Dear Editor,
I have noticed an important point, this time in a letter dated July 18th signed by Commissioner Charles Woodley. I will ignore for the time being that Woodley signed the letter on behalf of the executive council, as such bypassing the authority of the governor, who by law is the one representing the executive council, and the one to sign the letters on behalf of them, not the commissioner.
In this letter, he states that according to the United Nations Charter, the interests of the people of Statia are paramount. Coincidentally, this sounds almost the same as the title of the DP paper ‘The benefits of the people come first’. And this is the crucial point. And I want the people of Statia to pay keen attention.
Up to now, the coalition has not given one shred of proof how the path to autonomy they envision, and want to force down the people’s throat, will benefit them, and that their interests, that are so paramount, are served by this.
Up to now, not a single effort has been put into informing the people what this autonomy means to them. Up to now, the people have not been explained by the coalition at what cost to them this envisioned status change will come about. Up to now, the coalition has failed to explain to the people how they are going to finance their autonomy dream.
Up to now they have not explained if this will be done through a steep increase of taxes or by cut-backs on services and benefits to the people. Up to now, the coalition has not explained to the people what this proposed status change means for their healthcare, for the education of their children, for the economic development of our island, for their pensions, for the infrastructure, for their financial situation, for their jobs!
Up to now, the coalition has not acknowledged that the mere goal of their desired status change is the increase of their personal power, and the riddance of supervision and control on what they are doing.
And please, don’t say all this does not matter as long as it is so-called “freedom” the people will get in return for it. As Clyde van Putten once said: You cannot eat autonomy!
Koos Sneek
(Curaçao Chronicle)
It really does not stop; we keep taking (expensive) decisions without thinking that costs us tons of money.
Dear Editor,
It came back to me that the decision of government to compensate (ex) members of government who were not reelected for two years after, must have hurt me, because I repeat it often in my letters to you. After God, the two most important people in my life are no more on this earth, so nothing else can hurt me. That decision, even though they know it was self-serving, is dictatorial.
I would challenge every one of those who took part in that decision making to take a good and personal look at the overall standard of living, and in good conscience say different. I do not expect them to be moved, because they did what they intended.
People in government concocted a deal with non Sint Maarteners in constructing a government building. The deal was botched and as has become common practice, the people's money ends up being used to bail out government. In this case it was: We are going to lend you the money to pay for the building, but you have to pay us back begin
July 2017.
It seems as if government is not able to live up to its commitment to SVB. It was even rumored that expressions like “collect the outstanding casinos’ moneys and pay back the SVB" were made. I cannot confirm that, but I know that seniors cannot get an increase in that measly pension because government is continually using that money to bail, so-called, government out of botched deals.
So yes, to elude to it again, I would suggest that government use that money that they are paying to those not reelected ex members of Parliament to live up to government's commitment made to SVB. I believe that then we will see who is hurt. If they lived before without it, during those four years that they earned a whole lot more, they should have saved some for a rainy day. Like two years after.
The seniors have endured and are still enduring; should not the younger ones be able to endure also? Again it did not hurt, it is dictatorial.
Russell A. Simmons
Dear Editor,
I would like to commend Member of Parliament Ardwell Irion for presenting a proposal to Parliament that would make MPs more accountable and transparent, particularly towards their voters and the public in general. In the next Annual Parliamentary Report, we should be able to see how each MP voted on a law or a motion.
I also concur with MP Irion that Parliament’s website also needs upgrading. In March of this year, I submitted a letter to President of Parliament Sarah Wescot-Williams, with several suggestions as to how to make Parliament’s website more informative and user friendly. I am pleased that the President of Parliament took my letter and the suggestions seriously. She has informed me by letter that the upgrading of the website is a priority for the Presidium of Parliament, and that my suggestions will also be given consideration. Thank you, Madame President! I am looking forward to being able to make use of the upgraded website in the very near future.
Besides MP Irion, the President of Parliament is the only other member in the current parliament, who has presented proposals to improve the integrity, transparency and accountability of parliament. She has proposed to have parliamentarians disclose all of their functions, and not just their government-related functions. This means that parliamentarians would have to disclose their companies, their businesses and their part-time or side jobs.
According to the President of Parliament, such disclosure of functions should eventually lead to parliamentarians also having to disclose their finances at the beginning of their term of office. These proposals have not been welcomed with enthusiastic cheers from several other parliamentarians, but instead have been stalled by the posing of questions, the postponement of meetings and the regular procrastination tactics.
When former MP Cornelius de Weever chaired the very first meeting of the Ad Hoc Integrity Committee of Parliament in March 2015, all parliamentarians agreed that establishing a Code of Conduct was a major priority for the Committee. Sadly, some two- and-a-half years later, the Committee has not yet been able to come up with a draft Code of Conduct for Parliament. I guess the concept of “priority” has a different meaning in parliamentary circles.
If parliament were to set the example and the tone concerning integrity, I am sure that it would be able to demand a higher standard of integrity from government, the civil service and even from the community at large. But, people know that the work ethics of our parliamentarians leave much to be desired. Regularly, parliamentarians do not show up to meetings. Often there is no quorum, which then results in having to reschedule the meeting.
Do Parliamentarians consider the guilders wasted due to the cancelation of a meeting? People also see through the grandstanding, that many parliamentarians have only skimmed the documents and have not prepared themselves properly for the meeting.
In carrying out its two core functions, namely initiating laws and supervising government, our parliament has certainly been found wanting. Since 2010, not one law, initiated by Parliament, has been passed. Other than meetings called to give government a vote of non-confidence, Parliament hardly calls the government or a minister to give account regarding a certain decision taken or action executed.
When Parliament accepts that one of its members does not attend parliamentary meetings for months without a valid reason, but still gets paid, this is also sending a message of approval to all the ghost civil servants that it is okay to stay at home and still collect a salary. Unfortunately, our Constitution permits a parliamentarian to stay, uninterruptedly, outside the country for eight months. This may be legal, but it is definitely not ethical or moral. When parliament upholds such a practice then parliament cannot but condone this practice among the many ghost civil servants, who are still collecting their salaries.
Neither would Parliament be in a position to question a minister concerning civil servants who are on long leave of absence with pay, pending an investigation. I notice that the Constitution of Anguilla has a pretty stiff penalty for absent parliamentarians. A member of the Anguillan House of Assembly, who is absent for three consecutive meetings without giving prior notice to the Speaker of the House, must vacate his/her seat. If we had such a law or regulation in place, several parliamentarians over the years would have lost their seats.
What about all the reports submitted by the High Councils of State i.e. the Advisory Council, the General Audit Chamber and the Ombudsman? These reports offer Parliament ample information and advice to be able to carry out its supervisory role. Sadly, Parliament has never used them. We also note that over the years, Parliament has given government many instructions via the numerous motions that were passed. Yet government has never taken them seriously.
This makes Parliament look like an institution with no power at all. We need our Parliament to set the standard regarding integrity and good work ethics. It is time for parliament to start raising the bar!
Wycliffe Smith
Leader of the Sint Maarten Christian Party
(Curaçao Chronicle)
Guangdong Zhenrong Energy (GZE) is being presented by some politicians as a celestial answer to the economic standstill we’ve been confronting for some decades now. Actually, it makes sense because it’s politically easier to bet on GZE than to tackle our structural deficiencies that caused this stagnation (rigid labour market and immigration policies among others).
Digressing, we shouldn’t forget that GZE ultimately answers to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) whose most important goal is ensuring its monopoly on power. For the last decades Beijing has enunciated a clear set of foreign policy goals to achieve it.
First is Chinese territorial integrity and unification. We have seen China successfully using its check book in Africa, Central America and the Caribbean to convince countries not to recognize the Republic of China (Taiwan). In 1970, a total of 71 countries recognized Taiwan; today only 19 do.
Second is creating world clout through its Development Model of providing loans without questioning human rights, corruption or money wasting programmes in the receiving countries unlike the West and multilateral organizations. The Chinese model has proven attractive for governments desperate for money and short term successes without having to deal with badly needed structural adjustments.
However, this model comes with a price tag. “Too good to be true” promises of local jobs often echoed by local politicians are just that. Despite Beijing’s claim that China’s assistance is totally selfless, the reality is different.
Chinese aid is tied, meaning that an overwhelming majority of the money is spent on personnel, goods or services from China. The Mombassa-Nairobi railway in Kenya financed by China was built by Chinese companies and labourers. Lack of transparent bidding and corruption (two Chinese senior managers were arrested in Kenya on corruption charges) made this project twice as expensive as similar ones in Africa.
Unfortunately, the Kenya case is not an exception; similar instances are taking place in Jamaica, The Gambia, Laos and other Southeast Asian countries.
Another danger is the sub-standard work delivered by these Chinese companies. The Luanda General Hospital (Angola) built by the Chinese had to be closed down due to poor work done, sending patients to tents.
Closer to home, Trinidad had to demolish an apartment building due to faulty work. Too many Chinese buildings prove to be less sturdy than a house of cards.
China’s doings are not unique. I’m convinced that China has the same intentions as empires and world powers, which is increasing its power and influence in the world.
Let us, especially our policy makers, not be naive but carefully assess the Chinese intentions. The question we have to answer is what price are we prepared to pay for GZE?
By Alex Rosaria
What price are we
prepared to pay?
(Curaçao Chronicle)
Guangdong Zhenrong Energy (GZE) is being presented by some politicians as a celestial answer to the economic standstill we’ve been confronting for some decades now. Actually, it makes sense because it’s politically easier to bet on GZE than to tackle our structural deficiencies that caused this stagnation (rigid labour market and immigration policies among others).
Digressing, we shouldn’t forget that GZE ultimately answers to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) whose most important goal is ensuring its monopoly on power. For the last decades Beijing has enunciated a clear set of foreign policy goals to achieve it.
First is Chinese territorial integrity and unification. We have seen China successfully using its check book in Africa, Central America and the Caribbean to convince countries not to recognize the Republic of China (Taiwan). In 1970, a total of 71 countries recognized Taiwan; today only 19 do.
Second is creating world clout through its Development Model of providing loans without questioning human rights, corruption or money wasting programmes in the receiving countries unlike the West and multilateral organizations. The Chinese model has proven attractive for governments desperate for money and short term successes without having to deal with badly needed structural adjustments.
However, this model comes with a price tag. “Too good to be true” promises of local jobs often echoed by local politicians are just that. Despite Beijing’s claim that China’s assistance is totally selfless, the reality is different.
Chinese aid is tied, meaning that an overwhelming majority of the money is spent on personnel, goods or services from China. The Mombassa-Nairobi railway in Kenya financed by China was built by Chinese companies and labourers. Lack of transparent bidding and corruption (two Chinese senior managers were arrested in Kenya on corruption charges) made this project twice as expensive as similar ones in Africa.
Unfortunately, the Kenya case is not an exception; similar instances are taking place in Jamaica, The Gambia, Laos and other Southeast Asian countries.
Another danger is the sub-standard work delivered by these Chinese companies. The Luanda General Hospital (Angola) built by the Chinese had to be closed down due to poor work done, sending patients to tents.
Closer to home, Trinidad had to demolish an apartment building due to faulty work. Too many Chinese buildings prove to be less sturdy than a house of cards.
China’s doings are not unique. I’m convinced that China has the same intentions as empires and world powers, which is increasing its power and influence in the world.
Let us, especially our policy makers, not be naive but carefully assess the Chinese intentions. The question we have to answer is what price are we prepared to pay for GZE?
By Alex Rosaria
