Effects of the worsening crisis in Venezuela can be felt throughout the region. As reported in Saturday’s paper, Statia Terminals is being sold for US $250 million. Immediate reason was the US sanctions in January forcing outgoing owner NuStar Energy LP to wind down its contracts with “Petroleos de Venezuela” PDVSA by the end of February.

Management reported that despite “diligently” looking for ways to make up this “significant loss” it soon became clear that a new business model was needed. Investment firm Prostar now intends to make use of its acquisition’s strategic location to take advantage of changing global crude oil trade patterns.

This is no doubt a big deal for St. Eustatius. The transhipment and storage facility remains the island’s biggest private-sector employer and income-earner.

NuStar said the new owners will be required to keep all employees in their current positions with comparable pay and benefits. That sounds like good news, but the reality is that all ultimately depends on the future results.

The deteriorating situation in Venezuela obviously has a huge impact on the so-called ABC islands (Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao) directly off its coast, in terms of not just their respective oil industries and related shipping activities, but also tourism, food imports and illegal migration. The embattled Maduro regime in Caracas seemingly tried to divide the three Dutch Caribbean territories by announcing it would reopen the closed border with Aruba but not the other two.

Aruban Prime Minister Evelyn Wever-Croes quickly declined the offer, mainly because it could spark a new flow of refugees the country can’t handle. However, her government also expressed solidarity with Aruba’s “sister islands.”

Besides, she correctly argued, there is in fact only one single border between them and the troubled South American nation: That of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Dear Editor,

  Company can be dated back to 1613 – the most famous was the Dutch East India Company. It is important to share information with the public about companies, because they enjoy limited liability, and are legal entities separated from their owners. They are also protected by law.

  A company is a legal entity – meaning it is an incorporated body separated from the people owning it. It is referred to as an artificial person, possessing only the rights granted to it by its charter. It is a legal person, and an entity in its own right. Situations can arise between who is a natural and an artificial person in event of citizenship. These terms are clearly defined in the constitution of the land.

  A company can own property, contract in its own name, sue or be sued in its own name. The shareholders of private and public companies enjoy limited liability, whereas, sole trader and partnership businesses enjoyed unlimited liability.

  Companies and corporations are protected by law. A public company is required to have two shareholders. A private company may have one shareholder. A private company is usually controlled by family members, where a sole shareholder is the only director, will make contract with other organizations. It is illegal for a private company to advertise its shares to the public.

  A public company usually has an authorized share capital fixed at about $50,000, and must have the words “Plc” at the end of it. A company can wind-up, if the shareholders sell their shares and another shareholder buys them out. Companies limited by guarantee are formed for non-profit-making purposes, and are not required to file their accounts at the Register of Company.

  Holding and Subsidiary companies: A holding company is the parent company. It is the one with the majority of shares in the other company. A holding company may have more than one subsidiary company. When a company finds interest in another company, and decides to buy out most of the shares in the outside one, the company with the majority of shares is the holding company. The holding company must prepare the group consolidated balance sheet and the profit and loss accounts of it and its subsidiary undertakings.

  A subsidiary company is the one with the minority shares or the “Minority interest”. The subsidiary must provide on their balance sheet the amount owing to fellow subsidiaries and for the holding company. Nowadays companies find interest in other companies, and decided to purchase the majority of shares in the other company. This is quite legal.

  Similarly, public corporations may also find interest in other organizations, and become the majority shareholders as well.

  There is always the possibility that a public corporation owned by the population will be privatized. Privatization can be done if the state corporation wants to be privatized, Telecommunication and Cable TV Services is a good example. One is public and the other is private.

  The problem is that the holding company in this case will have to follow the accounting principles of the private sector businesses, as private or public limited liability company. They must follow the legal requirements set by parliament if they are public corporation, or the statutes laid down in the company Act for private sector businesses. This is a complicated process, and students should research these organizations’ objectives before deciding to go into one of these businesses.

  Other types of company available to the general public are: Unit Trust, Investment Trust, Insurance, Factoring, and Cooperatives.

Joseph Harvey

Dear Editor,

  Recently I read a ‘Dear Queenie’ post, dated May 7, titled “Impatient patient” Now, I never respond to these; I normally shake my head in shock and disgust or laugh off the nonsense.  However, this time it struck a nerve. Actually, it was utmost disgust towards the individual who wrote the post and to the individual behind Queenie giving an “opinion”.

  Opinion: “An opinion is the lowest form of knowledge”. I’ll leave that “down” there with you.

  It’s so easy to sit back, observe others, gossip, and nit pic. “He said, she said” and judge a parent trying to do her or his best, when you are not in their shoes or paying their bills, isn’t it? Fun times, eh? Here’s a shout out to all the religious, judgmental, hypocritical fanatics (notice I said religious, not spiritual … big difference) On Sunday, when you’re all pretending to be perfect, (hence my sarcasm), let’s remember this: Luke 6:37 and John 8:7.

  None of you are Jesus, that I know as a fact. (And that’s a special shout out to all my neighbours.) Take care of what’s behind your wall before you throw stones. Be careful, sometimes stones bounce … I believe they are bouncing now!!

  Back to the issue at hand. Firstly, to the person who wrote the question to Queenie. How dare you sit there and judge this mother. This female who sounds like she was having a hard day, sitting in a doctor’s office with two children? One is enough for me. I feel for this mother.

  This is exactly what I recently wrote about … mother shaming. Solo parent shaming. The person wrote about a child kicking a water bottle around a doctor’s office. Was it a bomb? A Molotov cocktail? You, the writer, stated it was water … let’s read this together, water … well, I pray everyone in that doctor’s office survived being splashed by water. Water, not juice, again. Together let’s say it, water.

  She, the mother, apparently then gave it to her other child to drink the water. Ok, did the child lick the water off the floor in a puddle form like a dog? If so, yes, unsanitary. I admit, at that point even I would have an issue with it, but writing to Queenie about it would not have helped.

  To the writer: who gave you the right to judge this mother? Do you know if she was a solo parent just trying to keep her children alive, at the same time sitting in a doctor’s office trying to get service for either herself or her children? Did this mother sleep the night before? Does this mother have sufficient food, clothing and housing for her and her children? None of that crossed your judgemental mind, right? Goodness,  you were so worried about being splashed by water.

  Curious, was the writer a mother? A mother with a husband or a baby daddy doing everything for her? Ha! Or a man, a man with no children or a man who abandoned his own children leaving it easy to judge? Double Ha, Ha! No solo parent would ever judge another parent (man or woman) for something so frivolous.

  Furthermore,  what exactly was the writer’s question? I am still searching for the question in her or his post? What exactly was this person trying to achieve by writing to a newspaper therapist after the event passed?  Obvious, to shame a woman, a mother.

Suggestion:

  To the writer, who sat there in a doctor’s office and your life was  turned upside down over a water bottle; I hope you get therapy.

  To the individual behind Queenie; I will leave this blank.

  To the entire population of SXM who actually cares, Here’s my advice. Should you find yourself in a situation with a “wild toddler” and a mama or father who looks tired and ready to give up, it’s simple. Ask them if they need help. Do not be condescending . Do not judge them. I promise you; they are exhausted. Make a joke, lighten the mood or just make conversation. Talk to them. You never know, maybe you will be the first adult they make contact with that day. You have the ability to change the entire situation for parent, child and yourself. Instead of gossiping , or writing to Queenie, try helping instead. You will make a friend for life instead of an enemy for life.

  I am a solo mother to a high-energy toddler. To anyone out there who has an opinion about our life, please, I dare you to share it with me. After the sharing moment, I will be asking for donations towards our life. Keep that in mind.

  I would like to extend a Happy Mother’s Day to all the mothers struggling, and trying to keep it together. Stay strong. You are not alone!

Mary De Francesco

Dear Editor:

In Sint Eustatius one constantly hears that the island is “in much need of development.” Development will bring much needed change ultimately solving the island’s many challenges. We are further told that development will “build economic resilience and create much needed employment”. Interestingly, it seems like the only kind of development being touted is tourism, and if you are critical of the traditional touristic model of development, then you are categorized as negative, anti-development and against progress.

In his 1992 book Sint Eustatius: Treasure Island of the Caribbean, Eric O. Ayisi stated that Sint Eustatius is hooked on tourism “something it has neither the facilities nor the capabilities to handle.” In 2019, Ayisi’s statement remains valid. There is a limited food and water supply, no sewage system, roaming animals, and during many months the island is dry and dusty. In addition to this, there is limited connectivity and the price of a Winair ticket from St. Maarten is forever increasing.

Interestingly, research illustrates that the traditional touristic model is not very beneficial to those Caribbean islands relying on it. While the Caribbean is characterized as a “tropical paradise”, for every dollar generated by tourism, about thirty cents remains on the island. Additionally, there has been an increase in literature discussing how tourism in the Caribbean is an outgrowth of the colonial model because it includes selling the single product of “tropical paradise” to North American and European markets, making it very similar to the historical mono-crop agricultural plantation economy.

And what of economic resilience and the job creation? The fact is that tourism primarily brings very low paid service employment to the local population. The local population primarily become “the help” providing service with a smile. In essence they become prisoners by, once again, a mono economy, and the local “primitive” must do as he/she is instructed to do. Essentially the local becomes invisible, non-human and part of the natural landscape to be enjoyed by the tourist. Thus, the idea of “tropical paradise” is a demented fantasy, a social fabrication.

In Sint Eustatius, one often hears that the island does not seek to develop mass tourism, but rather, sustainable tourism. Sustainable tourism is the concept of visiting a place as a tourist and trying to make only a positive impact on the environment, society and economy. The type of sustainable tourism currently being touted for development is ecotourism and is directed toward exotic, often threatened, natural environments, especially to support conservation efforts and observe wildlife.

But “sustainable” is an elusive concept as its scope and practice often has little or nothing to do with protecting the people or the environment. According to Mimi Shelter, while the tourist industry requires an endless supply of pristine beaches, untouched coves and emerald pools, coral reefs, native wildlife, natural hiking trails, etc., many islands, such as Sint Eustatius, struggle with the energy, water and sewage demands with sewage often being returned to the same sea in which people swim.

Ayisi provides an alternative to the traditional tourist model when he states that “urban development needs to be controlled and should not be allowed to consume the fertile land that could be used for food cultivation.” Rather “the type of endeavor suitable to the island’s resources would be developing industries in farming and fisheries, and then using tourism as an ancillary to these industries.” Thus, the government should use moral suasion to attract investors who are not only concerned with development for personal profit, but concerned and interested in providing the necessary support for the primary challenges the island faces. Examples of investments include a proper integrated watershed environment, experimentation with animal husbandry and care, hydroponic farming of agricultural and fodder crops, information technology etc. Tourists who come to the island could include people willing to assist with the development of these industries or simply those who admire the island’s approach toward development.

The antiquated type of tourism being sought in Sint Eustatius, which includes investors who are only interested in personal economic gain via exploitation, is increasingly being critiqued through a moral lens. There is already a great deal of data showing that this form of development will only deplete the island’s resources, further the economic divide between rich and poor and push the local population into perpetual poverty. If Sint Eustatius actually wants to develop, the island’s resources (land) must not be exploited and eliminated but enhanced through sustainable practices. Most importantly, local people must become the stewards of their island and these practices, not servants to tourists.

The EUX Writers Club

The pen is mightier than the sword

SRA, HJR, TEL