Dear Editor,

On reading a letter sent to you with the heading "Don't miss the simple solutions," I was wondering whether that letter was to really get the pedestrian crossings painted or if it was directed to those of us who write to you regularly.

Let me say this. Writing to you is not an obligation of anyone so no one decides what should be written or not. I do not react to individuals because I maintain that everyone has a right to his/her opinion. Even when my name is mentioned in letters to you, if no further explanation is necessary, I do not react. I do not question peoples' reason for writing or not writing.

By now I think that government is aware that government is responsible for the maintenance of the roads and the signage. I have written many letters to the editors of newspapers, but I have never written anything about boating or the lagoon, which I very well can because I was among the first members of the Maritime Police and even before that dealt with several cases in Great bay and the lagoon. But let bygones be bygones.

Maintaining the painting and signage on the roads are simple things and should be constantly done for the safety on the roads, but in all fairness, just like those thousands of drivers who use the cell phone while driving, not paying attention to the process of the traffic, too often drivers are confronted with pedestrians who go along their merry way disregarding the traffic crossing the street while talking on the phone.

I write about a lot of things but not simple things that are obvious; those I leave for knit-pickers or those who want a stick to beat a dog. I get on the phone or go personally to those involved. Incidentally, about two months ago you could have noticed workers painting the border around the sidewalk by GEBE yellow. That happened within a week after I spoke to the gentleman in charge of that department by GEBE. MP Maurice Lake could attest to the fact that during his tenure as Minister I pointed out several places that needed to be painted and he had it done.

I am a sticker for doing the little things. Let me repeat myself for the umpteenth time. In issuing permits to businesses, government should "make a deal" if not make it a condition that those businesses should maintain the roof of a school or paint it, maintain a section of the road, etc. I know that painting is an essential part of boating, so probably the author of that letter could consider the maintenance of some street markings since this is low hanging fruit in the long process of making St. Maarten as great as it can be.

Russell A. Simmons

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,

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,

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