Dear Editor,
The Democratic Party wishes to respond to an article in the newspaper of last week Friday. In this article Clyde Van Putten from the PLP makes several remarkable statements. His quest for more independence for Statia he bases on a mandate that he claims he has received from the people in the referendum 2014. The DP believes that for once and for all it should be known that the outcome of the referendum held in 2014 was invalid because the required percentage of eligible voters to make it valid did not turn out. It is therefore rather ridiculous and misleading that Van Putten continues to try and make everyone believe that the people of Statia through the referendum have opted for more independence.
Further, Van Putten States that instead of more constitutional independence, Statia received higher financial and administrative supervision. Conveniently he forgets to mention that this supervision is implemented because of the extremely poor performance of his government at that time and again fails to meet legal reporting deadlines, is unable to run a proper administration and does not shun nepotism and favouring of family and friends.
On top of this there are the many reprimands from BZK and negative advices from CFT this government has received since taking office for not adhering with their financial administration to the applicable laws and regulations. In this light, whereby it has become crystal clear that his government cannot deal with the basic tasks and principles of running our island, it is even more remarkable that he believes that the island needs more independence.
According to Van Putten the higher supervision is slapped on them through the influence of DP councilman Koos Sneek. The DP and the councilman take this as a compliment. Apparently according to Van Putten, they are better able to get their message across to the government in The Hague. Van Putten should have learned his lesson that usually one can get further through proper communication, negotiations and compromise rather than with his trademark name-calling, aggressive confrontations and accusations.
In the article, he furthermore misinforms the people about who is paying for the cost of the process manager. This cost, some 80,000 dollars is for the account of the ministry. The stumbling block to appoint Blackman, however, is that Van Putten wants to pay him substantially more than that. The extra cost is for his government and he needs to prove that he has the budget to do so. (A copy of the letter from the ministry to support this is in possession of the newspaper)
Contrary to what Van Putten stated, the funds (6 million euros) for the roads have not been made available for the simple reason that up to today no proper plans are submitted for road improvement by his government. His commissioner, in her town hall meeting last Thursday even confirmed this. Instead of blaming others he should explain to the people why his government is taking more than nine months to present these plans.
Unfortunately, even though he claims he has all those years of experience, Van Putten still does not understand the difference between a motion and an island council decision. It is true that the coalition has voted for a motion not to extend the contract of the registrar but there has never been an island council decision. A motion is a wish; it is not a decision.
Regarding his opinion about NuStar and the harbour fees the company must pay, the future will prove where this will end up. A 2.7-million-dollar offer made by NuStar remained unanswered. This proposal would have been sufficient to solve the financial difficulties the island is in and it would secure economic stability for the years to come.
The hostile and aggressive approach of Van Putten is basically putting our economy and many jobs at risk. It appears that the councilman is not aware that many if not all local businesses in Statia, one way or the other exist through the presence of the oil terminal. His dangerous games can jeopardize the future and the livelihood of these businesses as well.

Democratic Party of St. Eustatius

Dear Editor,

What has transpired over the past two months surrounding the appointment of Rolando Brison as the first ever Director of the St. Maarten Tourism Authority (STA) is, to put it mildly, a travesty and clear persecution of a young St. Maartener who simply wants to contribute to his country. This persecution and public defaming of Brison has been meticulously executed by a class of people, or I should say people who placed themselves in a social class, who believe it is their God given right to control and dictate policy for the hospitality sector as if it’s an exclusive boys and girls club. It is time the general public thinks about the people behind this attempted take down.

The latest proclamation by the Supervisory Council of the STA that it cannot support the appointment of Brison has finally exposed this very council or at least some of its members of the personal vendetta they have against Brison who does not fit into their class of people. Why do I say this? Because when you examine all of the legal steps Mr. Brison has taken and all of the obligations laid down by government that he has fulfilled in relation to the STA, you will quickly realise there is no reason, other than personal feelings, to deny Mr. Brison the position for which he has already been appointed.

It is important that the public not lose focus of what is happening here. This is pure, unadulterated persecution based on bold-face lies. The people who are adamant to keep Mr. Brison out of the STA Director’s chair understand very well that on St. Maarten you only need to cast a small dye of doubt to taint a person or a process completely. While Mr. Brison is fully capable of defending himself (and he should do this through a court of law), I thought it was important to remind the public of the following.

A Selection Committee was established, which consisted of the entire five members of the Supervisory Council of the STA; the same council which is now backtracking on Mr. Brison’s appointment. Minister Ingrid Arrindell as well as a person appointed by her also sits on this very same council.

An advertisement for the position was placed in the newspapers in early May 2016. A total of 11 applications were received of which Mr. Brison’s was one. Following the first round of interviews three of the highest scoring candidates were moved on to the second round of interviews; Mr. Brison was one of the three. In the second round of interviews, these three candidates were given a hypothetical case study to present to the council as a final “measuring stick” so to speak, to test their approach as director to a situation that he or she would face once appointed.

Up until the STA Supervisory Council made its recent remarks, it was reported by the Minister and others that Mr. Brison, after the scores were tallied, scored the highest of all three finalists and as such was offered the position of STA Director on August 12, 2016, in writing.

To assume the role of Director of the STA Mr. Brison also had to resign from any company/entity in which he had a managerial/director role, which he proceeded to do.

Once that was done, the Minister signed Mr. Brison’s offer letter and announced to the public that Mr. Brison was selected as STA Director after going through all proper procedures. Again, focus good people – he was appointed after going through everything as outlined by government. This is where the certain class of people I referred to earlier sprang into action, and boy, was it a collective effort.

Here we had this young spring chicken of a fellow bright, brilliant and educated, son of Franklin Brison, who outshone everybody and was preparing to take the reins of the STA and guide the direction of St. Maarten’s tourism outreach in collaboration with stakeholders, but “who he tink he be?” He isn’t part of the social class who feel they control the industry, “he can’t sit with us!”

First, out of a dark and devious corner came allegations of “misappropriations of funds” at Mr. Brison’s former employer Winair. Mind you, Winair itself to this day has never said a word about Mr. Brison, but out came an avenging champion riding a holier-than-thou high horse basically calling Mr. Brison a thief. On cue, this was followed by the other class minions who took to social media to question his character, accuse the Minister of not being serious, proclaim that St. Maarten tourism sector needs “serious people” and on they went.

All through the Parliamentary elections the class minions insinuated that if Brison was appointed the STA would somehow lose credibility. Mind you, these were some of the same people who had reigned over a sector that has been stagnant for a decade. The way they were talking you would swear that St. Maarten is surpassing its competition by leaps and bounds, when in fact they and their outdated approaches to tourism and hospitality are part and parcel the reason for the stagnation. None of these persons had any reason, any proof, nothing upon which to base their negative opinions of Mr. Brison. All they had were the unfounded allegations of a member of their class; one man.

So what happened next? Stay focused people. Follow me. After he had already been appointed and after the allegations made headline news, Mr. Brison was told that he had to be screened. Mind you, no mention of screening was ever made or ever stipulated in his offer letter. Nevertheless, Mr. Brison, again wanting to do everything by the book underwent the screening.

What were the results of this screening process? He passed the required drug and alcohol tests. He passed a complete a physical check-up. He produced a clean police record. He authorized the Minister of Justice to do a thorough background check. The Prosecutor’s Office has provided a positive advice on Brison making it clear that he has no criminal record or pending investigations against him. So much for allegations of theft huh? Finally, Brison provided multiple positively glaring references from entities for whom he worked in past. He did everything the right way. There was nothing left for the STA Council or the class elite to use to prevent Mr. Brison from taking up the position for which he was appointed, or so we thought. Then came the utterly ridiculous and transparent press release from the STA council backsliding so fast you would swear they were devils in a church.

The “jokiest” part was the spin they tried to put on it. The spin came from two directions. First, they claimed that “not all six members of the selection committee independently scored Brison highest.” Cute. This is an attempt to confuse the public. They attempted to add more weight to individual scores of the committee members rather than the collective overall score. It is the overall score that counts not the individual, and if the STA is so confident in making such bold claims, then be transparent and show the public the scores.

Well, the STA did not show the scores, but an online media outlet has and the documents that are now in the public domain is clear about who scored the highest – Rolando Brison! Just one member of the STA Council, its chairman, scored Rolando lower than all other members leaving one to wonder what his ulterior motives were and if he has a personal vendetta underway; again, the class elite strikes back! In various competitions the world over the rule is if you have a “judge” whose scores are completely out-of-whack with the other “judges” that out-of-whack judge and his scores should be disregarded. It is clear from the lying and the spinning about Rolando something is amiss here.  

The second spin by the STA Council was: “it should be noted that the STA still has no budget as funds have not been transferred from the ministry’s marketing budget for the purpose of the day-to-day operation of the STA, as originally discussed.” In other words, we can’t appoint him because we can’t pay him. As if the funds haven’t been already ear-marked (they have), it only takes one Council of Ministers meeting to transfer these funds. Mr. Brison in the meantime should receive his contract and get the ground work going. But no, the STA Council, again based on nothing but personal feelings, wants nothing to do with Mr. Brison or it now seems, the current Minister.

This statement gave them away: “The Supervisory Council looks forward to meeting with the incoming government and seeking their input in identifying the marketing needs and/or objectives for the country and to tackle these through the efforts of the STA.”

An incredible statement. They do not want to sit with the person who was appointed and who legally went through all of their processes nor the Minister who is still in office and has brought the STA further than any Minister before her. The STA Council, upon which the current Minister still sits, wants to wait on a new minister with the hope that this new minister provides them with a way to get around Mr. Brison. Simply astounding.

If I may offer Mr. Brison some advice, please use whatever legal measures are available to you to fight this injustice. I have never, ever seen such a coordinated attack on someone to prevent him or her from progressing through life. Mr. Brison resigned from everything he was a part of to take up the role as STA Director. He basically gave up everything he has worked for, for an opportunity to work for his country.

The zeal of certain people to cheer the news of the STA not wanting to support Mr. Brison’s appointment is most telling. They want something, anything to say aha! You see! He is the wrong person. Think about it good people. This young St. Maartener has done nothing wrong. Nothing. He has followed the rules but because he is not one of them, all of them would prefer to ruin him than assist in seeing him succeed.

Whoever is the next Minister of Tourism this saga is going to be a good indication of where he or she stands. Will it be with our young professionals who simply want opportunities to contribute, or will it be with the class elite who persists in keeping our people out or subservient while they alone move forward?

Michael R. Granger

Dear Editor,

Twenty-seven years ago, in 1989, when the USSR was imploding, some of its capitalist adversaries were gloating. Their economists and marketing strategists were already considering a new adventure that would mirror the one that lay croaking. Never mind the misery, destruction and death “world communism” had wrought upon the earth; these new utopians were already dreaming of a new ideology, a new “ism,” globalism: the belief that people, goods and information ought to be able to cross national borders unrestricted.

The spearheads of globalism were (and remain) officials at the United Nations, US and European oligarchs, their bankers and enablers, the World Bank in particular. From the very beginning, the model or prototype for this experiment toward a new world “without frontiers” was a European Union (EU) that would work in symbiosis with the United Nations (UN). Success with the EU would show the world and particularly those patriotic Americans (for whom the US Constitution is vital) how nation states could/would proceed towards globalisation.

But the advocates of globalism knew that people everywhere love their homeland; their language, their religion, their culture; and that there is no such thing as a nation without borders or frontiers. So in order to convince their citizens of the merits of globalisation, European technocrats and their allies enlisted a den of dragons to discredit their opponents, and scare the people; the most ferocious of all their monsters being the ultimate European bogeyman: Fascism.

The nation state, nationalism, patriotism, love of one’s country was characterised, and represented as various forms of fascism, chauvinism, Nazism or neo-Nazism, racism, xenophobia (and this list is not at all complete). As such, patriotism, love of one’s country was derided, combated and suppressed. All the while, the technocrats and their globalist enablers forged ahead stealthily without properly, lawfully, consulting their populations.

Indeed, instead of seeking proper mandates from their citizens in Europe, and from their various colonial enclaves throughout the world, European technocrats of globalisation pressed on, aided and abetted by Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), and by a much too compliant, if not muted media. Since the collapse of communism in 1989, and after the fall of the Berlin wall in 1990, the globalists have pushed ahead incrementally and stealthily in concert with their allies at the United Nations and elsewhere.

As for the Americans specifically, all US presidents after R. Reagan have been secret, stealthy advocates of globalisation; from 1989 with G. Bush, through B. Clinton, G.W. Bush and B. Obama. With President Obama, the triumph of the globalists is almost a “fait accompli,” a done deal. We’re almost there! The stealthy trek towards a so-called borderless world that would amount to “the suicide of America: the unmaking of America as founded” is almost completed. But there may still remain some glimmer of hope for those who have been trying to resist globalisation.

A while back, EU and UN technocrats, some of their allies, NGOs and oligarchs (Billionaire G. Soros most notable among others) ran afoul the politics of President Putin in Russia and elsewhere. Ever since then, there has been some heavy push back from the Russian Bear. Witness the strenuous relationship between Presidents Obama and Putin these last years. Witness also the drip, drip, drip, from Wikileaks (seemingly of Russian origin) wherein everyone with Internet access can follow the underhand involvement of the globalists, particularly (of G. Soros and his minions, among others) in their stealthy advocacy, their deceitful promotion of globalisation.

A referendum in June this year has led to the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, and at the G20 summit in China in September, when US officials tried to act as if they had carte blanche at the airport in Hangzhou, Chinese officials blocked them shouting forcefully: “This is our airport, this is our country!” President Obama was then denied the red carpet at the airport (AFP-Sep 3, 2016).

A strange twosome indeed! The President of what remains of the old Soviet Socialist Republics, Vladimir Putin, and the American super capitalist, Donald Trump, may now be the world’s very last hope, the champions of those who have been decrying globalisation to no avail all these years.

The super capitalist and the communist strongman may be the uncanny champions of those who have been arguing, repeating what experience has taught humanity since the dawn of History, namely that there is no Utopia here on earth; that good fences make good neighbours; that differences are fundamentally vital, and that disorder sets in, everywhere, with the perception of a loss of differences.

Indeed, communism and globalism are both ideologies that champion uniformity which they value, nurture and promote at the expense of diversity and differences that they obliterate. As the late Christopher Hitchens puts it: “... the search for Utopia is a futile and dangerous one [...] there is no escape from anxiety and struggle. (Hitchens, Love, Poverty, and War: Journey and Essays, 2004).

Gérard M. Hunt

Dear Editor,

Since the UP Party is going to have control of Parliament, what exactly is their intention? Do they plan on disrupting the current trajectory, or will they use wisdom and come to a temporary agreement to maintain the present course of direction? When one examines the composition of the incoming Members of Parliament, it is difficult to pinpoint anyone of the UP Party, who has the indispensable capability to administer this highly-skilled function.  

To illustrate further, since 10-10-10 parliament has never functioned on this level that has demanded the attention of the public and with such plausible comments. This is due to the degree of seriousness and passion that Chairlady Sarah Wescot-Williams approached this very critical position. It is one thing to sit as the Chair and recite, but it is quite another to take charge, and deliver from a place of knowledge, understanding and experience.

Now that parliament will be infused with a number of new comers, who are lacking the prior knowledge of how government operates, what would happen to them if the proper support is restricted?

Furthermore, what kind of parliament will exist, if these recruits developed the same lackadaisical attitude that the majority have portrayed over the years? Wouldn’t that situation be construed as a gross form of instability? Hence, in order for parliament to carry out its function effectively, this legislative branch requires a President with a substantial measure of credibility to maintain the desired solidity.

Therefore, an efficient President of Parliament is armed with the knowledge of the working of all three branches of government, but particularly, the executive and legislative bodies. Here is where the Chairperson is well acquainted with the laws and articles that govern these domains. He or she decides how and when to juggle these regulations to keep government in check.

Besides, a well-informed President has a mental blueprint of Parliament. He or she is aware of the past and current status of the Senate, and has a vision of where the organization ought to be. Not where Parliament should be in terms of wishes, but each milestone is planned with a specific timeframe and built-in assessment.

If this incoming coalition is serious about acquiring stability in government, then intelligence would dictate that Parliament must maintain the same trajectory that has been developed over the past 11 months. For this reason, it behoves government to consider extending the function of Chairlady Sarah Wescot-Williams for a period of one year. During this time, she would be charged with not just the task of managing the organization, but, providing training and guidance to Members of Parliament, especially the new ones.

Those of us, who follow politics, can recall a similar situation that took place during the constellation of the Nederland Antilles. In 1984, Roy Markes was the President of Parliament and a member of the MAN Party. Along the way, a conflict arose between him and his own party. This resulted in a change of government.

The new coalition included: PNP of Curaçao, MEP of Aruba, and DP of St. Maarten (along with Saba and Statia). Even though MAN was not a part of the incoming government, Roy Markes was allowed to maintain his position as President until the end of 1985. Then, in January of the following year, MP Jean Francisca was appointed to complete the term.

What this situation has taught us is that the newly-formed coalition rose above party politics and valued the competency of the President of Parliament. What sweet history, if this can be repeated here on St. Maarten, in the benefit of the people that the UP Party has sworn to represent!

Joslyn Morton