Dear Editor,
One of Parliament’s roles is to supervise the functioning of government. And one of its tools to carry out this supervisory function is the right to ask questions as laid down in article 62 of the Constitution. This entails parliamentarians submitting their queries in writing to the government via the President of Parliament. Article 63 of the Constitution mentions that a member of parliament may also invite the ministers to provide information. Article 62 of the Rules of Order of Parliament states that this invitation will be considered by the President of Parliament, if it is supported by at least one other member of parliament. So, in order to be effective in parliament, a political party should have at least two seats.
As all parties in the current parliament have two seats or more, there is no reason why parliamentarians cannot exercise their right to ask questions and to also invite ministers to parliament to provide the requested information. Yet, more and more we see parliamentarians putting their questions to ministers and government via the media. This is all good and well but, parliamentarians need to be mindful that a minister or government has no obligation to respond to such queries.
During the past months, the fraction of the United People’s Party in parliament has been posing quite a number of questions to ministers and government via the media. For example, the Honourable MP Theo Heyliger has expressed his concern about the stagnation of the construction of the new hospital facility. He also raised some critical questions concerning the new immigration rules for yacht and cruise ship crewmembers.
The Honourable MP Franklin Meyers also questioned the government about its “lack of concern for the tourism industry” by not yet having a minister of tourism in place. Last year, MP Meyers had also posed several questions, via the media, to the minister of finance concerning the Pearl of China Project. On February 24, 2017, MP Meyers followed the correct procedure by submitting his questions in writing to said minister.
According to MP Meyers, some six months ago, he had submitted several questions in writing to the Honourable Minister Emil Lee, pertaining to the hospital but never received a response – reason why he has recently forwarded a second request to the Minister asking for answers.
An MP should never have to wait six months or more to receive answers from a minister. How can parliament supervise government effectively, having to wait six months or more for information? This is unacceptable in the corporate world and parliamentarians should not tolerate it either. Besides, article 62 of the Constitution states that “the minister shall answer such questions within a reasonable term.”
It seems that, in Sint Maarten, only the opposition in parliament is supposed to question and supervise the ministers and the government. However, according to article 62 of the Constitution, the supervision of government is the responsibility of all fifteen members of parliament, the coalition included.
All fifteen members must use their given powers to ensure transparency, efficiency and accountability in government. How else will parliamentarians know what is going on in government, if they do not ask relevant and critical questions? The weekly press briefings of government are not enough. An occasional visit by a minister, to explain a draft law or to give information concerning a current issue, such as the Oyster Pond border situation, is not enough. Parliamentarians need more information than that.
Actually, by rights, the ministers should not even be giving press briefings but should be reporting directly to the parliament who hired them in the first place. It is the right and duty of every parliamentarian, including the members of the coalition, to question the functioning of the government on behalf of the people. This should not only happen during the budget debates but it should take place on an ongoing basis throughout the four-year term.
Only when parliamentarians know the vision, the goals, plans and projects of the government can they supervise with some measure of success. Therefore, parliament should demand that the governing program be submitted as soon as possible. If there is any parliamentarian who knows the importance of a governing accord, it is our current President of Parliament, the Honourable Sarah Wescott-Williams, who in 2015 demanded that the Government at that time present its governing program and also insisted that it be debated in parliament.
In October 2016, MP Wescott-Williams even presented a list of fifteen issues that she felt should be included in the then governing program. The Daily Herald, on October 12, 2016, quoted her as saying “as the opposition in the incoming parliament, we will observe with a magnifying glass the actions of this government.” Actually, this should be the attitude of every single parliamentarian, namely, to check and challenge the work of government.
SMCP dares each of the fifteen parliamentarians to exercise their right to question, examine and challenge the functioning of the Government to ensure proper, transparent and accountable governance during this term.
Wycliffe Smith
Leader of the Sint Maarten Christian Party
Dear Editor,
On the morning of March 6, around 10:30am, I walked into GEBE’s office to pay my light and water bills. I also pay light and water bills for my senior sister, who only gets NAf. 200 and some change. She worked at Mullet Bay and Great Bay for many years. She has a few children. By the way, she was married to an Antillean man who passed away. They took away her widow’s pension also. My wife was busy at W.I. Bank, so I went to GEBE.
While there a baldhead black man came in, hailed myself by name and started a conversation. A little old coloured lady was at the window with her light and water bill. At that moment I heard the cashier telling the little old lady she had to come back before a certain time to pay, otherwise her lights would be cut that afternoon for just US $16. The things in her fridge would have spoiled. I said with all the power outages now this!
My friend, this bald man went in front of me to the cashier’s window, took out some money and offered to pay the $16 for the old lady. He gave the cashier the money – $16 – and paid it for the poor old lady. She in turn thanked him and offered to repay him. He told her that it is okay, not needed.
That old lady would have to catch a bus, go home and come back – maybe $8-10. This is karma: whatever you do good will come back to you multiple times. And whatever you do bad will also come back multiple times.
God bless this kind-hearted local man for helping this poor old lady, while forgetting to find out if she had bus money to get home. Thank you my friend. Bless you – as one would say: A friend in need is a friend indeed.
An observant citizen.
Name withheld at author's request.
Dear Editor,
For a very long time I have read stories about many educated and professional persons experiencing a rough time on St. Maarten. Years ago, there was a local doctor managing St. Maarten Medical Center (SMMC). It seemed she underwent a tough time with SMMC. She left the island and headed somewhere.
Some years later, a young local doctor tried to open his practice. He also experienced some trouble, but eventually he opened his practice and worked with SMMC. Then there was the story of a long-time educator, who was in charge of a post-secondary institution. He was fired and took the board of this institution to court.
In another story, another professional fought court battles against an independent entity that is charged with giving advice to the Government of St. Maarten. Several accusations were leveled at him, but so far, he has won all his court cases.
Now another professional is seemingly going to be locked in another struggle against an institution that receives a subsidy from the Government of St. Maarten. This professional person’s name is Monique Alberts, the former director of Philipsburg Jubilee Library. I cannot understand why she was fired. It is strange because she worked really hard for the library. According to some sources, the following are some of the things that took place under Alberts’s watch.
1. A family reading program called “Bon nochi drumi dushi” was started.
2. The library joined international library organizations such as ACURIL.
3. A baby and toddler fantasy was commenced. 4. A reading awareness campaign was started, called SXM reads.
4. The library also reportedly raised Fls 1.6 million in grants.
5. Solar panels were introduced to reduce the library’s utility bills.
Alberts has also received several awards, such as 1st President of the Dutch Caribbean Library Association, Person of the Year 2014 by the Today newspaper and SHTA Crystal Pineapple.
This letter is not written to attack those who fired Alberts, because there are three sides to a story. I just want to know why Alberts was fired. I am very confused about it and so are others. All persons on St. Maarten have some degree of value, whether they are educated or not. This nation needs the talents of each person to make it a greater nation than it is today.
Kenneth Cook
Dear Editor,
I read the letter to you from Kenneth Cook. The term overqualified comes to mind. What I would like to say to Mr. Cook is that he should try to get his hands on all the cases that were held against the Government over many years and check the winning (or losing ) percentage of Government. That should give him an idea whether Government was justified or not in their actions against the locals.
A young professional who left for similar reasons told me that she got the notion that her boss felt threatened by her and made working together unpleasant. I feel sorry for the younger generation of St. Maarteners because all of this is the fault of people in Government (who we keep putting back) and who are gradually putting St. Maarten in the hands and pockets of non-St. Maarteners. But if it is any consolation to those hampered, if this is done for money, it will be soon gone because money grows wings like a dove.
It is imperative that we determine who is a St. Maartener in a hurry. But by now we should realize that it is not in the interest of those in Government to do this, so we need a Donald Trump move.
Russell A. Simmons
(Curaçao Chronicle)
The Curaçao Chronicle of Thursday, March 2, reported a press conference held by the management of InselAir International (Curaçao).
“During their first month, the new management had to deal with a lot of bad publicity. They even had to deal with the U.S. Consulate banning its employees from flying with InselAir. The Dutch government also emitted a warning for its employees not to fly with the airline. Filiatreault considers these bad publicities unjust because it is well known what the problem is in Aruba. These types of publicity cause a lot of harm within the company. There is no pride right now among the employees for being part of the company.”
I think that monsieur Filiatreault got the scapegoat for his problems at the depaneur. Probably none of his colleagues of the management team of InselAir, made any efforts to translate the findings of the Netherlands inspectors that went through the administration of InselAir International, InselAir Aruba, and the CCAA (and were also in Aruba).
Following I made a free translation of essential and painful findings that are reported and that give us grave concern for the safety of the PJ and P4 aircraft.
-Sections of the local rules and regulations for a great part do not comply with international standards.
-There is no clear cut organizational structure.
-The majority of the inspectors are semi qualified and have between 1 and 2 years of service.
-The lack of a structured, powerful authority has its consequences in the air transport field.
-InselAir does not comply with the national air laws and regulations.
-Recently 45 of the 80 pilots have left InselAir.
-The situation of the air laws and regulations is well known with the ministry concerned, but there is no indication of any actions to solve the problems.
-The cooperation between CCAA and DCA (Aruba) seems to be limited, while with their common interests and the way InselAir is structured, more attention should be paid to this.
The Curaçao Chronicle has been publishing almost on a daily basis incidents, technical breakdowns, complaints, bad service, and court cases on InselAir.
On Monday, November 21, 2016, appeared in the newspaper: “WILLEMSTAD- The fleet of the Curaçao airline InselAir is composed of 17 aircraft. Currently, they only operate 4 of them. Some 12 of those aircraft are either damaged or going through heavy checks that instead of taking 45 days are taking months due to the lack of money. These aircraft are simply thrown in a corner of the airport that is known as the ‘graveyard’. This graveyard serves as a warehouse, where parts, components, engines, and fuselage parts are removed trying to keep the four operating aircraft flying”
On Friday, January 27, we read: "The Independent Member of Parliament Eduard Braam recently questioned the way Curaçao Civil Aviation Authority (CCAA) is dealing with aircraft maintenance of the local aviation company InselAir. “The media have been giving a lot of attention to the issues surrounding the local airline. Even yesterday, two aircraft were grounded because of faulty maintenance,” said the MP.
The bad publicity that InselAir is getting is not generated by Aruba, probably with a hint to the Tax Department. Fact is that a number of InselAir employees sued the airline because their taxes that were retained were not handed over to the Tax Department.
As to the technical and operational sides, InselAir’s management was aware that there were open findings and observations on the P4-aircraft.
So for monsieur Filiatreault to blame Aruba for bad publicity is an attempt to hide his own shortcomings. Probably the time is better spent finding and correcting the root causes of the bad publicity: the service that results from the non-compliance with laws and regulations in aviation, tax and labour, etc.
Agustin Vrolijk
Aruba
