Give the Dutch full cooperation

Dear Editor,

The writing is on the wall for all the Dutch Caribbean colonies, politicians and the people, especially those in authorities in both on the ruling side and those in opposition of government in the Caribbean islands should cooperate with the Dutch government to the fullest while they are doing the best to give the Dutch nations in the Caribbean region (stable government.)

But if the Dutch are agreed or allowing fresh election just let it be.

Citizens of Commonwealth of Dominica, St, Kitts, and Grenada are watching the situations closely as the Dutch Caribbean is really and truly lack of stable government.

But the Dutch should remember St. Maarteners want the old laws off the table and the youth of St. Maarten thanks the Dutch government and Red Cross for their great helps.

Cuthbert Bannis

Dear Editor,
Doing the right thing is one thing, but to back it with the rightful argument is another thing.
In our western democracy, the prevention of totalitarianism and the reign of justice, equality, integrity, are guaranteed upon the fundamental principle of the separation of powers.
Parliamentary or presidential regime, we find the same three separated and independent powers:
* The legislative whose power is to elaborate laws.
* The executive whose power is to govern, composed of the government and its different administrations.
* The Judiciary whose function is to judge.
My point is, if there is evidence of a lack of integrity in any one of these three powers, can it be corrected and prevented by making the same guilty power bigger, by establishing a new corruption in Sint Maarten? Why should they choose to make the same accused powers bigger?
I know that they are more clever than that!
Why not turn toward the Judiciary power composed of professional judges to do the job?
Why create a controversial executive institution, an integrity chamber without precedent and composed of members chosen within the same accused corrupted politicians?
Since the only constitutional court within the kingdom is that of St. Maarten, the more rational option should not have been to extend the role of that court?
Why not a joint constitutional and administrative court?
Well the answer to those question is totalitarianism,
Creating an executive institution with judiciary powers is the means for the Dutch Prime Minister and his State Secretary of Home Affairs and Kingdom Relations to concentrate in their hands all three powers, the legislative, the executive and the judiciary, ruling by arbitrary instructions when not blackmail.

Leopold Baly

Weighing in on Dutch takeover of Statia

Dear Editor,

I believe that the move by The Hague to dissolve the St. Eustatius Island Council, send the Executive Council and Acting Island Governor home and replace them with a Dutch Government-appointed Commissioner, is a dangerous precedent.

It is sad that in the 21^st century, we still have this form of colonial developments in the region and so close to home where the elected representatives of an island are put aside by others.

While St. Eustatius does not have the same constitutional status that St. Maarten, Curaçao and Aruba have as countries within the Dutch Kingdom, it still is wrong when a decision is taken from so far away to set aside an entire government apparatus. It makes people feel so inferior. If the people of Statia choose those people to represent them, then that is the will of the people. Those are the representatives that they have chosen.

Philosophers say everyone gets the government they deserve. You cannot force people to accept a different government.

If elections were held and people did not vote their conscience or elections were rigged and people tampered with the polls to ensure that one party gets favor over another, then we can say that something went wrong.

But if the Statia government is not working in the interest of the Statia people then when election comes, the people of Statia would have to take that decision to elect different representatives, but for The Hague to send home everyone else and bring in someone from the former Netherlands Antilles from Curaçao and give that person all the power and authority to hire and fire and to answer only to the Dutch State Secretary – that is a dictatorship. It is very dangerous and should not be happening in the 21^st century.

William Marlin

Dear Editor,
In the introduction to his “folie” (Act of madness, or extravagance); to his “essay” on getting rid of the menace of endemic joblessness in France, the late former Mayor of Saint Martin, Dr. Hubert Petit wondered if it was presumptuous of him “to think that it is possible to eradicate unemployment in France,” to do away with joblessness in the nation, forever. L’éradication totale du chômage en France, (Gutenberg XXIe siècle), 2000, was published in France, some six years before his passing in 2006.
In the introduction to the essay, we read (I translate): “Given that unemployment is the social priority; all economic considerations must follow in the wake of its suppression. (...) Human kind has never experienced such rapid and profound changes as those that it is experiencing now. The inequities, the injustices, and social fractures, are more and more real, more and more difficult to bear. To make matters worse, television, and other media accentuate the suffering of the unemployed with spectacles of those who are lucky enough to be active, and employed (...). Why should some be able to work, and not others? What faults are the unemployed guilty of? (Introduction, p. 7-9)”
In the first 10 chapters, the physician/politician/essayist examines the phenomenon, the scourge of chronic unemployment in France, and he proposes his “solution”: “Le partage du chômage,” (The sharing of joblessness). He then anticipates reactions to his prescription, and he discusses them under three other headings: “Le pourissement; L’affrontement; Fractures et misère (The Worsening of the Situation; Confrontation; Fractures and Misery). His final chapter, “Le référendum” is a sort of “mise-en-scène,” a staged journalistic account: a vivid rendition of events leading up to the said plebiscite.
As for the outcome of this popular vote: “Aucun doute n’était possible (...); il n’y aura plus jamais de chômage en France!” (There was no doubt possible (...); there will never again be unemployment in France!) This is an unusual approach to this subject, but a rather interesting way of considering it, of apprehending this very important phenomenon.
The salient points of the essay inform on the injustice of joblessness, and the need for a legislative/legal “right to employment“; the failure of politicians, and of union leaders to address the scourge of chronic mass unemployment; “oversights,” and “mistakes” in social organization; the current nature of joblessness, and a review of past attempts to combat it; the “solution” to unemployment (the author’s): away from being “enslaved to work” (“des esclaves du travail”), rather towards the pleasures of life; perspectives of “sharing joblessness”; and the dangers of resisting his (the author’s) “solution” to the plague of mass unemployment in France.
Since the mid-1980s, unemployment in France has fluctuated between 7.5 per cent and 10.5 per cent. During the decade leading up to the publication of this essay (1990-2000), joblessness in metropolitan France was around 10 per cent ─ more or less ─ where it is today. But in the French Antilles, in Guadeloupe, in Saint Martin, in French Guyana, and in a few other “outposts” of the Republic, unemployment was 3 times the metropolitan rate: over 30 per cent — just as it is today.
Indeed, today, almost 20 years after the publication of Dr. Petit’s essay, joblessness in France has not improved. With a rate somewhere between 9.5 per cent to 10.5 per cent, France has the highest unemployment rate of the major EU member countries.
I’ve searched the Internet to no avail for some “reception” of this book; for some commentary on this essay. But we must not despair. We must hope that someday soon, someone much better versed and endowed than this reviewer, will render proper justice to this inventive and unusual effort, to this enigmatic essay. And, maybe, just maybe, French decision-makers may pay heed.

Gérard M. Hunt