Dear Editor,
Can we ask the Minister of Finance just like they did while interrogating several of our young Sint Maarteners who were either left out to dry or were fall guys? Where is the money? Moneys of more than 40 years of booming economy blown away seemingly by a hurricane? Moneys that were managed during all those years by many of the same people who are in government today and definitely by Sarah, Marlin and Theo and several more of those in Parliament. Where is the money from the taxes of all those economic booming years, deposited by the taxpayers?
If they cannot tell us, they have failed us and still failing and should not be in there anymore being unable to give an account of the whereabouts of we the taxpayers’ money. Yes, after working 41 years for government and being almost 12 years on pension I am still a taxpayer.
By the way it was impressed on me that many employers do not deposit their employees’ pay-as-you-earn tax at the Receiver’s Office and nothing is done about it, even though this is known by the competent authorities. Like we does say. Nothing to doubt because as was mentioned by government officials only 26 percent of the people of Sint Maarten or of the working population pay taxes.
I do not include myself in the working population and I as well so many others like me, pay taxes so I have to conclude that it is 26 percent of the people of Sint Maarten pay taxes. and I have to ask: If 25 percent of the voters are original Antillians, then what percent of those Antillians are taxpayers?
I had to mention that because that to me justifies and help put the emphasis on the question: Where is the money? Can we say that the money is in the Causeway and the Boardwalk or in half-dead palm trees along the road?
I oftentimes let others know what I'm about to write about, so while writing I was reminded about the waste of the taxpayers’ money by putting down those bricks in the Front and Back Streets and along the other roads. So it is not only I who understand the need for the question, where is the money?
Now that we have asked about money we also know that the Minister must have known months before this week that he was going to let us know that there is no money. So could not he have done that before so many people who had alternate priorities embark on them? And would not the people then have the opportunity to rearrange their priorities?
I am sure that because of that sudden announcement of not having any money many a restaurant which are dearly needed because of Irma will be deserted. People will have to spend whatever money they have in the supermarket and cook at home.
I would like to know the reason for that move.
By the way, screening is not the reason for the delay in going to the governor. I was told it's a fight for the crown. One say “men don't wear crowns, men wear caps” and went on to say “over my dead body” and the other answered “but that is right up my alley” then another one who was there say “throw dirt over that man.”
In the meantime I have read that municipalities in Holland are offering to help. In my opinion a good intention but should they again trust putting money in the hands of those who have not managed it correctly in the past? And is not help from municipalities to Sint Maarten the same as small brother bailing out big brother who did not save for a rainy day? Again Daddy did not keep his eyes on things. Daddy was about letting them mess up. I believe that our people in government are aware of this and took advantage of it.
So we have to start showing them from now that all of them going in the next month or two. This should not be I have to defend NA against UP and DP. This should be out with all of them. If they were in there before, out with them.
We flying a complete different flag in the next few months. It is time for the people to enjoy what the people work for. Out with them.
Russell A. Simmons
Dear Editor,
The country’s reefs are an important contributor to the national economy. Based on an Economic Valuation Study of St. Maarten’s coral reef eco-system, the economic contribution of a healthy coral reef system was found to be over US $66 million.
This money trickles down throughout the economy in the form of salaries, social/health premiums, fees to operate in the nature protected areas, gasoline to run the dive boats, other services from the maritime sector, tax revenues, etc.
The customers that bring in the US $66+ million into our economy are mainly stayover tourists and some cruise passengers who spend the aforementioned by staying in our hotels, renting cars, eating in restaurants, purchasing diving packages, shopping, entertainment, excursions, etc.
The aforementioned study was conducted by the St. Maarten Nature Foundation, with the assistance of the United Nation’s Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Resources Institute (WRI).
According to the Nature Foundation, “The results of this study shows that Coral Reefs are one of the island’s most valuable resources and provide livelihoods through coral reef-associated tourism as well as protection from large, damaging waves caused by hurricanes.”
Today post-Irma, some Coral Species according to the Nature Foundation have suffered 70-95 per cent extreme hurricane damage. “Intense impacts have been recorded on certain coral species and on the reef, however, also some reef recovering has already been recorded,” the St. Maarten Nature Foundation said in a statement in November. It further added, “95 per cent of the Staghorn coral colonies have been destroyed by Hurricane Irma. No colonies have been found or only small fragments remain.”
Nature Foundation stated in the past, “Tourism and the marine industry contribute significantly to the economy and both sectors depend on the health of St. Maarten’s marine resources.”
Funding will no doubt be needed to help the recovery of our dive sector. Nature has already started its recovery as noted by the Nature Foundation, but financial resources should be allocated from the funding to be provided by the Dutch Government for the country’s recovery and rebuilding phase that will commence in 2018.
The Nature Foundation has already commenced with a coral reef monitoring project to scientifically establish what the impacts have been on the reefs from Hurricanes Irma and Maria using the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) standard. This information could be used to secure much needed funding for sectoral recovery.
Australian scientists have developed a fertility treatment for coral to help regenerate the Great Barrier Reef – 2,300 kilometres long and a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) World Heritage Site – which has been extensively damaged by coral bleaching – a process of warm water that causes coral to die.
Scientists have taken microscopic sperm and eggs during a reef’s annual coral spawning event and put them into giant tanks for fertilisation. The coral larvae are then planted back onto the reef, and according to lead researcher Professor Peter Harrison from Southern Cross University, the juvenile corals had successfully established themselves on the reef.
Scientists have said that the success of this new research not only applies to the Great Barrier Reef but has potential global significance. Perhaps this is something for the Nature Foundation to explore with respect to the recovery of the St. Maarten coral reef ecosystem.
Roddy Heyliger
Dear Editor,
St. Maarten passenger-bus owners must buy buses with higher roof-top so that passengers can walk through in and out the buses freely.
The numbers on the number plates of the vehicles are too small and invisible with the number plate covers on. Instead of five long figures big capital letters should be added on the number plates.
Cuthbert Bannis
Dear Editor,
Can you imagine that you were in charge of the government of a small island where 15 per cent of the economy was attributable to the yachting sector, this sector had significant competition, and the island was hit by a hurricane that was stronger than any hurricane that hit any global yachting destination ever in the history of the world? What would you do to minimize the damage and optimize the industry’s contribution to the economy in the short term?
Let’s imagine there were huge damages to the boats and many were under water, docks were damaged and if the boats were not moved the docks would not be able to be rented in the coming season.
Would you try to get the vessels salvaged as quickly as possible or would you impose new rules that would slow this process up?
Would you ensure that the visitors for the coming season were assured that the navigation channels were cleared and that the minimum facilities for visitors in the coming season were defined as safe and make efforts to advise potential visitors of this?
Would you be aware of the fact that the amount of salvage capacity needed was much much more than was locally available?
Would you be aware that if boats were left immersed for a long period it would increase the chances of them being abandoned?
Would you be aware that immersed boats would suffer from electrolysis finally causing their tanks to break and spill fuel?
Would you be aware that long immersion would quickly reduce the value of the damaged boats to zero or less?
Would you be aware of the fact that the disadvantaged owners or insurance companies would be unhappy about losing value?
And would you be aware of the likelihood that they would tell their friends what happened?
Robbie Ferron
Dear Editor,
While the Minister [Christophe Emmanuel – Ed.] challenges the individual members of the GEBE supervisory board to explain to the people of St. Maarten why they did not sign the concession agreement I would also like to lay a challenge before the Minister to explain to the people his reasoning for turning down the request from GEBE for a letter of no objection in order for GEBE to purchase a parcel of land at Porto Cupecoy which land would have been used to construct a 4,000 cubic meter water storage tank right next to the water production facilities in Cupecoy.
The area that was used in the past at the Mullet Bay was rented and here GEBE had the opportunity to own the property thus being able to capitalize its investment and the technical and financial analysis done by GEBE vs GEBE owning the property in the long run would have saved money to the consumers.
Because of the refusal of the Minister to give permission to purchase the land, having to build the tanks on the former Mullet Bay property this venture will cost the company an additional 2 million guilders in having to run two 12 inch water lines along the complete trajectory from the production facilities at Cupecoy to the Mullet tank and a return line from the board tank back down to feed the consumers their need for water supply as according to WHO standards water should not be sent directly to the consumer but should be stored and treated and thereafter distributed.
I wonder who were the powers that be that influenced his decision making on this matter. Was it in the interest of the same powers that be or the interest of the community guaranteeing stable, safe and reliable water according to World Health Organization standards?
Roy R. Marlin
Former chairman and member GEBE supervisory board of directors
