Dear Editor,
Knowledge is understanding – with the swearing in of the Council of Ministers on June 25, 2018, the ruling United Democrats/St. Maarten Christian Party (UD/SMCP) coalition government found itself in a political dilemma with not having enough sitting MPs in the Parliament to govern.
The 8 to 7 ruling coalition government resigned 2 of its sitting members of parliament and had them sworn in as ministers, leaving the coalition with a 6 to 7 minority support in the Parliament. Consequently, there were not enough MPs to form a quorum to convene Parliament in order to review the credentials and approve and/or appoint replacement parliamentarians.
Luckily, a degree of political sensitivity was displayed in our polity neutralizing the political dilemma as 1 of the 2 minority parties (the National Alliance) in Parliament afforded the governing coalition the necessary support/attendance to form a quorum, review the credentials and approve and appoint the 2 replacement MPs.
The problem of an inability to allow MPs to transform to Ministers while simultaneously ensuring the maintenance of power in Parliament is an institutional one. Hence, it is a structural rather than a constitutional crisis. New laws cannot resolve the problem.
The problem that emerged was not based on any (narrow) interpretation of the Constitution or law but a political dilemma where ensuring and maintaining the balance of power in Parliament was not explicitly and adequately (strategic politically) handled.
In politics we have to be mindful that political dilemmas come with consequences which in this case could have very well been a vote of no confidence in the UD/SMCP (one-week-old) coalition government. Without the unusual political sensitivity shown by the opposition bench in Parliament, the likelihood of new elections would not have been neutralized.
Talks that the political dilemma could have been avoided with a larger majority in Parliament is pointless. Having a large majority in parliament does not necessarily safeguard any government from political dilemmas that could result in finding themselves in a minority support position (in parliament). Granted, a larger majority in government/parliament is always better which for the most part allows the governing party to better execute its governing program, pass legislation and withstand a vote of non-confidence.
Furthermore, as for the report that the Parliamentarians should turn to the courts to have or ensure that their credentials are reviewed, (thus allowing them to sit in Parliament) is problematic. It not only raises question of “separation of powers” but also the infringement of the judicial branch of government on the authority/duties and responsibilities of the legislative branch.
It is the task of the courts to handle and resolve disputes. However, there were no disputes as to whether or not the credentials of the replacement parliamentarian would be reviewed – it was a political, procedural problem of the governing coalition not having enough sitting MPs in the Parliament to form a quorum to convene Parliament, to review the credentials and approve and appoint their two replacement MPS.
Alternatively, the ruling coalition Government could have been more politically conscious of the potential dilemma and first secure their balance of power (in Parliament). That is, not waiting until the 11th hour where there would be a conflict of a minister simultaneously being a parliamentarian; in this case proceeding with swearing in 5 of the 7 ministers. As such maintaining the balance of power in Parliament and reviewing the credentials and approving the replacement parliamentarians would have been possible followed by the resignation of the parliamentarians that would be replaced and swearing in them as ministers. Political crises averted.
Political analyst Julio R. Romney
Where are those parents? Remember that look?
Dear Editor,
Sitting at home a lady and her son were walking up the road, when I heard her tell the boy, “I don’t wan’ no child of mine following other children.”
When I heard “following other children” it took me back to my childhood days. “Following other children” has become “peer pressure,” “gang forming,” “guilty by association,” etc.
Many years ago my father told me this story in order to explain me why I should not follow other children: As a sailor for the LAGO he visited many countries and did not have to post anything home because he brought it home with him. At that time already there were Customs and often times the sailors tried to avoid Customs.
One day a fellow seaman, who did not know that my uncle, also a sailor, was my father’s brother, told my father that my uncle had refused to help him bring home something without going through Customs. In order to get in my father’s graces, who had stuff of his own to bring home and who had used that as an excuse not to accept the request, he told my father that he did not know what is wrong with Pete (my uncle) because “Pete never like to help people.” My father answered him, “Maybe the fact that nothing is wrong with him, is what is wrong with him.”
He would not tell me who that person was because I was a child and children had nothing in big people’s business. And then I got another one of his lessons in being honest and fair, which as usual would end up with: “There is nothing wrong with being different. It makes you strong .”
My mother who, because my father sailed and she had to contend with 11 boys and three girls, also had hers . “I don’t want to see nothing in this house that I did not send you for.” She would say, “‘NO’ is one of the most safest and thoughtful words in life. There is no one on this earth who does not stop to think after you tell him ‘NO.’ When you learn to say and accept ‘NO’ you will never hear a prison door close behind you.”
As a child you thought that that was rigid, and then years after being on the force she would jokingly tell me that I was ungrateful, but would never say why. All she would say when I asked her why, is, “You’s a good policeman, right?” And then one day when I insisted from my father to tell me, he smiled and said, “You never thanked her for all the licks she gave you to straighten you out.”
What is the average age for the people in prisons.? I was told in the late 20s. So if we continue to talk about the discipline we got from the older folks, especially that look, and if the prison is filled with young people, then why is beating your children worse than not beating them ? What percentage of the world population are believers? Why are all of these modern theories on disciplining children more acceptable than Proverbs 13:24? Are there any statistics to compare “Old school life” to this modern cell phone era in which one cannot spell a simple word “believe” and the word “love,” which has become the symbol of a heart.
If it said that children grow up and become what they see and not what they hear, is that an indictment for the parents? So when I heard “Following other children” I asked myself, “Where are those parents?”
Those of you who know that look, try it, it might make your children smile years from now.
Russell A. Simmons
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
Dear Editor,
Call me stupid, but 50 per cent of the Mullet Bay property is on long lease from the government, which means it belongs to the people. Ansary deserted us in in our greatest time of need after Hurricane Luis more than 20 years ago and in that time Ansary has been borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars against the Mullet Bay property, half of it land owned by “we the people.” I can understand not being able to repatriate the lands of Mullet Bay that are privately owned, but surely there is some legislation that protects the government against the misuse/non-use of long lease land? If not draft one!
Mullet Bay Beach is one of the finest beaches in the Caribbean; on most days you cannot park your car. So if the resort is not open, why can’t VROMI [Ministry of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure – Ed.] at the very least clear all the scrubland next to the Mullet Bay car park to provide adequate parking?
Let’s also talk about Kim Sha, another property issued in long lease, this time to Port de Plaisance, not developed for 30 years and now recently fenced off to stop the cruise ship buses from using it? What’s going on, who is in control?
Name withheld at author’s request.
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
