Dear Editor,

The race to elections is on and candidates are flirting with vulnerable party leaders who are desperate for power. Everyone is trying to get a piece of the pie. All of a sudden, these specialists have the solution to every problem when they themselves have managed and supported the same proclaimed failed parties. In addition, contenders who have government in a choke-hold are swinging from one party to the next. Even those who questioned the party’s leadership still trekked on to fill the same list; the ones who damned the bridge that they crossed are returning like wounded little Chihuahuas. Never in the history of St. Maarten have we witnessed such audacious exploitation designed to achieve massive confusion.

What’s fascinating is that party leaders have complained bitterly about the phenomenon of ship jumping. In fact, this unprincipled manoeuvring is viewed with scorn because it continuously cripples the proper functioning of government. These defectors have used this free movement as a bargaining chip for personal demands. If this is the case, then why would party leaders accept the same candidates who took pleasure in destabilizing every single government? Is it not the lack of moral principles that has caused them to go in that direction? So what is the difference between now and then? People are who they are; all they need is the right platform to express their true self.

The sad reality is that many persons would get caught between now and Election Day because they will be influenced by fancy talk, religious affiliation, family ties and illusions. Many will not take the time to investigate the background of every candidate. It is disheartening to see how hypocritical some potential candidates are, before even being elected. They have written and spoken publicly about their moral upbringing, but behind closed doors it is heart-breaking to see how cruel they are to children. Furthermore, right in this newspaper and on air a certain individual pretends to be so upright, when many persons have complained how this candidate took thousands of dollars from them to file their resident papers and to date nothing has materialized. These are just some of the characters that will manipulate the minds of the electorate.

Moreover, people need to pay close attention to the political development of the country. Follow it step by step. Look at what has transpired; who are the players; monitor their behaviour and listen carefully to what they say. Do you remember the politician who said that she is only responsible for the persons who voted her? What did the television host say? If she (I am paraphrasing) has this behaviour now wait until she gets into Parliament.

The former Minister of Health refused to go to Parliament when he was called to clarify issues that pertained to his portfolio. Then, he undermined the hard work of his coalition partners when he made a last minute decision to take up a seat in Parliament. Do you see how he has disgraced the image of “The People’s House” by disrespecting one of the Ministers and the Chairlady of Parliament throughout his entire term? Now that election is near, he and his pal are trying desperately to tame their temperament, but the damage is done.

I can recall clearly listening to the grandfather of the UP leader. He said that now the grandson is in politics he does not look for him anymore and that he regrets introducing him to the people of St. Maarten. The grandfather died since 1998. The pertinent question is: why would he make such a statement so long ago? When the five parties came out late last year to contest the expected February election, which party leader asked if he could be of assistance to them? Why would he do that and why all of them and not one or two? People, you need to wake up! Get over the bling and quit making the same mistake over and over.

If one goes back to the end of September when there was a motion of no confidence towards the then Council of Ministers. Do you remember the reactions of these parties that sprung up like wild mushrooms? One candidate remarked that she was at the Chamber getting ready to register her party. There she met another party leader who asked her to merge their parties and immediately she accepted the offer. Just like that? Are we to believe that this candidate can be influenced by anybody, at anytime and anyplace?

As mentioned in a previous article, it is my conviction that these new parties are branches of a bigger party. I have also stated that if election wasn’t due in short this government would have fallen already because there was a serious attempt to interrupt this governing process. Based on the political environment there is no guarantee that any government will last a full term. The people must come to the realization that the outside influences are much greater than the will of most of the candidates. So, now is your time to scrutinize, before you finalize!

Joslyn Morton

Dear Editor,

We applaud the move to install cameras around Philipsburg as a deterrent to crime, but we must start the discussion on the socioeconomic factors, particularly the socioeconomic problems like youth unemployment, migration and an increasing sense of inequality – all of which are a hot bed for crime – if we are serious about deterring crime.

Having the cameras in just one area initially may serve to move crime from that area to another and not necessarily deter the criminals from committing crimes. There is now more interest locally in the economics of crime which has been stimulated by the dramatic spike in brazen crimes that have been occurring. Research indicates that a widening income gap with respect to richer regions – which compared to most of the other islands we are – increases the probability of delinquent behaviour.

Growing inequality is an important factor of crime and we cannot expect to tackle crime without tackling this head on. The time for this discussion is right now.

Demographic factors reveal important and significant influences with higher crime rates occurring in highly urbanised areas. Being young and unemployed tends to increase the probability of committing crime so why aren’t we doing more to get our young people into work?

The “Chicago school of thought” claims that criminals are ordinary people of all racial backgrounds who were profoundly influenced by the poverty and social instability of their neighbourhoods and that such factors may produce all types of crimes. Visit our jail cells and examine the background of the inmates and you will find that this explanation can be applied almost across the board.

We need to have discussions of what we can do to encourage, motivate and guide people away from crime. We need to address the socioeconomic factors and provide more opportunities. The cameras are a good start to deter criminals but it’s also important to take action to discourage people from seeing crime as an option or a solution.

Therefore it is important to revisit proposals from the OSPP that were sent to every member of the present and past parliaments of St. Maarten. We are referring to the proposed Van Hugh Law (Lei di Bion) sent on February 10, 2015 to parliament and the Council of Ministers.

This would have encouraged the business community to employ young people between the ages of 18 to 30 years that were registered as unemployed. The business in return would receive a tax credit of NAf. 9,000 per year, per employee. Secondly, the OSPP proposed the establishment of a loan guarantee fund to help create new businesses. The backbone of every economy is small businesses and these small businesses create real jobs. These are just some of the ways that we can deter crime and alleviate poverty.

Deterring crime is not just the job of the police since the policy makers are the ones to introduce programs to tackle the factors of crime, examples of which are increased levels of unemployment, poverty, transiency and decreased levels of economic opportunities and community participation, poor housing conditions and a lack of access to services.

Lenny F. Priest

Dear Editor,

Let me confess that I do like the Dutch system of political parties and voting outside of constituencies (in contrast to the British system in many territories surrounding us). It has the major advantage that political platforms are made more clear and precise. It works well in the Netherlands, and allows for the voter to get a clear picture of who stands for what, and make a clear voting choice. You avoid the two-party confusion of the “large tent” variety in which each party has a mixture of positions that are somehow coalesced into one because the structure determines that there can only be two parties in the system.

I like the system, but it does not work on Sint Maarten at the present. The question is whether it will ever work?

If it were to ever work, then it would at least require political parties to make clear their positions and for voters to vote on those positions rather than on the likeability or otherwise of their leaders, the quality of their parties, or other less rational criteria. At this stage, it is impossible to judge whether voters would vote on that basis, because the clarity of platforms has, to date, been limited.

Creating the policy position of a political party is not an easy thing to do. The nature of election success is that the parties prefer to dwell on those aspects of what they will do that are immediately attractive to the voter, and to avoid mentioning the trade-offs and costs that are necessary to make them happen. The current strategy is for parties to focus exclusively on the easily-digestible parts of their intentions, and to avoid, like the plague, the less attractive.

This happens in the Netherlands as well of course. The difference is that good media put pressure on the politicians to expose their intentions more fully and make them comparable to other party offerings. Effective media would, for instance, ensure that if a political party says that they will solve the problem of the garbage dump, then they will press them to define where the funds to do this will come from. Will they come from higher taxation or from reduced tertiary education subsidy, or from savings in public works? How would they capitalize such a project and what guarantees will they give to whom?

Here is my hope:

(1) If the political parties get greater pressure from media and the electorate to define their platforms, the individual politicians will be more tied to those positions and less likely to jump ship.

(2) As the political parties identify themselves with a line of thought, the political parties will become stronger organizations, a shortcoming that has been correctly identified by President of Parliament Sarah Wescot-Williams.

(3) As members of parliament are better tested prior to election, there is a chance of them being better prepared to actually execute the legislative and policy work of Parliament.

(4) As the political parties have more clearly-defined platforms, the likelihood of a sustainable coalition for the full four-year period, and the greater likelihood of some of the major problems in the country being tackled.

Critical to this happening is the media playing a role, and I refer to the media including print, radio, TV and social media. Which of them are the most likely and the least likely to be responsible journalists in this coming election period?

z Recently, I was advised in a social discussion that Sint Maarten needs to become politically mature. It would not surprise me if many persons held such a view. I would point out then that political maturity is not a national characteristic that will necessarily grow naturally with time. It can be seeded, fertilized, watered and encouraged, especially with the responsible media and voters demanding a more complete understanding of the planned policies of each party, rather than vague good intentions that can never be checked later.

Robbie Ferron

Dear honourable Minister Ingrid Arrindell,

I, the undersigned driving instructor, am concerned about the lengthy time it takes for St. Maarten citizens who have signed up, to take the driving exam. Presently, it takes quite some time from the day the candidate signs up at the census office for the exam to the time the candidate actually writes the exam. As it stands, only five persons per day are allowed to take the exam, which has resulted in quite a backlog in persons waiting to do the exam.

In the past, the protocol was that when someone signed up for the driving licence exams that person was able to take the exams within two weeks. Last year (2015), the time was extended to five to six weeks. At present (now in 2016), it takes a lengthy eight weeks from the day the person signs up for the exam for that person to be able to take the exams.

Dear honourable minister, it is my fervent belief that if you do not step in and do something now, the time will increase to six months, then a year or even more. I am kindly asking you to please consider addressing this matter seriously and immediately so that we can have more licenced drivers on our roads and avoid more unlicensed persons driving on our roads and making the roads unsafe for us all.

In addition, let wisdom prevail so our country will not be missing out on the much needed funds that can be generated from the driving licence exams. Moreover, persons who hold a foreign driver’s licence will be eager to do their driving exams here, once they know that it would not take them a long time to process. More importantly, our roads will be much safer when we know that the majority of people driving on the road have studied, understood and can obey our driving regulations.

It is my hope that you, honourable minister, would regulate this situation as quickly as possible so that the citizens of this country would be able to do their driving exams in a shorter time, after they have completed their driving classes.

Paul Woods

Driving Instructor