Dear Chairman and Members of the Kingdom Relations Committee,
Through the news media I was informed about the developments regarding the benchmark for subsistence security on the BES islands . A by now reasonably institutionalized construct (not to say monstrosity) to be able to define the benefits as AOV [old age pension Ed.] and “onderstand” [social security] (note: a different choice of words than the European Dutch equivalent AOW and ‘bijstand’, so that – at least legally – you can more easily say “of course the amount of this benefit is different, because it is also a ‘different’ benefit”). That in practice these benefits are again lower than the defined benchmark seems to me factually impossible and thus nonsense but with some flour in the mouth talking about both income and costs has so far succeeded in convincing the interlocutor (you!) that the calculations are made with the best intentions (read: … to give the interlocutor a run for his money).
To the question what is the social minimum, the website of the national government gives the answer “the social minimum is the minimum amount you need to support yourself.” This minimum is usually (?) as high as a social security payment. And when I look at the UWV website for the current values of the social minimum I see a further specification by age and living situation. In any case not by region. So – by way of example – there is no different social minimum for someone living in the Randstad than for someone living in Groningen, Twente, Limburg or Zeeland.
Note: I added the question mark. I was wondering in which cases this minimum is not as high as a social security benefit.
With the Constitution in hand, looking at both Article 1 and Article 132a (4), I think that the construct “benchmark of subsistence security for the Dutch Caribbean” is de facto discriminatory. After all, Article 1 says “All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal cases” (the Netherlands consists of a European and a Caribbean part) and Article 132a (4) says “For these public entities rules may be laid down and other specific measures taken with a view to special circumstances that make these public entities substantially different from the European part of the Netherlands.”
I have argued before that the discussion (probably) focuses on “the special circumstances by which the public entities are essentially different from the European Netherlands.” Do you want to see these in a narrow sense (such as a tropical climate with hurricanes versus a mild maritime climate), or is everything that is only slightly (i.e. not essentially) different a reason to proceed differently (discriminating)?
Note: With respect to the meaning of Article 132a (4) of the Constitution, I think the Council of State should be asked for its opinion. I have argued this before, but that aside.
In the progress report on this benchmark (the discussion on a benchmark has been going on since 2018!) dated June 14, 2021, I read that following the outcomes of the advisory report without further ado would lead to a substantial increase in the statutory minimum wage and benefits, and that could have a negative effect on labor demand, the regional competitiveness of the islands and the carrying capacity of the economy. It occurred to me “how is the social minimum actually determined in the Netherlands? Also taking into account the labor demand, the competitive position compared to other European countries and the carrying capacity of the economy?” Every new incoming Dutchman can furthermore confirm the cost level on St. Eustatius is rather high and it will be politically undesirable if the benchmark is set too high.
My plea is based on one simple premise: “The Caribbean Netherlands is – just like the European Netherlands – one side of the same coin: the country of the Netherlands.” With the same laws (including the Constitution) and – specific to a public body – specific laws as far as the circumstances are essentially different from those in the European Netherlands. I am convinced that there will be far fewer of these than the 600 that I currently find in
https://wetten.overheid.nl with exclusive validity on the BES islands.
Without wanting to take everything at face value, it seems to me – in the interest of all Statians, or more broadly: in the interest of all Dutch Caribbean citizens – smart, in relation to social benefits, to also use the euro as the local currency in the Dutch Caribbean (and – but that was already clear – unambiguous Dutch laws and regulations around the social minimum and the related benefits).
And also to bring the legislation and regulations for the income tax of the Caribbean Netherlands in line with those of the European Netherlands. In the Caribbean Netherlands a so-called “flat fee” applies, while in the European Netherlands a progressive income tax rate applies. As a result, the Gini factor in the Dutch Caribbean – a measure of income inequality – is about 30 per cent higher than in the European Netherlands.
I wish you much wisdom.
J.H.T. (Jan) Meijer
Dear Editor,
So, I have two very simple questions. But this is SXM and so there are things we are afraid to speak about outside of the privacy of our homes. So, these two questions might not be simple depending on who you speak to. These questions have to do with the recently convicted Buncampers.
First question: Is Maria Buncamper still employed as the Chief of Staff of Minister of Finance Ardwell Irion? She and her husband were convicted for, among other things, defrauding the government. She is in a position where she oversees everything that has to do with government finances. This includes, that’s right, bidding processes. You would think that she would have resigned or the Minister would have asked her to resign. But no. Nothing but silence. It says a lot.
Second question: According to the Prosecutor, Mr. Buncamper used his illegally-gotten funds to assist the St. Maarten Lions Club’s projects. Now that the Lions Club knows this, will it be returning the money? Will the prestigious club boot Buncamper for tarnishing its name? The club has several well-known lawyers as members, I wonder how comfortable they are?
In a society as small as ours these things are too often ignored and the media seems unwilling to “go there”. We tend to say, “lawwwdd, poor so-and-so” went through so much already. But “so-and-so” in this case literally enriched his entire family, including his children. And they were not thinking about the rest of us when the dump was burning every two minutes.
When do we stop saying “lawwd” and start saying, “look, there are consequences for your actions”? How integer are we truly?
Name withheld at author’s request.
Dear Editor,
There was a compelling reason why the overwhelming majority of the Barbadian people totally rejected the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) in the 2018 General Elections and gave the Barbados Labour Party (BLP) all 30 seats in the House of Assembly.
The fact is that the combined DLP Administrations of 2008 to 2018 – the Administrations of David Thompson and Freundel Stuart – had virtually demolished Barbados:
* causing the Barbados economy to be downgraded 23 times in a row by such international rating agencies as Moody’s and Standard and Poor;
*so depleting our foreign reserves that we only had enough US dollars to purchase 4 weeks of imports;
* bringing Government’s finances to a state of complete disarray and permanent crisis;
* turning Barbados into the 3rd most indebted country in the world, with a public debt of $16.6 billion;
* reducing Barbados to a terrible state of raw sewage running in the streets, garbage piling up all over the island, and extremely few Transport Board buses to transport our people;
* imposing tuition fees on Bajan students at UWI, thereby causing over 4,000 working class Barbadians to drop out of the Cave Hill campus;
* retrenching some 3,000 public servants;
* inflicting massive governmental and political corruption – to the extent that a leading DLP minister is now incarcerated in a US prison; and
* literally and figuratively offering our people no hope, no empathy, no sense of care, and no vision for a future.
The Mia Mottley-led BLP administration came into office in May 2018 and immediately took decisive steps to rescue Barbados and pull our country out of the dark hole into which the DLP had plunged it.
In an almost miraculous manner, the Mia Mottley administration managed to get the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to accept and back its homegrown Barbados Economic Recovery and Transformation (BERT) Programme, and to turn around the fortunes of Barbados in a mere 18 months:
* Government’s finances restructured and put in order;
* The debt owed to our foreign creditors so restructured as to save our country $1 billion, and our overall debt reduced to $12.7 billion after 18 months of effort;
* Our foreign reserves gradually built back up to some $2.8 billion;
* The sewage crisis solved;
* The country provided with new electric buses and garbage trucks;
* All public servants given a 5 per cent salary increase and non-contributory pensions increased;
* Free university education restored to the youth of Barbados and their families; and
* Positive upgrades being bestowed on our economy by the international rating agencies .
And then in the year 2020 COVID-19 came out of the blue, crippled world travel and tourism, and posed a life and death public health challenge to people all over the world.
Fortunately for us in Barbados, our Government had by then already stabilized its finances, substantially increased Barbados’ stock of foreign exchange, and restored the international credit worthiness of our economy
As a result, our government was able to finance all of the crucial COVID-19 pandemic response measures that were required to save Barbadian lives and to help Barbadians get through the very difficult economic situation that the pandemic placed our country in.
This required Government to engage in some borrowing, but in spite of this, the public debt of Barbados is currently $13.1 billion – way below the initial $16.6 billion that the Mottley administration inherited.
Without a doubt, the pandemic brought hardship and suffering to virtually every country of the world, but the truth is that Barbados has done better than the vast majority of countries in responding to the pandemic and protecting and assisting its people. And clearly, a lot of the credit for that achievement has to go to the Mia Mottley-led BLP administration.
Can any Barbadian really imagine the type of havoc that the COVID-19 pandemic would have inflicted on Barbados if – when the pandemic hit us in 2020 – the country had still been in the crippled and poverty-stricken state that the DLP had reduced it to in 2018?
And then, of course, there was also the magnificent way in which the Mottley administration rallied the country to overcome the challenges of Hurricane Elsa and the La Soufriere volcanic ash fall.
The only real issue in the January 19, 2022, general election is for the BLP to secure from the people of Barbados a new mandate to:
* Keep the country united and focused on seeing the COVID-19 pandemic through to its very end with as little loss of Bajan life as possible;
* Continue the mission of carrying the Barbados Economic Recovery and Transformation (BERT) Programme through to a full and successful implementation;
* Prepare the country to meet the severe challenges that global warming has already started to send our way – challenges that will only intensify in the years ahead; and
* Carry forward our people’s historic mission of continuing to develop Barbados into the equal, socially just, humane, caring, progressive, dynamic, culturally advanced, prosperous, self-determining and self-respecting nation and society that our ancestors dreamt about and strived for.
David Comissiong
Citizen of Barbados
Dear Editor,
It should have surprised absolutely no-one in the St. Maarten business community that businesses now must place ads in a newspaper to get a bank’s attention, as happened in the January 6 edition of The Daily Herald. Apparently, the business simply tried to set up online banking with three banks but couldn’t get through for over a month. This is not only a national embarrassment, but also a clear and present danger to the economic recovery of our island.
Reports that the contractor that is building our new national hospital is not able to open bank accounts, and reports the issues with payment to subcontractors, should be a very loud alarm bell.
We all have heard complaints on the street and in Parliament about the ridiculous requirements banks now impose on the public just to open an account. One large local bank wouldn’t even set up a first appointment with me for four months straight. I shared this with a friend who laughed: he had been trying to get that same bank to open a business account for two years. In the meantime, his business used a foreign bank account for their local operations. Maybe Parliament will finally pass the Consumer Banking Protection Law we have hardly heard about for well over a year.
We all know the banks’ excuses: “It’s the Central Bank, it’s the CFATF requirements, FATCA and/or we are afraid of de-risking.” Some of this holds water. And, yes, money-laundering is an issue and regulations that aim to prevent it are real. “Know Your Customer” and “Customer Due Diligence” requirements are real. And, yes, the right to a bank account has not (yet) been laid down in St. Maarten law, like it is in many other countries.
But what some banks don’t appear to realize is that they have an important place in the current economic system: properly operating a business without a bank account is impossible. By dragging their feet when opening business bank accounts or point of sale terminals, banks force businesses to deal only in cash. In other words: the banks are not promoting, in action, the fight against money-laundering.
Banks all over the world try to limit their exposure to risky clients. St. Maarten and Curaçao have had numerous court cases regarding banks terminating accounts for such clients. Sometimes the customer loses, but sometimes they win. Due to this uncertainty, are the banks changing tactics? Are they simply lowering their service standards to force customers out?
Last year, a major Dutch bank tried to terminate the accounts of clients living in Curaçao, St. Maarten and the BES-islands. This list Included several attorneys who had litigated such terminations in the Dutch Caribbean. After a major PR offensive, legal threats, and involvement by the Dutch Parliament, the bank changed its course and allowed these residents to remain clients. This bank now uses a new tactic to scare away the unwanted client: the monthly fee increased tenfold.
But the times appear to be changing. One of the most unbankable persons in the world (An “Accidental American” who refused to obtain a US tax identification number), was protected in a Dutch court judgment of December 29, 2021, when the bank attempted to terminate his account.
Additionally, several Dutch banks were forced in injunction procedures to open bank accounts for coffee shops (selling cannabis). A Dutch (and at least one Aruban) bank was ordered to open accounts for businesses in the entertainment industry. However, we have yet to see a court case wherein a St. Maarten business or resident tries to force a St. Maarten bank to open bank accounts, or expand their services (for instance to online banking, POS terminals or cash deposit services).
If you would like to know more about your rights and ways to enforce your rights, please contact a competent attorney for more information.
Name withheld at author’s request.
By Alvaro Sanchez Cordero
2021 was a good year for Venezuela. Our economy started to grow, political dialogue made impressive progress and free and fair elections were successfully held throughout Venezuela. However, there are two additional areas where Venezuela made major advancements last year. I am referring to sports and culture.
Venezuela succeeded in these two strategic areas like never before in recent history. Nonetheless, little has been said or reported, especially abroad, about our sporting and cultural achievements. This is why I feel compelled to share with our Caribbean friends some of our outstanding records in 2021.
Firstly, our beloved, charismatic and yet humble Yulimar Rojas broke both a world record and an Olympic record in Tokyo, thus becoming the first Venezuelan woman ever to win an Olympic gold medal. Rojas, 26, became triple jump champion in the Olympic Games and was awarded, along with Argentine football player Leonel Messi, best athlete of the Americas in 2021 by the International Association of Sports Journalists (AIPS).
However, Rojas was not the only Venezuelan medallist in Tokyo. Venezuela also won three silver medals: two in weightlifting (Julio Mayora and Keydomar Vallenilla) and one in BMX cycling (Daniel Dhers), as well as six Olympic diplomas. All in all, Tokyo has been so far the best ever Venezuelan Olympic performance.
Additionally, also in Tokyo, Venezuela exhibited the best ever Paralympic team, with a total of seven medals and 17 diplomas. Our most outstanding Paralympic athlete was Lisbeli Vera in track and field. Vera won two gold medals in 100 and 200 meters and one silver medal in 400 meters. Equally, Tokyo has been so far our best Paralympic performance.
In October, Venezuelan cyclist Lilibeth Chacón became the champion of the 2021 edition of the prestigious and rigorous Tour of Colombia, defeating long-established cycling teams from Europe, North America and South America.
Women’s football has developed tremendously in Venezuela. Our best football player, Deyna Castellanos, who plays forward for Atlético Madrid in Spain, was awarded the best female football player of the month (December) for scoring three goals with two assists.
Although baseball is not a big sport in several countries, I would like to mention two important Venezuelan achievements in 2021. Firstly, Venezuela won the Under-23 World Cup championship, held in Mexico. In addition, Venezuelan Miguel Cabrera from the Detroit Tigers reached the 500 home-run mark in the Major League Baseball of the US. Only 28 sluggers in more than a century of professional baseball in the US have batted more than 500 home-runs.
