Manifesto or governing programme?

Dear Editor,

  Two major documents play a pivotal role in the electoral process. They are a party’s political program, popularly known as the manifesto, and the governing accord which we call the governing program. By law parties are obliged to present a manifesto, but people expect a governing program.

  One of the legal requirements to be able to establish a political party is that the party’s Articles of Incorporation must include the commitment “to publish a political programme in good time before the elections”. Nothing further is said about the content or the format of said program. Political parties therefore are free to organize their political programs or manifestos as they wish.

  What is a manifesto? According to Merriam Webster’s Dictionary a manifesto is “a written statement declaring publicly the intentions, motives, or views of its issuer.” A manifesto, therefore, is not a blueprint or a detailed, itemized list of what a party is expected to do once elected.

  Since in Sint Maarten we only hold parliamentary elections, a manifesto here would only state what the party expects its candidates to work on when they are elected to parliament. However, since our parliamentary elections result in a parliamentary coalition, which then forms the new government, political parties also include in their manifestos proposals and activities which they would like to see executed by the new government.

  This means that political parties in Sint Maarten, can only make promises concerning what they intend to do once elected to parliament. Consequently, political parties in Sint Maarten, can never guarantee the voter and the public that all of the proposals, projects and activities in their manifestos, that are related to government, will be taken up in the governing accord or program. Because, during the formation of the new government these proposals, etc. have to be negotiated with the other coalition partners and compromises have to be made in order to move forward with the formation process.

  Therefore, one should not expect to find detailed plans as to how a project will be executed in a manifesto, but you will find them in the governing program.

  On January 25 the Sint Maarten Christian Party (SMCP) released its Manifesto entitled “2018 Rebuilding, Resetting, Recommitting”. According to our Articles of Incorporation, our party is required to make its manifesto public at least 30 days prior to the upcoming elections. Once again, SMCP is proud to be the first party to publish its manifesto during this campaign period.

  SMCP’s Manifesto contains a section on parliament that lists several proposals and activities that its MPs intend to execute when elected to parliament. This is considered the TO-DO LIST of these MPs and it can also be used by voters as a CHECK LIST. This means that at the end of the 4-year term, people can check to see if SMCP and its MPs did what they promised. Based on this list voters and the people of Sint Maarten can hold SMCP and its parliamentarians accountable.

  One of the things you will find in our Manifesto is SMCP’s intention to submit a motion to parliament to cut the salaries of MPs by 15 per cent. If parliament does not pass this motion then the SMCP MPs will voluntarily give 15 per cent of their salaries to a foundation that will be set up to help deal with the social needs of individuals and families.

  In the Manifesto we have also included a section on Government. This section presents topics that SMCP will definitely be discussing and negotiating with its coalition partners during the formation of the next government. These topics are not all-inclusive and you can be sure that many more points will be brought to the negotiation table when discussing the formation of the new government.

  After the many falls of government SMCP is of the opinion that Sint Maarten deserves to get a stable government. Our manifesto offers several proposals that would help to realize a stable government.

  As far as SMCP is concerned there are two top priorities that must be dealt with in Parliament as well as during the formation of the new Government and these are the reconstruction of Sint Maarten after Hurricane Irma and the preparation for the next hurricane season.

  SMCP encourages you to read our Manifesto. Our governing program will be prepared and presented once you have elected our party to parliament with sufficient seats to enable our party to be part of the next government.

Wycliffe Smith

Leader of the Sint Maarten Christian Party

Dear Editor,
I am a 63-year-old male Canadian citizen. My wife and I have been coming to St Maarten since 1996. We originally were spending 3 months a year on the island in timeshares, some owned, some exchanged for using RCI. Five years ago we decided to sign a long-term lease on an apartment in Phillipsburg.

Dear Editor,
The purpose of this article is for people to think independently and hopefully understand.
Most people are of the assumption that discrimination is wrong but the fact is that is not true.
In plain English, to “discriminate” means to distinguish, single out, or make a distinction. In everyday life, when faced with more than one option, we discriminate in arriving at almost every decision we make. Racism is wrong but discrimination is not necessarily wrong.
One example of God’s discrimination is found in Genesis 4:3-5 which says, “And it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had RESPECT unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had NOT RESPECT.” God clearly discriminated in favor of Abel and against Cain.
We are all sinners as human but God discriminates, He accepts the righteous, those are the people that live pleasing to Him and keep His commandments. Their reward is eternal salvation. The human who is living in sin and does not repent and accept Christ as their personal savior and does not keep His commandments will be tormented in hell everlasting. We see now that God discriminates.
Proverbs 8:13: The fear of the LORD is to hate evil. Pride, arrogance, an evil lifestyle, and perverted speech I despise. What is evil? Isaiah 5:20: Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Evil explained by God is the acceptance of and the will to sin. What is sin? Sin is the breaking of God’s law. That means God does not tolerate sin and when you sin He hates it. But when you live pleasing to Christ He loves that.
In other words, God discriminates on acceptance of people that will live to please Him or choose not to please Him. This means God discriminates. If a man and a woman are married and living together God approves of that, if a man and woman are not married and are living together God will not approve of that. This is proof God is a loving discriminating God with zero tolerance of sin.
Some people also say they do not believe in labels and will not like to be labeled. God is also a loving discriminating God that labels people. The labels are righteous and unrighteous, saved and lost, good or bad.
The conclusion is when you hear about discrimination please keep an open mind to hear the entire story. Discrimination is not necessarily wrong. Racism is always wrong, but not discrimination.
I point out the facts and understanding leaves you with choice to see and accept the facts as you see fit. Choose wisely.
I will continue next time with other topics of political ideology.

The Patriot Miguel Arrindell

Dear Editor,

  As you know I am a strong advocate of government taking over the public transportation. One would ask why is Russell constantly hammering government on this issue? Simple. Public transportation belongs in the hands of the public. And should not be run by any private union.

  “It is difficult to fix.“ An answer I have been getting from government officials, including a Minister of TEATT [Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transportation and Telecommunication – Ed.], members of bus drivers union, multiple bus permit owners, bus company permit owners, you name them.

  My response to that is consistent: Ask Holland for help! I must have written this ad nauseum, but it is worldwide known that Holland is among the top countries in the world, if not the top country, where the public transportation regulation and infrastructure is concerned.

  Is it really that difficult to get it fixed or is it difficult for those who have been in government and have manipulated the system to acquire umpteen permits and formed bus companies to have to relinquish those, in my opinion dubiously acquired, permits?

  I am still at a loss why public entities should be in the hands of private citizens. In an interview with Lady Grace (January 24, 2018) one of the candidates vying for a seat in Parliament, when asked why does not government take it over, answered that government can’t handle it, prompting Lady Grace to request a confirmation on the answer given to that question, which she got.

  But is it in line with the opening headline of this letter? Also does not the fact that government does not place bus stop signs along the routes which would at the least help to avoid buses from stopping at random, and too often at least three times within thirty meters to pick up or let off passengers causing frustration to other drivers, underscores that?

  I did not follow the whole interview, but I did not hear any effort to work on getting it regulated if that candidate was elected.

  I will not pose one of my famous questions this time because that person is not in government. I had a late friend who used to tell me as long as you’re not lying you should write it and let whoever the shoe fits wear it, but when I can avoid that I still do.

  In the course of time someone asked me if I thought that Holland would refuse to help us. If so be the case then more reasons to tell the Dutchman that in this case also he is just as guilty as the rest, but I have not heard that we asked.

  Of late more and more we are hearing what I would classify as embarrassing words or action on the side of government or from those who were in government. This continues to substantiate my reasoning for calling for a complete replacement of those for-so-often-reshuffled members of government.

  One would think that after toppling government so often and repeatedly dealing with the process of new elections in so short a period by the same group of people, that they would become efficient in doing so. No this is not the case. Like almost everything else, beside regulating exorbitant salaries and gratuities for themselves, again another blunder was committed by those in government.

  My question to that is: Have they become so complacent with getting away with murder that it is taken for granted so that they now totally disregard the Constitution of Sint Maarten (remarks from Bosman comes to mind) just like they have been doing with the people of Sint Maarten?  Is not all of what have happened over the years, and what continues to happen lately, enough reason to call on the people of Sint Maarten to replace all the old ones with new blood? I think so.

Russell A. Simmons