Dear Editor,
On Friday December 8, I asked our school secretary to call the bank. Our business credit card had expired in November and her task was to find out which branch I needed to go to in order to pick up the new card. The secretary hit a roadblock and was told by the agent on the line that they could only speak to the cardholder. I found that strange and illogical since the secretary was not seeking any information about the account. Once again, she was merely enquiring about the location to pick up the card.
She gave me the number to call which I did. After listening to a long-recorded message, I was on hold due to agents attending to other calls. After 5 minutes or so a customer service agent came on. I identified myself with the name of the school and my name. I also stated my reason for calling: the credit card expired, and I would like to know where to pick up the new one.
The agent asked for my name which I had already given to her. I repeated my name for her. She then proceeded to ask me the number on the credit card. I then had to put the agent on hold after I told her that the expired card was submitted to the secretary. Upon retrieving the card, I asked whether your agent wanted the last four digits on the card or all the numbers. She wanted all which I read to her. Her next question was to ask me my complete name. I gave that to her for the third time. There is that saying that “three times is a charm”.
At this point, I am wondering how this interrogation is needed to answer a simple question as to where I must pick up the new card. Your agent asks the next question about the credit limit on the card which I could not remember and do not need to know when all I am trying to do is find out if I am driving to Simpson Bay, Philipsburg or Bush Road. But it seems that giving the location of the building where the new credit card is being securely held is an issue of national financial security. So, in order for a customer to find out where a new credit card must be picked up, that customer must jump through the question hoop like this is a game show and they are vying for a million dollars?
And the questioning did not stop there. The next volley thrown at me was: What was the amount of the last purchase? I was able to tell your agent what was purchased and when, but at this point did not care to go into the recesses of my frustrated mind to spew out a price.
Since I failed your United Nations Credit Card Retrieval Location Security Council Tripartite Test, your agent of inquisition told me to call back when I have the information to answer the questions. Now I am tasked with studying for another test that will waste 15 minutes of my senior citizen life. Being the persevering one, I kindly asked what information I needed to present. I was now told that the questions always change, and she could not give that to me.
Well, common sense seems to have left the organization called WIB. I do not know who or where you can call to get information about where to retrieve it, but it is certainly not 546-2880. Before hanging up on your agent, I told her that this makes no sense, I will just tell the principal to apply for a card in her name. The next thing your agent heard was a dial-tone.
I then put on my thinking cap – no wait – it was always on – I just encountered a business that does not provide any thinking caps to their customer service agents.
Did I finally get the new credit card?
How did I determine which location?
I did it the unprofessional way.
I called an employee of the bank on his private cellphone while he was eating his lunch at a noisy restaurant. He asked me one question: Is it a debit or credit card? Credit card was my answer. Bush Road was his.
M. Richardson
Dear Queenie,
My parents have been divorced for a long time, and they both married again, but my father thinks that my aunts and uncles and cousins in my mother’s family are still his relatives because they are related to me.
Queenie, is he right?—Confused son
Dear Son,
That is up to your aunts, uncles and cousins on your mother’s side of your family. If they want to maintain the relationship they developed with your father during your parents’ marriage, so be it. However, if they do not want to maintain any relationship with your father, he should forget about them.
Dear candidates,
The below questions you should be able to answer. These are the questions the media should be asking. If they are debating, all candidates should be able to answer these questions. These are the questions that people should ask all political candidates when they meet and greet them and when they come into your community.
* 1: What is your political ideology, and why did you choose to be part of the political party you are a part of?
* 2: Tell me about your past presence and your educational background and life experiences.
* 3: What is your vision for the children of St. Maarten?
* 4: If elected, do you want to be a minister or a parliamentarian?
* 5: Do you have any plans to solve the traffic situation in St. Maarten? Tell me how you plan to solve it.
* 6: Do you believe in God and in morality, and is your lifestyle presently in sync with your beliefs?
* 7: Is your loyalty first to the electorate of St. Maarten or the political party that you belong to?
* 8: If a member of your party is in the executive branch and you know they are corrupt, will you report them to the authorities if you have proof?
* 9: Define for me what you call good governance.
* 10: How many branches of government exist in our country, St. Maarten, and explain to me their portfolios?
* 11: Do you believe we should keep God out of government, and if so, who do you swear to when elected to power?
* 12: Do you believe in family values, and do you practice them?
* 13: Should all political candidates be people of good moral character, or does it not matter?
* 14: How do you create wealth and prosperity for St. Maarten?
* 15: If education is the key and many of the people in our present government are educated, why are the people of St. Maarten living in poverty and misery?
* 16: Define good and evil for me in your own words.
In conclusion, these are valid questions that should be asked if you love your country and have good intentions.
Refusal to ask and answer these questions proves that an individual has a hidden agenda and is not of good intent.
The patriot Miguel Arrindell
Dear Editor,
I read the letter sent to you by Miguel Arrindell and thought why did he put 'new and young political candidates'? I believe it should have been addressed to all candidates, because history has shown that over the years it has not made a difference.
The puppeteers have not changed and the recalcitrant members have not endured well. I agree wholeheartedly with the questions and even suggest that questions of that calibre should be part of the criteria used by political organisations to guarantee credible active members of their political party.
Russell A. Simmons
Dear Editor,
I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the ongoing legal proceedings involving former Member of Parliament Frans Richardson, who was recently found guilty of bribery and abuse of position in the 2021 “Aquamarine II” investigation. The defense team for Mr. Richardson has raised serious questions about the credibility of the prosecutor's case, particularly highlighting the role of who everyone assumes to be Carl Critchlow and the handling of crucial evidence.
The Richardson legal team has vehemently scrutinized the Public Prosecutor’s Office over the reliability of Carl Critchlow’s statements, calling into question the credibility and motivations of the individual, and challenging the integrity of the prosecutor's case as a whole. The defense argues that Critchlow, who has changed his story multiple times, paid a substantial amount to avoid criminal prosecution after making incriminating statements against Richardson. Such actions cast doubt on the veracity of Critchlow’s claims.
Moreover, the defense points out discrepancies in Critchlow's statements, where he claims to donate significant amounts to politicians during elections, yet asserts in court that he has never paid bribes to other politicians or officials except to Richardson. This contradiction raises serious concerns about the reliability of Critchlow’s testimony.
Let me go further: Since Critchlow’s arguments in this case are so contradictory, it is impossible for the case to stand on its own, especially if it means ruining someone’s life. Those who have followed this case will remember that at one point, Critchlow would respond to questions by answering “yes,” “no,” and then “yes” and “no” in succession.
He could recall everything the prosecutor asks him, but he conveniently forgets details regarding Frans’ defense. He testified in court that he gave Frans a donation without expecting anything in return or a favor. He alters that tale once more a short time after. In sworn statements, he identified to the police the recipients of his political donations and even called them by name. He later claimed to have given to Frans alone. This person would have been so tainted in any courtroom in the world that the case would have been dismissed.
The defense has also brought to light the absence of crucial correspondence and communication records between Richardson, the Bureau Telecommunication and Post (BTP), and the Minister of TEATT [Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport and Telecommunication – Ed.], arguing that the case file lacks essential documentation. Additionally, the defense contests the prosecutor’s failure to consider alternative scenarios and potential political motivations behind financial transactions.
One key point of contention is the prosecutor’s alleged confusion of entities in the case, specifically Carl Critchlow and his company Taliesin Construction NV. The defense argues that such confusion contributes to a misleading picture of the events in question.
Furthermore, Richardson’s defense highlights the prosecutor’s lack of clarity in specifying evidence and accuses the prosecution of failing to consider Richardson’s limited control over the Bureau Telecommunication and Post, challenging the allegations related to the LEA building purchase and post-Hurricane Irma repairs.
The defense also questions the prosecutor’s portrayal of Parliament’s committees having an oversight role, pointing out that committees cannot make contracts for government foundations or companies. They challenge whether the Justice Committee has ever summoned the Court to Parliament or called the Prosecutor in a meeting, emphasizing that such oversight does not align with the realities of parliamentary functions.
Put another way, the prosecution is manipulating word meanings to suit their desired context – a practice they have repeatedly engaged in. They give the false impression that Frans and/or the TEATT committee of Parliament, of which he was a member, attend BTP board meetings and are aware of all of the day-to-day activities and decisions made by BTP by claiming that the committee has “oversight” over BTP. The mere fact that the parliamentary committee is meeting to discuss BTP, Telem, etc., does not imply that the committee is in charge or has oversight over those companies. And, as a matter of fact, the Minister would be questioned by Parliament, not BTP directly. That is the wordplay used by the prosecutor to establish a fictitious connection to Frans.
This is not the way the law should be practiced when there is lack of evidence or no evidence at all to support claims. The prosecutor knows they have a tainted case built on the testimony of a tainted, unreliable person. Will the judge set such a dangerous precedent in this country? Will the Minister of Justice allow this butchery of the spirit of the law to continue?
In conclusion, it is imperative for a fair and just legal process that these concerns raised by Richardson's defense are thoroughly examined. The public deserves transparency and confidence in our judicial system, and a careful review of the case, including the credibility of witnesses and the handling of evidence, is essential for upholding these principles.
A concerned citizen
