Dear Editor,

Development economists have strong consensus that economic and social development is strongly associated with democracy and rule of law.

Dear Editor,

It seems to be that there are some people on the island hell bent on destroying good things. The one thing this Island is most famous for, is keeping tourists and locals alike, happy. The one thing we simply can’t do is destroy beach areas, especially in Simpson Bay.

I am referring to what is surely going to be the wanton destruction of Kim Sha beach to so-called property developers. Who they are nobody knows. Many rumours abound that there is a land swap deal. By whom and to whom are still a well-kept secret. And, what do they want to do with it?

Their plans are being kept under close wraps till whatever the deal is, has been finalized. The traditional beach bar called La Bamba, the dive hut and a large car parking space are all slated to be going in this deal. Tuesday evenings at La Bamba have become one of St. Martin’s iconic evenings with hundreds of revellers joining in their Latin Nights. All this is going to be bulldozed and it has happened all so quickly. Is there something murky about this?

What is going to happen to the partying on the beach for the Heineken Regatta for example?

Name withheld at author's request.

Dear Editor,

Which is more important, protecting the rights of the consumer or bolstering the profits of these unscrupulous businessmen? It was a shocking moment last week to hear an inspector informed the public that his team found a product among consumer goods that is used to alter the codes to prolong their shelf life. He further confirmed that the matter was brought to the Prosecutor’s Office and was advised that, in order for his department to take stringent measures against these dishonest businessmen, they would have to catch them red-handed. If this is not stupidity at its best then nothing else is.

How could the Prosecutor’s Office give such ill-advice? Where is the logic behind their decision? Are both entities saying that unprincipled businessmen can tamper with the codes on food items without any form of penalty? This is absurd! No wonder the population has no confidence in either government officials or the justice system. Which businessman is going to modify a code in broad daylight? These kinds of immoral actions are done behind closed doors after hours. Here is a solution: if the concerns expressed by the inspector regarding the fear of harm this behaviour could bring to the consumer, then the resolution is to ban the product completely.

Why is it that the consumer has to be always at risked, while the business owners get away scot free? The consumer’s rights have been taken away. When it is not about exorbitant prices that are making us paupers, it’s about these numerous inferior products that have saturated this island. If government cannot protect us or the justice system, then why not give these mendacious grocery owners the authority to run the country? While we are on the topic: is it me or has anyone else experienced that in certain grocery stores it appears that products like Clorox and fabric softeners tend to be diluted, while in other outlets the same items maintain their full strength?

It is high time that government and the justice system decide which is more important, protecting the rights of the consumer or bolstering the profits of these unscrupulous businessmen. We are sick and tired of all these injustices and this tunnel vision of looking at issues that are vital to the well-being of the people. Stop the nonsense! Consumer protection should be your number one priority!

Joslyn Morton

Dear Editor,

Many years ago, before I came to St. Maarten, an American couple came to the police station with a road map asking for directions to a restaurant. The desk sergeant attended to them and I noticed from their reaction that they did not understand what was been explained (lack of knowledge of the English language.)

I stood there contemplating how to intervene, at the risk of embarrassing my superior or permitting these tourists to leave with the wrong impression – that not even by the police station they could not get correct directions. I decided not to let them leave without the correct information, and in what I thought was a tactical way asked them to show me that they had understood what was explained while correcting them. In doing so they got the information they wanted and left thanking us and commenting on the willingness of the people to help.

Later on in the evening another major called me and told me that the desk sergeant was not pleased because he had felt that I had showed him up. I explained to him that in contemplating to act I relied on the desk sergeant to understand that in that instance for me the name of the country had priority, and that he should consider my action as me coming to his rescue and not showing him up.

Because this story was getting a tail I had decided that I would refrain from intervening when anyone was having a problem attending to the public in English, and to avoid not serving the public adequately I requested a meeting with our boss and the desk sergeant to explain the reason for my action at that time. It was decided that if the desk sergeant noticed that he needed assistance with the English-speaking public he would call on me when possible.

A rock and the hard place; the lesser of two evils – when do we make that choice? Should not this be investigated thoroughly? We are in the middle of trying to solve integrity issues and because a person decided to choose the lesser of two evils he is threatened to be taken before the courts. Who is above the law? Press conferences, the gazette, newspapers, opinion page in the newspapers, editorials, Facebook, Twitter, e-mail, g-mail etc. As it seems to be accepted nowadays at some point in time, from the highest to the lowest government employee has used the previous media to communicate government information to the public.

Is A. M. wrong for letting the public know, via the same media which government employees at some point in time have used, that a high-ranking public servant did something wrong? Whether or not the way it was done was wrong, was the content of the message factual or not? Does that take away the wrong-doing of that high-ranking official or differently, does it make what the minister did right because that employee did not use the right procedures?

What message are we sending to those who we ask to give tips on wrong doing? Are we telling those who are against snitching that government also is against snitching? Are we telling the people who could know something about the spate of robberies and shootings that they should be careful and not give information? When one snitches is it not almost always about something that really happened? If we continually say “know better do better” and people do better are they wrong? So will both the situations be dealt with? And if both parties willingly did what they did, which one weighs more – the one who did wrong, or the one who used the common method of communication nowadays to let the public know about the wrong-doing of that high-ranking public servant?

What I know is if I am coming from the right, even though I am driving in the wrong direction of a one-way road and there is a collision at the intersection, I am not wrong for the accident because I am fast traffic from the right. I will be fined for driving in the wrong direction.

Being a minister should not exempt anyone of wrong-doing. Had that employee known about the wrong-doing of the minister and did not do anything about it would he to be cited for omission to report it, if proven that he knew? Is the Justice Department really going to waste taxpayers’ money to deal with A. M's situation? To do what, mess with another young St. Maartener because of lack of integrity of a high-ranking government official? Is sweeping it under the rug not worse than spilling the beans? What message are we sending?

Russell A. Simmons