully enjoys and exercises China’s sovereignty, including sovereignty over the Taiwan region.

The one-China principle is a fundamental norm of international relations and a universal consensus of the international community. The Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation and other documents of international law all recognized Taiwan, which was stolen by Japan, must be returned to China. In 1971, the U.N. General Assembly adopted Resolution 2758, making it clear “to restore all its rights to the People’s Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its Government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations.”

This resolution settled once and for all the political and legal issues of China’s representation in the UN, so there is no such thing as “two Chinas”, “one China, one Taiwan” or “Taiwan Independence”. It was clearly stated in the official legal opinions of the Office of Legal Affairs of the U.N. Secretariat that “the U.N. considers ‘Taiwan’ as a Province of China with no separate status” and the “‘authorities’ in ‘Taipei’ are not considered to … enjoy any form of government status.” To date, 183 countries have established and developed diplomatic relations with China on the basis of the one-China principle.

The Taiwan issue must be resolved by the Chinese people ourselves. Although the Taiwan question has existed for more than 70 years, the shared history, culture, national responsibility, and future aspirations of compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Strait have never been severed. Every one of the 23 million people in Taiwan is a member of the Chinese nation.

As long as both sides of the Taiwan Strait recognize that they are Chinese, we can exchange talks and build consensus for the complete reunification of China. The Taiwan question arose from the weakness of the Chinese nation, and it will inevitably be resolved with the rejuvenation of the nation.

Zhang Kaibin

Consul General People's Republic of China