Dear Editor,
I am still waiting to encounter someone who will prove to me that experience is not the best teacher. So when someone approaches me with a story based on their experience I listen and evaluate whether what was told to me is reasonable or not. Another thing that I pay close attention to is that “Children become what they see, quicker than what you tell them.” If a father is telling his boy children not to wear their caps when they are having dinner and he himself is wearing a hat at the table, I can guarantee that is what they are going to do later in life.
A young man came to me and asked me if he can consult with me on who to vote for when we find out who is going to be on the different political lists. I told him sure. And that is not with the intention to influence him but because he demonstrated maturity. Come election day anything can change, but from what I have been seeing happening on St. Maarten since 10-10-’10, the only person since Mr. Kirindongo who has directly done anything for that amount of people on St. Maarten is our present Minister of Justice.
Whether her intentions were to put everything she was busy with under the spotlight or not, the police union and the Customs were breathing down her neck and even organized actions against the minister in charge of the Justice department. They know where the hold-up was and possibly still is, but nobody dared go over the bank.
Going back to why I am writing this letter; Children born in 2005 were 5 years old in 2010 and will be 18 years old in 2023 and will be able to vote. If one understands the intention of an investment, I hope that whoever the shoe fits will wear it. But for the sake of those who were born in 2005, those politicians should change their attitude and approach completely so that we might be able to rescue those who we put in harm’s way.
But who is actually to blame? Someone told me when I’m writing I should ask the government to put people on their party list who can read and write so that they at least understand what is written in the Constitution. By now all your readers know my point of view concerning the subject of Civics. I would think that at least their leaders would explain to those members of Parliament that Parliamentary immunity is only valid during parliament meetings and not for political campaigns. I can also understand that all of this could have taken place because the leaders were busy recruiting more yes-men.
From 10-10-’10 up until today, there have been at least 5 political elections. During those 5 campaigns we all know what kind of language was widely spread over the whole island and by whom. And how much money was invested into vote-buying. Those who are political leaders and those who campaigned for the various political parties know how those campaigns went in the presence of those 5-year-olds as they grew older every 2 years and in plain sight. Those children born in 2005 and before are at the most 18 years old and younger. When we maintain that children become what they see, are we really not aware of what those children have seen and experienced at least every 2 years as they grew from 5 to 18 years.
Was this negative behavior not demonstrated by the leaders of our country? I believe that we declare that that was an investment. But, boy, what an investment it was. The dividends can be found in the daily police reports, from the school bus drivers and the teachers of the schools in the St. Peters area. Not to talk about those motorbike riders. So I have to ask who is responsible? I have an idea what certain groups of people think about this last question but I maintain that theories do not rear children, people rear children. And contrary to what the Dutchman tries to impose on us, I maintain that if you spare the rod you will spoil the child. The proof is in the pudding.
We were 14 brothers and sisters. My father used to tell my mother not to spare the rod because a disciplined child does not not cause confusion, it is the rude child. He used to tell my mother, “I don't want to have to chop down the tree.”
January is just around the corner, I would appreciate it if the governor would have a meeting with all the political leaders stressing the behavior of the members of their political party with the youth of St. Maarten in mind.
Russell A. Simmons
Dear Editor,
Improving the Small Claims Court is good. Many people have made use of the Small Claims Court. But the lawyers, bailiff and plaintiff are still complaining verdicts are not delivered. Why?
The St. Maarten government should join CARICOM long time and get advice from CARICOM how to better run this island.
It seems like St. Maarten needs two justice ministers every term, because so long the people are crying out about so many injustices on this Island. So many laws are needed; the governor, Ombudsman, judges, parliamentarians, government, lawyers, police detectives, the politicians and all justice workers – all hands on deck to fix the justice system.
It should be possible for court verdicts and other court documents to be in English. Bailiffs need more locations they can deliver a verdict to anyone. Put three to five special police to work with the bailiff and the court.
Justice Minister, make it much easier to get a yellow card. Six weeks is too short for an appeal case – not enough time to put documents together and seek a yellow card if needed.
Have a special place people can collect money owed to them. Why did I never meet with Richardson’s lawyer in court?
Cuthbert Bannis
Dear Editor,
According to St. Maarten Hospitality and Trade Association (SHTA), the country registered nine per cent less room nights this summer compared to last summer. The short piece is an interesting read and it reflects, in the author's opinion, the shortcomings of what we are doing or haven’t done as a tourism reliant destination.
The travel sector is typically one of “monkey see, monkey do.” Destinations keep a close eye on one another and develop variations on what the competition is doing. However, the underlying motivations for travel largely remain. Why then do St. Maarten’s regional rivals fare so much better than the friendly island?
During the pandemic, tourism reliant destinations, including our neighbors, re-imagined their product in a post-pandemic world where travel was anticipated to be much different. Additional funding was allocated to new marketing initiatives and creative approaches to attract travellers.
The premise was straightforward: Predicting high air fares after the airline industry began to recover was not rocket science. Many destinations anticipated this accurately. To entice visitors, the islands must offer plenty of fresh attractions, new hotel brands, and marketing strategies that make the high ticket prices appear worthwhile. Even though our rivals in the area were making advancements in the aforementioned areas virtually on a daily basis, St. Maarten seemed to be oblivious to all of this..
What has SXM done to attract the post-pandemic traveller in a very competitive market? Other than ride the coat-tails of seasonal airlift and claim it as an accomplishment? Instead of casting a wide net, our neighbors used data-driven insights to target specific demographics and segments of travelers who were more likely to visit. This approach allowed for more efficient use of marketing resources.
Collaboration with airlines, travel agencies, and online travel platforms became crucial. Caribbean countries worked closely with these partners to create enticing packages, discounts, and promotions to attract travelers. Lastly, our competition recognized the need for flexibility. They closely monitored the evolving situation, adjusted their strategies accordingly, and communicated any changes transparently to potential travelers.
That calls into doubt the function of our marketing representatives abroad. Another new marketing company was recently contracted by St. Maarten, although its objectives and directives are unknown. We don’t know if they are being creative with the budget allotted or if we are stuck with marketing initiatives from the 90s. In the same context, why did we need a new firm? How did the latter fall short of expectations or fail? What did we learn from it, and how did we change and refocus the new company?
Lest I forget, we need a bigger tourism budget.
Michael R. Granger
With amazement, I learned yesterday about the initial information regarding the purchase of the Campo Alegre brothel (or at least the properties) by the Pisas II Cabinet. The first thing that came to mind was, "This can't be true," and "How foolish can one be?"
After the Prime Minister's statements, it turned out to be true. The government bought the properties as a "strategic investment" and would decide what to do with them in about 3 months.
It is a well-known fact that Pisas promised during the election campaign that MFK would reopen the Campo Alegre brothel, but it couldn't be that simple, could it? Not with 8 million guilders of public funds on the same day that water, electricity, and gasoline prices increased?
While government was negotiating a 1.2-billion-guilder loan in connection with the ENNIA debacle? Not just weeks after, only 1 million guilders could be allocated to provide 30 schools with air conditioning units to alleviate the unbearable heat in which our children and teachers could no longer attend classes?
So, I awaited the "intellectual explanation" in which a plausible argument would be provided to justify this political stunt, because surely, that must follow? This couldn't just be acceptable as is, could it?
There was no plausible explanation. I was unpleasantly surprised. What followed was a meaningless press release and the well-known Facebook statements by Silvania, one crazier than the other.
For those interested, I will briefly explain why none of the explanations make sense. In short, the explanation amounted to the following:
The government purchased strategic real estate with significant development potential, without a clear purpose, at a good price, with the intention of determining its use in three months, but also to ensure that ANG 8 million would flow into the Crime Fund so that cars, weapons, and uniforms can be purchased for the Justice system, which urgently needs them. Or as the Minister of Justice announced on his Facebook page: "Boom, 8 million in the Crime Fund."
Questions and Answers Regarding the Campo Alegre Purchase
1 Did the government have to buy Campo Alegre so that the Justice department could get money to buy cars, weapons, and uniforms? No. Real estate is purchased by the government using funds from the capital service of the budget. This is designated for (sustainable) investments and projects.
Every ministry (including Justice), every service (including KPC), buys weapons, cars, and uniforms through the capital service, not through the Crime Fund. The Crime Fund is only used for those purposes when there is no money available in the capital service.
The fact that there were funds available in the capital service is evident, especially from the purchase of Campo Alegre! If there was 8 million guilders available to buy Campo, why couldn't that money be used directly to purchase cars, weapons, and uniforms for Justice? Why divert money into the Crime Fund through the purchase of Campo Alegre?
2. Was it necessary for the government to buy Campo so that the funds would go into the Crime Fund? Absolutely not! Campo Alegre was under seizure by the Public Prosecutor's Office (OM). The sale proceeds would automatically go into the Crime Fund regardless of who bought it.
The seizure was made in the context of a criminal confiscation case. The intention is that third parties pay the money so that criminal proceeds are confiscated from the convicted individuals, and their criminal funds are used to bring about positive development in the community (Not government funds).
So, once again, regardless of which buyer purchased Campo, the money would go into the Crime Fund.
Furthermore, I am convinced that the purchase of Campo is counterproductive for the economy. By buying Campo, the government is actually preventing any (local or foreign) investor from bringing "new money" into the local economy because government funds that were already budgeted to be spent are now being used to hinder "fresh investment" in the local economy.
By spending the same money twice (buying Campo and materials for Justice), the government creates the illusion that the local economy is growing when, in fact, their actions are working against it.
3.Was the purchase so strategic? I remember during the discussion of the "transfer of lands to the US Consulate," the Minister of VVRP explained that he needed money to develop Landhuis Zuurzak (the former residence of the Gezaghebber). Like many government buildings, it was in disrepair, and a small amount would be sufficient to make it usable and profitable as "public property" again. To date, this has not happened.
Just like Landhuis Zuurzak, you have the City Hall (Courthouse Building), the Old BC Building, and dozens of other government-owned properties that need a "small investment" to significantly reduce government rental costs. However, this was not "strategic" enough for this government. No, buying a parcel of land for 8 million guilders without a "known" purpose was.
All in all, it quickly became clear that the Pisas Cabinet has simply used public funds to fulfill a campaign promise. After "tinted windows," no COHO, and the Soto Stadium, it's now time for the reopening of Campo Alegre. Next, we await the (actual) reopening of the Refinery, a "wip room" for SDKK, and "Plan B" (no more borrowing from the Netherlands).
Whether the Curaçao community has actually made any progress with these promises is questionable at best. Note that not even the central and relevant question of whether the government wants a prostitution center at Campo Alegre could be clearly answered by the Prime Minister.
Perhaps that had something to do with the prayer meeting the night before.
Quincy Girigorie
Curaçao
Dear Editor,
Of late I have been meeting people who continually let me know that they are surprised that I have not responded to the rhetoric of Olivier Arrindell. I usually consult the dictionaries when I use words which can be interpreted several ways. In this case the definition of rhetoric is “language designed to have persuasive or impressive effect, but which is regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content”.
Because it concerns politics I will use this saying as an example: “All we have from the opposition is empty rhetoric.” So my answer to those who expected me to write about Mr. Arrindell, my answer was and still is “Every man to his trade.”
I know that there are mixed sentiments and emotions among those who follow that gentleman. Some of them do not agree for him to be using the name of St. Maarten in conjunction with his obscene
language, even though he is talking about getting back the money which the corrupt politicians have ripped off the backs of St. Maarten people. When I ask what is wrong with that, the consensus is: “If we follow him, people are going to think that all St. Maarten people are like him.” At that point I usually change the subject because I would have to give an opinion and it might be taken out of context.
As you are aware I usually put my opinion black on white and I do not disperse information that I cannot vouch for.
In my experience on the job I have encountered thousands of people who were forewarned but did not adhere to what was said to them, and reacted with “If I had known.” But like I have written several times in the past, my father used to tell us, “I do not want to have to tell you ‘I told you so’ because 99 percent of the time, ‘I told you so’ comes as the result of something negative.”
All I will say is that there is a Dutch saying: “Een gewaarschuwd man telt voor twee” (in English, “forewarned is forearmed.”)
Even though my job got me involved in almost everything in the community, I still maintain “every man to his trade”.
Russell A. Simmons
