Dear Editor,
Permit me to express thoughts of concern to the Chairlady of Parliament Sarah Wescot-Williams, with the expectation that she will give them some consideration. To commence: Whenever ministers fail to prepare themselves to deliberate matters of interest to the people in parliament, they always cover up their lackadaisical attitude by submitting answers in writing, or not at all. How long will they be permitted to continue this nonchalant behaviour, while the people are left uninformed?
Just recently, my cousin Russell A. Simmons also communicated his disapproval of ministers presenting their responses in writing. What does it require of them to be responsible to the people, when they are called upon to represent the population? Are they not matured enough, or possess the intellectual capacity to understand that they were appointed to manage the people’s financial statement? If these ministers are consistently refusing to have an open dialogue with the population, then fire them!
However, looking deeper into the matter, this apathetic attitude is twofold: First, these ministers were not appointed on their own merit and so it’s easy for them to refuse the expertise of civil servants who are capable of guiding them through the process and in the proper direction. Second, ministers’ rebellious behaviour is a reflection of Parliament. Is it not a fact that the majority of MPs show up to work whenever they feel like; and when they do, it leaves an open question as to why they got into politics?
Accountability attracts accountability, and when there are no consequences for one’s action, the desire for change is only a dream. Until parliament get serious with the “People’s Business” by setting the example of what they wish to see, ministers will continue to display their undesirable behaviours. Until MPs settle down and work as a body in the interest of the people, then and only then can they collectively penalize the minister who refuses to come to parliament to answer to the people!
Resolve: the people deserve the courtesy of having a meeting convened at a later date to disclose responses to the inquiries (those that are not deemed as confidential) that were presented to parliament in writing.
There are times when deliberations are ongoing with several adjournments in between; whether on the same day, on subsequent days, or months after the initial phase. However, the public have no knowledge of what was debated prior to the meeting being reconvened. The same thing occurs if someone tuned in late; which makes it challenging at times to get the full scope of what was discussed before.
Resolve: it would be helpful if each minister or invited guest gives a brief summary after his or her presentation. Likewise, it makes good communication sense if the Chairlady delivers a short synopsis at the end of every meeting. This format not only sets the tone to engage the public more into the discussions, but it further expresses the need to be responsible and accountable to the people.
The criteria to select Members of Parliament to attend the various scheduled conferences abroad are unknown. Gone are the days when parliamentarians are selected on the basis of party politics, or merely on a rotation system. Due to this lack of clarity, the public have no knowledge of what to expect of MPs prior to their departure nor upon their return. How do the public analyze their performance when there are no briefings and how does Parliament measure its return investment of each attendee?
What if parliament creates a biweekly walk-in session for the public to have a casual discussion or question-and-answer hour with all 15 parliamentarians together? After all, it’s the “People’s House” and the people have the right to know!

Joslyn Morton

Dear Editor,

Whereas last year, the St. Maarten people suffered as a consequence of political disagreements between the Dutch and St. Maarten governments on the provision of aid after the hurricane, today the refugees on Curaçao seem to pay the bill for poor relations between the government of Curaçao and the Netherlands. In both cases the victims are people who lost everything and try to survive.

The Netherlands, the largest “Kingdom partner,” holds the opinion that the reception of asylum seekers is a matter for the Curaçao government, says Dick Drayer in Trouw (10 September 2018). The Netherlands would not yet feel responsible.

Noteworthy is that Drayer cites the minister of justice of Curaçao as follows, as the minister mentions the high numbers of Venezuelan refugees (translated from Dutch): “Not a single country can manage this, but it is the situation in which Curaçao finds itself.”

There have been numerous discussions on the legal division of the responsibility between the Kingdom and the countries, and the subsequent political practice, but the statement that the Charter attributes a large extent of autonomy to the Caribbean countries has its limits. Legally, such statement is indeed true, but as said, it has its limits.

In fact, in this case Curaçao indicates that the country could not manage the situation. How, then, will the government of Netherlands defend its stance if a refugee were to launch a claim about his circumstances in Curaçao before the European Court of Human Rights? Because that is where a case might ultimately end up, and not Curaçao, but the Kingdom of the Netherlands is a party to the treaty.

That means that the Netherlands as the largest “Kingdom partner” is finally responsible to apply the European Convention on Human Rights correctly, even if Curaçao has the autonomy to carry this responsibility at first instance.

Subsequently, one may wonder why the Dutch government does not yet act before such procedure might be initiated. But, it is equally the responsibility of Curaçao to ask for help as soon as the government cannot secure basic human rights, and it is the question if they have requested (adequate) assistance.

Irene Broekhuijse

Assistant Professor Legal Theory, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Dear Editor,

It is on several occasions that during the discussions of the Irma recovery funds the possible misappropriation of the of the funds was mentioned.

On Monday, September 10, 2018, however, I read where PM Rutte plainly said that “The funds have been made available under strict conditions, which are very necessary to prevent the money from ending up in the wrong pockets” and “Fortunately there is now a government with the capacity to act. That it is of utmost importance and that the recovery process needed to be fast, prudent, without corruption.”

That is a direct indictment of whichever Prime Minister was in charge and when. Fact is that in the past whenever something similar happened and the people’s reaction was that “the people should not pay for the government’s wrongdoing,” conveniently the reaction from whichever accuser would be “but the people put them there,”

With this in mind I will openly call on PM Rutte to retract his words and openly and publicly apologize to the people of St. Maarten, because he is now clearly implying that the people of St. Maarten are embezzlers by association. Would I be wrong to add “and by extension to Holland.”

PM Rutte should not expect that everyone hearing or reading what he says should readily accept these direct insults. In the past I am suggesting to PM Rutte that if he has a valid reason then he should speak directly to those involved and do not by association implicate the people of St. Maarten.

Formerly when the people of St. Maarten traveled abroad we were welcomed with open arms. Of late all kinds of questions and inquiries are made before being permitted to enter another man’s country. In my opinion it is due to the restrictions and inquiries that Holland has put on the members their own kingdom partners on entering Holland. And now we are openly made out be corrupt. My question is: who has been the head of the house forever?

Talking about forever, let me mention this. I do not know when Premier Rutte was born. I believe in forgiveness, because no one is perfect, but you see when one is confronted and surrounded by certain behavior for years eventually something rubs off. So, if what I am going to mention now seems like “I’ll get you one day” it should not be considered as payback, but the truth.

Several years after the North Sea floods of Holland I noticed that a schoolteacher from the school that I attended on Aruba was wearing one of my father’s pants which I personally had taken to the police station in San Nicolas to be sent to Holland to help with the relief of the disaster caused by that devastating flood. Boys will be boys and I mentioned that to the boys in school. That was a mistake that remained with me for the rest of my life. I was suspended for two days for speaking the truth. At the end of that school year, even being one of the top students in my class, my marks were as it were suppressed and I did not pass my class.

But I believe that something good always happens after every disappointment and so instead of continuing that school I became a police officer, at that time working under the supervision of the same Dutch who could not deal with the truth, and I literally served the community of the Netherland Antilles for 41 years after that.

 I do not think that anyone who is being paid by the community should have the audacity to berate that community for the wrongdoings of his or her colleagues. I am not sure if the saying “birds of a feather flock together” is appropriate in this case, but I am sure that it takes one to know one.

I do not think that the Prime Minister Rutte used good diplomacy. I feel personally offended by his remarks.

Russell A. Simmons

Dear Editor,
The Dutch move to monitor the recovery fund spending.
Let’s wait to see when it is justified that the Dutch trusted those responsible.
The money came late, but it is rather to be late than the money was never received.
The big question is, will St Maarten will able to keep performing good, great and excellent within the justice system when the Dutch leave?
All of our justice ministers had performed and is performing well daily.
I (QUOTE) I will like to see the Dutch carry out a survey in every district on Dutch side of St. Maarten before they leave to see how can the people survive with a very very very very low minimum wage.
As long as St. Maarten is fully back on track from Hurricane Irma the minimum wage, house rent, and high cost of living must be adjusted as soon as possible.
Oh boy, when the Dutch leave the Ombudsman will have their eyes 24/7 towards civil servants to let perform to their best of ability.

Cuthbert Bannis