Dear Editor,

  The Central Bank Statute of Curaçao and Sint Maarten contains areas of concern that could seriously impede good governance and threaten the independence of the CBCS. The concerns are listed here, with reference to the articles of the Central Bank Statute from which they are derived:

  First: It is virtually impossible to hold CBCS directors and supervisory board members liable for gross negligence or gross neglect of duties (derived from Article 14).

  The Banking Statute states that The CBCS, the Supervisory Board (SB), the Executive Board (EB), the staff or engaged third parties, are not liable for damage inflicted in the normal exercise of their statutory duties and powers, unless the damage is due to intent or gross culpability. Intent or gross culpability are very high thresholds. In the case of regular directors and supervisory board members, the threshold for liability is much lower, namely at the question of whether they can be “blamed seriously”. In itself it is defensible and also according to international principles that there is (some) protection for directors and supervisory board members of financial supervisory authorities. However, this protection does not have to be virtually absolute. The extremely high threshold may result in not being able to hold CBCS directors and supervisory board members accountable for gross negligence or serious neglect of duties, while these may cause significant damage to the CBCS, the financial sector and the supervised institutions.

  Second: There are no consequences for the violation of the legal independence of the CBCS, the Executive Board and Supervisory Board with regard to the countries of Curaçao and St. Maarten (derived from Article 18).

  The Bank and its organs are not allowed to seek or accept instructions from the countries or organs of the countries. Influencing is not permitted according to the law. However, the article of the Bank Statute that mentions this independence does not attach any consequences to its violation. Therefore, this seems to happen with some regularity. Successive ministers of finance seem to have interfered in the past to a far-reaching extent with the course of events within the CBCS by means of improper (political) steering instruments. Even if this did not actually happen, even the appearance of it should be avoided in an independent institution like the Central Bank.

  Third: The appointment of the president, the members of the Executive Board and the Supervisory Board is susceptible to political influence (derived from Articles 20 and 25).

  The directors and supervisory board members of the CBCS are appointed by joint national decree of Curaçao and St. Maarten (the countries). This means that the countries have to agree on this politically. In general, a politicized appointment is already problematic because not always the right person will be considered for the position. On top of that, in case of political disagreement, the countries can hold each other “hostage” by stalling a national decree to appoint. This procedure should therefore be rethought and redesigned. Expertise and relevant experience should play a decisive role, and not affinity with a party or the (lack of) possession of a certain nationality.

  Fourth: The process of appointing the president of the CBCS is unnecessarily complex (derived from Article 20).

  In addition to the political nature of the president’s appointment, the process is also unnecessarily complex. The president and the two directors are appointed from a joint nomination of three persons for each position. The nomination is based on a recommendation by at least five members of the Supervisory Board. If the countries do not accept a recommendation within three months, the Supervisory Board appoints a temporary president or director from that recommendation. Recent years have shown time and again that this procedure can be delayed and frustrated for political reasons. This is undesirable, also for the reputation of the CBCS and those involved. This procedure also needs to be rethought and redesigned.

  Fifth: The appointment of the chairman of the Supervisory Board is unnecessarily complex and easy to frustrate (derived from Article 25).

  The chairman of the Supervisory Board is appointed by joint national decree, following a joint nomination by the ministers of the countries, based on a recommendation made by a 5/6 majority of the supervisory board members. This process is complex and – for political reasons – can easily be frustrated. In that case, the president of the Common Court of Justice of Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten and of Bonaire, Saba and St. Eustatius (‘Hof’) will have to be asked to provide for a temporary appointment. This has occurred more often in the past because the parties involved could not agree on the (re)appointment of the president or one of the supervisory board members.

  Sixth: The four-year term of appointment of supervisory directors encourages political influence (derived from Article 25).

  The term of appointment of supervisory board members is four years. In the current composition, a large part of the supervisory board members is appointed or reappointed at the same time. This construction encourages political influence. To illustrate, the current minister of finance of Curaçao is currently involved in the appointment of the chairman and three members of the Board. This gives this minister the opportunity to put a disproportionate stamp on the composition of the Board. The law should therefore include a regulation that allows for gradual replacement of supervisory board members, and that prevents a (too large) group of supervisory board members from being replaced at the same time after four years.

  Seventh: The job specification of the Supervisory Board leaves room for improper interference in supervisory tasks of the CBCS (derived from Article 26).

  The statutory job specification of the board is brief. Moreover, no delineation of the supervisory task of the board is given. It is essential that the supervisory board members do not interfere with the prudential or conduct supervision that the CBCS carries out on the supervised institutions. It should be unthinkable for the supervisory board or individual supervisory board members to be aware of or interfere with specific files and ongoing supervisory matters. The law contains too few safeguards to prevent this undesirable behavior.

  Eighth: There are insufficient safeguards for (political) independence of the president, directors and supervisory board members (derived from Article 30).

  The law contains too few safeguards to avoid the (appearance of) conflict of interest. The regulation in Article 30 of the Central Bank Statute lacks essential (substantive) provisions to ensure the independence of the president, directors and supervisory board members and to intervene when there are conflicting interests.

  Ninth: The Central Bank Statute is not linked to the Corporate Governance Code and Book 2 of the Civil Code (“BW”).

  A major omission in the law is the lack of linking provisions in the text of the Central Bank Statute to the Corporate Governance Code and the Civil Code. Although the explanatory memorandum to the Central Bank Statute refers to the Code, this is not sufficient for applicability. Core provisions from Book 2 of the Civil Code, which ensure good governance and supervision within a company, should also be prescribed and applied for CBCS.

Justus van der Lubbe

CEO of insurance company Inter-Assure

Dear Editor,

  I respectfully disagree with the PPB's plan to make Philipsburg a nighttime attraction. It misses the whole nub of the problem here – the cruise ships that provide the bulk of tourists.

  Meals are included in the cruise, so everyone goes back to the ship rather than dine out in town. It keeps the town from having world class restaurants, and in general, there is little choice after 4:00pm, as most of them close for lack of tourists.

  I have friends who toured half a dozen countries in the Baltic, and never once ate onshore, because everything was included onboard the ship. Needless to add, they were no good to me for recommendations when we stayed in the area ourselves. And so with Philipsburg.

  What the PPB needs to do is negotiate with the cruise lines for some sort of voucher system, where passengers can eat in local restaurants at no charge with a voucher that the restaurant can submit for cash. That will also encourage stores to stay open, lights to stay on, and activity to increase.

  Planters further reducing the walkability of the sidewalks, a white elephant Ferris wheel, a big ground sign that says Great Bay and a giant LED screen will not turn the tide. Mostly, they are additional annoying light pollution, which no one who lives here needs.

David Wineberg

Philipsburg

Dear Editor,

  Kindly allow me the opportunity to shed some light into recent conversations about St. Maarten obtaining FAA Category 1.

  According to the article in your newspaper (The Daily Herald), SXM is looking into implementing what Curaçao is allegedly planning to do to solve their Civil Aviation Authority’s (CAA) staffing issues. This plan entails adding yet another fee on already high taxes and fees that are levied at both airports. Needless to say, this will affect the travelers and the cost of airfares to and from SXM and Curaçao.

  For those persons unfamiliar with FAA categories, in aviation there are several “Freedoms of the Air”. One of those freedoms gives an aircraft registered in country “A” the right to fly to and land in country “B”. When we went from Cat 1 to Cat 2, we lost the right for aircraft registered in the former Netherlands Antilles (CUR and SXM) to fly to and land on U.S. soil. This is the reason Winair needs to “wet-lease” (renting an aircraft plus its crew) French registered ATRs if they want to fly to Puerto Rico for instance.

  Obtaining FAA Cat 1 certification will only be possible when qualified and certified Civil Aviation specialists are hired on both Curaçao and SXM. The SXM and Curaçao governments underestimated the importance of having a strong Civil Aviation Authority prior to 10/10/10. The CAA lost the top Safety & Airworthiness Inspector, Mr. Isenia and Director of Civil Aviation, Mr. Francisco in the earthquake of January 10, 2010, that hit Haiti. Their passing exposed the low staffing levels of the CAA and a subsequent audit is the reason we have been Cat 2 for the past 10+ years. In the audit, it was determined that the former Netherlands Antilles CAA was short roughly 13-14 staff members. SXM was in the infancy stage of establishing its CAA with a staff of 4-6 persons.

  The most important point of discussion to retain FAA Cat 1 is staffing. There is currently a shortage of skilled CAA staff worldwide and because of that, salaries that are offered by Curaçao and SXM CAAs can’t compete with the world market. The only way to get the skilled and professional staff on board, in my opinion, would be to recruit interested persons and send them away to study for the specific CAA functions we require on SXM. This would require the candidates to sign a contract to commit to a minimum of 5 years of service following their training. This process will not happen overnight. The journey to obtaining Cat 1 status will be long and arduous, and the people of SXM deserve to know that, instead of being misinformed.

  Many governments in the world do not understand civil aviation’s role of being the oversight for safety in aviation. They are the checks and balances for Air Traffic Services, Airport Operations, Security, Airworthiness of Aircraft and much more. A lot of governments do not invest the necessary funding in their Civil Aviation Authority and we can clearly see what our result ended up being, going from Cat 1 to Cat 2. A budget for the CAA should have been front and center from day 1, due to the CAA’s role in providing oversight for the main port of entry on SXM, not forgetting the airspace assigned to us. This is a department that provides safety oversight as the Return on Investment (ROI) and not necessarily financial ROI.

  In closing, let’s give the people of SXM a true picture of where we are with regard to FAA Cat 1, and let’s avoid using smoke and mirrors to distract people from the true status and possibilities.

Duncan J. A. van Heyningen,

ATC Specialist and Aviation Professional

Dear Editor,

  The United Nations designates February 6 of each year as an “International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation.” This year, in remarks accompanying his Angelus prayer before a crowd at St. Peter’s Square, Pope Francis denounced the practice of involuntary female circumcision, saying that it “demeans the dignity of women and gravely undermines their physical integrity.”

  For some reason, though, the UN doesn’t designate an “International Day of Zero Tolerance for Male Genital Mutilation,” nor to my knowledge has the Holy Father ever publicly applied his church’s catechism to the practice of involuntary male circumcision.

  According to that catechism, “except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.”

  Why is it considered unacceptable to genitally mutilate infant girls, but acceptable – or at least not important enough to vocally oppose – to genitally mutilate infant boys?

  There are certainly religious explanations. The Pope’s religion is an offshoot of Judaism, which practices male but not female circumcision, while female circumcision is confined to some sects of Islam and to some animist sects.

  But the bigger reason seems to be simple popularity.

  More than a third of male infants worldwide are circumcised. In western cultures, pseudo-scientific “medical” claims, ranging from a variant of “balancing the humors” to the notion that it reduced the desire to masturbate (a practice also pseudo-scientifically tied to various ailments), popularized the practice in the late 19^th century.

  Moving into the 20^th century, male infant circumcision became nearly universal in the US. As each pseudo-scientific claim supporting it fell, another rose to replace it, but we invariably eventually find that infant male circumcision is almost never therapeutic, let alone universally so.

  Some parents still allow their sons to be circumcised for aesthetic reasons (so junior’s penis looks like senior’s, for example), or because fake health claims continue to circulate, but the big reason seems to be “well, that’s just what people do.”

  Fortunately, the popularity of male circumcision seems to be decreasing. That’s a good thing. But it’s disturbing that we continue to entertain it as acceptable at all.

  If circumcision was invented from scratch – as religious ritual or “medical” procedure – today, we’d throw its inventors in prison or cart them off to mental hospitals. Hacking off healthy parts of infants’ bodies is a violent and barbaric practice, and we should treat it as one.

Thomas L. Knapp