Dear Editor,

I am calling on GEBE to at least explain to residents of Cay Bay why they are still without electricity 6 months after the passing of Hurricane Irma.

We all know of the exceptional job GEBE has done over the past few months, but when speaking to folks in Cay Bay recently, I was caught totally off-guard that they are still without electricity. I think it behooves GEBE to provide an explanation to these citizens about their electricity supply. They haven’t heard anything in quite some time.

I have been told of similar situations elsewhere but have been unable to confirm them as yet. Bottom line is people just appreciate updates. And at this stage, they want a solution. Six months after the storm is a very long time. I’m calling on GEBE to explain and if at all possible expedite its efforts so these good people can get electricity restored sooner rather than later.

Frans Richardson

Leader of United St. Maarten Party (US Party)

Member of Parliament

Dear Editor,

As the campaign moves along more and more, I see the momentum leaning in the direction of young politicians. History would tell me that this is good. New blood and more diverse ideas coming together is what we desperately need in Sint Maarten. It goes without saying that those older politicians with a track record of throwing down all those previous governments, will continue to do the same, and their cronies will continue to plead for them to come back.

I will not dare call Cuthbert Banis a crony, but he definitely put himself in a strange light with me when he puts black on white asking for eleven seats for the UD. After seeing which politicians ended up where after every toppling of government, and realizing that the DP party was never left out of any of those governments, I do not think it is naiveté which makes a man want to put a combination of UP and DP in office again. And outright, mind you.

I do not think he would ask for that and no one would react. Like I stated on occasions the young people are constantly surprising me these days with knowledge of important matters concerning the country. Many of them also realize they are systematically being kept down by those in government who consider them a threat. One of them asked me if I think it is right to eventually appoint Sarah Wescot to the Advisory Council after Wescot considered giving advice to the Prime Minister “degrading"?

Give that a thought. It is degrading for members of Parliament to offer advice to a Minister. So I have to continue stressing on the people of Sint Maarten to get rid of the old, who by now we all know are instrumental in never making an effort to abolish that infamous dreaded "six-month contract”.

I continue to notice that the Christian Party is making all effort to do things the correct way. Which is totally contrary to those members of government who cannot show anything they have done feasible to the people. It seems monotonous, but that is what it is. Total disregard for the people and the proof is in the last toppling of government. They cannot promise dignified government because they have proven not to be interested in the well-being of the people.

And are trying their utmost not to have anything with integrity. Integrity is a behaviour advocated in the Scriptures. A behaviour which even atheists respect. All the more reason for the cry "Out with the old and in with the new".

Russell A. Simmons

Dear Editor,
My test for evaluating candidates for the upcoming election is to question them on how easy it is to make things better on Sint Maarten .If they claim it is easy then they drop on my ratings .
Much of the conversation about our political future seems to be based on the assumption that leaders in the past have been “bad,” and if “good” people were to be elected all would be well. It seems to me that whether or not the people are “good” or “bad” they also have to have a full understanding of the tasks and how government works. My guess is that a very small percentage of the very many candidates have that understanding of matters that would be sufficient to help extract us from our difficult circumstances.
The clear reality is that we are in a difficult position in Sint Maarten. Even before the hurricane competitive destinations were increasingly putting pressure on us. Our relatively sophisticated organizations (by Caribbean standards) were not functioning, our taxation structure was impacting our growth and our costs of operating both public and private were becoming excessive.
The hurricane made that all worse, and the manner in which the hurricane crisis was managed made it all much worse.
Any candidate that makes huge promises (e.g. lower food prices, reduce rents, fix the dump in six months) without already having a well-thought, previously-documented vision that is documented should not be considered.
I would look for candidates that show deep understanding of problems. Who will not shy away from the difficulties, both in the political discussion or in their planned policy execution.
I would look for candidates that have proven their ability to manage, and at the very least show evidence that they understand the challenges of management. They should have a clear understanding of the executive branch as distinct from legislative roles. And they should not be “constitutionalists” which are those persons who hide behind complex legislation to justify them taking no action.
Their age is, of course, entirely irrelevant.
We need to end up in our parliament with the sort of parliamentarians that make successful modern democracies function well. They should be specialists in an area which is agreed by their party to be their area of focus. They should become highly informed in that area and be able to support a vision as well as supervise (through parliament) the executing ministry.
With a 15-person parliament their area of specialty may be wider than in larger jurisdictions but in the case of Sint Maarten there are a number of focus areas that lend themselves to prioritization like tax reform, waste management, health care pricing and investment and law enforcement. On one of these subjects at least, they should have an in-depth understanding of the options open to Sint Maarten and the challenges of executing on Sint Maarten.

Robbie Ferron

Dear Editor,

Normally I give information and explanation to the people of St. Maarten. But presently I have a question for St. Maarten legal advisors about article 41 of the St. Maarten Constitution. See paragraph 3.

It states: "I swear (promise) allegiance to the King and the Constitution of the Kingdom, that I shall always help to uphold the Constitution of Sint Maarten, and that I shall champion the interests of Sint Maarten to the best of my ability. So help me, Almighty God! (And I hereby make this declaration and promise)!"

My question is, if the ministers’ allegiance is to the King and the Constitution of the Kingdom, what happens when the interest of St. Maarten is in conflict with the Kingdom’s wishes? Common sense tells me you cannot serve 2 masters. Allegiance is loyalty or commitment of a subordinate to a superior or of an individual to a group or cause. If the St. Maarten ministers are answerable to St. Maarten parliament, but the allegiance is to the King and the kingdom Constitution, what happens if the Kingdom disagrees with a law St. Maarten parliament has established?

Should the kingdom government supersede St. Maarten parliament? Should the ministers and Governor be obliged to then disobey the request of the people of St. Maarten (St. Maarten parliament)?

We all know the kingdom government is the highest body in the Dutch kingdom. But who should the Council of Ministers of St. Maarten be loyal to? Should it be to the allegiance of the King and Constitution of the Kingdom or to the people of St. Maarten (St. Maarten parliament)? Your legal input will be highly be appreciated.

The patriot Miguel Arrindell