Dear Editor,
There are lots of talks about PFP party leader Melissa Gumbs, who is due to take up the position as Minister of Education, Culture, Youth and Sport. Currently, there are some dark clouds of suspicions, since the population is unaware of her clear-cut decisions – resolutions that could have severe consequences on the lives of children, teachers and parents.
Even though the uncertainty looms, I believe in giving people a chance to prove themselves, once their motives are aligned with the principles that govern their portfolio. While I do have reservations with the appointment, deep within, I still feel that MP Melissa Gumbs would do well, if she recruits a team of professionals to assist her – specialists, who have knowledge of the subdivisions of her prospective ministry.
Repeatedly, a ministry becomes stagnant because the minister tends to hire persons who ran on a list, or friends and even family members. No minister is obligated to bear the burden of selecting any candidate to be part of his or her office team. More often than not, it has been proven that many candidates turned out to be nothing but dead weight. This liability is what keeps a ministry spinning in circles, every single time.
While she is waiting to be appointed, now is a good time for MP Melissa Gumbs to use her managerial skills to envision the positive changes that she wishes to see, during the first year of her ministerial position, and then extends her vision, as she assesses her objectives and challenges. These constructive changes may include maintaining direct and constant interaction with the managers of all divisions; not forgetting the voices of the people.
This systematic approach would help her to maintain the awareness of the many successes and challenges within her ministry. Then, it will become easier to prioritize areas of concerns that need upgrading, in order to achieve continuous progress. It also gives the opportunity to combat the growing challenges that have kept educators frustrated for years.
For instance, educators have been complaining about the lack of materials to work with and the bureaucracy inside the ministry to obtain these resources. It may be a good idea to look at the entire structure of how to acquire these materials, identify the bottlenecks, and then seek ways to counteract this problem.
MP Melissa Gumbs has chosen a very interesting ministry, where she will be responsible for shaping the lives of the entire community, through education, culture and sports. Therefore, I sincerely hope that she would use wisdom, and stick to her professional duties, and do not introduce this destructive woke ideology in the schools.
If she does, this will be the end of her political career, and this move will cause an uprising for sure. Family values are still very prevalent on the island and parents will go to all length to protect these morals, even if it means closing down every single school on Dutch St. Maarten.
Joslyn Morton
Dear Editor,
Please allow me some space in your esteemed publication to highlight the following:
In light of the renewed emphasis on reigniting agriculture on the island, it is important to also realize that without conservation measures to protect our natural resources this ambition may be but a pipe dream if we continue along our current path.
As a small island developing state, St. Maarten’s efforts toward self-sufficiency and food security through agricultural development are vital, especially given our island’s vulnerability to external shocks driven by climate change. However, while these developments are promising, it is essential to recognize that any agricultural revival will remain unsustainable unless it is firmly grounded in the protection and restoration of our terrestrial ecosystems and that now is the time to take a leadership role in championing conservation practices, as this would lay the foundation for sustainable agriculture and food security for our country.
Many successful examples from other island states show us that agriculture and environmental conservation must go hand in hand should there be any real progress. Take the case of Cuba, where, following the collapse of trade in the early 1990s, the island adopted agroecological farming practices that integrated biodiversity conservation into its agricultural systems. By protecting natural ecosystems and using organic farming methods, Cuba not only stabilized its food production but also became a global leader in sustainable agriculture.
Similarly, Fiji has implemented community-based forest conservation programs that not only preserve biodiversity but enhance the soil and water quality essential for agricultural productivity. These examples offer valuable lessons for St. Maarten: when we protect our natural resources, agriculture flourishes in a way that benefits both the environment and enhances food security.
Terrestrial conservation is not merely an environmental issue – it is the backbone of any agricultural ambition. Healthy ecosystems provide the critical services that agriculture depends on; soil fertility, water management, and natural pest control. Forests and native vegetation contribute to soil health by preventing erosion, enhancing water retention, and facilitating nutrient cycling. If our forests continue to be degraded, St. Maarten will face severe challenges in maintaining the soil fertility necessary for productive farming.
Additionally, terrestrial ecosystems play an integral role in regulating water systems. Forests and healthy landscapes ensure that rainfall is absorbed and released slowly, reducing the risk of both drought and flooding. Agriculture cannot thrive without a reliable and consistent water supply and we have not been doing the most stellar of jobs in ensuring that our fresh water supply – and yes we do have a fresh water supply, just look at our wells – are sufficiently managed and conserved.
Biodiversity, including native birds, insects, and other wildlife, also supports agriculture by promoting pollination and natural pest control. By damaging these ecosystems through deforestation or urban expansion, we not only reduce agricultural productivity but make it more costly and chemically dependent. Moreover, the rising threat of invasive species is a pressing issue on St. Maarten.
Invasive plants and animals, often introduced through human activity, displace native species and disrupt ecosystems critical for agricultural success. If invasive species continue to spread unchecked, they will further degrade the natural landscape and threaten both biodiversity and agriculture. Investment in terrestrial conservation, including invasive species management, is a necessary defense for ensuring agricultural resilience. We can already see the impact the invasive monkey and iguana populations have had on our budding agricultural initiatives.
If the current environmental degradation continues, any talk of reigniting agriculture on St. Maarten will be unrealistic. We cannot afford to overlook the fact that agriculture and conservation are inextricably linked. Consider the case of Haiti, where extensive deforestation over the years has led to soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, and a severe decline in agricultural productivity. On the flip side, the Dominican Republic, which shares the same island of Hispaniola, has invested in reforestation and conservation initiatives, allowing it to maintain more robust agricultural productivity. The contrasting outcomes of these two countries highlight how critical environmental protection is for sustainable agriculture.
The current vision of reigniting agriculture on St. Maarten is commendable and necessary, but it must be rooted in a broader framework of environmental sustainability. Any agricultural policy that does not prioritize the health of our natural ecosystems is bound to fail in the long term. Protecting and restoring terrestrial habitats is not only a way to enhance agriculture but also a means to ensure food security, reduce vulnerability to climate change, and to promote a healthier and more resilient island.
Our leaders have a critical role to play in supporting these efforts through championing conservation practices by establishing the first protected nature park on land. This would safeguard biodiversity, promote ecosystem restoration, and provide a foundation for sustainable agriculture to thrive. Additionally, parliament should act by turning the existing hillside policy into formal conservation legislation to protect St. Maarten’s remaining forested areas. Hillside conservation is crucial for maintaining the natural water cycle, preventing erosion, and preserving the habitats that local wildlife and agricultural systems depend on.
Another key action for both government and parliament would be to finally approve the zoning plans and ensure that all new development projects undergo rigorous environmental and social impact assessments. These assessments are vital for identifying the potential negative impacts of land use changes and for developing strategies to mitigate those impacts. Approving and enforcing zoning regulations, especially those designed to protect natural areas, will create a more balanced approach to development that respects the island’s environmental limitations while encouraging responsible agricultural growth.
The news of advancing agriculture is important for St. Maarten, but we must ensure that it is built on the solid foundation of terrestrial conservation. Without safeguarding the environment, agricultural initiatives will be unsustainable, leaving our island even more vulnerable to environmental and economic pressures. True progress requires a balance between agriculture and nature – only then can St. Maarten grow and prosper in harmony with its environment. It is time for both the government and parliament to take the lead in making environmental sustainability a core part of our island's agricultural future.
Tadzio Bervoets
Caribbean Conservation Professional
By Alex Rosaria
Nearly 20 years ago, I made proposals to change the way the opening of Parliament is conducted. No one listened. This often happens when you are ahead of others. This is a translation of an earlier version in Papiamentu dated September 15, 2024.
Every year, the same show is repeated in Punda. The polished car of the Governor arrives at the Town Hall, H.E. the Governor steps out, crosses a patch of asphalt that glimmers a bit extra due to dirty engine oil, climbs the stairs, and delivers a speech for the opening of the parliamentary year. And as usual, the vast majority takes no notice. If it weren't for the fact that Punda was closed off early in the morning, even fewer people would know that “something” was happening there.
This year’s speech was, as usual, a “disjointed official story” stitched together from 9 ministries. It covered the same promises from the Government Program, such as: repairing roads, boosting the economy, reducing crime, and optimizing education and culture (while science, which is part of the same ministry, remains overlooked once again). Realizing that the expiration date of the speech is May 2025, when a new constellation will take over, there were almost no references to long-term ambitions.
As a minister (2005), I had the courage to propose some changes: either clean the asphalt where H.E. the Governor has to walk, or lay down a carpet. Hold the opening of the States not in the morning, but during “prime time” (8:00pm) to reach the public as much as possible, and encourage TV/radio stations to have panels of experts before and after the speech. I also suggested including a long-term ambition in the speech.
How was this received? The Prime Minister said to me, “How dare you, Rosario?” (My last name is Rosaria.)
So, I, along with a handful of people, will have to wait for a demographic approach to address an ever-shrinking population and a labor shortage. Will there be coordination to ensure that our monetary union works? Will there be a vision for the energy transition, climate change, and our democratic system, which increasingly disappoints people? What is our position regarding the efforts of others to make our country an UPG? And on the same note: why is there no referendum law as outlined in Article 60 of the Constitution?
Above all, we still owe an answer to the question of what kind of Curaçao we want and what kind of citizen is needed to build this.
Don’t worry if you didn’t see the film this time. It will be replayed next year.
~ Alex David Rosaria (53) is a freelance consultant active in Asia and the Pacific. He is a former Member of Parliament, Minister of Economic Affairs, State Secretary of Finance and UN Implementation Officer in Africa and Central America. He is from Curaçao and has an MBA from University of Iowa (USA). ~
Curaçao, as an autonomous country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, operates under a unique political structure that grants it significant self-governance on domestic issues while leaving foreign affairs primarily under the control of the Kingdom’s government in The Hague. This structure raises critical questions about whether Curaçao’s government can or should refrain from expressing opinions on global events, especially when injustices occur. The issue also touches on the principles of freedom of speech, moral responsibility, and political autonomy within a constitutional monarchy.
This analysis will examine Curaçao’s legal position, the constraints and possibilities it faces regarding international matters, and whether it can “hide” behind the Dutch government on matters of global importance. We will also consider “freedom of speech” and the ability to “agree to disagree” in the context of international relations.
1. Curaçao's Constitutional Position within the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
- Autonomous Domestic Governance
Since October 10, 2010, when Curaçao gained autonomous status within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, it has had control over its internal affairs, including areas like healthcare, education, and economic policies. However, foreign policy, defense, and citizenship matters remain under the purview of the Kingdom Government, which includes representatives from the four constituent countries: the Netherlands, Curaçao, Aruba, and Sint Maarten.
- Foreign Affairs and the Kingdom’s Role
The Kingdom of the Netherlands handles foreign policy as a unified entity, representing the interests of all four constituent countries in international diplomacy. This is governed by the Kingdom Charter, which gives the Dutch government the authority to manage foreign relations, including treaties, international disputes, and other global issues.
However, Article 43 of the Charter grants Curaçao a role in influencing foreign affairs that pertain to its own specific interests. This means that while Curaçao does not have full autonomy to make independent foreign policy decisions, it does have input in matters that directly affect its national interests, particularly when it concerns its economic and political stability.
2. Curaçao’s Ability to Have an Opinion on Global Issues.
- The Argument for Remaining Silent
Curaçao’s government may claim that its hands are tied on foreign policy issues, relying on the argument that it cannot take an official stance on international conflicts, global injustices, or foreign policies because this is within the domain of the Kingdom Government. This could be framed as a constitutional obligation to defer to the Kingdom’s unified stance on global matters.
- The Counter-Argument: Freedom of Expression and Moral Responsibility
While Curaçao’s government may not be able to officially set foreign policy, this does not necessarily mean it must remain silent on matters of global importance, particularly regarding moral and ethical issues. As a democratic entity, Curaçao has an obligation to uphold freedom of speech and the right to dissent, even within the framework of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
- Freedom of Expression
Under both the Dutch and Curaçaoan constitutions, freedom of expression is a fundamental right. Government officials, civil society, and even the press in Curaçao are free to express opinions, including those that may critique or differ from official Dutch policy. There is no legal obligation to remain silent on matters of injustice or human rights violations occurring around the world.
- Freedom to Disagree
The autonomy of Curaçao, while limited in foreign affairs, does not prohibit it from expressing disagreement with policies or actions taken by other countries or even the Dutch government itself, provided that this disagreement is framed within the context of free speech and political discourse. In fact, Dutch political culture has long celebrated a tradition of debate and dissent, making it incongruous for Curaçao to argue that it cannot express any opinion whatsoever.
- Moral and Ethical Considerations
When significant global events occur – such as war crimes, human rights abuses, or other forms of injustice – there is an ethical imperative for governments, even if they are not directly involved in foreign policy, to at least acknowledge these events. Silence in the face of clear injustice can be seen as tacit approval or indifference, which could damage Curaçao’s moral standing both domestically and internationally.
- Historical Precedent
Many countries with similar limitations in foreign policy have found ways to express moral positions on global events without officially violating their constitutional boundaries. For instance, subnational governments like Catalonia in Spain, Quebec in Canada, or even U.S. states have made their voices heard on international matters, such as human rights, climate change, and global conflicts.
- Public Accountability
The Curaçao government also has a duty to its own citizens, who may feel strongly about certain international issues, such as conflicts involving countries with which Curaçao has cultural or economic ties (e.g., Venezuela, Palestine, or Israel). In such cases, the government’s refusal to speak on these issues could be viewed as ignoring the democratic will of the people.
3. Can Curaçao “Hide” Behind the Dutch Government?
- Legal Perspective
Legally, Curaçao can defer to the Dutch government on foreign policy matters, as the Kingdom’s government is constitutionally responsible for international relations. However, this does not preclude Curaçao from expressing non-binding opinions on international issues. The Kingdom Charter does not prevent autonomous countries within the Kingdom from having a voice on international issues, especially those related to human rights, injustice, or moral concerns.
- Constitutional Boundaries
The Dutch Constitution protects the right to freedom of expression, and this applies to all constituent countries, including Curaçao. Therefore, there is no legal framework that would compel Curaçao to remain silent on all foreign affairs issues.
- Moral and Political Risks
If Curaçao chooses to remain silent on critical global injustices, it may face criticism from its own citizens, who may view this as a failure of leadership or moral responsibility. Moreover, in an increasingly interconnected world, international audiences may question Curaçao’s commitment to universal values like human rights and justice.
- Political Autonomy and Responsibility
Curaçao has the political autonomy to speak out on issues of international concern, even if it cannot directly influence foreign policy. Failing to do so may lead to reputational damage, both domestically and internationally. Remaining silent may also weaken Curaçao’s voice within the Kingdom on issues where it does have direct interests, such as regional security or climate change.
4. Freedom of Speech and the Right to Disagree.
- Democratic Values in the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Freedom of speech is a core principle in the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and this extends to Curaçao. While the Kingdom’s government manages foreign policy, individual politicians, civil society groups, and citizens in Curaçao retain the right to voice their opinions, including on international issues. The right to disagree is essential in any democracy, and this principle applies equally to autonomous regions like Curaçao.
- Political Debate and Disagreement
Even within the context of foreign policy, disagreements between different countries or political entities within a larger kingdom are common. Curaçao has the right to express concerns, question policies, or raise awareness about global events, even if the Kingdom’s official stance differs. As long as these expressions are made within the framework of democratic dialogue and respect for the constitutional order, there is no legal impediment to voicing concerns about international injustices.
- Curaçao's Influence within the Kingdom
Curaçao can leverage its input within the Kingdom on foreign affairs that directly impact its interests. This influence, though limited, gives Curaçao an avenue to express concerns or disagreements within the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom, where representatives from all four constituent countries participate in decision-making processes.
5. Conclusion: Curaçao’s Responsibility and Rights.
Curaçao’s government cannot legally set foreign policy, but it does not have to remain silent in the face of global injustice. While the Dutch government handles foreign affairs on behalf of the Kingdom, Curaçao retains the right to express its opinions on international issues, particularly when these issues involve moral or ethical concerns.
In a democracy, freedom of speech is paramount, and this includes the freedom to disagree with official policies or stances. The idea that Curaçao “cannot have an opinion” because of foreign policy limitations is not grounded in either the constitutional structure of the Kingdom or the principles of democracy.
Curaçao has the political and moral space to speak out against injustice, and doing so would align with its values as a democratic entity. Silence, in such cases, could be interpreted as complicity or indifference, both of which carry risks for Curaçao’s domestic legitimacy and its international reputation. The government must balance its legal obligations with its moral responsibilities, ensuring that it upholds the values of justice and human rights, even within the constraints of its constitutional position.
Tico Vos
Specialist in Tourism and Communication
Documentarian and content creator for radio, TV and social media
Dear Editor,
English is a very intricate language. But, the little bit of knowledge that I have, I will fuse it with my little bit of common sense, in order to convey my message. For the past two consecutive elections, there is this growing manipulation of information that has led to an ethical failure in the House of Parliament. Some MPs create their own world and live in that bubble until it explodes. Today, I will feature one of such MPs.
I’m not sure why, but MP Ludmila de Weever is one of those politicians that I like a lot. Nevertheless, her run for political office seemed so undefined. No matter how much she proclaims that her real motive is to serve the people, this declaration appears to be contradictory, because the reality in parliament is quite the opposite.
If I go back to January 11, 2024 elections, the Ministry of Finance was offered to PFP, during the initial negotiations. This confirmation came from the MP herself. However, MP Ludmila de Weever refused the offer and decided to maintain her seat in parliament, instead. As a result, the Ministry of Finance went to DP, eventually.
Then, for the August 19, 2024 elections, she was offered the Ministry of Education, Culture, Youth and Sports. Yet, she rejected the offer once more. Her lame excuse is that she prefers a ministry where she can better utilize her strengths. It is important to note that the Ministry of VROMI [Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure – Ed.] was the other option, but not an available choice, because Minister Patrice Gumbs decided that he will not relinquish his position.
Besides, MP Melissa Gumbs, the party leader, made it clear that she believes in continuity, so Minister Patrice Gumbs will keep his status. Rumor has it that there was this Mexican standoff. Finally, MP Melissa Gumbs decided to take up the Ministry of ECYS herself, while MP Ludmila de Weever, settled for her seat in parliament once more.
What is mind-boggling is that, in the 2020 elections MP De Weever was appointed as the TEATT [Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport, and Telecommunication] Minister within the UP party. Halfway through, she was either forced out or quit the position voluntarily, to take up her seat in parliament. Let’s analyze this situation. In January this year, she was offered Minister of Finance and she denied the offer. In August, she was given the Ministry of Education, Culture, Youth and Sports, and she refused.
So, MP Ludmila de Weever, tell us the truth once and for all. What are your strengths in running the VROMI Ministry? If your strength is in Finance, and you declined to accept the position as minister in January, but determined to go after VROMI in August, a ministry that does not complement your educational background, who are you trying to fool?
Definitely, you are not in parliament to represent the people. You are on a contract to represent a privileged group, who is dictating your decisions in parliament. Tell us the truth, MP Ludmila de Weever. How do you sleep at nights, when you tell the population one thing, but your mind wrestles with this lie? Look at your demeanor in parliament. It is plain to see that there is no interaction with you and your party leader. Why is that?
Someone who speaks the truth does not go against her party policies because a member of the elite group decides this is what he wants. Rumor has it that he pushed your party leader because she removed your single poster from a specific location during the campaign, when you all agreed as a team that all of you would be featured together. Do you remember that agreement that you signed? So, are you the real MP Ludmila de Weever, or you are an impostor?
You bragged about your 690 votes. But, are they legitimate votes? All during the election campaign, there were three names that dominated almost every conversation, with regard to vote buying. But, because the prosecutors’ office is manned with all of the rejects from Holland, this is why certain characters were allowed to be in parliament, and are still being present today. I didn’t call your name. I will let you wrestle with your conscience.
MP De Weever, sorry to say, this is your last successful run. Right now, you are considered the weak link in parliament, and if you are not careful, you will end up just like those who lived in the bubble, until it was shattered.
Joslyn Morton
