Dear Editor,
All factions of the St. Maarten Parliament supported a motion that was submitted to the House on Monday, January 30, during a plenary session. The meeting was called to discuss the appointment of a quartermaster for the Integrity Chamber by the Dutch Government. During the deliberations it became clear that the validity of the Protocol that was signed between Minister of Interior Affairs and Kingdom Relations and the Minister of Justice of St. Maarten in May of 2015 became questionable. What was also clarified, at least to me, was that the protocol document that was established by the two aforementioned Ministers was contingent on an ordinance that was to be voted into law. The ordinance or law was to regulate or institute an Integrity Chamber for St. Maarten.
The third point disclosed by government was that the drafting of the Integrity Chamber law received input and support from the Dutch government. This draft ordinance was debated in the St. Maarten Parliament and subsequently passed by a majority vote in 2015.
As with all draft national ordinances passed or amended by Parliament, these are subject to scrutiny by our Ombudsman, which is an integral body and part of the rule of law on St. Maarten.
The Ombudsman can review and challenge ordinances (laws) that it deems unconstitutional or in contravention to existing laws. In addition, our Constitutional Court upheld the objections of the Ombudsman and as a consequence the law could not be implemented on St. Maarten. These are the facts and circumstances that St. Maarten is faced with as it pertains to this issue. The motion that was unanimously passed contains concise and clear representation of these facts.
So I do not understand how Dutch politicians can think that the St. Maarten Parliament would subject itself to ignoring the Constitution we all individually swore to uphold. Are they saying to us that we should for their “perceived” sake ignore our own Constitution? Would these same politicians do this to their country if the circumstances or situation were reversed? The facts are the facts; the ordinance has been struck down and is deemed unconstitutional.
Parliament in its decision of Monday instructed Government to find alternatives, in addition to condemning the actions of the Minister for Interior and Kingdom Relations; and not to seek to establish an institution that is in violation of our laws and to present to the Parliament of St. Maarten a plan of approach for remaining recommended areas of integrity as were reported and accepted by St. Maarten in the four (4) reports that were conducted about St. Maarten.
I have also read that, at least, some of the Dutch politicians have stated that the Dutch Government should now come down with an instruction “aanweizing”, and furthermore if we don’t like it we can leave the Kingdom. These, in my opinion, are disrespectful statements, disregarding the people of St. Maarten, its highest elected organ and its rule of law in a democratic society such as ours.
For some Dutch politicians, if we are truly partners within the Kingdom as the Dutch professes to the world, then respect should be shown, to insinuate that the members of Parliament would be hiding something when it pertains to us taking decisions in the best interest of the future of our country is offensive. Before doing this, they should familiarize themselves with our Constitution and our democratic system of checks and balances, something that I am quite sure had their support.
What I find also disrespectful is that the same Dutch politicians are linking the arrest of a local Casino owner to decisions of Parliament, and insinuating that we are against transparency in Government. They also indicated that “…if St Maarten wants its way they should do so as an independent country…,” this to me is an indication that these Dutch politicians can be careless of the general interest of the public of St. Maarten; they are using incomplete and inaccurate information to form conclusions, and this isn’t only irresponsible, it is dangerous and has no place in this debate.
If we are to introduce a legal, sustainable and functional Integrity Chamber, it should not be tainted by baseless and blurred truths. How can we continue in good faith to talk about building a strong Kingdom to the outer world when Dutch politicians continue this tactic of accusing and insinuating that we are all corrupt? Those are divisive and oppressive voices and go beyond politics. They erode every unifying foundation that has been built within the Kingdom.
It would be irresponsible for the St. Maarten Parliament to subject our country to injustice and flawed laws. We are obliged to protect all of the people of this country and by extension the Kingdom of which we are an integral part and to which we belong.
Claret Connor
Member of Parliament, United People’s (UP) party
Dear Editor,
On February 4th, 2017, I had to pull myself together in order to bury my father, the late Mr. Carl Houtman. Before traveling, his face was full of excitement as he had plans of getting better. He had faith and trust in God that he would get help in Colombia and be able to come back home to his family and friends better than he left. Shockingly, I got that call on January 22nd letting me know that my father passed away in Colombia after not being there for 24 hours.
How was this even possible?
After being admitted to SMMC on January 9th with intentions to operate on January 10th, 2017, a family member had to travel to St. Maarten which is the normal procedure. Fortunately, the family member was me. Upon calling ZVK to get the proper information and travel details, I was told that the ZVK doctor will have to approve it before I can travel. I had no problems with the procedure, so I then asked if it was possible for them to call and explain the situation, which was that my father had an operation and no one was over there, I was told that it wasn't possible. I took it upon myself to call Bonaire myself and explain the situation. When ZVK approved that I was allowed to accompany him, I then called ZVK again only to hear "you are now being transferred to Bonaire." Was this a spiteful act because I wanted to be there for my father?
Secondly, My hotel was only booked for 2 days, I then called ZVK office for the second time to inform them, I was then transferred to Bonaire again, who transferred the call back to the other colleague in St. Eustatius.
I arrived on St. Maarten on January 11th, 2017, no funding was transferred on my account until after calling the office on various occasions. I received a partial amount of funding on January 19th, 2017.
On January 21st my father was set to be flown to Colombia. With all the complaints, illnesses and two sick feet, ZVK found that he was good enough to fly commercial on a 5-hour flight with one stop in Panama. No proper arrangements were made as my father was registered to sit in Seat 26A, with two sick feet.
Upon his arrival in Colombia, NO arrangements were made as he arrived 5:45PM and had to wait until 7:30PM before a taxi could be sent for him. He was then transported to a hotel instead of the hospital. When questioned, we got to find out that no arrangements were made from ZVK and he was sent as a regular patient traveling to see a doctor on Monday morning.
Is this the treatment we get when we speak up? Are the workers really offering good service or are they too busy being personal? What exactly is the task of the ZVK doctor when referring patients to other islands for medical purposes?
My father lost his life in the hands of spiteful, negligent and unprofessional workers. Are we going to wait until someone else loses their life before we investigate what exactly goes on at this office?
Khanya Houtman
Dear editor,
Yes, within the Kingdom of the Netherlands we are all Nederlanders, having the Netherlands nationality. Since 10.10.10 three types of Nederlanders can be delineated: the European Nederlander, the Caribbean Nederlander of the BES islands, and the Caribbean Nederlander of the CAS countries.
These different categories of Nederlanders refer to location and concomitant jurisdiction. The European and BES Nederlanders fall under the jurisdiction of the Netherlands while the CAS Nederlanders are defined by the jurisdiction of the respective Caribbean countries. How do these different regimens work out for the undivided Nederlanderschap?
According to the Kingdom Charter of 1954 (Het Statuut), the affairs of the Kingdom are limited, mainly foreign affairs, defence and nationality. All Nederlanders fall under this regimen of Kingdom affairs, for all the same. All other affairs, however, fall under the responsibility of each autonomous country. Each is charged with the responsibility to uphold fundamental human rights and freedoms, the rule of law and good governance.
The CAS autonomy implies that each country has its own understanding of how this should be done, though within the purview of the Kingdom that must safeguard that the countries uphold these rights, freedoms and good governance. Here is the snag: When, where, and to what extent must the Kingdom safeguard good governance in the Caribbean countries? This juxtaposition challenges the separation of affairs doctrine and opens the door for the Kingdom intervening in a country’s autonomous resort.
Separation of affairs doctrine
The verdict is still out as to whether the Kingdom’s guarantee of good governance should include social-economic rights such as standards of education, social-economic security, child safety and public health in the Caribbean countries.
Expanding the Kingdom’s chapter of safeguarding Caribbean good governance is controversial, principally because of the separation of affairs doctrine, defining a limited Kingdom portfolio and Caribbean autonomy in all other affairs. It also matters that a majority in Dutch politics won’t support a proactive and inclusive Kingdom good governance regimen in the CAS countries, due to budgetary restraints, but also simply for lack of interest (Verhey 2010, 39).
Moreover, such proactivity would be received in Caribbean politics as an intrusion upon the autonomy domain, trespassing sacred grounds. Yet the shared Netherlands nationality requires a degree of practical consensus on good governance, also with regard to government affairs that fall within the jurisdiction of the CAS autonomy.
From the point of view of the undivided nationality of all Nederlanders, the separation of Kingdom and CAS affairs is a faux orthodoxy. A case in point that demonstrates the practical implication of the separation of affairs doctrine is the huge difference in school dropouts among children who all have Netherlands nationality. This difference is testimony to different grades of Nederlanders. Besides, it threatens the freedom of movement within the Kingdom.
School dropouts
On Curaçao and St. Maarten over 40 per cent of the students dropped out of school without a diploma in 2001 (UNDP 2011, 64-66); the Central Bureau of Statistics Curaçao presents a figure of 35.5 per cent (CBS-Cur 2011). For students in the Netherlands the dropout figure is about 8 per cent, and getting lower (Feiten en cijfers Schooluitval).
Why would minimum standards for education, child safety and social-economic security not apply to all Nederlanders? The orthodox answer is embedded in the separation of affairs doctrine: these affairs are not part of the Kingdom portfolio; they fall into the autonomous realm of the CAS countries. Yet how does this de-civilization between Nederlanders relate to a common and undivided nationality for all? Besides, school dropouts who have no chance on the labour market are consequential for the public order in the CAS countries. Isn’t it short sighted to have consensus on law-enforcement in the CAS while being blind for the consequences of substandard education?
The urgency of this critical question is triggered by practical circumstance. In preparation for 10.10.10 the Netherlands Education Inspection found that all BES schools were below standard. The BES Nederlanders, close neighbours of the CAS, will eventually (not yet!) enjoy the same standards of education as the European Nederlanders.
In 2011, an Education Conference agreed to an ambitious BES agenda, sustained by a budget that matched this ambition. The quality of education should be in 2016 on a level acceptable to Caribbean and Netherlands standards (SCP 2015, 128). The Education Conference was rather precise: The norm is that a pupil from the Caribbean Netherlands should be capable of following a further education in the Netherlands without problems. The value of a diploma obtained on the BES islands must be equivalent to diplomas in the Netherlands, the Commonwealth Caribbean and the USA (SCP 2015, 128, 326).
The evaluation after five years is muted. Four of the twelve publicly funded primary schools now meet basic standards. Based on the Inspectorate reports, a number of other primary schools will follow suit. Adequate school management by heads and boards still leaves much to be desired (SCP, 2015, 136).
Much more time is needed to achieve results that are at par with schools in the Netherlands. Yet, the crux of the matter is that the Inspectorate of the Netherlands is accountable, and methodically monitors the progress of what has been agreed upon. Being of utmost interest for the Netherlands to succeed, the BES education agenda must not be allowed to fail.
The Netherlands government is responsible and must take action here, not as a matter of post-colonial rectitude, but demanded by Netherlands constitution and law. European, BES and CAS Nederlanders are critically watching, each for its own reasons, the BES performance in upgrading education. Without any doubt, the Netherlands will do its utmost to succeed in the BES, doing better than in the first five years, outshining the erstwhile Netherlands Antilles. Noblesse oblige!
Consensus on Securing Standards of Education
Anticipating a possible influx of CAS emigration to the BES, due to the appeal of better social-economic standards, the movement of other Nederlanders to the BES has – proactively – been regulated by law at 10.10.10 (Wetsvoorstel BES, 322282, 2010). This regulation indicates that manifest differences in social-economic security between the CAS Nederlanders and other Nederlanders do affect the undivided nationality, e.g. the freedom of movement within the Kingdom.
In Dutch politics, the free movement of people within the Kingdom is mistakenly problematized as a problem of borders rather than people – often youngsters – who are denied adequate education and concomitant prospects in life.
The Kingdom does not have a border problem per se, to be tackled by keeping CAS Nederlanders out, but rather a good governance differential that is not in accord with the constitutional common ground (Hirsch Ballin 2013, 35) of the undivided nationality. Reinforcing the shared Netherlands nationality is a matter of inclusive standards of governance that are “more or less” at par among the countries of the Kingdom.
In retrospect it’s worth contemplating if all the efforts that have been put in obtaining a separate country status could be called upon for a Kingdom consensus law Securing Standards of Education, formatted on a similar compact that was applied in the case of sustainable fiscal governance. There it worked, not in the least because of its urgency. The massive Caribbean school dropout calls for equally urgent action.
This Kingdom consensus law would be a communal Kingdom effort, deftly monitored to assess tangible results, other than the freewheeling “development cooperation”of the second half of the 20th Century.
Securing education and other social rights in the Caribbean has too long lacked priority in the Kingdom. The urgency of good governance in these areas will now be pronounced due to the proximity of the BES experience. This might eventually redirect the priority in the flow of where the CAS “high income” goes, which would reflect a necessary shift in government priorities.
The good governance score of the BES may serve as a wake-up-call for the CAS as well as for the Netherlands. Pro-active Kingdom relations with the CAS could be an unintended impact of 10.10.10. If only the CAS parents would no longer accept the massive school dropout of their children, the Netherlands cannot sit back but must act in accordance to the undivided nationality for all Nederlanders. Paraphrasing a Dutch saying: Nederlanders, Let op Uw saeck!
Lammert de Jong
References
CBS, Number of school dropouts in the Netherlands and the EU, 29 January 2014
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2014/05/number-of-school-dropouts-down-in-the-netherlands-and-the-eu
CBS-Cur: Total dropout rate for Curaçao was 35.5 per cent during Census 2011.
http://www.cbs.cw/website/statistical-information_229/rubriek/education_25.html
Feiten en cijfers schooluitval
https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/aanval-op-schooluitval/inhoud/feiten-en-cijfers-schooluitval
Hirsch Ballin, E. M.H. De Grondwet in politiek en samenleving. Rechtsstaatlezing 2013. Den Haag, Boom/ Lemma Uitgevers, 2013.
SCP (Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau) Vijf jaar Caribisch Nederland. Gevolgen voor de bevolking. Pommer, E. & Bijl, R. (eds.) The Hague: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau, 2015.
Verhey, L.F.M., ‘Slotakkoord of nieuw begin: Enkele algemene beschouwingen over het nieuwe Koninkrijk’, in: A.L.C. Roos and L.M.F Verhey (eds.) Wetten voor de West. Over de wetgeving in het vernieuwde Koninkrijk der Nederlanden. The Hague, Ministry of Security and Justice, 2010.
UNDP, First Millennium Development Goals, Curacao & Sint Maarten, 2011.
http://www.undp.org.tt/NA/MDGReportCURandSXM.pdf
Wetsvoorstel Wijziging van de Wet toelating en uitzetting BES (32282) Beraadslaging in 1ste Kamer, 28 September 2010.
Dear Editor,
We are addressing you as a Sint. Maartener and not as a St. Martiner. Here is the reason: as a Sint. Maartener you have a commitment to, and for the most part inhabit and live your life on, the Southern side of the island. This is the part of our lovely rock that is tied to the Kingdom of the Netherlands – the Northern side is constitutionally the French republic in the Caribbean. If we had hailed you as St. Martiners, we would be appealing to your sense of belonging to both sides of the island. Being a St. Martiner does not logically exclude you also considering yourself a Sint Maartener. To us these identities need not be mutually exclusive, as during St. Martin Day persons from the Dutch and the French side recognize their commonality without eliminating their specificities.
In 2014, the University of St. Martin produced a book entitled “Notes on the Making of Nation within the Kingdom: Conceptual Clarity on Nationalism, Ethnicity, and Culture as it relates to Sint Maarten.” It would serve as the handbook for the UN-trained volunteers that would go into various districts of Sint Maarten to initiate and encourage conversations that would create inclusive senses of national belonging. “Notes on the Making of Nation within the Kingdom” was commissioned by the honourable Member of Parliament (MP) Sarah Wescott-Williams, via the Department of Internal Affairs and Kingdom Relation (BAK). The MP at the time held the position of Prime Minister and wrote the preface for the book.
A revisiting of that book is in order; more so in these times in which talk of leaving the Kingdom of the Netherlands is presented as the magic potion that will remedy all social and governmental ills. For the record: we are not arguing against political independence, that is not our business. Rather, we are inviting you to truly consider the political status Sint Maarten gained on October 10, 2010 (10-10-10). We find this paramount as the intellectual vocation is to encourage persons of all walks of life to receive accurate and balanced information before making decisions. We trust that you will appreciate this contribution as complementing the information you are being fed on the option of political independence. What we present is not our endorsement, but one that we think you should also be keenly aware of.
Here is the spirit of that book: The Kingdom of the Netherlands can be understood as a federation of states that are bound together by a shared citizenship. Sint Maarteners are Dutch citizens as are Curaçaoleans, Arubans, Sabans, Statians, Bonaireans, and persons living in the Netherlands. Citizenship, which is a legal status, is not to be confused with national belonging. Sint Maarteners can consider themselves a nation that is separate and different from say those people who live on Curaçao or the Netherlands.
In this endeavour Sint Maarteners ought to cultivate their specific national symbols that encourage solidarity among those who live on the Southern side of the island, or they may go further and choose to actually promote a cross-border national identity as St. Martiners. Under the current constitutional arrangements this is possible: St Martiners can see themselves as a nation while maintaining their Dutch or French citizenship.
What we are trying to convey to you is that national identities are in fact cultural identities. These types of identities need not respect constitutional boundaries. On this island we witness say individuals with Dominican roots who consider themselves part of the Dominican nation even though they carry a Dutch passport. Many of them celebrate the national holiday of the Dominican Republic. In addition, since you can have a sense of belonging to more than one nation, some of these individuals also actively take part in the St. Martin Day celebration. There is no need to frown on this state of affairs. Every state that ushers citizenship rights is populated by a privileged nation, and several other groups who might consider themselves separate nations.
The change in political status on October 10, 2010, was about political elites belonging to the privileged nation on Sint Maarten in symbolic terms (economics is another matter) gaining the rights to govern Dutch citizens on the island as Ministers and parliamentarians. The citizens chose them during elections granting them the mandate to do so.
These citizens do, however, share their citizenship with persons who live in the Netherlands and five other Caribbean islands. What this means is that their fundamental right to live a decent life and be governed democratically has to be protected and safeguarded by the entire Kingdom. When Dutch citizens living in the Netherlands are not treated fairly by the political governors in that part of the Kingdom, Sint Maarten political leaders should speak up and demand that measures be taken. The same is expected the other way around as Sint Maarteners who carry the Dutch passport are legally Dutch citizens. The contestations between the political elites on both sides of the Atlantic when such happens are a healthy part of the constitutional arrangement.
There is, of course, a democratic deficit in the Kingdom as those political elites stationed in The Hague have more political power and manage a larger economy and population than those on the islands. Work needs to be done to create more balance in this political arrangement. The ideal way this should be done is de-colonial politics understood as the continuous re-education of colonially infected minds and democratization of institutional practices. This entails that all political elites within the Kingdom need to govern well and project a sense of being a guarantor of citizenship rights that is not confused with national sentiment and chauvinism.
The question you need to ask yourself is do you believe that this can be done within the current political set up, or do you think that shattering the trans-Atlantic bond will create a situation whereby decency and justice reigns on the island?
Dr. Francio Guadeloupe, President of the University of St. Martin (USM)
Drs. Erwin Wolthuis, Division Head USM’s Hospitality & Tourism Management programme
Ms. Wendie Brown (MA), Division Head of the USM’s Business Programme.
Mr. Pedro de Weever (BA), Lecturer and Chief Editor of USM’s Commentaries Journal.
Ir. Delano Richardson, Lecturer at the USM
Mrs. Oldine Bryson-Pantophlet (BA).
Mrs. Sharine Duncan-Allamby (MPA).
Dear Editor,
Recently, Parliament held a meeting to discuss the appointment of a quartermaster for the Integrity Chamber by the Dutch Government. Most Parliamentarians, however, overlooked the fact that the discussion had to be focused on the process, the procedure, the legality and the validity of said appointment. With the exception of MP Sarah Wescot-Williams, parliamentarians and members of government spoke more about the Integrity Chamber. It was also very sad to observe that half of the MPs present had absolutely nothing to say about the appointment, nor about the Integrity Chamber.
All the speakers practically agreed that breaches of integrity are common in Sint Maarten. And actually, the same can also be said of all countries. Each year, a list of countries is issued by Transparency International (TI), showing how each country ranks and scores as far as corruption is concerned. In 2016, TI investigated 176 countries and not one of them came close to a perfect score. The highest score of 90 percent went to Denmark and Zealand. The Netherlands scored 83 percent and ranked as the 8th least corrupt country.
During the parliamentary debates, it was said that the Dutch wanted to impose an Integrity Chamber on Sint Maarten, while they do not even have one themselves. Although the Netherlands may not have an Integrity Chamber, it has two institutions that tackle integrity issues in government.
Being a member of GRECO (Group of States against Corruption), the Dutch government submits annual integrity reports to this European Union Entity. Furthermore, each municipality in the Netherlands has a B.I. (Bureau Integriteit or Integrity Office) which falls under BING (Bureau Integriteit Nederlandse Gemeenten). Albeit, even if the Netherlands did not have these two bodies, this does not justify Sint Maarten not having one!
An Integrity Chamber is considered the watch dog in a country that guards against all integrity breaches. Currently, the highest integrity body in Sint Maarten is our Parliament, which has done a bad job at dealing with integrity issues, since its inception in 2010. Unfortunately, Parliament, in many instances during the past six years, succumbed to numerous integrity breaches itself.
On October 22, 2014, Parliament passed a motion, instructing Government to establish a committee to review the findings of three integrity reports, and to come up with a budget and a timeline. It is two years later, and Parliament has heard nothing yet from this committee. Conversely, Parliament has also neglected to follow up on the instructions given to government two years ago.
Furthermore, in 2015, Parliament established an Ad Hoc Committee of Integrity which tried to establish a code of conduct for parliamentarians. Nothing came out of this exercise, because our parliamentarians did not want to be subjected to any rules. Article 64 of the Constitution gives our parliament a very strong integrity tool, which is the right to carry out an in-depth investigation into wrongdoing in parliament and in government. and if need be, parliament can ultimately submit its findings to the Public Prosecutor, according to article 80 of the Rules of Order of Parliament. Regrettably, during the last six years, Parliament has never made use of this right of inquiry.
Indeed, Parliament itself, has several instruments at its disposal which can be used to effect greater integrity. Yet, Parliament has never made use of these instruments to promote integrity. Hence, we can only conclude that Parliament is either not willing or not capable of “fixing we”, to use the expression of the Prime Minister. This means then, that there is certainly a need to establish another body that is specifically charged with integrity issues.
If countries, regionally and internationally, that have oversight bodies, which we call High Councils of State, still see the need to establish integrity commissions, then there must be something that an integrity commission can do that the other oversight bodies are unable to do. It is worth mentioning here that most CARICOM countries have established integrity commissions, and that since June 2015, these commissions have formed the Association of Integrity Commissions and Anti-Corruption Bodies in the Commonwealth Caribbean (AICACBCC).
Since Sint Maarten has to totally revamp its Integrity Ordinance that was rejected by the Constitutional Court, SMCP proposes that the new entity be called the Integrity Commission, in keeping with the term used by countries in the Caribbean. We also recommend that the Sint Maarten Integrity Commission seeks membership to the (AICACBCC). The goal of the Integrity Commission is not to lock up people, even though this could be a result of its investigation, but to be the watch dog, and to keep an eye on both the legislative and the executive branches of government.
In addition to uncovering corruption and exposing integrity breaches, Integrity Commissions regionally, as well as internationally, have also an educational component to their scope of duties. They provide education and training to civil servants and government officials, and they also seek to develop an integrity awareness among all citizens, and to reach out to all educational institutions. Given the above information about contemporary Integrity Commissions, SMCP encourages government and parliament to take the Constitutional Court’s advice and develop an integrity commission similar to the ones in the region. SMCP believes that there is certainly a need for an Integrity Commission on Sint Maarten, and the sooner the better!
Wycliffe Smith
Leader of the Sint Maarten Christian Party
