Dear Editor,
This is a reminder or rather a warning to all my fellow diabetics. How many of us are there? Several years ago, l called the Diabetes Foundation of St. Maarten to confirm my suspicion that there were at least hundreds of us on the Dutch side. I was assured that there were not hundreds, but thousands living with diabetes. That number must have grown exponentially since then. I was also told that there are many undiagnosed people walking around not even knowing they have the chronic disease.
I understand that Aruba – with the assistance of PAHO – is about to have another survey to determine how many of its people are suffering from high blood pressure and glucose level measurements. It would be nice if St. Maarten would follow suit.
I have been a type 2 diabetic for longer than I can remember, certainly, for more than 40 years. Until recently, I have never suffered from hyperglycaemia (the level of glucose in the blood is too high). My blood sugar level was almost always just a little on the high side. Neither have I suffered from hypoglycaemia (when the level of glucose drops too low); at least not that I know of.
I would occasionally wake up during the night feeling something was off. My first thought was always that it was diabetes-related. I would check my blood glucose level and as expected, find it was a little on the low side. I would then treat it myself by eating or drinking something sugary and within a very short time the unwell feeling would go away, and I would go back to sleep.
However, as of late, when my blood sugar dropped even lower, I would no longer wake up from my sleep. My wife, thank God she is a light sleeper, would be awakened by my tossing and turning. I would be, according to her, swinging my hands wildly, holding my head, talking nonsense, and displaying other weird behaviour. Once, according to her, I even fell off the bed onto the floor. She had to lift me up and put me back on the bed. On these nights, she would feed me some cookies and sugary juice, which she always kept on the night table next to her bed. Shortly after doing so, she would notice my eyes clear up and I would begin answering her questions clearly. She then knew I was back to being myself again. The next morning, she would tell me about my weird behaviour the previous night, but I would always tell her that she was exaggerating. At my daughter’s suggestion, she videotaped me one night; needless to say, I did not like what I saw.
Then came Valentine’s Day which turned out to be a nightmare for my wife. She was again rudely awakened by my weird behaviour. Only this time I was not reacting to her in the least. After trying in vain for an hour to get me to eat or drink something sugary (I was unable to answer her questions and open my mouth to be fed), she called the ambulance.
The ambulance was there within 20 minutes. Before the ambulance arrived, I had somehow regained consciousness. I was annoyed that she had called the ambulance, but got dressed and went to the porch to wait for them. I had fully intended to apologize to them for needlessly calling them. However, my wife insisted that they check me out. And I am glad they did.
The two paramedics were very professional. They sat me down and checked my blood sugar. When I heard one of them tell the other, “His blood sugar is 57”, I got scared. Even in my confused mind, I knew that was bad news. A measurement of 54 is an indication that I was suffering from severe hypoglycaemia, a very dangerous situation to be in.
The paramedic immediately proceeded to inject a sugary liquid directly into a vein in my hand. Within a few minutes he checked my blood sugar again and it had risen to 177. My wife and I both uttered a sigh of relief. We both thanked the paramedics for their help.
Here lies the danger. I had checked my glucose level that night before going to bed and it had been 202. Therefore, had the ambulance not come, I would simply have gone back to sleep and could have possibly fallen into a diabetic coma. My wife would have thought I was peacefully sleeping but instead I could have woken up dead.
To all my diabetic friends, educate yourself on the dangers of hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia. Learn about the devastating irreversible complications (blindness, strokes, amputations, kidney failure, heart disease) and a host of other things that will eventually pounce on us if we don’t take better care of ourselves. Our future quality of life depends entirely on us. Most men, including myself, are naturally stubborn and are very reluctant to go to the doctor. My doctor once referred to me as “stupid stubborn” and she was right.
And yes, appreciate your wife, and don’t accuse her of exaggerating.
Clive Hodge
Dear Editor,
I am ready for responses like "That was then" and "He'n know wah goin' on" but in all my years being involved in the police I have never witnessed the kind of public dispute that is going on between the members of the current Sint Maarten Police force and the Minister of Justice. Let me state this before continuing. If those members of Parliament had continued with the trend of toppling the Sint Maarten government, who would the Sint Maarten Police Association have to strike against or threaten with a 'go slow? I am constantly hearing the name of the president of the Police Union mentioned, but what bothers me more is that in all of this I cannot recall hearing anything from the Chief of Police who is responsible for the optimal functioning of the police force and should have a policy primarily based on the protection of the community.
Along with that there should be what I know as a "driehoeks overleg" A periodical consultation between the Minister of Justice, the Prosecutor and the Chief of Police, concerning police operations. I have never been to any of these consultations but I believe that from the side of the Prosecutor the types of fines given out should be discussed, in order to maintain a well-balanced control on crime. That is why I am curious about the silence to phantom behaviour of the Chief of Police during all these times. His name is never mentioned and I ask myself, why not? I am a citizen of Sint Maarten and no matter who I am, when, because of G.E.B.E there is a blackout, I also am in darkness for the lack of solar power, which world-wide has become the energy of the day. Meaning when things go wrong all over the island, everybody (just like no one can escape death) is affected.
But right now that is not the matter at hand. So, why is the Police Chief keeping his silence and have the police do at least the minimum? There are so many infringements committed constantly. Just to name a few, black tint, stopping and parking anywhere, stopping and getting out of the car leaving the door on the driver's side open in the middle of the opposite driving lane, gypsies picking up passengers without pulling over, even permitting them to enter the car on the side of the oncoming traffic and then they are admonishing drivers who are creeping in rush-hour traffic to put on the seat belt, whereas drivers with phone in one hand blowing to greet the police with the other and the police acknowledges and returns the greeting.
Since I am talking about using the cell phone while operating a motor vehicle, this is the – let me call it the cutest one I observed. A female driver came out of Subway with what she had purchased in one hand, while speaking on the cell phone which she held to her right ear. She put what she had bought on the top of the car, which was parked facing the building and got her keys, while still talking on the phone. She opened the car, took the item she had purchased off the roof of the car, put it in the car, all of this while still talking on the phone. During all this she was moving the phone from hand to hand, while keeping the phone on her right ear. I could not see what transpired before when she got behind the wheel from the angle that I was standing opposed to her position.
She was given the opportunity to reverse out the parking space by another driver. And believe it or not, that female driver was still talking on the phone while manoeuvring to get out of that parking space in front of Subway on Nisbeth Road. All of this does not necessarily require standing on the side of the road and stopping cars, this kind of behaviour by drivers has become the thing the day. I forgot to mention the number of cars which are decorated like a Christmas tree and are on the road twenty-four-seven. If I can see it those who are there to do that job should also see it and so should everybody in authority.
If they are of conscientious and responsible nature, I should not have to be writing this letter to you. No one should ever use the police who is supposed to protect everyone, in order to get at the Minister of Justice, the only person who is visibly working to remedy the situation at hand. On the contrary, they should all, Ministers as well as Members of Parliament demonstrate maturity and stand up behind the Minister for the good of the country. Or are they preparing to concoct this and disperse it to the electorate? The Minister may have to use diplomacy, but that is not my task. History has shown that when the chief of police does not cooperate with the legal desires of the Minister of Justice, the chief of police has to go. Are these not the same police who nobody in government has done anything for since 10-10-10? On the ninth of December 1965, the head of the police school in Curaçao said to our graduating class. "If you go out there and do your work consistently, you can earn your own salary, because no matter what they have learned about the traffic rules, they do not adhere to them. As a veteran I know that to be a fact".
I would like to see who is really making an effort to put Sint Maarten first.
Russell Simmons
Dear Editor,
With the elections slated to be at the end of this year, we’ve already seen several parties and persons pop out of the woodworks in an effort to convince you, the reading, voting populous, to vote for them.
I strongly encourage those that truly want change for the better for St. Maarten to jump into the arena, as with the current political climate one thing is clear, we need change. However, we must be wary of falling in the same pitfalls as we’ve done in the past. We need a way to effectively separate the wheat from the chaff, a task that isn’t as easy as one might think.
The problem is it is often those with the most charisma, large families, weak moral compasses, or compelling speech that end up taking advantage of us. The question then arises, how do we see past the words? How can we pick the ones that even when secretly recorded, have the best interest of the people of St. Maarten at heart?
In this guide I attempt to do just that – give you, the voting people of this nation, a checklist of sorts to hold up to your prospective candidates to gauge how well they score, and to truly see if they are worthy of your precious vote.
The Do’s
There are a variety of characteristics that people should look for in their elected leaders, depending on their personal values and priorities. However, some common characteristics that many people consider important in a leader include:
* Integrity: A leader who demonstrates honesty, ethics, and moral principles in their words and actions can build trust with their constituents.
* Competence: A leader who possesses the skills and knowledge necessary to effectively perform the duties of their office can inspire confidence in their ability to govern.
* Vision: A leader who has a clear, compelling vision for the future of their community or country can inspire others to work towards a shared goal.
* Empathy: A leader who is able to listen to and understand the needs and concerns of their constituents can build strong relationships and create policies that serve the interests of the people.
* Courage: A leader who is willing to take bold action and make difficult decisions, even in the face of opposition or controversy, can demonstrate strong leadership and inspire others to follow.
* Collaboration: A leader who is able to work effectively with others, including those with differing perspectives and opinions, can foster a sense of unity and teamwork that can lead to greater success.
* Accountability: A leader who takes responsibility for their actions and decisions and is willing to be transparent about their work can build trust and demonstrate their commitment to serving their constituents.
Truly all of the above characteristics are required on St. Maarten, but integrity, accountability, vision, and collaboration stand out to me as being the most urgent. The trust has been lost in our governing institutions, slowly decayed by individualistic pursuits at the cost of the greater good for the island. Again, I’ll reiterate my standpoint on the matter:
“When you have the right people, the right mindset, the right political will, and the right policies in place to benefit the collective over the individual, the end result is that everyone is better off.”
The Don’ts
As for the don’ts, there are several pitfalls we need to actively avoid here, these are:
* Avoid voting for someone solely based on their personality or charisma. While these traits can be appealing, they do not necessarily indicate that the person is the best candidate for the job.
* By extension, also don’t vote simply because someone has the right last name. Family ties in power may seem like a net gain for you, however when factoring in the decay in trust, and the cost of this decay, you and the rest of your family end up spending way more in mediocre education, healthcare, infrastructure, and so much more.
* Avoid voting for someone who makes unrealistic promises or guarantees. Be wary of politicians who claim that they can solve all of your problems, as this is often an indication that they are not being honest or realistic about what they can accomplish.
* Avoid voting for someone who engages in negative campaigning or mudslinging. Candidates who resort to personal attacks and character assassination are often trying to distract voters from their own shortcomings or lack of qualifications. This is a significant red flag and should not be overlooked.
* Avoid voting for someone who has a history of unethical or illegal behavior. Candidates who have been involved in corruption, fraud, or other criminal activities are unlikely to be effective leaders and may even be a liability to the community they serve. This is the biggest red flag that needs to be avoided at all cost.
With the above you have a good starting point to assess and score various candidates accordingly. It is by no means an end-all guide that factors in everything; however, it’s a start.
How you exactly go about it is up to you, you can assign different “weights” to those categories you deem more important than others. A candidate can receive plus points for all the Do’s that they have and minus points (or zero if not applicable) for all the Don’ts. As long as you’re consistent the results should give you a very decent overview which can then be shared on social media or used to fuel lively debates amongst your friends and family.
In closing, St. Maarten is at a crucial crossroad. We can sell ourselves short and maintain the path of status quo (which, in actuality, is slow decay). Or we can make that all-too-important right turn onto the path of continuous sustainable improvement, rebuilding trust, and ensuring that everyone is better off, not just a select few. So please, vote wisely!
David Salomon
Dear Editor,
When you have a variety, people get the opportunity to choose what suits them best. The same goes for letters sent to you.
The upcoming Parliamentary election is already the talk of the day and as usual you will get a variety of letters on what choices to make or who to vote for. I have read David Salomon's letter to you in The Daily Herald of February 28, and would like to press on whoever purchases that paper to not just read the letter, but read it and retain it. The points outlined and summed up in that letter describe, explain and relate to 'what is a conscientious voter and again I am very much impressed.
I hope the contents of that letter become the topic of discussion around the domino tables, as well as the snack trucks and any place where people hang out. "When you have the right people, the right mindset, the right political will and the right policies in place to benefit the masses over the individual, the end result is that everyone is better off".
I have a question. Is there a difference between doing bad and not doing the good we should?
Russell A. Simmons
Dear Editor,
I read the article yesterday [Thursday – Ed.] relative to Mr Irion confusion about the Planet Hollywood project and, perhaps, since I was the individual that stopped it, I can shed some light on the issue along with a bit of educated guess work. When the project was first proposed I had serious objections to it. Contrary to popular myth, my objections had nothing to do with “lost view” or anything like that. They cantered on three basic issues, all technical and based on solid science and engineering. First, there were no formal plans or drawings. The developer had submitted what was essentially some sketches on the back of a bar napkin and some pretty pictures drawn by someone's 8-year-old that you might hang on your refrigerator. None of it was even in the same galaxy as what was actually required by the permit process.
Then, to add insult to injury, they offered what was effectively a bogus "peer review" that supporting the design... except the author had never seen the drawings or any of the meaningful technical data that it was supposed to be based on. It was essentially pure fiction.
Second that what was submitted employed completely inadequate standards from an engineering and structural standpoint. In a location routinely hit with cat-4 and 5 storms, they had used cat-3 at their design standard virtually guaranteeing the place would be destroyed all the time. And third that VROMI had no inspectors or inspection regime capable of making sure that the place got built as designed, assuming the design was any good to start with.
I freely admit that my objections were purely selfish in the sense that on all previous occasions where VROMI had allowed Sonesta Great Bay hotel to do construction, that work was so bad that every time there was a storm, pieces would fly off it and end up in my living room. Twice that occurred causing damage approaching US $100,000. As a matter of literal fact, my house (or anything else I have designed or built) has never suffered a single dollar of storm damage in ANY storm other than what was caused by pieces flying off the Sonesta Great Bay property. I made that point very clear in my objections and to the court. I have NO objection to project as long as it is built properly and doesn’t keep destroying my house every time the wind blows. The court agreed at the first hearing, ruled totally in my favour, effectively voided the first permit that was issued.
At the second court hearing and after proper drawings had been completed, etc, the court withheld judgment but stopped the project going forward until the structural aspects of my objections were addressed between VROMI and myself. At a subsequent meeting between Minister Doran and myself I was able to show him the extensive proof of the shoddy engineering, the poor standards and examples of where the developer had lied to both VROMI and their clients about the standards they were using as the basic premise of their design. To his credit, Minister Doran took that information to heart and later on issued a letter to me over his signature guaranteeing that the new design would have to employ cat-5 standards and proper materials, as well as a proper inspection regime. In a word, that was good enough for me simply because that for all intents and purposes shifted the liability of any future failure onto government Sint Maarten. Now, if they failed to inspect or allowed a weak design and pieces ended up in my living room again then we would all end up in court again, but this time with a big dollar claim against them and I had the proof that would guarantee a verdict in my favour.
So, from that moment on, as far as I was concerned, the project was good to go at least on paper. So, why isn’t it getting built? This is where the educated guess work comes in. First of all, the permit they got expires after a year if nothing gets done and since nothing has gotten done, their current permit is expired and no good. That means they have to re-apply from scratch … at least that’s the way it is explained to me. Second and more likely, is money. The first design they offered was only to cat-3 standards and employed all manner of non-certified junk materials for windows and doors, etc. Materials and fixtures that would never get approved or pass a legitimate inspection in any storm-sensitive jurisdiction. Also, if they actually had to design and install a fire-fighting system that was actually adequate and met a code from any competent jurisdiction, then that would cost about 10 times what the systems they had already proposed would. So, in a nut shell, if Minister Doran is to be taken at his word and the developers now have to legitimately design and build to cat-5 standards, then the cost for the project just went up probably 40%. Not an insignificant number.
And now that government is liable for consequential damages by virtue of the minister’s letter and assurances and they know I will be watching every move they make, the developers may feel that the project just doesn’t make any economic sense anymore because they can’t cheat the system on this particular building. And all, that is if you can get by the fact that the whole place is being built on a flood plain and at a distance from the ocean that would never be allowed by any government that had any sense at all. Admittedly, these conclusions are just guesswork on my part. But if I’m right that might answer Mr. Irion’s question.
Steven Johnson
