(Building back we life)

If our actions speak Louder
Than our voices
Then let our action be soo Loud
That it will Drown out the sound
of our critique

And the only sound
That will remain around
will be that Thunderous
Sound
Of Silence, of our critiques

So let us stop the Talk
and start the walk
For we have forever
Talk the talk
Now ’tis time we walk the walk

For others may sympathise
And true friends will empathise
But only we can build
Back our lives
For there are more to life

Than ah roof over ah head
And on your Table
ah Loaf ah bread

For The Bible clearly stated
That man shall never live
only by eating bread

For if today yeh Homeless
And most probably pennyless
It is not ah reason to be careless
Neither te be hopeless
For yeh sure not worthless

And this is just ah test
For the birds have Nest
And God cares for the sparrows
And he feeds the Tiny swallows
So I trust Him with my TOMOROW
So I take MY eyes off Material
Thing

And I build up My treasures
in Heaven
In that secure place
Where Hurricane have no Trace

For where our treasures are
There will our heart be
Our silent action
make the loudest noise

BIG RAY

Dear Editor,

The key is the gentleman’s agreement. I was just in Aruba and had a very candid conversation with a European Dutch schoolmate from the seventh grade (1958).

We happened to meet each other at the checkout counter of a supermarket. He noticed that I had already reckoned my bill and, as he later told me, he approached me because I reminded him of an old classmate who he used to admire because that classmate used to be very good at hoofdrekenen (mental arithmetic) which was not his strongest suit.

When we got together for old time’s sake he told me that he had read my articles on line but did not really make any effort to get in contact with me because he had retired to his hobbies and had left the intensity of life to his children and grandchildren.

He said to me because we are all human the chromosome count makes a difference in why we do not all think and behave and develop identically. Which is necessary for the balance in life. We talked about a whole lot of things and on the political front he told me that there is no fundamental hatred from the Dutch towards us. On the contrary, the Dutch need us.

I responded with probably that could be the cause, if you find yourself stuck with something you do not really want. The problem is the politicians among each other.

In his opinion politicaians vying for office should always keep John 21:15-19 (He Googled it) in mind. For years there has been an unwritten agreement among the politicians that you do not compromise the integrity of the political leaders or leadership.

For us in this part of the kingdom this stems from when it was “Curaçao en de onderhorigheden” and Aruba already in those days wanted what was considered “Status apparatus.” The results of that was that the Netherlands Antilles (six islands) was formed and with the divisions of the seats per island Curaçao 12, Aruba 8, Bonaire 1 and the Dutch Windward Islands (Sint Maarten, Saba, Sint Eustatius) 1.

It was not in the constitution, but there was already that gentleman’s agreement that Curaçao would not form the government of the Netherlands Antilles by itself (12 seats majority) but that there should be participation of all the islands. This also continued when Aruba left the constellation in 1986.

The government of the Netherland Antilles remained a coalition of parties from parties of the different islands. If a politician messed up it was expected of him/her to quietly go off into the sunset not to compromise the integrity of the political leadership. Court cases reveal much more than rumors which eventually will disappear making space for the nexr rumor.

Beside that it was normal for Holland to be kept abreast with any kind of negotiation with foreign entities. Over the years there were breaches in that agreement also which caused a breakdown in confidence. One of the factors for this kind of behavior is that the IQ and education level of the candidates (Constitution does not regulate it) is at a very low level or zero political knowledge or knowledge of the CIVICS of the country etc.

That gentleman’s agreement slowly but surely became “if you don’t tell on me I will not tell on you.” But with the social media and the nucleus of the population of Sint Maarten, the size of the island and the fact that people see each other almost every day, that does not work and the integrity of the political leadership has been and is compromised.

The fact that instead of walking off quietly into the sunset, the elected officials take government to court, are condemned, appeal the sentences and remain a member of Parliament as long as their appeal is not exhausted, is as it were a slap in the face of Holland whose hands remain tied because the same people who are supposed to be protected against this kind of an offensive behavior are the same ones who keep voting the offenders into office. And the polticians continue to neglect the same people who continually vote them into office.

There are two things: the Dutch (RST, Detectives etc) will continue to investigate and eventually lock up or the people will have to control the government with their vote. But as long as politicians continue to cover up for each other and do not care about the ages old custom of not compromising the integrity of the political leaders it will continue to deteriorate.

When you mess up, it is simple: GO! Do the people of Sint Maarten really need to be treated this way?

Russell A. Simmons

Dear Mr. Franco,

In reference to your article in The Daily Herald of Tuesday, March 20, 2018,

we have struggled for centuries to finally get rid of the burdens, inferiorities, and traumas left by slavery, colonialism, and imperialism of which you are now a part.

Please be so kind for the sake of our young people when referring to projects being done on Statia, to the actual initiators which are young local Statians,

Thank you

Jacintha Brice

Dear Editor,
Up to this day the existing constitutional and political dilemma between the island of St. Eustatius (“Statia”) and the country of The Netherlands (“Holland”) has been approached as an “or/or” issue, as a choice between two premises which many among us believe to oppose each other: democracy and practicality as incompatible end goals (quod non). The reality of the chances for success in this matter, however, may earlier and better be found in answering the question how to properly balance these two premises in a way which is most beneficial to the Statia people.
In order to soonest accomplish that it will be necessary for the two sides, being not just their political representatives but also the individuals and groups backing them, to stop with only looking at the beam in the other side’s eye, and to honestly and critically start looking at what the other side has been considering as the beam in the eye of their other. And at the same time also to not just look at the mote in one own’s eye but also at the one in the other side as such effort may end up with the two sides finding each other in a surprisingly more positive and productive way.
Such may also not just be more beneficial to the working and general relationship between the two sides but also for that with the other islands of our former Netherlands Antillean constitutional constellation and even also regarding the relationship between our said islands, separately and together, with our mother country, Holland, in the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
And as the dilemma has been brought to everybody’s attention in such a public and confrontational manner, the best way to mend the risen heated feelings in most sections of particularly the Statia community would be for the leaders of the two sides to agree to meet, first behind closed doors and thereby also to agree on the manner by which to bring the two sides closer together and to move on and do what is best for the Statia people.
The components of the beam in the eye of the other side are well known to both of them as well as the public as such has been well publicized by the local and outside media. And both parties know that part of what the other one has criticized about it is true or more or less so and part also understandable considering their past mutual history.
In one (or, if necessary, more) properly organized and moderated meeting(s) each of the parties should be giving proper attention to what the other side has brought forward regarding the elements of what it considers as the beam in the other’s eye. They then can explain and defend themselves but should also acknowledge the parts where they have not acted to the best of their ability and conscience and they therefore can do better, regardless of how difficult such acknowledgement may be and sometimes indeed is.
The simple acknowledgement of “our sides have made mistakes” will not be enough. The mistakes should be called and discussed by name, particularly as some of these mistakes (on both sides) may have a long history and be running deep and touching (rightly or wrongly held) feelings, not only among the leaders involved but also under substantial segments of their respective communities.
For every now and then it is good and cleansing to remember the wounds which at times have been caused by one to another in our Kingdom of the Netherlands, symptoms of which still can arise and cause new wounds at most unexpected moments and having serious consequences, of which even I personally can speak about, although, perhaps not with as much deep bitterness as such may be the case with others.
And those meetings should be followed by the two sides coming together to the public in the most respectable manner in order to move on.
Properly executed such procedure should and hopefully will lead to better mutual understanding, less drama and more cooperation between the two sides in the best interest of the Statia people and with that of our Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Elco Rosario