Dear Editor,
There has been much talk of colonialism and colonialists in St. Maarten in recent years. The ending of the colonial relationship is presented as a key to social advancement.
Colonies were created to create wealth for the metropolitan countries and it is argued that this is the real colonialism. Other aspects of colonialism followed, like cultural colonialism, but the original was the creation of wealth for the colonizing countries. The history of sugar-producing colonies in the Caribbean certainly supports this.
It seems that it would be productive for the conversation on the subject in St. Maarten if we were to establish the real value or burden of the “colonial relationship” in the case of St. Maarten and the Kingdom of the Netherlands so that measurable wealth-moving relationship can be known with some degree of accuracy. If we knew that, the conversation would be a great deal clearer.
The creation of this relationships “profit and loss” could easily be created by consultants who would measure flows of value of every sort between the Netherlands and St. Maarten with a view to establishing which party benefits or suffers from the relationship. The tools, the analytical systems and the data should all be available.
The study and reporting would need to be done by an entity that could not be accused by any group of being partial; indeed it should be an entity that enjoys wide social trust.
We have reports on pretty much everything. Why not also on this fundamental question which is argued by some as being the case for major social change?
Robbie Ferron
Dear Editor,
Alex Richardson (AR) is hereby appealing to the Ambt. Court 1st pertaining to the imposed pension plan of the Government (APS).
According to the laws, someone, a so-called “sleeper” in the APS system and not contributing financially to the current pension plan of the government (APS) since November 30, 2013, is still obligated to follow the ongoing changing laws implementations.
AR submitted a letter dated 8/27/2018 to APS at which time, the pensionable age was set at 60 years and today AR is facing a pensionable of 62 years and hasn’t contributed since 2013 in the APS system. I do understand that the laws (Landsverordening v/d 11 April 2016) were changed and approved officially but that doesn’t mean it is right. It is for me impossible that the laws changed and approved are affecting me directly while AR has nothing to do with the APS since November 30, 2013, and has not been in the position to build up any additional pension funds at my 60th birthday and that’s okay but subject to changes that were done after the year 2013.
This is considered inhuman to me and even though I complained to the respected Fin. Minister, nothing was done and any consideration was adhered to and the responsible law makers seem to even care about any grievances stated in my letter. AR has followed all the steps and it seems to have fallen on deaf hears and the law that AR considered inhuman isn’t going to change until the courts get involved and review all sides.
AR even attempted to scheduled meetings with the unions and wasn’t able to get any response from such unions. The norm seems to be acceptable to all and therefore reaching my end of possibilities, AR has therefore decided to appeal to the court. The Ombudsman has clearly outlined every individual aspect that respectfully with no outcome in the near future expected and no consideration of the changing laws that are affecting AR even though he has not contributed to the APS pension since November 20, 2013.
It is time for the Ambt. Court to be called into the situation and have the Ambt. Court give a judgement as AR considered that AR rights were rudely neglected (inhuman) as AR stopped contributing to the APS respected authorities. This case needs to be judged and AR reserves the rights for the case to move forward and be presented to the courts.
AR strongly believes that the laws of 2013 should be apply to him at the time AR stopped contributing to the APS pension fund and not what is currently taking place with him as a “sleeper” pertaining to the changing laws.
Alex Richardson
Dear Editor,
To my astonishment I read that SECAR [St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research – Ed.] at this moment is again excavating on St. Eustatius near the animal shelter according to the government website. This happens while the conduct of SECAR is under scrutiny by the St. Eustatius Heritage and Research Commission in relation to the excavation of enslaved people near the airport without consulting the descendent community.
How is it possible that they are resuming work at a different location while the commission is not finished yet? It can’t be the case that just because there is no alternative archaeological company on the island they continue business as usual.
It is reported that the commission was consulted and does not object to the test trenches. This makes the status of the commission problematic as it seems that they do not consider that their report leads to significant changes in how archaeology is done on St. Eustatius. What happens if again they find the remains of (enslaved) people? Are we going to have the same problems?
I think it would be wise to defer from archaeological excavations from SECAR and any other company on St Eustatius at least until the commission has submitted its report and it has been debated in the local community. There has to be a policy in place on how to deal with these kinds of archaeological finds before new excavations start, especially as it is not unreasonable to expect more burials of enslaved people on St. Eustatius.
Dr. Marjolijn Kok
Archaeologist (ally of the St. Eustatius African Burial Ground Alliance)
Dear chairman and members of the Committees on Kingdom Relations and on Social Affairs and Employment,
In dossierkoninkrijksrelaties.nl of Friday, December 3, 2021, I read that State Secretary Wiersma does not want to raise the minimum wage to 70 per cent of the minimum wage, as in the European Netherlands. He is, according to the article, afraid that this will remove the incentive to look for work.
In a first reaction I would like to remark that this idea is full of prejudices (in the vein of “Antillians are lazy”) and therefore unworthy of the cabinet. If scientific research supports this (racially oriented) comment, I would be happy to take note, but of course it is only a “feeling”. But a “feeling” that is felt at high official and even governmental levels!
A treatise follows on the benchmark for the social minimum in the Dutch Caribbean. This benchmark has been leading a life of its own for quite some time. We are already talking about a “progress report 2021” on this subject. Can you imagine that we are talking about a benchmark for the social minimum on the Wadden Islands? No, of course not! I can already see you thinking “yes, but those are Dutch islands ... .”
In that case we are exactly where we need to be in the discussion. The islands of the Dutch Caribbean are Dutch too! So why all this contrived stuff? I am convinced that the Dutch Ombudsman will agree with me when I say that you – the Lower House – are letting the government pull all the wool over your eyes.
The starting point is (see article 132a paragraph 4 of the Constitution) that for the public entity (as the status of the individual Dutch Caribbean islands officially reads) specific island regulations may apply with a view to special circumstances that distinguish the public entity from the European Netherlands. In my letter of November 7 I have already given the “perverse” interpretation of this article whereby the Caribbean Dutch population can easily be put at a disadvantage, and in this case – about the social infrastructure – this is happening again. It would be worth it to me if you, via a motion, “force” the government to ask the Council of State for an explanation of how to correctly understand this article of the Constitution. I would like to ask you for that again.
If this hurdle is taken, then – as far as I am concerned (and assuming that my interpretation of this article is the correct one) – various other discussion and question points can easily be resolved by declaring the current Dutch laws and regulations applicable to the Caribbean Netherlands and for the truly distinctive circumstances (which must be substantiated) to apply the specific island laws and regulations created for this purpose.
Of course, there is the formation of a new government and there are probably other arguments one can think of not to take action, but I fail to see how asking the Council of State for an explanation of a (Constitutional) law article that already exists and was established in the past, can stand in the way of coalition negotiations.
I am pleased to conclude and wish you much wisdom (and courage?) in the ongoing critical monitoring of government policy in all our interests.
J.H.T. (Jan) Meijer
St. Eustatius
Dear Editor,
The Kingdom would be deeply concerned about the detention system on St. Maarten had it taken notice of what took place on St. Maarten. It is unfathomable that the justice chain is still not respecting the court rulings of the ECHR [European Court of Human Rights – Ed.]. The unfortunate part of the matter is that the other Kingdom parties are surely unaware that this is taking place despite the rulings of the ECHR in the cases of Corallo vs. the Kingdom of the Netherlands and George vs. the Netherlands.
It is unfortunate that detainees here on the islands continue to experience the short end of the stick within the justice system. Worst of all is that no one is sounding the alarm on the matter. This failing system continues to be maintained by those who consciously turn a blind eye to the facts and circumstances.
Detention at the police station holding cells should not be taken lightly. Every day that a person who should perhaps not be detained or belong there in the first place is a day too much. The ECHR has been clear in this regard yet these decisions seem to be ignored. Crazily enough, it seems that these conditions are only continuously perpetuated in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Such acts could never take place in the Netherlands, so why is this still happening here on St. Maarten, I wonder aloud?
In the Netherlands, matters such as starting criminal proceedings are handled within a few days, while here on St. Maarten the wait is much longer. This act in and of itself diminishes the effectiveness of preliminary injunctions which prompt urgent handling of certain cases. As a result of the delay in scheduling the handling of the case, the purpose of approaching the ECHR for an interim measure would have lapsed. The importance would be no more as the client would either be already back to or soon be returned to the Pointe Blanche prison.
Had the matter at hand in fact been handled as an urgent matter, the case could have been referred to the ECHR. This would have then resulted in the Netherlands being reprimanded on this matter once more, with the hope that as result that people will finally learn that there is no longer a place for article 3 ECHR violations or even for the detainees on St. Maarten. At the moment, however, it seems that the saying “might makes/is right” is definitely taking its course.
I still reserve a small sparkle of hope in this system, and that sooner rather than later the necessary amendments will be made and action taken.
Sjamira Roseburg, Attorney-At-Law
Consider it Solved
