Dear Editor,

  It is about time we put an end to the ongoing atrocities in our country, and most importantly, actions undertaken against our political leaders!

  We have all taken note last week of the most recent proof of abuse of power, lack of any basic level of compassion, and what can be considered as a serious violation of basic human rights committed by the judicial authorities in Sint Maarten against our political leader Theo Heyliger.

  It appears, from the publication in The Daily Herald of June 17, 2019, that the detained political leader was being denied access to urgent medical care in the USA. According to the article mentioned: “Theodore Heyliger is said to be blocked from leaving the country to get treatment for his stage one kidney cancer” and reports reaching us from Curaçao indicated that said passport was reported stolen, hindering from getting his visa for travel. It is at this early stage when medical care is most important and not when it has already reached stage 3 or 4 if a life needs to be saved.

  Let me be clear before going any further!

  By no means should this publication by me be seen and considered as a means to downplay or mitigate any wrongdoings, committed – if proven – by any person, and that includes any member of our party and this applies to our political leader, who has been persecuted and prosecuted already for months now. No one, including prosecutors, should be considered “above the law”! But everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

  Furthermore, the quintessence of our observations, as dealt with in this publication, apply generally for everyone, guilty or not, since it relates to the basic human rights that do not discriminate between these two categories.

  It is interesting to outline how these basic rights are protected in Europe:

  European Court Of Human Rights, Kotsaftis v. Greece,12 June 2008: The applicant, who was suffering from cirrhosis of the liver caused by chronic hepatitis B, complained about the conditions of his detention on account, in particular, of the lack of treatment appropriate to his state of health. In March 2007, under Rule 39 (interim measures) of the Rules of Court, the Court requested Greece to order the transfer of the applicant to a specialized medical center so that he could undergo all the necessary tests and remain in hospital until his doctors considered that he could return to prison without his life being endangered.

  The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention, finding that, during the period between 9 June 2006 and 15 March 2007, the Greek authorities had not fulfilled their obligation to safeguard the applicant’s physical integrity, in particular by providing him with the appropriate medical care.

  The Court noted in particular that, during that period, contrary to the findings of the expert reports drawn up, the applicant had been kept in detention without being given a special diet or treatment with the appropriate drugs, and had not undergone tests in a specialist medical center. Moreover, an operation scheduled for a particular date had not been performed until one year later.

  The Court also deplored the fact that the applicant, who was suffering from a serious and highly infectious disease, had been detained along with 10 other prisoners in a cell measuring 24 square meters.

  Lastly, despite the fact that the competent authorities had been informed that he was suffering from cirrhosis and that his condition necessitated appropriate treatment, it was not until measures had been indicated by the Court that the applicant began to receive regular check-ups.

  Note: Just one out of numerous examples put before the court and related to prisoners’ health-related rights

  Regarding Mr. Heyliger’s life-threatening situation that might lead to his early death, apparently deliberately obstructing his possibility to undergo adequate advance medical treatment by a reputable medical institution of his choice in the USA, or wherever else for that matter, can be considered not only as a despicable act by those in charge but as a serious deliberate violation and breach of Theo’s basic human rights.

  It is therefore that we have taken upon us to report this serious violation and atrocities and file an official complaint to the relevant international institutions, such as:

  * European Convention of Human Rights, Strasbourg

  * European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg

  * European Institution Office of Amnesty International, Brussels

  * Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, Oxford

  * Human Rights Watch Foundation, the Netherlands, The Hague

  * Human Rights Watch, headquarters, in New York City

  * Liberty Privacy International, London

  * Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Geneva

  We will therefore not rest until true justice is served in this matter and immediate action is undertaken by the relevant judicial and other authorities to ensure that Mr. Heyliger’s basic human rights are respected and met, and he travels abroad without interruption and false alarms of lost passports to undergo the medical treatment necessary to enhance his life expectancy!

  We will otherwise hold accountable any institution that acts otherwise, and which continues to obstruct the rehabilitation of Mr. Theodore Heyliger. God forbid should any harm occur to our leader!

Josianne Fleming Artsen

Dear Editor,

   Nowadays, I still wonder how our parents got the news so fast when radios and telephones were luxuries. Because even with the technology nowadays, the message is not as accurate as then. What I think is that technology is only second to the Almighty when it concerns hidden secrets. It is just that the different entities take interest in what concerns them.

Dear Editor,

  This article is for people to identify themselves for who they really are when it comes to politics.

  The electorate in St. Maarten really needs a crash course on this subject because it can avoid the confusion that we have presently in our government.

  Lesson number 1: You do not have to agree but to understand. To understand is for you to know if an opinion or a value or an ideology is of good or bad purpose.

  In politics whenever a person postulates themselves make it your business to find out about their character. Do not be deceived by an image because they look good or dress well and speak well and because they have a good education. Find out what they stand for and their moral values.

  Politics is all about ideology. A politician can be well educated, but if he or she believes in (wealth redistribution) to take money from people who work and give it to other people who do not want to work, would you vote for that person? Would you vote for a politician that has five Master’s degrees but he or she think pedophilia is a human right? If the candidate is a very nice person but they do not believe in God would you vote for that person?

  If a candidate has a Master’s in economics but he or she believes abortion is a woman’s right and he or she believes in bestiality would you vote for that person? If a candidate has a Master’s in business management and is fluent in 5 languages, but he or she believes in promoting homosexuality and that there are 10 genders would you vote for him or her?

  Would you vote for a politician if he or she believes illegal immigrants have just as many rights or even more right here in St. Maarten than the Dutch citizens of St. Maarten, would you vote for him or her?

  When it comes to politics, character and ideology is the key, because your values are how you see the world, and how the individual would like the world to be defines that person’s character.

  If you vote for an educated person, but they believe in corruption and in conning people would you vote for that person? The politics in St. Maarten is at a very low standard. We must raise the level or else it will continue to get worse.

  The main two ideologies are Conservatism and Liberalism. Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Liberals believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve problems.

  Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional moral values, and a strong national defense. Conservatives believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

  Liberal values are abortion is a woman right and agree with same-sex marriage and in wealth redistribution and taxing a challenge if the law cannot stop it. Liberals believe in the separation of the church from state.

  Conservatives are usually against abortion, disagree with same-sex marriage, believe in low taxes and push individual empowerment. Conservatives believe in the separation of the church from the state, but not from God.

  When you swear to perform your task of the country it is done with your hand on the Bible, which means you are telling the people of the country as God is your witness you will do your task and duty honestly.

  Whenever you vote for a party ask them what is their ideology, ask the candidate what is his or her ideology. You cannot be of conservative value in a liberal party, it will never work because your approach to financial issues and social issues is exactly contrary.

  Remember the number 1 lesson in political ideology, you do not have to agree, but to understand. Your understanding of the issues defines who you are. You cannot put Satan in Government and expect to get a Godly society it is just not possible.

  Choices have consequences. Choose wisely. As for me, I am conservative.

The Patriot Miguel Arrindell

This note is written against the background of the turbulent times we are living through. I hope to convince the readers that despite the dark clouds covering our islands, a concerted effort by everyone will certainly put us back on the road to prosperity for all of us.

  The economic crisis we have been facing during the last few years should not have come as a surprise. It is, to a major extent, the result of capricious policymaking, lack of oversight by parliament, and what was meant to be a tool to promote fiscal soundness turned out to be a weaponization of an economic tool.

  We have to acknowledge that the economic ills besetting our island are of our own making. But our economic problems cannot be analyzed without putting them against the background of the policies advanced by the Dutch government – proponents of this policy are, among others, members of the Dutch parliament Van Raak and Bosman – policies that purport to promote sound public finance through the CFT (College financieel toezicht) on the one hand, and good governance on the other hand.

  The Rijkswet financieel toezicht (RFT) and its constituent instrument, the CFT with their rigid imposition of the budget rules and their consequent measures, have created a state of constant polarization both among our policymakers, as well as between our policymakers and Dutch Government. The budgetary norms enshrined in the RFT, in fact constitute a set of perverse incentives that have rendered sound macroeconomic policymaking irrelevant.

  Sound macroeconomic policy since 10-10-’10 has come to be defined as meeting CFT demands (based on the norms enshrined in the RFT) to avoid an instruction from the Kingdom Council of Ministers (RMR). Hence, since 10-10-’10, all macroeconomic policies pursued by Curaçao government have been seen or been justified as “necessary to meet CFT demands”. Meeting CFT demands has become a goal in itself and thus gradually transformed from a “necessary” to a “sufficient” condition. Policy disputes with CFT are being solved by yielding to Dutch pressure.

  That may calm tension (with RMR), but at an intolerably high price: a stagnant economy, high unemployment, and increased poverty.

  Mentioned “Dutch pressure” is being reinforced by the policies pursued by the Dutch government to promote good governance through increased funding for RST [Kingdom Detective Cooperation Team – Ed.], TBO [Anti-Corruption Taskforce], and OM [Prosecutor’s Office], which are tantamount to psychological coercion. The game plan came to be seen as: “Show me the man and I will find the crime”.

  This policy perhaps represents the gravest threat to our autonomy. In order not to be seen as a rival or as not acting according to the expressed wishes of Holland, people have preferred inaction (i.e., paralysis) to following their own best judgment.

  To challenge that inaction is potentially to face the wrath of the Prosecutor.

  The foregoing, however, begs the following questions: Why does Holland believe that it has the “God-given right to interfere in our internal affairs”? Does Holland have an ulterior motive to erode our autonomy? On the surface, Holland’s political rhetoric and public disclosures seem to contradict its ultimate actions.

  While Dutch politicians constantly advocate revisiting the current constitutional arrangements, the government/civil servants are continually tightening their grip on the internal affairs of the island. Now we can see the force that Holland can project by a mere threat to give Curaçao an instruction if it is unconstrained.

  It is appalling to see this informal pressure being brought to bear by the Dutch government on virtually every single aspect of the Antillean governments.

  The answers to these questions are a tangled web of historical facts, the overriding ones being the debt relief program and the judicial policy to promote good governance.

  While I am still a proponent of those programs, I believe that the unfettered implementation of those programs without parliamentary oversight created a set of perverse incentives that render our policy-makers powerless vis-à-vis their Dutch counterparts. Besides, the rigidities of the RFT leave little room for an autonomous fiscal policy (suis generis).

The making of our economic crisis

  In 2005, an exuberant Antillean delegation returned from Holland after signing the so-called “Slotverklaring”. What they did not realize was that with that tactical victory, they had ceded the long-term strategic advantage of being the master of our own destiny. This concession led to a serious erosion of our autonomy, which only now is becoming evident. This “consensus agreement” created a rootless political elite (CFT) that feels closer to The Hague than to the people of Curaçao, Sint Maarten or the BES islands. This outcome is reminiscent of what has happened with many other unequal treaties forced upon overseas territory by foreign powers.

  As I have mentioned on previous occasions, as a consequence of this agreement and subsequent legislation, policy successes are now being defined as getting a passing grade from CFT. Little to no attention is being paid to the social-economic situation of the inhabitants of Curaçao and Sint Maarten. This all, at the expense of the social and economic situation.

  With a floundering economy and a fractured political landscape, we are risking a total social collapse. All the gains that we made with the structural reforms in the healthcare, labor, and pension systems that are fundamental to our further development are now at risk.

  The question becomes: does this risk outweigh the overriding goals of the consensus agreement? Does the fact that Holland provided us with a debt relief endow them with the right to erode our autonomy? Or was the break-up of the Netherlands Antilles a well-conceived geopolitical strategy of Holland in order to own the individual parts (the reverse Pottery Barn rule; the Pottery Barn rule is an American expression alluding to a “you break it, you buy it” policy by which a retail store holds a customer responsible for damage done to merchandise on display).

  To me, this notion of debt-induced autonomy erosion and Holland’s current judicial philosophy toward the post 10-10-’10 Netherlands Antilles is at the root of our economic ills. As mentioned, they have led to polarization and paralysis.

  In 2005, I advanced the notion of a comprehensive solution of the debt problem of the Netherlands Antilles in the context of the first Millennium Development Goal (MDG). I regret to note, however, that through the RFT, Holland seems to be promoting a policy that runs counter to the principles on which the debt relief was premised, namely, reduction of extreme poverty (“Toward a comprehensive solution of the debt problem of the Netherlands Antilles”, November 12, 2005. Dr. E. D. Tromp, pp 91-96 in Ensuring Stability).

  I contended that given the structural problem that the newly formed countries would be facing, it was imperative they be given a starting position that would allow them to realize the hope and aspirations of their inhabitants. This assertion was based on the notion that if the then-existing outstanding public debt was distributed among the five islands, then their debt-to-GDP [gross domestic product] ratio would be prohibitively high, crowding out their future investment and economic growth.

  To make matters worse, this arrangement (CFT) masked another serious problem that came to be known as the “Economic Cliff”. Since 2012, the Central Bank has been warning policymakers in the Monetary Union that if no appropriate policy measures are put in place, the dynamic of the existing policies will push the Union onto an economic precipice.

  The Central Bank contended that the confluence of a series of events in 2019 (below) would likely lead to a sharp drop in the GDP of the respective countries of the Monetary Union – similar to what occurred in the 1980s with the partial termination of the double taxation treaty with the United States, the departure of Shell and Exxon as operators of the refineries in Curaçao and Aruba, respectively, the malaise of the transportation industry, and the collapse of Venezuelan shopping tourism.

  As I have warned, multiple events occur this year: (1) The grandfather clause in the offshore tax legislation will expire; (2) The lease agreement with PdVSA as the operator of the oil refinery in Curaçao will expire; (3) Curaçao and Sint Maarten will become net payers to Holland as the public outstanding debts of both countries to Holland begin to mature – this implies a net outflow of foreign exchange to Holland, bringing its pressure to bear on an already large current account deficit of the balance of payments; (4) What was not foreseen then is the rapidly deteriorating situation in Venezuela; and (5) the recent passing of Hurricane Irma with its devastating consequences for the tourist infrastructure of Sint Maarten – the main generator of foreign exchange for the monetary union – is negatively impacting GDP.

  As noted, due to gross negligence of our policymakers and unfettered meddling by the Dutch government, those warnings went unheeded. The result of the crippling developments on our economy is the crisis we now face.

  Despite the foregoing, Holland seems determined to push us onto the economic precipice with the recently announced threat of a Kingdom Instruction. Thanks to the public outcry, now they seek dialogue and consultation.

  In a recently issued Concluding Statement, the IMF [International Monetary Fund] also reminded us of the sorry state of our economy: rising unemployment, contracting economic activities, weak public finances, large external current account deficit, and rising poverty. The IMF joined the chorus of voices warning the government that the blind implementation of the CFT’s recommendations may further aggravate the state of our economy.

  I quote: “In staff’s view, consistent implementation of quality measures is more important for reaching medium-term sustainability than the speed of adjustment.” Yet despite that warning, Holland seems determined to put us on the path of self-destruction.

  The question becomes: What went wrong? Why did policymakers not heed the warning of the Central Bank? To answer this question, I will reflect both as a private citizen and as a former President of the Central Bank where I was privileged to some insight and information about our economy and the inner workings of our institutions.

The root cause of our economic ills

  As mentioned, Holland is now prepared to unleash a legal arsenal to protect its interest and is willing to deploy new weapons that exploit its role as Chairman of the Kingdom government. While this may be seductive to some, it is eroding the Kingdom’s most valuable asset – its legitimacy.

  The current judicial policy pursued by the Prosecutor came to be perceived as a political instrument of the Dutch government to achieve the goals it could not achieve through normal policy dialogue with the Curaçao government. In addition, the CFT syndrome of meeting the budgetary rules created a class of policymakers whose sole objectives became meeting the CFT’s demand as expounded by the RFT. As a consequence of these two developments, we have created a state of paralysis and polarization in policymaking, the consequences of which are now becoming abundantly clear.

  The IMF staff also stated that “the large current account deficit in Curaçao is a significant vulnerability and requires urgent attention.” They went on saying that “it is very important to follow through on economy-wide structural reforms to support potential growth and increase exports.”

  A closer look at their projections, however, indicates that even in the baseline scenario (incorporating the implementation of the authorities’ announced measures: short-term tax increases, hiring and wage freezes, early retirement package, and savings in the health area), economic growth will remain at an average annual rate of 0.3 per cent for the next five years. During the same period, unemployment will remain in double digits. That is to say, despite all the sacrifices being asked of the public, social and economic progress will remain elusive at best.

  Gross debt-to-GDP is projected to hit 62 per cent by 2024, whereas tax revenue-to-GDP will average more than 43 per cent, and debt service-to-revenue will average 3.6 per cent. This 3.6 per cent masks an important downside risk. Curaçao now has access to the Dutch financial market through the Dutch government. As a consequence, the interest rates paid on securities issued by the Curaçao government are equal to those paid by the Dutch government as long as the RFT is in force. In addition, the interest rates paid are at a historical low.

  A change in any of those two parameters will have far reaching consequences for the sustainability of the fiscal position. Gross official reserves, excluding gold, will continue on a downward path pushing gross official reserves in months of imports from 5.1 months in 2016 to a projected 2.0 months by 2024.

  Despite warnings, policymakers have erred on the side of meeting the CFT demands. Now that all the chickens have come home to roost, the question remains: what went wrong? Why do our policymakers seem unresponsive to the public pressure and warnings given to them? Is it due to forecasting errors? Or due to political manipulation? On the other hand, is the CFT deliberately being cautious for fear of breaking the rules? The political appetite to address this seems non-existent. Though the government has given lip service to this “CFT bias”, it seems keener to balance the books.

  Another cause of our problem may lie in the elimination of the two layers of government, and hence, the two-year election cycles. Those two-year cycles of elections provided a mid-term evaluation of the policies pursued by the government in power. The elimination of this two-year election cycle created a vacuum. In this vacuum, government coalitions seem to be more stable and less prone to be in tune with their electorate. In their political calculations, the government may perceive that meeting CFT demands is politically more expeditious than responding to the public pressure.

  This vacuum left by the constitutional restructuring is now being filled by The Hague through the CFT and its judicial policy. But as is becoming abundantly clear, this policy, which has led to polarization and paralysis, is the root cause of our economic problem.

Emsley Tromp