Dear Editor,
The United People’s Coalition (UPC) acknowledges that in a constitutional democracy there are a set of rules, with counterbalancing influences in place to keep those in charge honest, in the widest sense of the word. In dealing with a government as such, those rules fall under checks and balances on the judicial-, legislative- and executive branches.
The checks and balances that Statia’s government must adhere to are anchored in the WolBES and the FinBES. More specifically, these are, among others, in the hands of the island council, the governor, the Kingdom Representative (KR), the Council of financial supervision (CFT), and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Kingdom Relations (BZK). Of course, the people also have a say when they evaluate the individual politicians and validate their level of production in the vote they cast every four years. What should be clear is the fact that these checks and balances are only meaningful and effective with enforcement of sanctions in case of failures.
In Statia’s case, we have seen the following infractions and failures in the last eighteen months: failure of not having a 2017 budget, no submission of adequate quarterly financial reports, no financial year reports 2015 and 2016, appointments of personnel, an island secretary and Island financial controller and an Interim Director, all paid out of the government’s coffer without the approval of the Kingdom Representative.
Because no decisive actions were taken by the governor, the Kingdom Representative, the CFT nor the Ministry, the ruling coalition stretched the envelope by taking their illegal behaviour a step further by adopting a motion in the island council where they declared the WolBES and the FinBES invalid, indicating to The Hague they will not adhere to these laws enacted to govern our lives and liberty.
This last action of the ruling coalition is indicative of a wider power grab by this coalition by creating a vacuum in which they have 'carte blanche' to do as they feel under the disguise of several UN treaties, hence fulfilling the many campaign promises, such as appointments of unqualified cronies, threatening of the civil corps, signing agreements without the signature of the governor, travelling at will, and using the funds out of the people’s coffer as if they have impunity.
So, is it then fair to state that because of the inept attitude and failure of enforcing the check and balances in the interest of our people against the ruling coalition by above-mentioned ministry (BZK), they facilitated and also encouraged the ruling coalition to perpetuate this lawless governing?
As a result of this lackadaisical attitude of BZK, UPC must conclude that to continue blaming this present coalition alone is useless. Governing like this is the new normal for them, because sadly, it is condoned by the entities in charge. So, the suffering of our people under this administration falls squarely not only on the shoulders of this coalition, but moreover also on that of Minister Plasterk of Ministry of Interior Affairs and Kingdom Relations, for dropping the ball.
Reginald C. Zaandam
Leader of the United People's Coalition
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
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)
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
