Dear Editor,
Many letters to the editor are focused on explaining the complex relationships between electorate and politicians and between interest groups , and divulging various conspiracies The common goal is probably to show deep insight and solutions to apparently complex problems . Only seldom do letters cover really simple obvious issues, like unmanaged sewage or holes in the road. I suppose these do not attract the interest of the writers.
In many cases, however, a focus on these is more productive than on the more common subjects. So in that spirit I want to point attention to a very simple problem that has simple solutions.
My subject is the lack of paint on pedestrian crossings and the unmaintained signs alongside them. The pedestrian crossings are a great thing, and generally Sint Maarten people are very correct in using them and giving pedestrians right of way. But there are many instances where it is very difficult to see that there is actually a pedestrian crossing due to the paint being worn out. An example is the one that is right outside the police station that is used by persons walking to USM.
The solutions must surely be simple! There is no world shortage of road-marking paint. Road markers are easier to find than rocket scientists, or good politicians. As these markings are not maintained the risk to the pedestrian increases disproportionately. Imagine the situation with a pedestrian, who knows there is a legal crossing there because he or she has been using it for a long time, and a recently-arrived driver who does not know there are the vague remains of a crossing, but does not see it and hits the pedestrian. The resulting injuries are typically going to create legal expenses that will be multiples of the cost of painting white lines and re-erecting a pedestrian sign.
This is simple stuff; low-hanging fruit in the long process of making St. Maarten as great as it can be.
Robbie Ferron
Dear Editor,
When Trump entered the race for Republican nomination for president last summer, it was clear that his strategy was to appeal, through his speeches and comments, to the far right-wing of the party, made up mostly of white people who had adverse views of the black President, blacks in general and immigrants in the United States from various racial and religious backgrounds.
One of the first statements he gave was that immigrants entering the country from Mexico in large numbers were guilty of crimes, rape and drug use, that he would expel the 11 million immigrants that were here already, and that he would build a 12 foot wall along the Mexican border to keep the transients out. Trump did not explain how he would pay for the huge cost of expelling all those immigrants, and when asked about the heavy cost of the wall, he blithely said he would make Mexico pay for that cost, how, he did not say.
Trumps standing in the polls with some nine other Republican candidates rose immediately to 20 percent, the highest in the group. Later in his campaign when people in the United States were becoming concerned about terrorism, he labelled Muslims in the country as being potentially dangerous and henceforth none should be allowed to enter the country.
Moreover, he suggested that those already here should be quarantined. The United States is viewed by the world as a country open to all people, regardless of race, religion or place of origin and the views Trump was advancing ran totally contrary to those ideals. In addition, Trump stated that, as president, he would reintroduce not only water-boarding but even more severe forms of torture. This, of course, would be contrary to International law which prohibits torture.
On the economics side, Trump pointed to what he claimed, inaccurately, that the US had a $400 billion deficit in trade with China, and that as president, he would impose punishing tariffs of Chinese products coming into the US. He also said that tariffs would also be imposed on goods from Mexico, apparently not realizing that many of these products, such as cars, are manufactured by US companies.
Trump says that this would help the US economy, and those on the far right, with little or no perception of history, and believing Trump to be an economic wizard, accepted this as gospel.
History has shown, however, particularly the tariff program Herbert Hoover set up in 1928, that tariffs such as what Trump has proposed, would set off trade wars which would stifle the economies of the countries involved.
Beyond this, Trump introduced into his campaign a level of invective and crude remarks never before seen in political campaigns. For example, the capable female Fox reporter who had the temerity to question Trump during the first debate about negative remarks he had made about certain TV women, was later vilified by Trump who said blood was coming from her eyes as well as from other parts, an especially nasty comment about a women.
He called Ted Cruz a “liar” repeatedly, Marcus Rubio “little Marcus,” Mitt Romney “a failure” and belittled Hillary Clinton for being late in returning to her podium during a debate because she went to the toilet, which he found “disgusting.”
Yet with all that, he called Putin a great statesman. And several times Trump has referred to the size of his “manhood,” itself reflecting a degree of insecurity.
Even with these extreme comments, he continued to rise in the polls, with particular big support from undereducated white men. Since nothing Trump may say lessens his support, one can only wonder about the well-being of those supporters.
Lately, however, Trump has tried to be less abrasive and more accommodating. As he sees himself becoming the Republican nominee, believing he has the firm support of the far right, he nevertheless knows that that support represents only about 35 per cent of those Republicans who voted in primaries. And he is ten points behind both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in national polls.
He must, therefore, attract considerable support from independent voters who make up about 40 per cent of the national electorate, and to do this he realizes he must come across as more mild.
Last week, he appeared before the AIPAC, the powerful national Jewish group. It was expected that he would not be well received because has said in the past that he would remain neutral in the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. But during his speech before the group last Monday, he extolled Israel and repeatedly said all the right things about how he would support it. Apparently forgetting what Trump had said in the past, the audience gave him a standing ovation. People have short memories all too often.
There are still times, however, when Trump can’t resist the urge to bluster. Angered by the audacity of protesters to disrupt one of his rallies, he urged his supporters to “beat the crap out of him.” At another rally, he said about a protester: “I liked the old days…what they used to do with guys like that? They’d be carried out on a stretcher.” Another time, he said: “I’d like to punch him in the face.” And that is what one supporter actually did before kicking the man hard while he was down.
Is it presidential for a candidate to urge people to violence such as this? Such manliness? The rednecks in his audiences loved it. But you can expect Trump to curb his anger and try to be conciliatory in his campaign, seeking support from voters outside the far right. One must remember, however, the terrible things he has said and how he has divided the country with his disparagement against minorities, especially Muslims and Hispanics, and the extreme measures he plans to use against them which would turn the country into a police state.
Stephen A. Hopkins
Dear Editor,
The art of diplomacy is a gift that is nurtured by vision, patience, experience and timing. It is never rushed; so patience becomes the component that allows a person to integrate his or her experience, to achieve the vision.
The continuation of the budget was an illustration of talent that could not be matched by the bewildered members of the opposition. They came prepared to play another hand of poker but were outfoxed by their own game. The flood of frustration forced them to throw in the towel prematurely.
It was a pitiful moment to see the House of Parliament turned into a creche when MP Tamara Leonard pleaded with the Chairlady to postpone the meeting until Monday. Her face revealed that of an infant who is about to cry, because her babysitter left the room. This is the hypocrisy of this MP, who hardly attends meetings and vowed to reject the budget before it came to Parliament. What is it she is trying to prove now and who is she fooling?
MP Leona Marlin-Romeo has proven over and over that she is just a phony and does not come close to represent a fraction of educated black women. If one withdraws his or her motion, why dwell on something that is irrelevant at the time? It was just utter nonsense to hear her make reference to soliciting funds from ministers’ budget to finance her selfish desires.
Why didn’t she propose this in the beginning or better yet, subtract it from Parliament? The more she tries to wiggle her way out of the situation, the deeper she buries herself. The MP needs to give it up! If her requests were sincere, she would have never abandoned the meeting as if she had to go to the bathroom. Nothing else was more important than dealing with the People’s Business!
The worst part of the budget debate occurred during the voting session when MP Cornelius de Weever turned his back on the Chairlady of Parliament. The embarrassment pieced my heart, to see an elected official, who prides himself to be a student of medicine and a proponent for the youth, lowers himself to a level that is beyond indecency. MP Cornelius de Weever is replicate of a spoiled brat.
The only thing that was missing on Thursday was a pacifier to push in his mouth. This is an MP, who recently went on national airwaves and indicated his desire to be a minister once more. Who wants a minister that has absolutely no respect for the President of the same organization that he is a part of? What does his mannerism says about his character and ability to be a team player? If MP Cornelius de Weever can treat the Chairlady of Parliament in such an impertinent manner, imagine how he treats women behind closed doors.
Take a good look at what is happening people! The MP smells the rat and has anticipated that it is a strong possibility that he may not get the support of the population. So, to maintain the power, the only logical discourse is to make himself available to become a minister again. It is too late! He blew his chances in 2014, when he deceived his party and the people. Who wants a renegade Minster of Health that repeatedly refused to honour the invitations of Parliament? Instead, he preferred to spend his time island hopping, rather than being committed to take care of the “People’s Business.”
Every time this MP gets a chance, he spurts out these pretentious words, “For the people of St. Maarten.” When he turned his back on the Chairlady of Parliament, did he do it for the people of St. Maarten? MP Cornelius de Weever is a bad influence and a useless commodity in the House of Parliament. Therefore, he needs to resign and resume his hobby and continue looking for his kind.
It was so ridiculous to hear the opposition begged for an adjournment of the budget. Every parliamentarian knew that there was a strong possibility that the budget would have reconvened towards the end of the week. The Chairlady of Parliament made this announcement several times immediately after the budget was suspended the week before. She also indicated that the CFT would be on island for meetings. If the opposition had interest in the “People’s Business,” all of them would have made themselves available.
This dispassionate attitude clearly shows where their interests lie. Everything else has priority except working for the people of this country. It is time for the population to wise up and vote them out completely!
Joslyn Morton
Dear Editor,
Much praised is given to MP Lloyd Richardson for supporting the budget. On the contrary, I really do not see what is commendable about his gesture; even if he did not endorse the financial statement it would have passed anyway. What is amazing though is to see how some persons are dazzled by his decision to back the budget. The reaction to his choice truly reveals how shallow these persons think, and how easily they are fooled by disguised intentions.
If one backtracks a little, the recent developments that surrounded the budget will pinpoint exactly where MP Lloyd Richardson’s heart is. Despite the MP’s show in Parliament on Thursday last, no one will convince me that his decision was totally sincere. When I reflected on the process of his final judgment, it is obvious that he was unwilling to give a clear indication of his decision from the onset. If this was not the case why would an MP of the National Alliance have to beg him to support the budget?
What transpired after that was a continuous pursuit to get MP Lloyd Richardson to commit himself. Eventually, the MP made it clear that he will only meet with a coalition member if either the UP leader or his deputy is present. What does this action indicate? Does it really signify that he is in favour of the budget and that his decision is completely independent?
In addition, during the drive to Point Blanche MP Lloyd Richardson was not man enough to let the prime minister know beforehand that they would be joined by UP leader Theo Heyliger. Instead, he gave the prime minister a directive and surprised him when they got to the specific destination. Both ministers and the UP leader gave conflicting accounts of what took place. MP Lloyd Richardson is only one who has not made a statement. Why is that?
MP Lloyd Richardson displayed the same behaviour as he did when he jumped ship from the National Alliance in 2014. Back then the MP also drove around with the leader of the NA, but did not have the balls or the respect to let him know that he will be joining the UP Party. In fact, when it was rumoured that he was going to leave the NA and was questioned by the leader, he assured him that he was still on board with the National Alliance. Then he wants to convince the public that he stands by his word?
Guaranteed, if the UP leader was present MP Lloyd Richardson would have never voted for the budget. The only reason why he did was because he had a little bit of freedom. In retrospect, just the week before he refused to sign in for the budget. Besides, throughout the meeting his face and body language displayed the anguish of a man who was wrestling with his conscience. He too supported his colleagues’ desire and voted to postpone the same budget.
Furthermore, MP Lloyd Richardson informed this public that he supports the budget because the Minister of Finance Richard Gibson assure d him that he will take his demands into consideration. If the MP sincerely believed in the philosophy of the budget he would have never placed any demands in exchange for his vote.
It is laughable and sometimes scary to watch a parliamentarian command a guest to address him or her differently, other than a Member of Parliament. It was just plain stupidity and ignorance to hear MP Rudolphe Samuel interrupt Julio Romney, to address him as Dr. Rudolphe Samuel. Truly, “When ignorance is bliss, it is folly to be wise.”
The irony of the situation is that the MP is dealing with someone who really has a PhD, which the MP has not achieved as yet. Dr. Romney also has several other degrees, many more than MP Rudolphe Samuel. This kind of attitude is what is stifling the progress of Parliament. When he made the remark, both the Chairlady and the presenter were stunned at his juvenile behaviour.
During the first part of the budget, MP Leona Marlin-Romeo demanded that the Minister of Finance Richard Gibson respond to her as a minister and not as an attorney. Wow!
Does the Chairlady of Parliament demand any member to address her according to her position? She is much more brilliant than that. In fact, even those who disrespect themselves and the public continuously do not get her attention at all. She just lets them wallow in the mud and bring more embarrassment to themselves.
What is missing in Parliament is honesty and maturity; persons who can think independently and remain humble, regardless of their status or possession of a degree.
Joslyn Morton
Dear Editor,
St. Maarten people, over the years, have grown stronger in their belief in democracy that is in direct contrast to communism theocracy or anarchy. We also believe our leaders to be honourable and respectable persons. The events of the last few years of total Dutch intervention months of ongoing investigations and weeks of incarcerations is beginning to take its toll on our democratic belief and psyche.
Firstly we don’t seem to be able to get the truth from our politicians. And added thereto the continued emphasis on political gamesmanship where we set out to outdo or outlast our adversary with nothing but nonsensical spin. The latest point is the proposed sewage processing plant financed by the E.U. The present government accuses the past administration of illegal deals with Port de Plaisance in the land swap for a streak of land in the vicinity of the Causeway for beach property at Simpson Bay east (Kim Sha).
PdP would be getting prime property in exchange for a piece that is in actuality useless besides which they will be able to encircle a beach making it virtually private and setting up yet another pre-apartheid South African boom controlled area in free-for-all St. Maarten.
The past government believes that its successor is political pandering to its base (truckers and heavy equipment operators) by agreeing to fill in more of the lagoon. To we the people what is seen is pretty clear. Some months ago sand was being trucked from the harbour to an area to the north of the airport above the Red Cross. We were told that it has to do with the airport expansion only to find out that statement was untruthful. It was done by the Harbour Group of Companies and now we see boats mooring there and like times before we won’t be able to have them removed.
As history shows us with character beach bar set up totally and build without a permit and only when they tried to build a retaining wall government chose to step in. Of course our liberal colonial courts decided we couldn’t move them. As for the filling or constructing of an islet in the lagoon to accommodate the plant we would like to know why it cannot be done on land on the French-side adjacent to the border or on an islet that already exists in the lagoon.
As noted before the lagoon is rapidly disappearing and it should not be left up to a few unscrupulous politicians and ignominious leaders to decide on necessity of our inland waters. It would seem that the French State with whom this project is negotiated are very protective of their patrimony but have no problem when our “leaders” readily agree to either sell or destroy the little we have left.
Not too long ago a boat called the Yellow Bird that normally offers lagoon cruises was prevented from visiting the French side because they off loaded their garbage in the bins at the marina. I tried to verify if this was really the reason but could not get the information. What I know is its unfortunate because this cruise is quite a tourist attraction and also brings shopping business to Marigot during the stop over.
Political reform will benefit our leaders only we need to know that we will still have a country in the end and if it is our intention to fill the lagoon beyond recognition. The people also have a right to know if they can visit the beach called Kim Sha in the future and not be obstructed like they are with boulders at Mullet Bay or the Forth at Divi Little Bay.
Government knows or ought to know that a beach overloaded with tourists offers no room for the local population and moreover the ugly booms belong in another place and another time.
Elton Jones
