Dear Editor,
I would like to address the issue of the vast number of unmarked vehicles using the roads – vehicles with no number plates, some with W and some have no road tax stickers. If by chance any of the above vehicles are involved in an accident, and most of the time the driver drives or runs away, there is no identification so that they can be prosecuted, especially if they are in the wrong.
I am calling on the authorities to do something to stop this trend a.s.a.p. Law-abiding citizens are paying their road tax, etc. (insurance) and it is unfair for them to suffer loss as a result of such occurrence.

Concerned resident
Name withheld at author's request.

Dear Editor,

On Friday, June 1, I read with great interest the article entitled ‘Neglect and backlog’ in Statia, Knops tells MPs, in your esteemed paper. Knops stated, and I quote, “The situation is serious, the neglect and backlog even more extensive than previously thought and visible and noticeable in virtually all areas”. Knops also said the situation in Statia is of such a nature that “it will take a long time to realize tangible effects for residents”.

In a 1975 report, written by Abraham van der Mark, it emerged that many reports have been written about challenges that exist(ed) in St. Eustatius over the years. In one instance, it was pointed out that in 1971, Croes and Tijssen, Netherlands Antillean Minister of Social and Economic Affairs and Director of the Department of Social and Economic Affairs respectively, visited Statia for a day and painted the following picture: “St. Eustatius presents a picture of an impoverished island, which has been entirely left to its own fate”.

In a ’74 editorial in Statia, it was stated “Presently there isn’t much going on today than what has been going on a couple of weeks ago. One could easily change a couple of weeks into a couple of decades….”

Abraham van de Mark made mention of the fact that all the reports written about Statia talked about the same things, namely: the lack of a good administration, problems of communication, poverty and economics. He went on to say that one should save him/ herself energy by simply copying one of the reports written in earlier years. With this knowledge in mind, I therefore struggle to understand why one believes that the Dutch take-over of the island has led to ‘new discoveries’!

I will not deny that Statia has been faced with many challenges over the years, but negative perceptions by the well-intended researcher have added fuel to the fire. Van der Mark talked about this in his 1975 report: “The negative descriptions in the many reports (mostly written with good intentions) have contributed to a negative image of St. Eustatius and to stereotypes about its population. This image and these stereotypes are dangerous because if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences”.

In the many reports written about Statia, the recommendations given were always provided by the authors of the reports, external consultants who visited Statia for short periods of time. One should therefore ask the following question: Who are the ones responsible for seeking solutions for the structural problems that exist in Statia, problems made worse by the findings of the well-intended foreigner?

Xiomara Balentina

Disputes occur at all times. Sometimes they are big, sometimes small. Sometimes of a principled nature, sometimes they deal with (small) earthly matters. Disputes can exist between people, but also between countries. There are also (strong) disputes between the countries within our Kingdom. When it comes to disputes when making a certain choice, and a choice has to be made, the question is how you can best solve those disputes.
Let us focus on disputes within the Kingdom, between the four countries: the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten. A possible model for dispute resolution is to use the principle that the majority decides. That is a numerical solution. The majority decides in a parliament. So, the majority in parliament has the power.
If the parliament is part of a democratic legal order and there are independent and fair elections, then you can say that there is a political legitimacy for this method of decision making. That is not to say that every decision made in this way is also morally legitimized, but that issue is of a different order.
But what about the Kingdom Council of Ministers, which is dominated by the members of the Dutch cabinet? Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten each have one Minister Plenipotentiary and are by definition in the minority. Here too the majority decides, whereby the ministers of the Dutch cabinet speak with one mouth and therefore all vote the same.
The majority have the power here (I will pass on the existing appeal procedure and the criticism of this). But is that just as fair as important, perhaps principled choices regarding the Kingdom must be made, and there are fundamental differences of opinion about this? The four countries within the Kingdom still consider each other as equal? Does power play not fit? And that is especially true if disputes are of a legal nature.
If disputes relate to (the interpretation of) the Statute for the Kingdom of the Netherlands (or the interpretation of Kingdom Acts), then it is obvious to opt for an independent settlement thereof. Pushing through a certain interpretation because you have the majority (the power), shows little respect for the other – equivalent – countries.
The Supreme Court – as the highest court in the Kingdom – enjoys authority, also on our side of the ocean. It should not be very difficult to add a Kingdom Chamber (a kind of constitutional section) to the Supreme Court. That Kingdom Chamber may be charged with settling disputes relating to the Statute (and to Kingdom Acts) and making a ruling binding on those countries for those disputes. This is a dispute resolution method that suits a mature Kingdom.
Article 12a of the Statute for the Kingdom of the Netherlands contains the following assignment to the four countries:
Under Kingdom Act, provisions are made for the treatment of disputes under Kingdom Law between the Kingdom and the countries.
Discussions on the dispute settlement have been going on for about eight years now. However, the subject is not that difficult, so other issues are playing, including probably the fear of giving up a bit of power. The Dutch government has to get over that now. After all, it is 2018. A Kingdom Act with which a dispute settlement is brought into being can take effect this year. But only if the will is there to really come to a solution.

By Karel Frielink (lawyer)

Dear Editor,

I imagine Plato back for a visit among us, searching the Internet for opinions on President Trump’s rhetoric. He would be pleased to discover that his disciples are still a force to be reckoned with.

Here is an example of a certain consensus on the matter. It was penned by an op-ed columnist for The New York Times : Trump’s language “is a jumble of incomplete thoughts stitched together with arrogance and ignorance […] Trump employs reduced rhetoric […] Degradation of the language is one of Trump’s most grievous sins.” (Charles M. Blow, The NYT, May 1, 2017). And Mr. Blow quotes Mark Thompson, CEO and President of The NYT who opines that Trump “uses parataxis [Fragmented clauses] the way generals and dictators speak,” seemingly implying that such usage points to Trump being an autocrat, a despot. Mr. Blow and the CEO of The NYT are, it would appear, faithful adherents to Platonism as it relates to rhetoric.

Plato turned the irony of his Socrates (Plato’s own awesome rhetoric!) on the Sophists and their rhetoric, and it had such an impact on rhetoric that even the novel work on the subject by Aristotle (Plato’s illustrious student who rehabilitated rhetoric to some degree) would suffer from a stigma and neglect that scholars associate with the fallout from Plato’s onslaught on rhetoric.

But starting in the mid-20^th century, the study of rhetoric returned with vigor, thanks to the work of C. Perelman and L.O-Tyteca in Belgium (La nouvelle rhétorique), 1958; of S.E. Toulmin in England (The Uses of Argument), 1958; of C.L. Hamblin in Australia (Fallacies), 1970; their students and others too numerous to cite here.

Trump’s argumentation relies heavily on a few tropes (figures of speech) the way most people communicate in their daily lives: on quasi-logical syllogistic (deductive) reasoning. According to Chaïm Perelman, father of The New Rhetoric – the rebirth of rhetoric – the logic of theses syllogisms resembles formal syllogistic logic, but it is less restrictive. Perelman was trained in formal logic, but he became interested in neglected, but vitally important, elements of Aristotle’s rhetoric. Aristotle himself regards such quasi-logical (deductive) rhetoric as “strong rhetorical proof.” Like formal syllogisms, Trump’s syllogisms have three terms, or premises: a major; a minor; and a deductive leap (a therefore) to a conclusion.

Those in attendance at Trump’s rallies are already persuaded that he is their champion. The “meeting of the minds” (between Trump and this audience) has already taken place: the “deal” is already clenched. The attendance is there to celebrate in unison the “good news” he has brought them, the message he keeps bringing them. The stage setting at Trump’s rallies and his delivery (his rhetoric) reaffirm the bond between him and the celebrants assembled; they also aim at persuading others who are not present at the rally, for his speeches are media events, his audiences multiple.

Trump’s master enthymeme, his master “meme”: “Make America great again!” is, obviously, the conclusion of a truncated (“reduced”!) syllogism that his audiences have no problem following. They complete it by supplying the missing terms while adding flourishes of their own. Example: Major: “America used to be great, but those days are over, due to the policies of previous administrations – Democrats and Republicans.” Minor: “We can make America great again”; therefore, Conclusion: “(Let’s) make America great again!”

Here is another example of Trump’s short-cut narratives, another one of his “memes”: “We don’t win anymore.” He is stating the minor premise here, and his audiences can, indeed, gleefully complete his downsized rhetoric, his syllogism; Major: There was a time when we used to win…; Minor: “We don’t win anymore because of … (And they complete it with their reason(s).) “; Conclusion: “We must start winning again.”

One last example of Trump’s quasi-logical arguments! Consider this sales pitch to African-American electors who, as a matter of record, have voted solidly Democrat for the last 50 years, and who, Trump (and many others) believe have been neglected, and are taken for granted by the Democrats: “Give me a chance, you have nothing to lose.” This is another conclusion to a syllogism, the missing terms of which, would run as follows: Major: “You have been voting Democrat and losing for the last 50 years.” Minor: “If you vote Democrat again, you’ll continue losing;” therefore (Conclusion): “You have nothing to lose (if you vote for me, and you may win), give me a chance.”

Whether he is conscious of it, or not, Trump’s campaign rhetoric is mostly enthymematic quasi-logical reasoning. According to Aristotle, Perelman and other proponents of “The New Rhetoric,” this kind of informal everyday reasoning is “strong rhetorical proof” that is anchored in the “reasonable,” and in the “probable” as opposed to the “rational,” the “theoretical,” the “formal”. It is rooted in the “plausible” as opposed to the “certain”; in what is “likely” as opposed to what is “metaphysical.” (See Marc Angenot in Renaissance de la rhétorique: Perelman aujourd’hui, 2016).

It is very unfortunate that rhetoric continues to suffer so much disrepute, such a stigma as a result of Platonism. Mr. Charles M. Blow, his boss at the reputable NYT and others may continue to regard President Trump’s rhetoric as “incomplete thoughts stitched together with arrogance and ignorance,” to their uninformed detriment.

Gérard M. Hunt