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,
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
Dear Editor,
Thank God, the Dutch have seen the willingness of the solid eight Parliamentarians, and Prime Minister Leona Romeo Marlin’s and her cabinet ministers’ performance as positive.
Our government is doing great and excellent. The Dutch are seeing great performance by both our Parliamentarians and our ministers.
The people from the east, west, north and south of the Island have gained confidence in their representatives. And it is good to see that everyone from both the private and public sector is doing great to make St. Maarten remain the number one tourist destination in the Caribbean. I was always calling for a prime minister to come from the east and it became a reality. The UD Party gave us Leona Romeo Marlin and NA party chose their party leader from the east also. The red, white and blue government gave us street lights at Dawn Beach and Oyster Pond. We thank all our former parliamentarians and ministers for a job well done.
Now we, the people, are calling on the Dutch, Theo and all parliamentarians and ministers to please take the road and traffic situation into consideration. Theo must upgrade Link one and Link two and the entrance to Divi Hotel needs a roundabout. The entire nation of St. Maarten wants Theo’s government to seek to buy the land and properties at the entrance of Divi for a roundabout, beautification and a better traffic flow.
Cuthbert Bannis
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-20th 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
Dear Editor,
There’s no question that finding a lasting solution for some of the most pressing issues facing our communities today, must remain on the front burner of the agenda of the people of Sint Maarten. It’s important for the people of Sint Maarten to understand that we must hold our government officials accountable for their non-actions regarding the decisions or reluctance to act and act swiftly in the best interest of the people they represent. Some may regard their appointed or elected position as earning an income of 10,000 USD dollars as a side job.
The law prescribes that executing the job as a Member of Parliament (MP) is a full-time job. That’s the law, what happened to our moral obligation to work full time once elected into office. Ethically, there should be no question that with thousands still un- or under-employed, insufficient social housing and a growing dump which a toxic health hazard to our children is, elderly and other citizens, more effective leadership is required from our elected and appointed officials.
A new Parliament was sworn in on April 2nd, 2018. The new hurricane season is here. People are understandably nervous and still rattled not only by the last hurricane experiences. More so due to the seemingly lack of a clear direction of the priorities to be set by a new government.
It is absolutely disgusting that to date Sint Maarten has no new government in place. Recovery process, while moving is doing so at a slow pace. Too slow for many still homeless, roofless and jobless. One of the narratives allegedly sent out from the present coalition in response to the many questions concerning the delay has been that Holland takes its time, sometimes nine months or more to form a new government, therefore, there’s no haste in having a new government in place.
While this may be the case in Netherlands and in other countries in Europe or elsewhere in the world, it’s irresponsible to provide this misplaced response to the citizens of this island. For example, Holland is one of the richest countries in the world with a well-defined social security and healthcare system. A well-designed safety net is in place for those who become unemployed. Additionally, the Dutch economy is overheated, while unemployment is at its lowest in years. Lastly, but equally important, Holland did not experience a devastating hurricane a year ago. We did!
There are several pressing matters we hope to see addressed in the yet-to-be- submitted reconstruction report for financing through the World Bank. These are:
* Garbage health hazard. We must make a conscious decision once and for all to stop poisoning our children. There’s no one-stop solution to solve this health hazard. It’s clear that a many-faceted approach is required to deal resolutely with the toxic health hazard in Philipsburg.
It was brought to my attention that the city of Milan has become a poster child in Europe regarding garbage disposal. It reportedly took this city about 8 years to have a multifaceted garbage disposal solution, while at the same time getting rid of 88 per cent of all its organic waste. In a block-by-block approach this City managed to deal with one of its most difficult issues facing its citizens and visitors.
If this city of over 1.3 million citizens can do this, we can find a way to clean up this toxic health hazard in an open and transparent way here in Sint Maarten as well. The new government can reach out to the Mayor of the City of Milan and work towards a multifaceted solution.
* Additionally, Parliament must finalize this year, the law to ban plastic bags at all supermarkets and other business and introduce biodegradable bags in which organic waste can be collected.
* Financial support for businesses. We must provide incentives to the middle class and small business who are eligible to receive such funds and who are in dire need of financial support to stay in business. Where is the Sint Maarten Marshall Plan?
* Social housing. What is the status of the FOGA and other similar social housing projects? Will Sint Maarten Housing Foundation receive funding from the Recovery/ reconstruction funds to build homes at already identified locations, thereby lessening the critical need for social housing for our many citizens?
Lastly, but no less important, it is time for the interim or new government to disclose to the people of Sint Maarten the way the reconstruction funds will be dispersed, into which project and for what price tag. It is time for each community to know factually how it is being prepared for this hurricane season. It’s time for Parliament to hold government accountable and demand this disclosure sooner rather than later.
Gracita Arrindell,
Leader, People’s Progressive Alliance (PPA)
