The board of the United St. Maarten (US) party is echoing the call by its leader MP Frans Richardson by publicly asking the Minister of Justice if he will investigate the theft of jewelry from the home of Francesco Corallo by two TBO officers.

  Or will the Minister simply accept the convenient story by the Public Prosecutor who was quick to sweep it under the rug. Is the Prosecutor’s declaration gospel? Judging from past incidents we know this is not the case.

  The Public Prosecutor was quick to dismiss the report that the TBO officers were hurried off the island after being caught with the jewelry. However, the Prosecutor Office can conveniently say what it wants and, obviously, did not address the fact that the officers were sent back to Holland and why.

  Important questions are:

  Who are the officers that were sent back to Holland after the raid on Corallo’s home?

  Were these officers part of the raid?

  Why were they sent back? And When?

  Who filed the report against them?

  Is there a Landsrecherche report on this issue?

  What are the findings of this report?

  Is there a letter explaining the officers actions in this report?

  Who wrote it and who received it?

  Is the Prosecutor saying that no theft at all took place?

  Is the Prosecutor saying that nothing was removed from Mr. Corallo’s home?

  We are not concerned with what the Prosecutor spins, but rather what the Minister of Justice Cornelius DeWeever will do about it. Leader of the USP asked the Minister if he will investigate and we are now echoing that request. There is apparently an entire report on the incident. Will the Minister investigate and let the public know or will he simply say ok to the Prosecutor?

  The Prosecutor did not address anything fully but dismissed the issue. But when there are simply rumors about prominent St. Maarteners, the Prosecutor finds enough frivolous grounds to go after our people. Will the Minister investigate yes or no.

  Imagine that. So two Dutch officers commit a crime, they stole, and all of a sudden they are humans who make mistakes. While on St. Maarten our officers and others are branded criminals and thieves and locked up. We are parade and made a show of. But they get a slap on the wrist and sent back to Holland on a nice KLM flight to continue working. Impossible,” MP Richardson said.

  The MP went on to ask Minister DeWeever to investigate the issue as the letter is apparently part of an existing Landrecherche report. Additionally, MP Richardson said he will seek a Parliamentary inquiry into the Justice system of St. Maarten.

USP Board

Dear Editor,

On August 26, 2018, we learned in the local media that a meeting between the World Bank and Parliament was scheduled on October 13, 2018, to brief the country’s highest body about the scope of its work. Naturally, it was expected that the meeting would have allowed interested observers to closely follow the deliberation and hopefully arrive at an informed opinion. To the dismay and surprise of many, the highly anticipated meeting between the World Bank and Parliament was held behind closed doors on Monday, October 21, 2018.

Truth be told, closed door meetings in Parliament are nothing new. However, at times one cannot help but question the motives and justification, if any, to invoke Chapter 13 article 77 of the Rules of Order. In any case, an exception to the rule should have been made.

Moreover, on Friday, October 26, 2018, we learned via the local media (The Daily Herald) that Mr. Jorge Familiar, Vice-President of the World Bank, met with Government, Parliamentarians, and local partners to discuss progress of the recovery and reconstruction after Hurricane Irma. (Resilient summit ends on high note. Friday, October 26, 2018, The Daily Herald). Conspicuously enough, who exactly the “local partners” are, remains a complete mystery.

The question that begs to be asked is; what criteria, if any, were used to select the “local partners” to meet with the World Bank? Why weren’t the trade unions, as an important social partner, offered a seat at the table to engage in an open and dignified discussion with the World Bank? Why the penchant for secrecy? Why allow speculation to replace complete information directly from the source? Shouldn’t the masses be privy to pertinent information that will have a direct impact on their quality of life and future? Which Members of Parliament requested the closed-door meeting?

Seemingly, the perceived restriction, exclusion of the public, and unequal treatment among local and social partners, possibly resembles discrimination and reinforces the perception that censorship, favoritism and bias might be actively at work. Moreover, to host the meeting out of public view fuels suspicion and speculation and confirms the growing perception among interested observers of being “shut out” and “kept in the dark.”

This tactic virtually extinguishes the possibility to engage in a healthy and robust public debate or to hold members of parliament accountable for their actions. Simply put, the people’s right to know was blatantly violated. Surely, an open meeting would certainly enrich the understanding and would have provided much needed clarity regarding the activities of the World Bank and the status of the Trust Fund.

That being said, the WICSU/PSU Union is calling on Parliament and the Government to immediately release the minutes and or audio/video recordings of the clandestine meeting with the World Bank to the general public post-haste! Anything less is inconsistent with the interest of transparency, integrity and accountability.

The people have a right to know! Together we struggle, together we achieve. Unity and solidarity forever.

Riegnald “Bakari” Arrindell

General Secretary

WICSU/PSU Union

Dear Editor,

I read a letter to you from Miguel Arrindell with the heading “The purpose of government” with which I totally agree. (4-11-’18) He covered several aspects with illustrations and concluded by stating that “it is the government’s task to protect the citizens of a country and provide economic opportunity for all citizens”.

I would love for Mr. Arrindell to elaborate on that last point outlining how he thinks that government of Sint Maarten can provide ‘fair’ economic opportunity for all citizens.

I also read that MP Heyliger is letting us know that time is running out to render assistance to rebuild the airport. What has taken so long?

He then shifted to G.E.B.E. As long as I have been on Sint Maarten we have been having outages from .G.E.B.E. One of my philosophies in life was passed on from my father: “It is alright to copy the good things.” Aruba is almost four times as big as Sint Maarten and Aruba is striving to have the whole island run fully on solar energy by 2020.

In this same paper I read that Saba Electric Company starts its second solar park project. Because of advanced technology and telecommunication more and more everyone is urged to go online to do everything. If solar energy is the way, why is Sint Maarten delaying? Is G.E.B.E. indispensable?

If we continue to point our fingers in the direction of Holland, when are we going to start preparing our own for the reality of life in the future? Did not I advocate out with the old and in with the new? Did not I write that we have to make civics a subject in which exams are taken in schools.? Have I not constantly been stating that we have to determine who is a Saint Martiner?

Russell A. Simmons

Dear Editor,

  The path to political independence starts with a path of total self-reliance and strong sense of self; English language is a critical part.

  My English Language Motions of 2015 and 2016, which were unanimously passed by Parliament, have now been brought to the attention of Minister of Education, Culture, Youth and Sports Affairs Wycliffe Smith for his Ministry’s follow-up.

  I have high hopes that a start will be made. Even in these trying times, we can’t overlook the process of nation-building. Much of the criticism we hear today stems from the fact that because of the pressing needs throughout our society in so many areas, concerted strategies towards nation-building are not a top priority.

  Of course, even the smallest actions in this regard are important, such as celebration of our national days and culture. However, complementing these actions must be the solidifying of our foundations, such as that of language, history and, yes, culture. We need some affirmative action in this regard, as well as the advocacy.

  I am of the belief that the English and Dutch languages cannot have the same status as our official languages and will continue to insist that we give the English language (eventually even our St. Maarten dialect), the place it deserves. One language has to be first and that should be our mother tongue. We talk about charting a path to political independence, let us start by charting a path of total self-reliance and strong sense of self.

Sarah Wescot-Williams