Dear Editor,
This topic on welfare brings a clear contrast when it comes to political ideology between liberal and conservative.
Welfare (onderstand) is the provision of a minimal level of wellbeing and social support for citizens and other eligible residents without sufficient current means to support basic needs. In St. Maarten, welfare is mainly provided by the government from tax revenue. The challenge is what programs does the government establish to make people self-reliant. A liberal (social Democrat) supports long-term welfare because they see it as a necessity for the poor. Liberals always or falsely label conservatives as people who oppose welfare because they are not compassionate toward the poor. Without welfare, life below the poverty line would be intolerable.
Conservatives oppose long-term welfare. We need to provide opportunities to make it possible for poor and low-income workers to become self-reliant. It is far more compassionate and effective to encourage a person to become self-reliant, rather than keeping them dependent on the government for money. It is better to teach a man how to fish than just giving him a fish.
Conservatives believe in motivating people to become productive and self-reliant because conservatives believe every man should be able to contribute. If a person is sick or physically not capable that is surely understandable and they should be taken care of. But not healthy people just sitting and stop looking for work because they believe they are entitled to welfare. Welfare is taxpayer money and should be treated responsibly. Welfare should be treated as help but not an entitlement.
Conservatives believe that all welfare recipients should do a drug test and be free of drugs in order to get welfare. Liberals are against that and see it as discrimination.
In St. Maarten’s case oftentimes the welfare recipients use taxpayer money to gamble in the casinos. Conservatives believe welfare recipients should never be given cash but vouchers to support what is needed. With that manner the individual will endeavor more to look and find a job.
Welfare when not handled properly can bankrupt a economy or country.
2 Thessalonians 3:10: For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
Stay tuned for the next subject on political ideology.

The Patriot Miguel Arrindell

Dear Editor,

  This topic of character pertaining to any politician is what defines who he or she is. While education is important, one’s character is more important. Abraham Lincoln, founder of the Conservative Republican party who abolished slavery in the United States of America, said, and I quote, “Reputation is the shadow. The character is a tree.”

  The former prime minister of United Kingdom, a man who took a stand against the Germans in World War 2, said this and I quote, “The first duty of the university is to teach wisdom, not a trade; character, not technicalities. Our character determines how we respond to situations and circumstances in life. Character is what determines our success.

  Of course, that doesn’t mean that “good” people will always experience more success than “bad” people. There are, however, some character traits that tend to lead to success and others that tend to produce failure. There is good and bad character. Bad character traits are greedy, disrespectful, selfish, ruthless, dishonest, and evil. Good character traits are honest, caring, helping and good values.

  I assure you most politicians are dishonest. Let me explain, if a politician knows something in the system is wrong, but changing it is of no benefit to him or her, he or she does not care to change it. If something will benefit the politician, he or she will make a great effort to change it. They usually will not advocate for change that will benefit the people or because it is right. Most politicians usually care about their interest first over the country’s interest. That is why I can bravely say that most politicians have bad character.

  A true leader loves his country first over self, because the love of country has to do with patriotism. In St. Maarten’s case, our politicians let us become a minority in our country and after all, refuse to recognize the people of St. Maarten Heritage in St. Maarten’s Constitution. The reason is, the people of St. Maarten Heritage are only a few votes and those votes cannot make you win an election. Our politicians have a real bad character; it’s all about their interest.

   A politician can have 5 Ph.D. and master’s degrees, but if his or her character is bad and he or she has no love for the country, I will never vote for him or her, because the end result will not be in St. Maarten’s interest. I quote some sentences from wise, experienced and successful people. “In a president, the character is everything.

  A president doesn't have to be brilliant. You can't buy courage and decency, you can't rent a strong, moral sense. A president must bring those things with him. If he does, they will give meaning and animation to the great practical requirement of the presidency: He must know why he's there and what he wants to do. He has to have thought it through. He needs to have, in that much-maligned word, but a good one nonetheless, a vision of the future he wishes to create. This is a function of thinking, of the mind, the brain.

  But a vision is worth little if a president doesn't have the character--the courage and heart-- to see it through....” Martin Luther King said it very well and I quote “Judge a man not by the colour of his skin, but by the context of his character”. Do not look only at a politician’s education, but most importantly look at his or her character.

  The conclusion is character defines the politician. The definition of character is the combination of mental characteristics and behaviour that distinguish a person and the moral strength and integrity.

  Stay tuned as we continue on issues pertaining to political ideology.

The Patriot Miguel Arrindell

Dear Editor,

  I am usually in the know, but this time around I am confused. I am not into following rumours that is why I depend on the media for facts and because of transparency of government on those who understand the meaning and I accept as reliable sources.

   Why should I be confused? Because  the same member of government who is in the thick of things in connection with the latest toppling of government and the forming of a new government, is in a doubt because of gross  violation of article 59 of the Sint Maarten Constitution. That same member refrains from going to IPKO to assure that we form a new government within the allotted time, which as we have read is to be sworn in on Monday, January 15.

  This makes no sense to me. Are we going to get what has become a now famous word in the world of politics a “fake" government?  Is this going to be another one of those shaky episodes of our government since 10-10-'10?  Can somebody explain the people where we stand? Strange enough, but because I am sure that there is not much to present (offer) to the people, I believe and hope that all of those parties would take whatever little time they have to at least explain the people why.

  In spite of the doubts expressed in writing by formateur Sarah Wescot-Williams, we can be assured of a stable government.  Why in spite of that gross violation of article 59 of the Sint Maarten Constitution there should be no fear of annulments other than what has become common place, the political games of toppling the government?

  My solution for that is to get out all of those members of government who have been in there and put in 15 new faces. Out with the old and in with the new. Stop with the recycling and shuffling of the members of government and in with twenty-two new ones (both levels).  If we can accept those who will be sworn in on Monday, there are a whole lot more of competent  young Sint Maarteners who can give us for starters at least four years of stable government, as I have written before, on our way to re-establishing the name of Sint Maarten.  Fifty to sixty thousand people is not the big leagues, it is merely a pawn.

Russell A. Simmons

Dear Editor,
Wow, why, what? Is there an upcoming baby-boom? Is it related to this year’s Carnival? Why don’t they distribute contraceptives? Those are questions I don’t have answers for. But I had something else in mind anyway. I believe that the Caribbean needs business incubators.
Unemployment rates in the region are too high; especially among young persons. There is no such a thing as opening up a can of jobs. The problem does not get enough attention. Well, attention maybe, if one considers ‘talk-talk’ to be attention. In some cases, measures are taken, like providing extended education for young people. However, how does having another education certificate help, if one is still not able to find employment, because jobs are just not available? There is a distinct difference between providing a job and keeping persons entertained for another one or two years. Yet, it is meant well, so one should not criticize too much. The basic thinking behind it is not wrong, but it is not creating jobs. Jobs are created by businesses.
Then let’s create businesses. Start-ups. Some young, talented persons or spirited members of an earlier generation may be able to get an operation going. So, let’s make special loans available at attractive soft conditions. That’s positive thinking. It may work well if the operation is retail related, because a turnover of products could bring revenues fairly quick. What about the entrepreneurs-to-be who are into offering services that need more lead time to bring in revenue. Some professionals in their own right are just not typically salespersons to market their services. Their activities may be valuable, but are too specialized for a quick start.
Just imagine how their start-up funding may be used. First renting an office space; usually a one- or two-month rent deposit is required. Buying office furniture and equipment. Acquiring telephone and internet connections. Secretarial services may be needed. Every start-up may have different needs. Listing all those may look like dramatizing things. Thus, I stop here. One thing should be mentioned though is that the young entrepreneurs may lack some experience in running an operation, like marketing, accounting or other skills.
What if a business incubator were available? A facility that would have space to accommodate several start-ups. The individual units would be fully furnished. Telephone connections through a central system. WIFI signal throughout the building. Central secretarial services. In principle one facility administration takes care of all, including things as hiring services ranging from cleaning to accounting. Management training could be included in the incubator concept. It would be a truly professional and motivating environment to operate from. Since there are several start-ups with different services in the same building, it is very well possible that the incubates could cooperate and initiate joint activities. The model of the incubator can be shaped to the needs of a particular territory, or for the typical professional needs of a certain group of start-ups.
Taking part in the business incubator should in principle be free. Of course, there will be conditions and agreements before being accepted. The funding for the facility could be provided by a government agency (e.g. Development Authority), Chamber of Commerce, or an International Development Bank. An incubator could be part of, or associated with a college or university.
In 2009, a Caribbean Business Incubator Association was launched by representatives of 10 independent Caribbean countries. Some had business incubation programs, others were preparing implementation of such programs. It was in the line of thinking being a part of a CARICOM Single Market and Economy. The organization announced that it was member of a global organization of more than 300 incubators in 86 countries. But the organization is not operational anymore. The Association is dormant due to lack of funding.
On a local level, the idea of a business incubation deserves a closer look. The idea of a business incubator is not new. It is a catalyst tool for economic development. It can be part of the solution to develop new native businesses that encourage self-employment first, and when the new operation is successful and grows, it can provide employment for others. A bit of a multiplying effect.
Business incubators can be shaped for any need or size. They could be as big as technology parks. Let’s not go too far though with our imagination and keep both feet on the ground considering where we are. But then again, when reaching out for the stars, one will not end up with a hand full of mud.
Mind that my columns should only be considered as ‘food-for-thought’. I’m old and wise enough to know how I myself would handle a circumstance if needed to. But who am I? Yet, an old fox knows more tricks to get a rabbit out of a hole than a puppy with a degree. I just do my writing to help others with ideas.
Caribbean territories should focus more on the potential of entrepreneurs as drivers of economic growth and play an important role in job creation. A study has shown that there is no specific geographic trend in terms of where innovative entrepreneurs can be found. There is no evidence either that developed countries have a higher rate of novel product-market combination. So, let’s get going here.

Cdr. Bud Slabbaert