Dear Editor,
I am none of their fathers, but that does not prevent me from saying “Stop it”. Now is definitely not the time for anyone to be encouraged or I might even say, instructed to say what is not from the heart.
I came to the Windward Islands to work as a police officer in 1975. As long as I can remember the immigration officers were always the ones who were feared by everyone whether well documented or not. And just as nowadays every time the immigration organised raids everybody, both migrants as well as locals, criticised our actions.
I do not usually write this way, because I put the wellbeing of the people before politics. I know when both the Minister of Justice as well as the President of Parliament were born. I must add also that little do both of them know how joy filled my heart when both of them were appointed to the position they presently occupy. I will repeat: “Do not permit politics to obscure what can be done right.”
Because of social media, nothing.is secret anymore and because of modern technology, within seconds news spreads all over the world. When something is said wrongly, if it is not corrected immediately it goes viral and taken completely out of context, living a life of its own.
Sorry to say that the term “internationally publicised controls on local businesses” was not necessary. There are all kinds of publications concerning St. Maarten on Facebook. These questions concerning the damnification as a result of these raids to me are more damaging than the so-called ‘heavy-handed’ controls.
By the way, those same visitors stay on to see the results of potential wars in warzones. Ask Biden.
The damage caused by not collecting taxes from these same businesses which so-called can be affected by these raids is far more than the results of the raids.
When I read all the Ministries and Ministers to which these questions were sent publicly, it gives me the impression that all of those entities were wrong and the person asking the question was right. That to me is “internationally publicising’ the inconsideration of our government. Did not the one asking those questions think “country before self”? I stand to be corrected, but I do not remember this kind of rhetoric when the former President of Parliament was entangled in a similar situation, so why now?
We were taught by the Dutch, but we constantly portray exactly contrary what the Dutch have demonstrated to us. We do not make use of long memories and make use of the appropriate opportunity, we jump at the first opportunity. For the last four years we have been in a road tax saga and nobody thought “this is a cash cow, so let us not disregard this”. Instead of making Immigration raids a problem, get together with the Finance Minister and see what can be done about getting those motor vehicle owners to pay their road tax.
We have to stop looking for lame excuses. That letter talks about “growing up in these circles.” Again I say, “stop it.” Those of us who did that job know where the phone calls used to come from to “let go” certain people because of their connections.
There is a saying: “New brooms sweep clean, but the old broom knows the corners.” I just read that we are getting a new prosecutor and that there are still a few loose ends. For years now the Immigration has been out there doing what Immigration does. Never, I repeat, never has there been any complaint in mass from visitors to St. Maarten., That is why I say, “Stop it.”
In law enforcement, “consistency” is what arranges the people. Believe it or not, contrary to what is depicted in that article, “people in general want law and order”. It is those others who complain. So, let us get together and let us be consistent with our law enforcement, so that everybody can be assured that when they are in St. Maarten, they are treated fairly.. Consistency is the word.
Once one has established one’s identity, the people will know and those others will hide, and the regular visitors will be safe. So Grisha and Anna should get together and not let anyone prevent them from doing what is best for St. Maarten.
Russell A. Simmons
Dear Editor,
I was pondering whether I should write this letter to you or not, because I still cannot understand the reason for such a reaction from whom at first sight I considered a lady. I was driving on the Emmaplein going towards Front Street when I saw the head and part of the body of a little girl who was on the passenger side of the front seat sticking out of a car which was driving slowly towards me.
Because I had noticed that the driver was not looking at the child, when I got next to the car I said in a clear voice to the driver, “pull the child in the car.” As I am writing this now I am still flabbergasted by the reaction of that female driver. The words had hardly left my mouth when the driver shouted at me, “Shut your *ss.”
I was shocked, but even more than that I felt sad, because this is the kind of behavior that some parents expose their children to from a very tender age. The same parents who will be the first to say how rude the children nowadays are.
I do not know if that female driver (I would rather say “lady”, but at this stage I am not sure if her response would be “how do you know if I’m a lady or not”) has had a previous not-so-nice encounter with me, I believe in this case the well-being of the child should come first.
There were two ladies in the car with me and the reaction was complete silence for a good while, then one of them said, “Well, Mr. Russell, she gave you something to write about.”
Because I had promised not to write anything negative to you in order to let the people share the love in the right way, I hope you will not publish this letter on Monday..
However, this kind of behavior from grownups does not depict any kind of love, and is not going to help the youth. That lady knows who she is and I sincerely hope that she has some kind of remorse.
I believe what can be done to help remedy a situation like this one is for the person who is involved in this kind of rhetoric to use the talk shows, by showing that they can be the bigger person, and apologize for their behavior. Hopefully there will not be the necessity for too many apologies.
The motorcycle accidents continue!
Russell A. Simmons
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 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
