Dear Editor,
Sometimes the impressions created by information coming from Parliament and our ministers press briefing are very confusing while giving a glimmer of hope of things to come.
Just recall that our Parliament had such great concern with the secretly established “afpak” team that they called a meeting to debate it. Somewhat like putting the cart in front of the horse because we were thought that there should be debate before decision making and not the other way around. It is extremely dangerous and an affront to the legal and democratic process to allow a minister and the Prosecutor’s Office to start an action by an arrangement that never was handled by the representatives of the people and was not published for anyone to see in the national gazette.
This weekend our Minister of Labour, in an address to the ILO conference, stated that too many work permits are being disseminated to foreigners for jobs or functions that locals can do. It is hard to figure out if the minister resides here for this has been the cry of the people for the longest of time. It had become so that our people lacking information on how the system works started to blame everybody. God knows the Department of Labour took its share of the blame even though they are not the competent authority for issuing work or resident permits.
Our government has become so complacent with this unfair and abusive action that to justify it they have joined with others to sell the false narrative that our education system does not produce what our economy needs. Strangely enough the same people responsible for the resident and work permits are responsible for scholarships and the school curriculum.
We are falsely and screamingly told by members of government that all this would change with the arrival of “The Pearl of China” project; that we appear sceptical or cynical about that assurance is that government has never, to date that I can remember, stood up to guaranty employment for locals. They argued to the joy of the employer that they can’t tell investors who to employ or that securing gainful employment for our citizens is protectionism.
There is new ownership at Rouge et Noire Casino in Philipsburg, and we see that they have brought in staff down to waitresses. I guess after more than 60 years we can’t do that either. It is almost a stuck record to speak about Front Street and Back Street, where we are said to be ill-equipped to sell T-shirts and jewellery. While the imported labour hardly speaks English clear enough for anyone to understand; and by the way, if a certain qualification is needed why not have these folks evaluated to see what credentials they have beside their place of origin and complexion.
As the heading states, it offers optimism because our Parliament and ministers have awoken and at least began the conversation that should have started 20 years ago. We, however, remain cautious when we see them making these statements during a Kodak moment, but without motions, draft laws or solutions. If governing was solely about pinpointing the problems and challenges we would have 20 geniuses between Parliament and the Executive.
Elton Jones
Dear Editor,
The talk on both French side and Dutch Side, Hamlet is the best Candidate to vote for.
So French St. Martin citizens must go out and vote in Great Numbers and elect Hamlet.
The voice in every district and communities; Let’s give Hamlet a chance. We have heard his Creativity voiced over SOS. He is concerned about the senior citizen, high house rent, high unemployment and a win, win, win, win for investors to come and invest in French St. Martin.
Mr. Hamlet sees a need for good and excellent cooperation with all French Caribbean colonies to live together as one spiritually, with love, and ambitions towards Development.
Together, Theo, Sarah, William, Frans and Christopher are willing to work with Hamlet.
Go out and vote in great numbers for Jacques Hamlet June, 10, 2017.
Cuthbert Bannis
Dear Editor,
In addition to boycotting the establishing of the Integrity Chamber, Parliament appears to also be boycotting the formalization of a code of conduct. Last week, the Chairlady of Parliament had to cancel the meeting of the Central Committee because there was no quorum when the second agenda point, namely a parliamentary code of conduct, was to be discussed. Isn’t it odd that there was a quorum for the first agenda point i.e. the Anti-Poverty Platform, but after a short break, only seven members of Parliament remained for the continuation of this meeting!
Despite the Chairlady’s request for at least one member to come back inside the meeting hall and despite the official 30-minute wait to see if any of the MP’s outside of the meeting hall would adhere to her request, the meeting had to be called off, due to a lack of quorum. This is not the first time that committee meetings concerning the code of conduct had to be cancelled due to no quorum.
It is the intention that the topic of the code of conduct for parliamentarians be first handled in the Ad Hoc Committee for Integrity which is comprised of all four fraction leaders. At the first such meeting for this year that was called on February 22 only two fraction leaders were present, namely the fraction leaders of the NA and the DP. The UPP fraction leader sent a notice of absence but the USP fraction leader was absent without notice. Nevertheless, the meeting proceeded. The second and third meetings, called on April 6 and June 1 respectively, had to be cancelled due to a lack of quorum.
It seems to me that the Chairlady of the Ad Hoc Integrity Committee, MP Sarah Wescot-Williams, who is also the Chairlady of Parliament, deliberately and strategically sandwiched the topic of the code of conduct between the three agenda points of the Central Committee in the hope that members of Parliament would be present during this entire Central Committee meeting. But unfortunately, even this strategy didn’t work because when the time came to discuss the code of conduct one MP disappeared resulting in the lack of a quorum which then caused the Chairlady to have to cancel the meeting.
The non-cooperation and non-participation, when it comes to integrity matters and particularly to the code of conduct, have been very obvious even since the genesis of the Ad Hoc Integrity Committee which was established on February 15, 2015. This very first meeting, according to a report in the Today Newspaper, got “off to what felt like a reluctant start. Requests for committee-members to take the floor were followed by awkward moments of silence, before one of them finally jumped in.”
One member even proposed to hold future meetings behind closed doors. A letter to the editor, dated November 5, 2015, submitted by the first chairman of the committee, Dr. Cornelius de Weever, stated that each meeting that he convened was “road blocked” by members of parliament. More than two years after its establishment, this committee has absolutely nothing to show for itself other than attending some meetings and boycotting others. I am reminded here, of the press statement made by MP Sarah Wescot-Williams to Soualiga News, on October 20, 2016, when she said that every idle hour of an MP cost the tax payers approximately Fls. 900,-- per MP. Can you imagine how much money these two unproductive years of the Ad Hoc Integrity Committee have cost us the tax payers?
The question remains, why would our parliamentarians seemingly reject the implementation of a code of conduct which is a very common law among parliaments in the region and around the world? Besides, the integrity reports written about government and Parliament strongly recommend that Parliament implement a code of conduct. Do our parliamentarians not see the need and the importance of implementing a code of conduct?
Only Parliament can pass such a law which would help Parliament to police itself but would also give the people a standard by which to hold Parliament accountable.
Why a code of conduct? A code of conduct would regulate among other things the financial disclosure by members of Parliament before accepting their seat in Parliament and at the end of their Parliamentary tenure. MPs would also be required to disclose all of their side jobs and their business interests, including their shareholder-ships. The code would stipulate whether the monthly salary that our MPs currently enjoy is commensurate with a part-time or a full-time position. Right now parliamentarians behave as if they are part-timers. The code of conduct would also regulate the acceptance of gifts or favours received by members of Parliament.
It would also define conflicts of interest that parliamentarians can encounter such as situations where MPs must choose between the duties and demands of their professional role and their own private interests. A code of conduct would certainly help to boost accountability and professionalize politics in Parliament.
Nowadays, Parliament does not have to invent the wheel because the United Nations as well as the European Council have developed models or frameworks that Parliaments can use when drafting their own codes of conduct. Furthermore, according to the Chairlady, Parliament has already received a draft code of conduct which now needs to be discussed and finalized so that it can be sent to a public meeting of Parliament for approval. For the life of me, I fail to comprehend why 15 intelligent MPs, in the span of two years, are incapable of agreeing on a code of conduct. The only reason that comes to mind is that they are unwilling because it does not serve their interests and they do not want to be held accountable for their action.
Wycliffe Smith
Leader of the St. Maarten Christian Party
Dear Editor,
The United People’s Coalition (UPC) refuses to stand idly aside and watch how this distorted constitutional vision of the ruling coalition unfolds. Therefore, UPC takes its responsibility seriously and critiques the way the PLP/Merkman coalition dealt with the constitutional process so far. The one constant, however, when reviewing this disservice is the bravado with which the so-called leader of the PLP defends this dangerous delusional and unrealistic constitutional direction.
The above-mentioned remark is substantiated by the following:
1. The purposely wrong interpretation of the invalid referendum result of the referendum of December 2015 as being the majority choice of the people for more autonomy.
2. The unilateral decision that more autonomy is Autonomous Autonomy (AA), country status, within the Kingdom, as to be the overwhelming choice of the people.
3. The blatant dismissing of the public’s input with regard to the final constitutional proposal to The Hague for starting of negotiation with The Hague.
4. The pushing of the envelope based upon conveniently wrong interpretation of UN resolution article 73, and adopting a motion in support of putting aside the WolBES and FinBES when dealing with daily running of the people’s business.
5. Last but not the least, the failure to present the public with an economic plan in which some indication is given how to generate the necessary funds when the financial support of The Hague for education, healthcare, safety and free allowance are stopped, when this country status is attained.
It is the right of every group of people to seek more autonomy, but there are two constants that are part of that process, namely, responsible governance and the guarantee of the finances needed to provide the basic needs to your people. It is irresponsible of this coalition to shower the public with the many UN resolutions just to warrant their cause, but what the UN in our humble opinion does not underscore is the fact that all these resolutions are only relevant to fight for if there is enough foresight on the finances to make this happen.
Since this coalition was not able to prove to the people of this island that they mastered the art of responsible governance, to operate the coffers in a mature and capable manner, and be less self-centred, one can only draw one conclusion which is that this dream is the dream of all of us, but these stewards are surely not the ones to make it come through.
In closing, the UPC wonders if the announcement of the so-called leader of the PLP shortly after the election of March 2015 on Facebook, that he is the Premier of Statia is at the root of this delusion for fighting for country status because he so eagerly wants to be the first Prime Minister of Statia. May God help us all.
Reginald C. Zaandam
Leader of the United People’s Coalition
Dear Editor,
Who would have thought that when in 1961 Capt. Georges E. Greaux, an adventurous St. Barth owner/pilot of a small 5-seat Piper Apache airplane approached and convinced colleague St. Barth pilot Hypolyte (Faustin) Ledee and St. Maarten business friend Chester Wathey to start up Windward Islands Airways International WINAIR, the airline would not only survive the next 56 years, but thrive and continue to grow in 2017!
Newest routes added just last Saturday, June 3, 2017 are SXM–Haiti and SXM–Curacao, utilizing MD-83 jet aircraft under a so-called ACMI arrangement with Pan American World Airways Dominicana PAWA.
For 56 years WINAIR’s lights have been kept on by its unbelievably tenacious and dedicated employees headed subsequently by Managing Directors Capt. Georges Greaux, Rob Volgers, Robert Cors, Erwin Romer, Sydney de Weever, Eugene Holiday, John Strugnell, Capt. Edwin Hodge and now Michael Cleaver (CEO) and Roberto Gibbs (CFO). Overseen and supported by a lean 3-man Supervisory Board headed by Capt. Greaux’s son, Georges Greaux Jr.,
WINAIR has to-date outlived airlines like: ALM, Air ARUBA, Air BVI, Antilles Air Boats, CARIBAIR, Cardinal Air, Caribbean Star, Caribbean Sun, DAE, DCA, Eastern Airlines, Executive Airlines (American Eagle), PRINAIR, Sea & Sun Airlines. TIARA AIR, VIASA and others I cannot recall right now. And all the while with no cash injections by any of its various Government owners.
So INSEL, instead of whining about our National Airline, focus on what you want for yourself and do the best for the Curacao hub you operate out of. In the meantime, we Windward Islanders are immensely proud of and grateful for the foresight of Capt. George Emilien Greaux and his partners and are convinced that for a long time to come WINAIR will take us there!
Michael J. Ferrier
