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

Dear Editor,

The average voter in the United States has become fed up with Congress because lately it has accomplished little or nothing in the way of legislation during a time of economic crisis and lack of jobs. Polls show the approval rating of Congress to be the lowest it has ever been, now less than 10 per cent.

The Senate, for example, is set up with an archaic rule, the filibuster rule, which requires 60 votes out of a total of 100 votes to even take up a bill or an appointment, rather than the simple majority of 51 votes. The Republicans in the Senate have used the filibuster some 80 times in the past four years to stifle almost all of what President Obama has submitted. The right wing has been doing this for no other reason than wanting to prevent Obama from having any perceived success, even on proposed legislation which they themselves had presented in the past.

To understand what is happening, we need to look at the makeup of the Senate and how it was created. When the Founding Fathers were seeking to draft the governing structure in Philadelphia, in order to secure the support of officials from the smaller states, they proposed the Senate which would have two senators from each state, regardless of the size of the state in terms of population.

This supposedly would be offset by a House of Representatives which would have members elected according to the number of citizens in the states. A census is held every 10 years to determine the population of each state, and the number of representatives in the House is adjusted upward or downward, depending on what the existing population figures reflect. Massachusetts lost one representative recently because its population, in comparison to the other states, went down.

Because of the makeup of the Senate, however, Wyoming for example, which had a population of 550,000 in 2009, has the same number of senators as New York or California which had 19.3 million and 36.9 million, respectively in 2009. (Wyoming is so small that it has only one member in the House of Representatives.) Moreover, those small states like Wyoming, which are primarily rural in nature, usually elect Republicans to the Senate (both Wyoming senators are GOP right wingers).

Since Blacks and Hispanics, who tend to vote for Democratic candidates, live in large cities such as Los Angeles and New York City, their votes for senatorial candidates represent a tiny fraction of the value of the typical white voter in Wyoming. Thus, in terms of popular votes for all senators on the national level, Democratic senators, mostly from larger-populated states, have many times the total popular votes than do Republicans, but still only two senators from each of those states.

But to compound this situation, the Senate has had the disgraceful filibuster rule by which any bill must have at least 60 votes, out of the total of 100 senators, to be allowed a vote on the merits of the bill, which would require only 51 votes for passage. Thus 41 senators can prevent a bill from even being advanced for consideration.

Since Obama became President, the Republicans as noted above have used the filibuster rule repeatedly to prevent legislation he proposed from going forward. In the past, the filibuster was used only in exceptional situations. In the 1960’s, the rule was used only eight per cent of the time, whereas in the past few years it has been employed 70 per cent of the time.

Obama and Democrats in Congress have proposed increases in taxes on the wealthy, but the GOP absolutely refused to consider any such increase, even to the level the wealthy paid before the Bush tax reduction in 2001. Note that in 2007, the top 25 hedge fund managers made an average of $900 million, but paid only 15 per cent in taxes. From 2002 to 2007, high-income Americans averaged increases in income of 10 per cent each of those six years, ending with average income of $1.34 million in 2007. Yet the taxes they have paid are lower. (Romney paid only 14 per cent on the millions he made.) The members of the middle class, on the other hand, averaged $52,000 in 2007, but only $50,000 in 2008.

On the bill to increase jobs Obama submitted last year, which included a five per cent surcharge on the wealthy to fund the programme, Mitch McConnell, the GOP’s dogged minority leader, was able to herd together even mildly moderate Republicans to join him in lockstep to filibuster the bill, preferring to help reduce the deficit not through any increase in revenue, but rather by limiting the benefits of Social Security and Medicare for the elderly and programmes for the poor. McConnell reportedly told his colleagues in caucus that they could “either hang together or hang separately,” a rather obvious threat.

   Those Republicans who will be up for re-election in 2014 probably believe that their support of filibuster on the jobs bill, for example, will not be recognised for what it was, namely, a vote against helping the jobless. They could, and surely will, piously claim that they did not vote against the creation of jobs, which of course, is a total distortion of how they defeated that particular bill.

No, the Founding Fathers did not always use wisdom and foresight in setting up our government as reflected by how the Senate operates. Actually, their original plan for the Senate was even worse. The plan, as first adopted, provided that members of the Senate would be elected by the legislatures of the individual states and this was how senators were first elected.

   It soon became apparent, however, that successful applicants for the Senate were wealthy individuals and that financial contributions (bribes) were often made to influential state officials to secure appointments. The law was finally changed in 1913 by way of the Seventeenth Amendment so that the position depended, as it does now, upon winning the popular vote.

The purpose of this article was to identify some of the reasons nothing gets done in the Congress, particularly the “do-nothing” Senate. A Republican Senator from a small, rural state with a vote in the Senate equal to another senator from a state with 40 or 70 times more voters can totally offset the vote of that Senator on any bill. Many Republicans are elected in rural states with smaller populations. Thus, in proportion to the total votes which Democratic candidates receive nationally to be elected Republicans senators, as a group, receive significantly fewer votes.

   But, that presumes a vote on the merits which does not happen because, as we have seen, the right wing uses the filibuster to prevent this. So, not only are Republicans able to control the Senate in this fashion with only 45 seats, but they can do so even though they have, compared to Democrats, far fewer total votes supporting them as a group on the national level. Ah, the wonders of a Democracy.

Stephen A. Hopkins

Dear Editor,

Thank you for some space in your paper. I just want to address this situation on vote buying among politicians. I have been following the news that made headlines in our newspapers, about Matser, as Member of Parliament being suspected and incarcerated for vote buying. Now I do understand that the National Detectives, the judge and Prosecutor, are all doing their job. Their duty is to maintain law and order on the island. Therefore, law breakers will be punished, or will be brought to justice.

But, dear editor, I believe when it comes to vote buying, we should start not from the present, but go all the way back to the beginning. We all would agree that vote buying on St. Maarten has been going on as the old people would say, “Since Noah was a boy.”

Dear editor, I am not here to defend Matser, because right is right, and wrong is wrong. And if you are wrong, and have broken the law, then you ought to be punished, so that others would not dare try the same stunt. This vote-buying thing is nothing else but old news. Going back to the good old days of political campaigns, many citizens on this island benefitted from the wheel and deal of vote buying by receiving gifts or money in exchange for giving politicians their votes. This was done by some vote-greedy politicians, who would go to any extent to do anything to rake or scrape in whatever vote they could get.

Political positions are sweet, and the salaries are damn good, so, who wouldn’t want to become a Commissioner, Parliamentarian, or Minister? So could it be that this law on vote buying, has only now been put in place, and therefore not applicable to others, who may have done it in the past? But one thing I believe is sure, and that is that there may be others out there, who may be spending sleepless nights wondering if the National Detectives would also come knocking at their doors.

Dear editor, the people of this little island St. Maarten are tired and concerned of the political games, as well as the future of this island. Since St. Maarten received its separate status on 10-10-10, the people of St. Maarten are still asking the question, “When are we going to finally see a stable government?” When are we going to see some seriousness, integrity, commitment, confidence, and trust in our politicians? This past election alone we have experienced more than enough ship-jumping among our politicians like never before.

I believe in St. Maarten’s political history, (and by the way, you are free to correct me if I am wrong.) Furthermore, St. Maarten is more and more becoming like a wandering child in need of good parental care. Just to mention a few examples. Back Street is now sinking deeper and deeper, with every rain fall, and the dirty mud-pools, big enough to breed fishes, are getting bigger. They damage your vehicle, and create an ugly sight for pedestrians and tourists. (I wonder how many of our politicians ever drive through Back Street in their nice cars).

Our round-abouts are filled with dried-up grass, and rocks, and lack maintenance. Our smelly dumpsite on Pond Island is getting bigger and rising higher as if to reach the clouds like the tower of Babel. The so-called Ring Road is still there like a forgotten, unfulfilled political dream, and has become a natural man-made haven for wild birds that have taken up residence in the trees. Many of the newly-installed lights in the lower part of Back Street are not on at night time, making the area dark and unsafe.

Many investors are still watching the financial and governmental instability before investing in this island. So in the end you need to still pay your taxes, but what are we seeing in return for it? About the new government building, like a historic monument, oh yes, sorry, the decision has been finally made that it will be soon be put to use.

Dear editor, the Prosecutor in the meantime is awaiting those, who have accepted presents, money or gifts in exchange for their votes. But I believe that their response would be: “I got my money (or gift/gifts), the politicians got their votes, so, as for me, who should give a damn? My case is already closed!”     

A concerned citizen

  Name withheld at author's request.                                                                        

Dear Editor,
The jury is out and the population is left in constant suspense. The question is: How long will these adjudicators keep us in this state of emergency, and what would it take for them to listen to the voice of logic and apply it appropriately?
The dilemma in Parliament just cannot persist anymore! Unconsciously, this deadlock continues to reveal the inability of our elected officials, to analyse and evaluate important documents; which indeed is a complete exposure of their level of intellect and work habits behind closed doors. This situation has also given us reasons to conclude that the craving for self-recognition has overridden every moral and political principle. Now it is clear why and who are the culprits in obstructing the progress in the House of Parliament.
This “Super Seven” is so accustomed of doing as they please. Now that they are handcuffed, they are trying everything possible to free themselves. They continue to put the Finance Minister in a grinder, due to their lack of understanding that the island cannot accumulate anymore debts. Government must be in control of its finances, which is one of the vital pillars that keep a country stable. What is so difficult for these so-called “intellectuals,” to understand? Since this “Super Seven” is refusing to support the budget that includes their salary, then why depend on the discarded document to compensate them at the end of each month?
In retrospect, the former prime minister indicated that whenever he travelled abroad, he was confronted with the question, “When will St. Maarten get it right?” At the time of this inquiry, the “Super Seven” was part of the ruling government and they just couldn’t get it right. The past minister blamed everybody else except his own colleagues. Now that the same group is in opposition and causing more havoc to the country, I’m wondering what his thoughts are, and where would he cast the fault for continued destruction of the country?
As mentioned, this long deliberation is causing much tension. However, when a politician understands his or her role and how it is connected to the development of nation building, he or she will always make decisions that are in the best interest of the country.

Joslyn Morton