Dear Editor,
I can remember growing up the old people used to say “Confession is good for the soul”. So at times when messing with my siblings I would tell them that confession is good for the soul and that they should tell our mother what really happened. One day when my father overheard me talking to one of my brothers, he called me and said to me, “Get the Bible, look in James and see what it says about confession and let me know.” After a while I found an explanation of confession in James chapter 5 from verse 7 to 20. Later on my father told me that “true confession is good for the soul”.
On reading what was written about the Chairman of Parliament concerning his apology it reminded me of my father’s observation concerning confession. According to the paper, Chairman Brison says that it was done in a moment of frustration. I am not an English professor, and I am not about trying to put words in anybody’s mouth, but if I understand well, frustration occurs as a result of not getting the result one wants. So, can I assume that the Chairman means “it was the result of frustration?”
What I know also is that when one has a lot of not-so-pleasant things on one’s mind it causes frustration and then the following sayings can come into play: “What soberness conceals, drunkenness reveals” or “He speaks in his drink, what he thought in his drouth” or “A drunken man’s words are a sober man’s thoughts”.
Mind you I was not there so I cannot say anything about anybody’s condition, nor state of mind. So my question is, if I have all those beautiful thoughts about a person and I am ready to bestow so many accolades on that person, and even go as far as to compare her to my mother, why would the first things that come out of my mouth about her, “in a moment of frustration”, be demeaning and insulting, in the presence of others?
Dear Editor, to that I say, “What the heart thinks the mouth speaks” ( in Dutch, “waar het hart van vol is loopt de mond van over”). So to me it is clear where that letter of apology was compiled.
Politicians have to understand that not because a person voted for them means that that person is gullible. There are several reasons why people vote for a person or a party. For instance, what’s in their manifesto, the party program, party loyalty, the lesser of two evils, etc. And not because they are fools. The people have come to realize that when more people vote, it gives everybody a better chance.
For me this has nothing to do with party preference, it tells me that the one who compiled or okayed that so-called letter of apology qualifies the people of St. Maarten to be fools and that they do not realize what is really happening here. A frustrated person does not write an apology that takes up almost one third of a page of the newspaper. Also, what Chairman Brison did was not an indiscretion.
And even if the Chairman spoke those words in the privacy of his home, there is where he felt safe to be able to insult Mrs. Heyliger in the presence of others.
I have written it before but I will write it again, Everywhere else in the Dutch Kingdom, a whole lot of politicians have been investigated, indicted, even incarcerated for wrongdoing in government. Instead of doing like those people in government in the other countries of the Kingdom, who usually “take a French leave”, we in St. Maarten will fight our case all the way to the high court, knowing that we have a slim to no chance of winning, while all through the process they are washing their dirty linen in public.
So, I am curiously waiting for the next move, because it is the Minister and the Chairman who are in hot water.
I know that there are provisions to deal with this situation The Chairman of the Parliament of St. Maarten still does not realize that “not because something is not wrong, it is the right thing to do”.
This is called “ethics”. He has proven over and over that he has no regard for the position that he is occupying. I believe that he is conflating responsibility with power.
By the way, according to the Chairman, Jurendy took his like a man, so the Chairman should also take his like a man and do the honorable thing. The people of Sint Maarten are fed up with being constantly embarrassed by our people in government.
Russell A. Simmons
Dear Editor,
Spare the rod and spoil the child is true saying. This is not about what the old people used to say, this is biblical (Proverbs 13:24) And if you are aware that the child deserves to be punished, and you don't do so then this could be adverse intentions.
In this case it is the people of Sint Maarten who are being affected. By now, we should know that this is exactly what happened to Chairman Brison. He messed with the controllers while doing their job. They 'kijk door de vingers'; while IPKO was waiting for him, he was playing some kind of a sport. He received a slap on the wrist. Superman, Batman or even Santa Claus have assistants, but he felt that he could take on the Coharis gang alone. All he heard was this damn boy is embarrassing us. He seems to be a night bat, so island-wide curfew was not put in place for him. He broke protocol. The next thing you know they started calling him a crackhead, but they still have not done anything. I thought, "How much more are his colleagues going to take?
Yes, how much lower can they go? But then I listened to that tape, which by now has gone viral, I decided this lunatic has to go. And then again, I heard something which was, "When last did we get through a week without our leaders embarrassing us?" I have constantly written to you about our people in government being indicted and incarcerated, and that the people of Sint Maarten do not deserve this, but I have never felt so embarrassed as after listening to that tape.
Chairman Brison did all of the above and it seems as if that internal "code of ethics" was about to protect him again. But technology, yes technology, got the better part of him. Nowadays everybody has a cell phone because a cell phone does everything. Nobody trusts anybody anymore, because nowadays they never know who’s going to throw down the government. Too bad for Chairman Brison.
Nobody is going to catch me mumbling words because as I always say, I am responsible for what I write. There are certain things instilled in me from childhood. I started off my letter with one and another one is that 'the truth will set you free'. My mother used to tell us, "You don't have to say everything, but whatever you say must be the truth." I hear that his own party members are asking for his resignation, so I wonder what they are going to do about that "code of ethics"
I hope he does not have an ace up his sleeve, which could mean forcing a lot of people’s hands, delaying him being ousted, which is totally not fair to the people of Sint Maarten.
I believe that ethically the complete Parliament should call for his resignation. He is behaving as if the government (the people) is his to do as he wishes with, holding that position. This is embarrassing to the people of Sint Maarten, and if the members of Parliament do not demand Brison's resignation, they will be showing the people who they really are. So, if they want to be respected, this should not be, 'it is not up to me', they all should have the dignity to en bloc demand chairman Brison's resignation. Do we really want to continue this trend? Do the people of Sint Maarten deserve to continue to be led by a "yob"? I do not think that I have to remind the people of Sint Maarten of the popular saying, “From where the fish does start to rot. The same way that that tape has gone viral, it is up to Parliament to show the world now who they really are.
Who is really to blame? I would say they did not bend the tree in time, so they now they have to chop it down.
Russell A. Simmons
Dear Editor,
A giant among us, Mr. Guido R. Hermans, recently passed away.
Perhaps not as well known, as humble as he always was, a media-shy person. Many legislative products, before and after 10-10-10, are in his name.
Just having returned from the Netherlands (1993), I got a job as a legislative lawyer at the General and Legal Affairs Department (AJZ) of the Island Territory of Curaçao.
My first lesson from Mr. Hermans, as my mentor: “Young man, this is a package of draft legislative proposals. Get started, mucha hòmber, I’ll help you if you get stuck. Then we will start the real process, which is ‘delete and omit’!”
Of course, I didn’t understand any of this at first, until I discovered the genius of this methodology of this legislative guru, Mr. Hermans. Before that, I had to toil every day into the evenings to process his lessons, but learning – that quickly happened.
Mr. Hermans was also in favor of partial legislative changes.
“Maitre Ribeiroo, our government apparatus is not as well equipped as in the Netherlands. So, we have to do it modestly through partial legislative changes. We will then arrange it for applicable texts (geldende teksten),” said this grandmaster.
Each sentence was then meticulously analyzed by him for possible linguistic errors as well as for the logical reasoning of the whole. Many pieces of my text used to have his remarks: “Amice, is it necessary?” and “behold, there is already the answer in that question.”
My early days with Mr. Hermans would not have been the easiest – long sessions – if it weren’t for the fact that he always combined them with anecdotes about international politics, French statements and, how could it be otherwise, in Latin.
One of them: “Maitre Ribeiroo, do not forget this: ‘Gutta cavat lapidem non vi sed saepe cadendo’ (The drop hollows out the stone, not by force, but by falling often).”
If I didn’t fully understand a certain word or concept right away, he always referred me to its deeper meaning: “Omnes definitio – in jure – periculosa es.” (Every definition – in law – is dangerous).
In my own life and career I may not have followed all his teachings, but I can never forget who my true teacher was.
To the Hermans family: wishing you strength! To Mr. Hermans: Amice, see you later!
Norberto V. Ribeiro
Dear Editor,
Today it’s the US Party, tomorrow it’s UD, the other time it’s UP. Why are they surprised? Has this not been the M.O. of our people in government? I have quoted to you many times that our people in Parliament have their own “code of ethics”, which is: “If you don’ talk on me, oin’ gon talk on you”. Not too long ago I read where one of them say that they picking on he alone. I said to myself, “Oh oh, something smell fishy. I wonder if the code of ethics was violated.”
But then one Minister lie putting the other Minister in a bind, not sure what to do and in the middle of it all the computers transformed into robots bussin’ the pot telling the Minister, “Yo lie, you’n look … .”
Just like yo know the woman marry to the man for years and yo goin’ roun’ saying how dey “foolin’ roun wid each other”.
The other thing what I don’t understand is how come all of a sudden keeping meetings with members of Parliament who are under investigation or even who have been to courts awaiting sentence become a problem. Is it forbidden for coalition partners (members of Parliament ) to disagree with policies and not vote along party lines? This is like “splitting hairs”. The Dutchman will say, “Spijkers op laag water zoeken.” They are accusing others of the same thing that they are doing, the difference is like we would “they get the first chance”.
Now this. Someone gave me a sheet of paper with the following written on it. I read it, thought about it and decided that this coincides with my opinion. It stated: We need to intensify our traffic controls in combination with Immigration officers in order to be able to know who is doing what here! Too many small companies and no tax-paying.
Russell A. Simmons
Dear Editor,
The words “customer” and “service” when placed together form “a unicorn” on our “Friendly island”. This has also caused us to accept that proper customer service should not be expected or demanded. We cower and nothing changes.
My experience outside of CIBC Bank at Emmaplein with a “senior interior” security guard on Monday was one of utter disrespect and was beyond bad customer service. What is worse is his behaviour and treatment of customers (read: bank clients whose money also pays his salary) are well known within the walls of the bank and among regular clients. People actually go to the bank prepared to be confronted by this unprofessional man.
We are living in tough economic times and before anyone decides I am affecting anyone’s means of income, quit the thought. This is about personal financial business being exposed to the public, someone who is rude and unprofessional, and about an institution doing nothing about it because clients have no choice but to visit the bank where their money is.
So, what happened:
I received an email to visit a customer service rep about going into the bank to complete a service. I was given the name of the representative and the bank’s opening times.
I arrived at the bank and told the security guard I have an appointment with customer service. He was already gruff and behaved as though I was bothering his day and how dare I think I could speak to him (this is my impression). He goes inside and comes back out in an even worse mood than before. He “communicates” (if you can call his tone of communication) that the rep I said I had an appointment with said he had no appointment with anyone.
The guard proceeded to ask me why I needed to go to customer service. I mean, am I to tell the security guard what my business in the bank is? I am also to tell the security guard what my business at the bank is with zero privacy standing outside the bank’s door in front of everyone else waiting there?
I received quite a dressing down after he saw the email I received about coming into the bank. When I said I had an email, he was next looking into my phone and reading it off my phone – zero privacy. “That is not an appointment,” he said in a rude and unfriendly tone. How am I to know what the heck it is called when the bank informs me I have to show up to complete a service that the bank offers? A service I am paying for btw.
I was prepared to let this incident go, but couldn’t upon learning that the nasty behaviour of this security guard is a constant and well known factor.
1. One woman waiting to get into the bank remarked: “He is the reason I don’t like coming to the bank.”
2. The customer service representative after hearing my complaint about the way I was treated asked, “Which security guard?” When I indicated who it was, the rep’s response was that this behaviour is known and other clients have also complained.
3. Another rep hearing the issue indicated the same as rep 1 that the behaviour is known and added that his behaviour is known to management, et al.
This is not a “me” issue. This is a chronic issue at a bank I do business with and it needs to be fixed asap. Either this security guard is sent to customer service classes and monitored after for change of behaviour or removed from dealing with the public.
CIBC Bank, your customers are not a bother. They should not be treated with disrespect, rudely or in any unkind manner. They should not come to your branches expecting to be treated like the scum of the earth, to be dressed down, or to be “put in their place” by anyone.
I don’t want an apology. Those are fickle and empty things. Fix the issue of the behaviour of this guard.
If I hear of this continuing to be an issue or I face the same issue again, I will know the way this security guard treats clients is a reflection of how you as a bank feel/see me, us, we, as clients. And, as difficult as opening an account is in the country, I will know my business is not in the right place and will move it elsewhere.
Alita Singh
A loyal client for 16 years
