Dear Editor,
Earlier this week, we read that a young man of 21 years was gunned down in the city of Schiedam in the Netherlands. The fact that he was dark complexioned, and ethno-racial profiling among Dutch police officers in the Netherlands is condoned as an unfortunate security measure. It has caused many activists throughout the Kingdom of the Netherlands to argue that this is one of the outcomes of a situation where, it has become politically suspect to say that racism within the Dutch Kingdom is unacceptable!
In this contribution, we seek to say the new politically suspect as loud as possible: Dutch racism is unacceptable! “Sticks and stones may break our bones, but words can never hurt us.” Whoever wholeheartedly believes that this saying holds true all the time, and in every occasion, is either lying to themselves, or not part of the human species.
The fact is that words like stones can lead to suffering. It is true that the hurt produced by words is of a different kind—psychological rather than physical—but a hurt it is nevertheless. What is more, we remain silent when listening to these words, forgetting that these words can lead to actions.
The racist slurs hurled at chocolate-coloured Dutch pop icons, activists and TV presenters (to name a few; Sylvana Simmons, the poet and dramatist Quinsy Gario, and the rappers Kno’ledge Cesare and Typhoon), contest what they perceive as the racism embedded in the annual Sint Nicolaas and Black Peter celebrations, which many believe leads to psychological suffering.
In addition, the treatment that they and the many thousands of dark-skinned Dutch men and women (who do not have the benefit of being celebrities) receive because they allow opposing views, is unacceptable. If persons in the Netherlands tolerate that kind of psychological hurt, which we term verbal racial discrimination, they are destroying the very foundations of the social democracy they so cherish.
One of the building blocks of the democratic tradition, is the belief that everyone has a right and a duty to freely express their individuality, and therewith pursue becoming who they want to be; in short, making a life for themselves as independent and free individuals. In that pursuit, however, they have to take their fellow citizens and others with whom they live (denizens, irregular migrants, and animals as they too increasingly have rights!) into account.
The state, the government apparatus, is there for two reasons:
1) To ensure the human dignity of individuals who live within their borders and their endeavours to better express and make themselves by providing all kinds of provisions, such as equal opportunities to education and general healthcare, etc.,
2) And conversely, to offer overall protection by creating incentives (informative campaigns, punishments and fines) to prevent and curtail individuals’ acts that damage the social bond and unjustly cause suffering to others within the country’s borders – and due to the International Bill of Human Rights also outside those borders; the global common good.
It goes terribly wrong, and there are growing signs of this, when elected officials in the Netherlands become the chief instigators in the trend to demolish the social democratic tradition of their country. Let me furnish an illustration. A few days ago, in a TV interview, Mr. Halbe Zijlstra, the former State Secretary in charge of Education and Science, and currently Member of the Dutch Parliament for the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), stated that he condones ethno-racial profiling by the Dutch police. This was in reference to the discrimination suffered by rapper Typhoon, who was pulled over because the officer reasoned that a person with his dark complexion should not be driving such an expensive car.
He implicitly reasoned that the psychological hurt endured by Typhoon and other victims does not weigh up against – making selective use of sociological statistics – the general safety of the Dutch population, as everyone ‘knows’ that dark complexioned Dutch men and women commit more crime. Aside it is important to note that it is customary for politicians in The Hague to refer to dark complexioned Dutch men and women as allochtonen, meaning those who do not really belong to the Dutch soil or who do not have the right blood.
A case of racism dressed up in Sunday school clothes that makes Dutch Antilleans and Surinamese-Dutch (who like their grandparents have never carried any other passport than a Dutch one), not really Dutch! And the idea that Dutch citizens of Moroccan, Turkish, Eastern European descendant have it better because of their lighter skin tone and other physical features is a lie. Individuality, autonomy, and the right to make oneself, are sacrificed when one is a dark complexioned Dutch man or woman, and the latter are told that they should find that acceptable!
Since one must take MP Zijlstra to be a reasonable man, a free and rational human being, we are sure that he would not condone that pink-skinned Dutch citizens, who hail from the Netherlands, living here in the Caribbean side of the Dutch Kingdom accept ethno-racial profiling. Zijlstra and we are guessing other politicians with the portfolio of the Dutch Caribbean would immediately respond. No amount of selective use of statistics, even if those statistics were true, would suffice in making it acceptable that the ‘somebodiness’ of individuals to use the term of Martin Luther King is disrespected. And so it should be!
Dutch racism in which ever form, whoever perpetuates it, ought to be unacceptable in any part of the Kingdom! And we have our share here too! Perhaps it is time that those in power consider a trans-Atlantic committee to rid us all from that blight that manifest itself in words and in deeds.
Dr. Francio Guadeloupe, President of the University of St. Martin (USM)
Dr. Adnan Hossain, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Amsterdam
Dr. Natasha Gittens, Director of the USM/SCELL
Drs. Jordi Halfman, University of Amsterdam
Ms. Geneve Phillip, Dean of Academics, USM
Drs. Lisenne Delgado, University of Curaçao
Drs. Sharelly Emanuelson, Founder of UNIARTE, Curaçao
Mr. Pedro de Weever, Lecturer at the USM
Dear Editor,
On June 1, 2016, the Minister of Finance stated to the media that there are too many institutions and businesses in St. Maarten that are not affording upward mobility to locals, a practice that must be halted. He was particularly critical about the tourism/resort sector, the Prosecutor’s Office and the Court, saying that locals could not be found in any high or managerial position.
He called on defaulting institutions and businesses “to nurture locals to break through to the managerial positions, so they too can participate in this economy, learn the ropes, because that is the best for St. Maarten. He mentioned if it doesn’t come by evolution, it will come through revolution.”
It is funny to see that the Minister’s actions are quite contrary to what he is saying.
I make that statement because the Minister is looking to take a loan of NAf. 20 million to go to Curaçao to invest in an application developed by a foreign company. Why hasn’t he given companies in St. Maarten the opportunity to bid on this huge project? By doing this he’s not allowing upward mobility of locally operated companies and by default locals. Why isn’t he nurturing local operated businesses? There are companies operating locally that have developed applications for government, there is a locally-owned company with all local employees that developed and successfully implemented the tax application used by our French counterparts.
The Minister also mentioned that the approach of not affording upward mobility to locals also affects the country’s economy and budget, as non-locals amass their wealth and then leave with it as opposed to investing it here, but the Minister is going to purchase an application from a foreign company that will in no way or from contribute to St. Maarten’s economy.
The Minister’s actions are no different to those businesses on the island that are not affording upward mobility to locals.
My advice to the Minister of Finance is: a man’s word is his bond, do not make statements and have your actions contradict your statements, otherwise you are just like the rest of them. Practice what you preach and lead by example.
Jason Peterson
Dear Editor,
I recently ran into this article by Dennis E.A. Arrindell in the featured column section of the Curaçao Chronicle newspaper. Many of you may not know that our present Leftist/Marxist labour laws were legislated into law in the mid-seventies by the then Marxist government of Papa Godett, Amador Nita and Stanley Brown of the “Frente Obrero Liberashon” Socialist Party. Below are some excerpts of Mr. Dennis Arrindell’s spot-on assessment of our current high unemployment situation.
“Youth unemployment is an issue that is frequently discussed in formal and informal circles in Curaçao and St. Maarten. I often observe frustrated young people exclaim: “How can I get any experience if nobody will hire me because of lack of experience?” Awkward attempts by politicians and policymakers to address this issue only expose the utter lack of economic logic to which we have let our political discussions degenerate.
The most common proposed solutions are all based on forms of labour protectionism and creating subsidized jobs. This unsensible approach is nothing more than a hidden form of wealth redistribution, as no actual value is created by protecting jobs from effective competition or by subsidizing them directly. Obviously this populist approach does not offer any long term sustainability. Most credible reports on the Curaçao and St. Maarten economy tend to agree about one thing – to promote economic growth, the St. Maarten/Curaçao labour market is in dire need of flexibilization.
Yet we find that in practice the government aims toward the complete opposite and blatantly disregards economic logic in favour of utopian delirium. I therefore find it appropriate to briefly highlight the true causes of youth unemployment in St. Maarten and Curaçao, as unsettling as they might be for some.
Reason 1: Too many of our youngsters have created the habit of focusing only on extracting value out of their employers instead of adding value to the employer.
Reason 2: An inflexible labour market. A culture of encouraging post-colonial victimization from a very early age on, glorifying labour rights and blaming all individual adversities on differences in sex or skin colour has essentially created a large group of highly egoistic and dysfunctional people that are simply not desirable to hire as employees.
The employers unfortunate enough to have hired people from this group soon find themselves in a quagmire of undisciplined and ill-mannered workers that feel offended and discriminated against one way or another whenever their superiors give them orders or even suggestions on the job.
This dysfunctional group cannot easily be fired because of the fact that the bureaucratic “dismissal committee” takes months to review a single case (during which the employer is still obligated to pay wages and socials premiums). But the employers learn their lesson fast; for the next job opening they will be a lot more picky whom they choose.
Reason 3: Supporting trade unions means supporting youth unemployment. In Curaçao and St. Maarten we have a long history of admiring and respecting trade unions. Few people realise that trade unions function primarily as an instrument of labour supply control. By being able to control the labour supply and by limiting competition from non-labour union members, the labour unions essentially attempt to monopolize labour in order to demand higher wages for their affiliated members.
The effect is very simple: Existing jobs are protected at the expense of new jobs (filled mainly by young people). Thusly, supporting labour unions is equivalent to supporting youth unemployment.
Reason 4: Supporting the existence of the minimum wage means supporting youth unemployment. The primary way by which trade unions obstruct competition from new entrants is by pricing lowly skilled labourers (mainly young inexperienced people) out of the market. This is achieved by the minimum wage. The higher the minimum wage, the more expensive the hiring of lowly skilled labour becomes. Consequently, employers no longer hire lowly skilled labour as they become too expensive, but instead will only hire more experienced workers whose productivity is more in line with the minimum wage.
Cynical as it may sound, the existence of the minimum wage is one of the primary causes of youth unemployment and serves no other purpose than to protect the established workers from competition with the lowly skilled workers.
If young people could work for a lower wage, they would at least get a job and gain experience and discipline, which eventually increases their market value. Instead, the government and members of parliament opt to habitually and with a great deal of flamboyancy, combined with misleading propaganda, take pride in raising the minimum wage.
Every time the minimum wage is raised, more lowly skilled people end up being priced out of the job market and are forced to make a living in the shadow economy. Thusly, supporting the existence of a minimum wage is equivalent to supporting youth unemployment. The New Curaçao 80/20 law will further dive the nail in the coffin for investment. Thank you Mr. Arrindell for your accurate and dead-on assessment of our present negative unemployment situation.
Remember, a couple of years ago when the then minister of labour Mr. de Weever made a deal with Sheriff Security to train locals to be security guards. Several thousands of dollars of tax payers’ funds were spent in this populist endeavour. How many locals do you see working as security guards today? The prime minister is coming with another “populist” subsided job scheme again that will raise taxes on gasoline and electricity which is guaranteed to further produce more negative results that will not offer any long-term sustainability for the economy and unemployment.
Peter Gunn
Dear Editor,
I have come to realize that a great majority of people don’t really know much about the kind of diet needed for the proper functioning of their bodies, as well as how to keep healthy or even minimize the possibility of the onset of sickness or decease.
We eat to stay alive. We eat because we know our body needs food and drink. So we eat to live, but we don’t eat to stay healthy. There is a difference. You can eat all the junk or fast foods available. Yes, it will keep you alive, but not healthy. Sooner or later it will cause you to develop some kind of disease, taking you in and out of the doctor offices, hospitals, pharmacies, and in the worse cases eventually to the morgue.
But, how much does good nutrition have to do with our health and well-being? Continual decline in health and rise in disease increased when man began to process his food. When we moved from eating our foods directly from the soil to modernized, mechanically-processed factory foods.
From a Global Health review over the past decade, it has been reported that there is an increase spending on health. Each year doctors see more patients; a growing number of medicines are prescribed; ambulances and aero-medical services attend to transport more people; hospitals and emergency departments are busier, and more surgeries are performed.
In spite of more breakthroughs in medical science, technology and inventions, man is experiencing a decline in overall health, and is losing the battle against the rise in sickness or killer diseases. Medical science today is facing an uphill battle against incurable diseases that refuse to bow to man’s wisdom and technology.
So where do we go from here? Very simple, prevention is better than cure. We need to change our way of eating. From a survey it has been reported that in America an estimated 150 billion dollars alone per year is spent on people suffering from chronic diseases. More than 75 per cent of this nation’s population has to take some kind of prescription drug on a daily basis. Now you might say, well what does the impact of America’s health and consumption of quality food have to do with us here in the Caribbean? Bear in mind that most of the food we eat comes from the US. Is it any wonder why today we are confronted with many ailments, just to mention a few, such as obesity, high blood pressure, Alzheimer’s, stroke, diabetes, Autism, and now the increase of cancer on this island?
Most of us, because of our busy modern stressful lifestyle, don’t even have time to cook. So it’s easier to order or pick up a readymade, over-the-counter, quick-fix meal or sandwich on the way. We feel that should do the trick, because it will save time or prove beneficial. But, later on the consequences will become evident as our bodies will begin to react to how we have been abusing it through consuming the wrong diet.
It was Hippocrates who once said: “Let your food be your medicine, and medicine be your food. The good philosopher wasn’t referring here to any kind of food. He was talking about quality food. The proper nutritious kind of food that benefits our bodies. Foods that are capable of healing, rebuilding and strengthening our inner organs to function properly, and heal themselves.
I once met my house doctor just before he died, who I hadn’t seen in a long time. His reaction to me was: “But, I don’t see you.” I kindly responded to him: “That’s because I am keeping healthy.” Later on he died of some sickness. So, in the end I even managed to outlive my own house doctor.
Throughout my years of doing research and building my wisdom on how to keep healthy and minimize sickness, as a senior I am now enjoying the best of health every day. There is so much to say about this topic, more than enough to write a book. The secret of health and avoiding disease is keeping the laws of health. Matter of fact God, Himself, gave us the right kind of food to eat in the Garden of Eden. When you buy a new car or any kind of new appliance or electronic device, it will always come with a handbook or manual of the manufacturer to instruct you how to operate it; because as the creator of the product, he knows best. If you disregard the advice given then you will be in for trouble. Prevention and following the laws of nature will always be better than the cure.
A health conscious citizen
Name withheld at author's request
Dear Editor,
As a parent of two students in the Sixth Grade or Group 8, I wish to bring to the attention of the public, the Ministry of Education and the relevant stake holders the gross incivility meted out to our children, students attending the Public Schools.
On Thursday, May 19, 2016, a meeting was held at the Senior Citizens’ Hall in Hope Estate across from the Marie Genevieve De Weever Primary School.
The meeting was hosted by the Director of Public Education and the School Managers to brief parents about the school leaving exercise for the Group 8/grade 6 students.
I was only notified of this meeting the evening before by my children via a letter when I got home from work. It was in my children’s interest that I attended the meeting even though it was short notice.
I expected to hear complimentary things about the school leaving exercise but was most disappointed.
Why? For the past two years, the Education Ministry decided to dictate the format of the exercise to which parents agreed. This was that a fee of US $100 will be paid by each student. This money will provide the child with clothing and to secure a venue including a light snack. However, this year, a grey gown was the choice of clothing. The students will wear their school uniform to attend the ceremony with the gown.
This is not acceptable because the uniforms are worn and the children deserve to be better dressed. For me, it is either my children are provided with proper clothing or a refund of US $60.
The math in this scenario shows that US $40 per child will yield over US $9,500, which should be adequate to host the event.
Now at the meeting, the manner in which the Director addressed the parents was distasteful to put it mildly. These are our children and we have a right to be involved in decisions concerning our children. The Director is a dictator. She cannot tell parents that her decision is final and that parents do not have any other choice. Her remarks were supported by the Lionel Connor School Manager.
Parents felt unappreciated and disrespected, and tried to voice their concerns. The Director and the school manager from Lionel Connor were not accommodating. The other managers especially Martin Luther King and Oranje School laughed at us.
Notably, many students were present at this meeting and heard the rough and impolite manner in which the Director and Principal spoke and witnessed their uncultured behaviour.
I am wondering what kind of people are these School Managers and this Director. They deal with our children daily and have our children’s future in their hands.
The irony of this situation is that most teachers and those at the Education ministry do not have their children attending Public School. Their children attend the Semi private schools, the Catholic, Adventist, Hill Side, the MAC and Private schools, Learning Unlimited and CIA.
Further, the Director and the Oranje School Principal have their children abroad; the Principals of the Martin Luther King and Lionel Connor Schools have none.
Do these persons really care how parents feel, more so the children-students entrusted to their care.
They have put forward the point that they want parents to save money. That is not their business. They are totally out of place to think that. Can parents tell them what to do with their money and on whom they should spend it on?
Parents make sacrifices for their children. Therefore, I am calling on the Minister of Education and those in a higher authoritative position to urgently rectify this situation. The Director and Principals need to publicly apologize to the parents and our children.
Aggrieved but concerned parent
E.C. Alexander
