Dear Editor,
Driving around on our island is at times interesting and but often frustrating due to the total disregard of the laws and lack of care by many road users.
I always say to my wife that indicators on cars on Sint Maarten are optional extras because few drivers care to use them, letting the other drivers guess as to where they go next.
When you collect friends or family from the side of the road, why pull over if you can just stop in the middle and let other road users wait? I understand that at times there is no room to pull off the road but why not collect them at a spot where it is safe and you don’t inconvenience the other drivers, or at least give the impression that you try to do this quickly. That includes our professional buses who appear to make a feeble attempt to pull over.
The use of roundabouts is also interesting since there are supposed to be two lanes despite the lack of road markings on many of those. Another guessing game as to where these drivers go next.
Another issue is letting traffic into the opposite lane from the side streets when you drive on a main road, a very noble thing to do but when the traffic from the other direction is bumper to bumper why would you let another car into that lane crossing yours resulting in the traffic from both sides coming to a standstill? There are times you give way to other road users, but you always observe the traffic situation first.
I have had conversations with other drivers where we disagreed about certain traffic situations and was advised that I need to be more tolerant. Why is it always the driver that upholds the rules and drives correctly is the one that needs to be tolerant rather than the one pushing their luck over and again and get away with it.
The unfortunate lack of visual policing on the island ensures there are no consequences for the transgressors, and they will continue to do as they like
Thank God that most St. Maarteners are so tolerant, because with these driving skills, we would not do so well in many other countries where road rage is a daily occurrence.
A little respect towards other road users will go a long way to improve our traffic situation.
Rene Lammerse
Dear Editor,
This week I heard some remarks made by the Minister of Justice in connection with job ethics and then the very next day I experienced not the same, but also, for lack of a better word, arbitrariness.
I went to pay a bill at the Receiver’s Office and had to join the line outside of the building in connection with social distancing. While standing out, two people came after me. One joined the line and the other one, yes, a gentleman with a foreign accent, went straight to the security officer. They were not talking secrets, so I gathered that the man’s business was two-fold of which one of them was to pay a bill. I heard clearly when the security officer told him that when he was finished at the first office that he should come back to him. In the meantime, the line was moving and I am now inside the building.
After sanitizing I joined the line inside the building on the Receiver’s side. While standing in line inside, I noticed that that gentleman with the foreign accent did not go back to the security officer, but he came straight towards the Receiver’s side of the building, walked by everybody standing in line and as he walked he slowed down by the first window, looked in and went and stood a little further.
A man and a woman were being attended to at that first window. The man looked around and asked which one, and then he went to the gentleman with the foreign accent and told him, “The lady inside called you.” When that man’s business was finished, the gentleman with the foreign accent was attended to before all of us who were standing in line inside before him.
I clocked him and it took him nine minutes to complete his business. I assumed he was paying for number plates because he mentioned 27 plates and he was wearing a shirt with the name of a car rental printed in green at the back.
While this was taking place three police officers dressed in uniform entered the building, one joined the line on the Receiver’s side, while the other two remained in the area of the entrance. It took about 15 more minutes before I got attended to so it took a while longer for the police officer to be attended to.
I was ready at 12:07pm. I went to one of the security officers and told him that in my days, police officers on duty would not have to wait in line. Someone would come to them and ask if they needed help and try their best to get them back on the road so that they could continue patrolling or whatever was necessary at that time. A lady who was standing close by said, “Not with some of those people working in there. I went to one of them with the acting governor to ask her to help him, she told me he had to stand in line just like the other people.”
There were a few more observations made in connection with the readiness of the employees by the Receiver’s, but I will not go any further with that. Even though I cannot swear that that gentleman with the foreign accent was given preferential treatment on this occasion, I have dealt with similar behavior in the past at the former Receiver’s Office. That person, also with a foreign accent, but from a different country, is well aware of it because at that time I confronted him about his blatant way of behaving in the face of others.
That police officer waited during the time that I was waiting and had to continue waiting behind the six other people between him and myself after I left.
I should not have to write a letter like this to you. This is not how it is done.
Russell A. Simmons
Dear Editor,
Regarding the follow-up from Michael Ferrier: This is exactly the reason why I am always miffed when I see under some letters to you “name withheld on request”. The USP wrote, in a not so nice way, to you about Mr. Ferrier and I reacted. As usual I attached my name to my letter. More so because I mentioned a person’s (Mr. Ferrier’s) name in my letter. Had I not done that then perhaps Mr. Ferrier would have had to formulate his response in a different way.
Thankfully Mr. Ferrier responded and he set the record straight. I also thank him for highlighting what he considers my omissions. It is his opinion, and I blame myself for that, because I am the person who wrote the letter and I should have made sure that there were no loopholes.
Believe it or not, I was not aware of any accusations of taxes owed by Mr. Ferrier until I read about it in that letter to you from the USP, But it seemed as if it worked out for the good, because it spunked Mr. Ferrier to let us have it.
My intention was definitely not to link him to the others and I apologize for not being more specific. I have been writing long enough to know better. No pun intended. Like I wrote, I know that Mr. Ferrier can represent himself, and he did, although I believe that there is much more that he could have mentioned.
Now even more I denounce that USP letter about him, to you.
Since the USP is writing letters to you, I assume that they also read the letters that you publish. So, I am letting you know that over the weekend I’ve had reactions from plenty of people who were pleased that I responded to the USP letter, because they too thought it was both childish as well as malicious. and that is not dignified representation.
By the way, the behavior of those heavy equipment drivers on the roads is becoming a menace to the traffic.
Russell A. Simmons
Dear Editor,
I have to commend the 5 MPs who voted to postpone approval of the budget for 2022, because approving it at this moment would be indeed in contravention of article 100 of the Constitution of St. Maarten.
In this case special kudos go out to MP Solange Duncan who, despite her alliance with the coalition, showed the people of St. Maarten what it means as a member of parliament to vote according to your conscience.
With regard to the substitute MP who voted to go ahead with the approval of the budget notwithstanding the fact that this is in contravention with our laws, the question is if he's expressing the general point of view of his party in this matter. Because he too voted according to his conscience, which in this case is to not uphold our Constitution.
Article 100 of our Constitution is very clear. When 8 of our parliamentarians and our own government are willing to break the law, how can they lead our people by example?
R. Mercelina
Dear Editor,
Allow me to publicly thank Mr. Russell Simmons for his comments as they relate to me in his op-ed of January 20. He states that he is not defending me, as I can do so myself. And while I like the message to others in his piece, I need to indeed defend myself against what some might call SXM’s version of “the big lie”.
I have said it once, twice, three, four, five, six and up to seven times already, and I say it now again: I, Michael J. Ferrier do not have any delinquent financial debt to the Government of St. Maarten, or for that matter to any government, company, institution, or person anywhere in the world. So, Russell, in your commentary you might have used the word “alleged” after “Mr. Ferrier’s” and before “financial debt”.
And also, I do take offense when it seems you lump me with “those other business people who also owe the Government plenty of money for taxes.”
For the ninth time: I do not owe delinquent taxes, or fees of any kind, including for long lease land. I challenge anybody to prove differently.
Peace!
Michael J. Ferrier
