Dear Editor,

Money is not everything. That is something I was taught growing up in a Christian home. Today I can look back and applaud my parents for teaching me this, because I can now apply it to the methods our Government uses to run its business, when it comes to the collection of taxes. We need to understand that small businesses are vital to our economy, a matter of fact, to any economy around the world. Small businesses are more verse and play a big part in creating some of the revenue that Government needs.

In this day and age, we see our cruise industry shrinking by leaps and bounds. The streets are empty, the stores are empty, the port is empty and make no mistake, the signs are there; flights bound to St. Maarten are not up to par as they should be. The seats in these planes are empty. This is clear evidence of lack of leadership in the Ministry of Tourism. While I am positive the party I support and endorsed back in October 2015, has the calibre and is more than capable of bringing our tourists back to our airport and harbour. Get this, tourism is our economy's only pillar.

We need to figure out new, innovative ways of creating alternative sources of revenue. The success of small businesses is one of the several issues I am going to focus on. Today, with the most crucial parliamentary election in this island's history close to two months away, we cannot afford to sing the same song we've heard so many times before "Give me the opportunity" and expect change. What we need to practice saying is, "Give them the opportunity" and govern by those words.

We need to give the people of St. Maarten - young and old - the opportunity to build their own business and dream into a success, and we cannot do this if we keep thinking it's about "We" and not "Them".

It's no secret that Government has been harsh on small businesses that are struggling. With no mercy, they'll place liens on all operating accounts, even saving accounts, crippling the businesses, and in several cases putting them out of operation. You are not only killing one's hard work and dream, but this is eliminating a source that can bounce back and be part of the revenue that can help an already struggling economy. Remember, "Money is not everything". I would love to see these small businesses get the opportunity to establish themselves, to become a success, by simply giving them some breathing space.

A tax holiday/break of two to four years for new small businesses and also for those that are already established, but are struggling, seems to be in order. I am confident by its fifth year of operation, a small business should be able to stand on its own two feet and contribute to an emboldened revenue-earning system that will help our economy, or at least stop the bleeding that we are witnessing today. This is a long-term solution, not a short-sighted, short-term patch.

It should not always be about money, but it should always be about 'Lifting UP St. Maarten'.

Armand Meda

Dear Editor,

The Board of the National Alliance took notice of an interview with UPP Fraction Leader MP Franklyn Meyers on Sunday, July 17. We all understand that the political season has started, but MP Meyers should have a bit more respect for the people of St. Maarten. It is as if the MP suddenly came on the scene and has no recollection of his time as a Commissioner and more importantly the time of UPP Leader MP Theodore Heyliger.

GEBE has been having issues ever since UPP Leader Theodore Heyliger was a Commissioner. In those days, he blamed the power outages on GEBE. He claimed the company was not listening to him. Don’t exactly know where he got his engineering degree.

The fact is that GEBE could have bought an engine a long time ago, but during the tenure of Mr. Brooks the Commissioner wanted the purchase to be executed through a company he brought to the table instead of directly from the manufacturer. We wonder why whenever a large purchase is to be executed that there is always a go between when Theodore Heyliger and Franklyn Meyers are involved.

In the radio interview, MP Meyers mentioned that government wants to take 30 million from GEBE in dividends. The number we heard was 11 million, however, we all know that GEBE has a very large surplus. The electricity surplus is not known to us, but the water surplus is as much as 35 million. So, if water is 35 million, we can only imagine what the electricity surplus is.

It’s almost laughable that any UPP member would mention this when just a few years ago, UPP leader Theodore Heyliger engineered a deal for the Harbor Group of Companies to take a loan of 70 million to build a bridge; reportedly, placing the harbour in financial difficulties.

While we are on the subject of the Harbor Group of Companies, need we remind MP Meyers that it was under a UPP-led coalition that the very same harbour group had to loan 10 million to pay off a court case that was due to negligence on part of the UPP government? We don’t see anything wrong with Government, who is 100 per cent shareholder of GEBE requesting dividends from surplus monies of our company in order to provide services to St. Maarten.

In conclusion, need we remind Mr. Meyers that when he was a Commissioner that he engineered a deal for SMITCOMS to purchase the undersea cable from a company that was owned or partially owned by his current wife? It seems every time government or government-owned companies need to make a significant purchase, some family or friend is involved some way or the other. If the UPP cannot find a way to involve one of their friends the deal does not go through. Maybe that’s why the GEBE generator purchase was not completed.

The Board of the National Alliance (NA)

Dear Editor,

Not unlike elections before, there is no shortage of "plans" during this campaign leading up to the September 2016 election. Plans and ideas of individual (prospective) candidates are now surfacing at least one every day. And there is basically nothing wrong with this. Anyone is free to "share” his/her ideas.

However, it would be much more revealing if these ideas were part of the vision of the party that the candidate represents. Parties are required by law to publish a party program. How do individual candidates’ plans align with these programs? How realistic are these desires of candidates? How do individual candidates' statements align with the party they could potentially come to represent in Parliament?

It is a fact that overall, we lack cohesiveness in our planning for the country. Furthermore, where there currently already are plans, these are oftentimes guarded and shrouded in secrecy. How refreshing would it be if e.g. the plans for Philipsburg were shared with the public at large from the planning stages? The current government building, the post office building and the old fire station. If you speak to 5 persons, there are 5 "plans" for these buildings.

With government plans made public, businesses can plan, and entrepreneurs can start to think of a business niche that they can engage in.

The same holds true for Cole Bay and Simpson Bay. The recent invitation by Government for bids to upgrade from Welfare Road down to Simpson Bay is a worthwhile initiative, but the public at large should know what government envisages for this "strip" and not leave it up solely to the contractor with the "best" design. I know what I would like to see: sidewalks of course, a promenade, road side seating, lighting, etc.

Why have discussions with stakeholders for an economic plan that has yielded nothing tangible? What is the holdup with the National Development Plan for St. Maarten? These are but some of the questions on people's minds, especially the persons who participated.

In addition to stability in government, a government of leaders with their noses pointed in the same direction would be a welcomed shift in the way we do government business on St. Maarten.

Simply put, we need a common vision for St. Maarten that can be shared with the people to bring back the trust in government. We need a change alright! A change of climate....in our community; in our streets; in our government, and in our schools, etc.

The foregoing is to stimulate a discussion on party programs, candidates' loyalty and the actual workings when these translate into seats in parliament, and potential representation in government.

Sarah Wescot-Williams, MP

Democratic Party (DP) Leader

Dear Editor,

  In a recent press release I noted that the US party listed independence as one of its goals and laid out the philosophy of independence using the analogy that a child should at some point leave the parental home and become independent. This analogy has been regularly used in recent years by various politicians on Sint Maarten.

  I would like to offer a different analogy for independence, and argue that this analogy is misleading.  I would like to start by pointing out that the challenges of a micro state (which we are) are very different to states with greater scale .The first subliminal message component of this  analogy is  that by leaving the parental home (mother country ) we will get to be a “bigger “country is misleading .. We will under all circumstances remain a micro state with the challenges of that micro scale, which we have discovered more about in the last six years.

  Allow me to offer a similar but more suitable analogy, also in the field of child development. Let me suggest that the challenges of statehood are more like the challenges of a school playground. In order to survive and prosper and maintain dignity, the child in a playground needs to belong to a club, groups and even gangs in order to maintain dignity, maybe protection and stature. In the global playing field of states this same challenge exists.

  Like the playground, there are many clubs and groups to join or avoid .These clubs/groups/gangs are monetary unions, defence unions (NATO) trading unions (EU, CARICOM, Mercosur) Freedom of movement clubs (EU, OECS) Survival success and dignity depend on effective affiliations and collaboration, particularly for a small state and particularly crucial for a micro state.

  Sint Maarten finds itself belonging to a “kingdom club” which is dominated by the original founder of the club, the Netherlands. The appreciation of this particular club differs depending on the view you have of the club’s rules. If you are a politician, who does not like to be hemmed in, it is particularly frustrating. If you are a citizen traveller, it is a good club for travelling with a great passport. If you come from a country where you have felt the consequences of the rule of law being in doubt, you are likely to appreciate this club. If you have a strong cultural interest in affiliating with parties with similar historical experiences like slavery, then it is a mixed bag.

  To pursue the playground analogy, to consider other clubs or partially other clubs, we need to do some serious research into what the other clubs offer. Do we want to consider the OECS club with a monetary union, or the CARICOM club which is a little looser? Do we want to re-join the Antillean club that we just sort of left? What are the costs of these options? Can we afford these costs?

  There seems little doubt that, like the school playground, you have to join some clubs to survive and prosper. Especially if you are as small as we are. But what are the real options on clubs?  Talking of leaving is cheap. Real data on alternative options by our present politicians is almost non-existent. There are no really obvious options.

Robbie Ferron