Dear Editor,
Why do politicians, who messed up intentionally, try to caress the tension they have created, rather than acknowledging their gross miscalculation? In fact, the more effort the opposition applies in explaining their planned tactic that backfired a week ago, the more it exposes their desperation to get back into government. Their explanation has no logic whatsoever, which just increases the perception of them being weak and untrustworthy.
The selling point for these desperate MPs is two-fold: the first scenario implies that the government has a slim majority, which creates insecurity and the opportunity for this anxiety to reoccur repeatedly. How can they be so sure, when every single parliamentarian is obligated to work in the best interest of the people? And, haven’t they made this promise to the electorate, when they were on the campaign trail a few months ago?
In 2014, when the constant shift in government became irritable, I mentioned that it does not matter how many MPs support the sitting government. If their motive is purely self-interest, the stability of that government still hangs in the balance, because the intention is what determines the stability and not the quantity. Haven’t governments toppled repeatedly because of this same situation, one that forced DP and UP into opposition, to allow NA and USP to govern?
Secondly, the opposition claimed that they also informed the Chairlady of their absence, preceding the day of the gathering. Is it not suspicious that all 5 MPs would choose to be absent simultaneously, when Friday was still a working day? And, is it not that there was a scheduled meeting prior to the 10:00am gathering? What was very striking is to hear the supposed leader of NA upon her return from her personal appointment asked members if they are not done with the meeting.
With absolutely no concern, she proceeded to her office to work. The meeting was reconvened at 12 noon. Wasn’t she still in her office at the time when the gathering needed just one more MP to form the quorum? Why didn’t she support the meeting then, since she claimed that the other members of the opposition were unavailable, due to the recess? Then whose work was this MP doing, since she was too busy to handle the “People’s Business?” And who is paying for her office?
What was amazing are this long and unrelated details to justify their absence. Since they have taken the Parliament to Marigot and social media, why didn’t this MP vent her frustrations where her views are more acceptable? Mind you, the opposition stressed that parliament is on recess, but still indicated that the convocation was late, and everyone had already made plans for the break. But in the same breath, it was suggested that the meeting could have been held at either 4:00 pm or 6:00 pm. So, were they truly unavailable or was the stunt deliberate?
Analyse the situation, people. Out of the 7 members of the opposition, 2 were away on a working visit. What are the odds of all 5 members being absent at the same time, if the act was not fully orchestrated? Can the public recall how the entire opposition voted to appoint MPs to this current presidium? If not, the behaviour was identical. There are two different parties, yet every member voted for the same individuals to fill the three positions.
Nothing is more disheartening than when one accepts the position to lead but fails to honour his or her word. Does the population remember when NA’s professed leader begged the people to vote for her because she would do things differently than her predecessor? What has the population experienced since the so-called change of guard? The Mighty Shadow puts it best: “It’s the same old Khaki pants.”
People, it is time to quit putting your trust in politicians, who do not have your interest at heart. No amount of explanation will change the deliberate attempt to sabotage the smooth process to install the newly-seated parliamentarians.

Joslyn Morton

Debt-ridden Guangdong Zhenrong Energy (GZE) faces the possibility of completely disappearing from the map or getting absorbed by another Chinese state-owned enterprise (SOE). This, as a result of a thorough overhaul of many SOEs by the powerful Chinese State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) which embarked on a revamp of its SOEs in 2015 to tackle rising corporate debt and also to make them more profitable.
A leading financial newspaper of Southeast Asia has quoted Mr. Xiao Yaqing, the SASAC chairman, wanting “to reduce a lot of ‘zombie enterprises’ and improve the management efficiency.” Whether GZE is specifically considered a zombie SOE cannot be confirmed, at least not at this time. One thing is for sure however, GZE was not at the top of its game when it comes to China’s ambitious One Belt One Road Strategy to make it the world’s strongest economic powerhouse. Far from that. They messed up big time in Myanmar as I reported long before it became news in Curaçao after returning from an assignment from that country at the end of 2016. Funny thing is that GZE showcased its involvement in Myanmar as its visit card to get involved in Curaçao. Most shocking was that I got first-hand knowledge of GZE’s involvement in grave human rights violations by driving people off of their farm lands in order to build what would’ve been a multi-billion dollar refinery in Myanmar.
Yet the Curaçao project team responsible for finding the best international partner to modernize the Curaçao refinery, MDPT, somehow pulled GZE out of a hat and had the Whiteman Administration happily sign on the dotted line. Did the project manager fool everyone? Or, did the whole team get played by the Chinese? Or, did it purposely look away from the ugly facts? Were the Administrations from 2016 onward so eager to score politically (and maybe personally) that they were willing to make a deal with some wannabe refinery experts? Where was the independent press? Did some media outlets feel they had to keep quiet and go with the flow after the GZE paid for a plush trip to China for a group of local media people?
I don’t know if these questions will ever get answered. Hopefully we’ve all gained from these lessons learned. We cannot have the fate of our refinery continue to be in hands of people on solo tours or who consider themselves some kind of superhero. That’s how we lost a lot of valuable time with GZE in the first place. We need transparency. We need politicians who don’t get involved in the technical nitty gritty. We need people to look into the corporate and social behavior of all would-be candidates to run our refinery in the future. We need an independent project team that looks into the real possibilities of redeveloping the prime location that the refinery currently occupies on our island. Nothing is forever, surely not the refinery.

By Alex Rosaria
Alex David Rosaria (50) is from Curaçao and has a MBA from the University of Iowa. He is a former Member of Parliament, Minister of Economic Affairs, State Secretary of Finance and UN Implementation Officer in Africa and Central America.

Dear Editor,
We are continuing in the same trend even though we continue to be arrested or locked up. A thing as simple as erecting a flag pole cannot be done without controversy. It started with one government rushing to erect the pole without finding out the correct way to avoid the flag from wrapping around it. This automatically caused the price to erect that flag system to be questioned. This is understandable because making deals on projects has become commonplace in government. The people still do not know what the real cost to erect that flagpole system is because as usual there was no transparency.
We are almost demanding of the population to go online and we ourselves do not have the discipline to Google and find out if there is a system how to avoid the flown flag from wrapping itself around the pole. This is because we govern as if we are standing and listening to what is said around the domino table, and then go to the office and execute it.
During the last election I have been advocating: 'out with the old and in with the new', hoping to get young fresh blood in government to get things done in the right way. I cannot say to no avail yet, but that flag business up to now involves two young people. Do we not have anyone in government who is ready to insist that we follow procedures? It is only a flagpole we are erecting. This is not a criminal court case in which the defence lawyer must use a certain strategy.
I was about to enter a place of business and someone who wanted to buy a flag in connection with World Cup, said to me "I hope they not so expensive like the one on the hill". I was not thrilled, but that is what it has become. In an article in the newspaper I read that the new minister involved has made known that the intention is to cordon off the area where the flag pole is erected, and I thought what about legislation. We continue not to do the thing right.
This is not campaigning and making promises, this is governing. Put things on paper, publish them officially, put signage in place. We have to get rid of this adhoc and dictatorial way of governing. It is not right and if it is not official, the police will have to fold their arms while the people are walking around the area. We must stop playing these banana-republic games.
I am very opposed to the way those bus-stop huts are being placed all over the country. Strange enough we cannot negotiate spots to put up bus stop signs which would go a long way to help regulate the traffic, but the bus-stop huts are popping up like mushrooms. Having a good intention does not make it right. History has shown that not doing the thing right has caused too many of our politicians, people in government and department heads to be indicted and or locked up. Not only for doing the wrong thing but for doing the right thing wrong. This trend has never stopped. If we accustom ourselves to do the things in the wrong way, we are going to end up wrong. The Dutchman says "Een gewaarschuwd mens telt voor twee". (Fore warned is doubled warned.) There has been too much proof of that.
And it always has to do with money. Which brings me to Luke 12:15 and I Corinthians 6:10. In a discussion I had with an older police officer many years ago in Aruba, I told him I do not believe in following my mentor to the tee. My explanation is simple. I am not him/her. The mentor grooms one to be like him/her. The mentor should guide you in how to do the job correctly and how not to get yourself in trouble doing it. The advisor only gives advice. It is up to the individual what he/she does with that advice.

Russell A. Simmons

Dear Editor,
I am not an Editor, nor am I familiar with the pains of running a newspaper. I write letters to you concerning the happenings in my country, leaving the prerogative with you to print or not to print. I have gathered over the years that bad/negative news sells, and brings in the bucks, so I will not venture to dispute that.
But here is the thing. Even though we continuously frown at the bad news, we repeat it for days, giving it a life. When corrections are made in the papers after a faulty article, one can hardly find the corrections.
My father, who was premier mentor, was very strong on first impressions. I can still vividly remember the lesson I got on tying my shoelaces. “The teacher will always remember you as the little boy who came to school on the first day with his shoelaces untied.” He said the first impression is a lasting impression.
Contrary to “negative news sells” I have always asked myself ”if the editorial is an avenue to improve, why is that same person, who I am sure is aware that the first impression is a lasting impression, giving priority to negative news instead of trying to make a good and lasting impression on the community by putting the good news on the front page?” I read the article of the installation of officer Robelto Hodge as new Chief of Basic Police Care on Statia in the Tuesday newspaper and asked myself why all the way on page 13.
I know that theologians will have themselves a field day adding the different passage but my mind started racing through the passages of the Bible which we confront in our daily living. Mark 6:4; Romans 3;23 ; Romans 13:7 etc.
I might be from the old school but I still grimace when I see police officers out in the open, in uniform without a cap on. When it is a high-ranking officer it is bad enough and to salute without a cap makes it even worse. (If your uniform is not complete, wear a suit and stand at attention.) I stand to be corrected, but I am still waiting for someone to show me a picture of a member of the VKS in uniform, in the public without head gear.
Chief Robelto Hodge was a pupil of mine many years ago, who I knew would make it far in the force, so permit me via this media to publicly congratulate him and his family and, of course, the Police Force of Sint Eustatius. May the good Lord continue to bless them and guide him in his further endeavour.

Russell A. Simmons