Dear Editor,
The purpose of this Op Ed is to express the fine tuning of my rambling thoughts, on and around the recent proposed Residency Programme on the island nation of Anguilla. Quite frankly, I am not going to say yeah or nah, will not call anyone out, nor is this Op Ed to be seen as an attack on any particular political party or anyone, for that matter. What I intend to do is to call it as I see it, regain focus to do some consciousness raising and share my thoughts and highlight some pertinent issues vis-a-vis the proposed Residency Programme.
I firmly believe that based on the magnitude of the proposed Residency Programme on the island nation of Anguilla, the discussion on and around this issue, should be one of inclusion that also involves communities of the Anguillian Diaspora living abroad. Based on today’s technology, the meetings could take place based on a moderated Skype (video conferencing), in an open forum between participants and the Government of Anguilla’s representatives.
Prior to the meeting, the participants would have been given well publicized advance notice of the date, time, its location and what is on the agenda. In all fairness, this issue definitely impacts Anguillians and their descendants living abroad, so it important for them to be given first-hand information, as well as the opportunity to ask questions and get answers. I am confident that many of the Anguillian Diaspora living abroad would concur with my suggestion.
Having read some articles on and around the Residency Programme, one question that I have is, what exactly is the “elevated status”? How will it affect those of us at home and abroad? In my mindset or through my lens “elevated status” is a code word that may seem to infer so many angles. Who is being “elevated”, why and what are they being “elevated” to? Just asking’
Will the “elevated status” mean that Anguillians and their descendants coming into Anguilla from abroad, as well as other black individuals, be subjected to discriminatory searches at Anguilla’s ports of call, whereas those with “elevated status”, are waved on with a smile without being searched? My position is, an equally respectful warm welcome should be given to all who enter Anguilla’s ports of call on the island nation of Anguilla.
I came of age in a racist developed nation where being black can mean being marginalized based on institutional racism; so it was painful for me to come into Anguilla on more than one occasion and witness first-hand Anguilians and other black folk being subjected to a difference in treatment, based on unequal searches at one of its ports of call. I personally have written about this policy, as well as singularly protested against this policy on more than one occasion at Blowing Point.
The thought lingers in my mind, where would Anguilla be today, to be able to welcome visitors in terms of its “upscale tourism industry”; if a member of my paternal family the legendary Lloyds of Roaches Hill, Anguilla, did not envision and build its first accommodation for visitors from abroad, Lloyd’s Bed and Breakfast in Crocus Hill.
On that note, moving right along giving credit where it is due ... Anguilla’s secondary education came into being, because of vision of the same member of my paternal family who as a legislator back in the day, secured the funds to build the secondary school and supervised its construction. By the way, Anguilla’s airport (Clayton J. Lloyd International Airport), also has the honor of having been renamed after Anguilla’s first aviation pioneer a descendant of the Lloyds of Roaches Hill, and because of his pioneering efforts in aviation, Anguilla has bragging rights for having the most native-born pilots, over 60, within the Eastern Caribbean region.
Anguillians in the Diaspora living abroad, are your kith and kin, we too are also the gatekeepers of Anguilla. Many of us and our offspring who were born abroad are just as dedicated and concerned about Anguilla as Anguillians who are living on the island nation of Anguilla. So, sometimes it may seem that the empowering consistency of the support of Anguillians living abroad and their descendants for Anguillians at home is downplayed or overlooked. By virtue of our home-grown pride, as Anguilla is part of the global community, our numerous contacts and diverse professional backgrounds, many of us are in a position to network and raise the bar on advocacy and activism on around global issues that would affect Anguilla.
It was the late Mr. Jerimiah Gumbs, an Anguillian who lived abroad for many years; who initiated and was given the opportunity to address and successfully argue Anguilla’s quest for self-determination and governance before the United Nations in New York during the mid-’60s.
According to historian and author Mr. Eric Hughes (proud son of Anguillian parentage born in Perth Amboy, New Jersey); Mr. Jeremiah Gumbs was accompanied on that mission by an elected city official, the late Council Member Austin Gumbs who was born in Perth Amboy, New Jersey of Anguillian parentage.
Mrs. Eileen Niles of South Hill, Anguilla, once shared with me that during the transition of the period of Anguilla’s revolutionary move for self-governance, a group of Anguillians, including Mrs. Niles who was living in the U.S Virgin Islands during that time, voluntarily spearheaded a fundraising campaign to send weekly remittances home, to support the island’s newly-formed independent government, so that they could meet its financial obligations and pay the civil servants’ salaries.
After Hurricane Irma struck last year and devastated Anguilla, it was the Anguilla Progressive Association of New York, Inc. (APANY), under the leadership of Mr. Carlson Connor, President, and Mr. Rey Allen, Vice President, that was authorized by the Government of Anguilla as its official relief organization. Yours truly contacted Gov. Cuomo of New York State seeking assistance for Anguilla from the NYS National Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers. It was within a matter of days, I shared with Mr. Connor an affirmative written response that I received from the Governor’s office offering any assistance that they could provide to Anguilla. An actual response team being sent to assist Anguilla may have been hampered by the assumption that everything was back to a sense of normalcy on the island.
Lest we also forget, as a futuristic proposed yacht marina (s) is on the drawing board for the island nation of Anguilla. It was my dad the late Capt. Lionel T. Lloyd, one of Anguilla’s foremost “traditional seafaring captains of yesteryear,” who was the first Anguillian back in the day to bring yachts on private excursions from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Blowing Point, Anguilla. So, that being said, the yachting clubs in Anguilla today stand on his shoulders. Yet, the Anguilla Stamp Advisory Committee (this is not an attack), still has the opportunity to bestow upon him and others who may have been overlooked the honor that they are so rightfully due, just as it was given to the other “traditional seafaring captains of yesteryear” who were similarly situated.
With all due respect, based on fairness, transparency and inclusion, if you honor one, you must honor all. Capt. Lloyd was a proud son of Anguillian soil whose parents were an immigrant father from (Guyana/Suriname) and an Anguillian mother from Long Bay. As I recall, Dad travelled and lived abroad for a major part of his life, including a long stint in the U.S. as a professional civilian employee of the U.S. Naval Service, working alongside the ranks of enlisted men and women ... yet, he always carried his Anguillian heritage with a special badge of home-grown pride.
Que sera, sera ... whatever will be will be, but at the end of the day, I trust that the proposed Residency Programme, or any other futuristic efforts of that magnitude that will impact the island nation of Anguilla, its sons and daughters of the soil at home and abroad, as well as their descendants, would be given a fair and equal opportunity to participate in any discussion forums and have their say.
We too are Anguilla’s children, the proud offspring and their descendants who deserve to have an equal seat and our rightful place at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood when issues that affect Anguilla are up for discussion.
Based on today’s high technology, this can be done via a Skype video-conferencing forum, in order to effectuate transparency to arrive at a collective consensus, so that we can claim what is due process in a democracy, based on the true meaning of the principle (for the people, by the people and for the good of the people).
May the Creator and the ancestors bless the island nation of Anguilla, her sons and daughters and their offspring at home and abroad.
Yinka
PS The opinions shared in this article do not reflect those of the SXM Daily Herald, its employees or assigns.
Dear Editor,
An old schoolmate, who after graduating MULO on Aruba, studied and worked in Holland until he retired back in Aruba, got hold of me. He told me that he follows my writing on line and congratulated me for taking a stand.
During our conversation he said something that awoke my curiosity. He explained that his Dutch colleagues would always talk about Antillean men cheating. They would argue with each other concerning cheating and eventually the consensus would be that Dutch men might cheat but they do not make outside children.
As usual my mind was off and racing and I thought back of all the Antillean families with Dutch last names, Jansen and Van Putten being only two of the many Dutch last names all over the Netherlands Antilles. By now we know that through DNA research, the origin of people from literally all over the world can be determined.
Owing to the fact that the Dutch have forever been in the Antilles and that the kingdom of the Netherlands consists of approximately only 18 million inhabitants, and with the people of the Netherlands Antilles having relatives on all six islands, how likely would it be that through DNA research it is determined that approximately 60 percent of the people of the Kingdom of the Netherlands are related?
Russell A. Simmons
Dear Editor,
Let me start by again referring to my upbringing. Because a schoolmate lied on me, I fought with him. Even though there were no cell phones at that time, my father wanted to find out the reason. The boy’s mother had complained me to my father because he had a burst mouth and some bruises.
I knew I was right so I told my father I fought with him because he lied on me. My father did not want to hear that, he wanted to know if I was right in starting the fight. After explaining him the whole thing, he told me that he would not punish me, because he understood why I had decided to fight. But he said something to me that took me clearly years to understand. He told me that even though I had spoken the truth, that did not make what I did right.
I was already glad that he had decided not to punish, so even though I did not understand what he meant I left it there. I was confused because from Sunday school days I learned that the truth shall set you free. It is not until I was already a policeman and had to deal with similar situations that I finally got my “aha” moment. The truth shall set you free, but that does not mean that what you did was right.
Admitting to stealing because you were hungry does not make stealing right. Because I wrote that I believe that PM Rutte owes the people of St. Maarten an apology, some people are of the opinion that what PM Rutte said is the truth. Because of this I had a discussion in the real St. Maarten way with some real St. Maarteners, who rightly so believe that the government of St. Maarten should clean up their mess. But, even if over the years there has been a mile-long list of people in government who were proven to be corrupt (the truth), in my opinion that does not give PM Rutte the right to tell me that I am corrupt. The truth does not make it right.
Hillary Clinton got an excess of three million votes more than Donald Trump but the electoral system declared him the winner. Every voter on St. Maarten did not vote for those in government. The electoral system permits people with less than 200 votes to be in government when those with 500 and 600 votes would be in opposition. I do not know if we feel right about it but it is the truth.
PM Rutte could play all the politics he wants with his fellow politicians and colleagues and even insult them if he so pleases, but the people of St. Maarten who made use of their democratic rights and secretly voted for a representative should never be berated by anyone. And definitely not by the Prime Minister of the Kingdom.
Did anybody take time to realize that the majority in seats does not necessarily represent the majority in votes? So do not tell me that we put them there, because it is the system that permits them to be there.
I know that because of the nucleus of the population of St. Maarten and the limited knowledge in civics that that is a disadvantage among the people. I have mentioned it on several occasions, but will repeat it again: Everything good or bad that happens in a country is the responsibility of the government. In the kingdom Holland is in charge of finance so if anything happens in finance Holland is responsible.
The thing of it is this laying and waiting to see what is going to happen instead of nipping it in the bud has its negative consequences. Those same Dutch taught us “Wie kaatst moet de bal verwachten” so I do not understand why they do not understand that if you spare the rod you will spoil the child.
Does it really have to take years for a mistake to be discovered? Do not we know where Holland stands in Europe economically? So why lay and wait and hope for wrongdoing? Is that fair to the people of St. Maarten? Know better, do better.
I will be the last to condone wrongdoing, and I definitely will be the one to say that we have to clean up our mess, but Prime Minister Rutte should also know what to do with the dirty linen. If he wants to be Prime Minister of the kingdom, and especially if Holland is in charge of finances and justice, he should know that he will have to take the bad with the good.
Prime Minister Rutte should know that it is fellow politicians like himself who are in charge, not the carpenter or the mason. One should check the directions of and the amount of fingers when one points. Two wrongs do not make a right and even though the truth will set you free, that does not make the truth right.
Russell A. Simmons
Dear Editor,
Let’s talk about mommy/woman shaming ... well, solo-parent shaming in general.
Yes, it’s a thing. To the weak men/women who do it, you know who you are. To the solo parents who feel it, I share in your daily struggles, you are not alone.
I am not writing this with the intentions of forgetting the solo fathers out there also pulling double duty. Regardless of gender, it’s a challenging life path.
Am I “single baby mama?” No, I am a solo parent. Note the difference, I do not receive financial help nor any form of hands-on assistance from my child’s biological father. Do I whine about it, heck no. I’m a strong woman as any solo parent becomes, a fierce leader for their family. Which I suggest you not tango with unless you are prepared to feel the wrath.
What that means is, I run my own business, household, meals, ensure we stay alive, I am my child’s only protector and caregiver.
When there’s a noise in the night, I find it. When we have a flat tire, I deal with it. Got the drift? My day starts and does not end. So, if in your eyes, that makes me “crazy” (you know who you are) or if that makes me an “unfit mother” (you know who you are), then so be it.
Karma, what goes around eventually comes around. For all you out there who are guilty of verbally shaming woman as I have been, well, for your sake, I pray you live a perfect life because one day someone will give it straight back, be it through you, or one of your children. Trust me, memories of your words will flash and you will then understand what it feels like.
Tell me something, what gives a person out there looking from the outside of our lives the nerve to pass judgement on my life, my parenting skills. Is it a cultural thing amongst Caribbean men to feel that degrading woman is acceptable? To mock them? Obviously my life is humorous to you and your family. Time to change that stigma.
Actually, regardless of my situation, who in this world or outside world gave you the right to label any woman as “crazy” or feel as though she is an “unfit mother” or that she should clearly not have a child? Call her an old bat? Or shame her body parts? Who do you think you are? I presume you feel as though you are a group of perfect parents. Well, hats off to your neighbourhood posse, we can’t all be perfect people like you all.
Here’s the thing, you may not see yourself as a racist when it comes to skin colour, however, you judgemental hypocrites are bigots ... read the definition of a bigot. Tear yourselves off Facebook/Whatsapp for a minute and educate yourself. Your aim at degrading/humiliating or trying to intimidate a woman is sexist. You’ve targeted on gender, age, physical appearance, not race which makes you no better.
To the mommy shaming, judgemental, self-righteous men out there (let’s not forget the meek, silenced women who would be lost without a man), the Sunday churchgoers who turn into “he said/she said” gossiping weekday folk; well, you would not last 24 hours in my shoes or any other solo parent’s shoes. Man or woman!
Did the Lord our God send you down to earth to judge me? I think not. I suggest you take a look into your own lives and keep your judgemental eyes, ears and running mouth(s) into your church and start practicing more of your preaching! Carry your own cross, and I shall carry mine.
To all the solo parents in St. Martin or elsewhere who need a boost of encouragement , keep up the hard work, you are an amazing parent doing your best! Pay no mind to the “naysayers” lurking in your lives, eventually their running mouths will bury themselves.
Proud strong solo mama Mary and Baby G
Mary De Francesco
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
