Dear Editor,

  Recently, there has been a lot of talk in the media about the sale of ENNIA assets such as Banco di Caribe and the property in Mullet Bay, St. Maarten. This to save the insurance company. Dr. Jose Jardim, as one of the directors of CBCS (Central Bank) stated this at a press conference. Mr. Jardim has expressed himself several times in the same way.

  As a professional, I think I have to make some reservations about such statements. CBCS has stated since the emergency regulation on ENNIA was issued that this mainly concerns improving the financial (solvency) position of the insurance company for the benefit of the policyholders.

  During the first press conference on July 5, 2018, and the subsequent press conference on September 26, 2018, it was even stated that the process of restoring solvency will not take years. Three years have already passed. …

  In my humble opinion, if it concerns the continuity of the ENNIA companies, so actually the so-called saving of ENNIA, why is there even talk of selling ENNIA assets? Under these circumstances, by selling assets, ENNIA obtains less than its assets are actually worth. And what is your alternative use of the obtained resources? Provided you have the continuity of ENNIA in mind, you will have to have a better reinvestment with sufficient return to be able to meet your obligations in the long term. Or there is a liquidity issue and you need cash to meet short-term obligations and possibly continue with help. Then ENNIA is in deep trouble.

  In the case of the sale of Banco di Caribe for a price mentioned in the various media of around 60 million, ENNIA has an issue. According to the recently published annual accounts 2020, approved by the CBCS, Banco di Caribe’s equity is 182.4 million. Banco di Caribe still generates a profit which can be considered a return for ENNIA. What reason can you have to sell at a discount of 120 million? Such a transaction is not in line with an intention to ensure the continuity of ENNIA for the benefit of the policyholders.

  It only makes sense if you intend to settle the whole thing. Then you need cash to buy everything off at probably a discount. But then you must not pretend that your intention is to save ENNIA and ensure continuity. This is then misleading policyholders and the public. Under these circumstances, every guilder put into his pension by a policyholder will be worth maybe 30 cents immediately if I keep the proportions for Banco di Caribe. In any case, worth much less. If it takes a long time to clarify what the intention is and to act on this, ENNIA will have the same fate as Girobank but with a greater impact.

  The same applies to the land in Mullet Bay, St. Maarten. A life insurer or a pension provider should also consider long-term investments. Because you also have long-term obligations (sometimes of 40 years or longer). Around the world, these insurers will also invest in land that will be developed over the years.

  In Curaçao we can even compare with APNA/APC which had acquired the land on Jan Thiel and sold the land by parceling out little by little in phases. That is also how the investment in Mullet Bay should be seen. Instead of developing the territory only selling below the possible realizable value, you have lied to the policyholders again. The value of their pension will decrease accordingly.

  How is it possible that the CBCS advocates the sale of assets, i.e., an erosion of the value of the group, and at the same time claims to represent the interests of policyholders.

  In any case, CBCS has caused unrest among policyholders and the public in general. Under no circumstances will the sale of assets for less than their book value and without a more favorable alternative use be a responsible business. Only in the event of settlement does the sale make any sense, but it will seriously affect the assets of policyholders.

Reinald Curiel

Reinald Curiel is a former board member of ENNIA insurance company

Dear Editor,

  I visited the Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday and was attended by a young lady who involuntarily obliged me to write to you.

  I am not computer savvy. The only things that I can do on a computer without hesitation are to type a letter or look up the weather channel. Because of this I go personally to pay my bills.

  I continue to hear complaints about the lack of “customer care” by the different offices on the island where bills have to be paid and service given. I personally have not really experienced negative treatment, which I believe is because I usually make the person attending to me comfortable from the onset. Notwithstanding, I was present on a few occasions where I thought things could have been handled differently by the attendant.

  My concern though is that getting information via the telephone is different. It takes self-control and patience. Which to me is understandable, because parties cannot see each other's facial expressions, there is no personal contact, no perception of body language. As is a custom, words are often taken out of context and/or misinterpreted. I dare say that this happens too often because even if it happens one time, one time is too often.

  Like I stated at the beginning of this letter, I found myself obliged to write to you because of the professional treatment I received from that young lady at the Chamber of Commerce. I congratulated her on that on leaving the office. I will not mention a name because I do not believe in singling out people publicly whether good or bad because there is always a reason for good or bad behavior. Oftentimes it is the influence, whether good or bad, of the parents and not to omit in too many cases the lack of both parents.

  From the time I entered the door of the Chamber of Commerce until I left there were only positive vibes. I chose to remain standing at the counter at the entrance of the office while waiting for the person who was busy attending to a client. During this time, which was approximately 10 minutes, three different workers approached me ready to attend to me. I told them who I was waiting for. When it was my turn and I sat down and spoke to the young lady I earlier referred to the pleasant way in which I was welcomed, was just the beginning of the professional way in which my visit continued.

  I went to that office for information and at the end of my visit I did not have to return, because I was guided step by step and in addition to getting the information I went for, I also completed my business. I went to that office with the presumption that this is going to be another “go come back”. I was wrong.

  I am aware that not everyone will get through like I did, because that is the reality, but I tip my hat to whomever is leading that office.

  In light of the above I will say this. Of late several other things are being imposed upon the people of this country, which brings the word “inconsiderate” to mind. I do not believe in leaving a text or an email and expect me to rely on my phone or computer to know everything. When I get home I look for my wife and my children, not a computer or phone. And whether they like to hear it or not or whether it is an excuse or not, everybody is putting the bad reception of the phone and the slow working computer on the Internet, which in turn again have to take them right back to the office to be attended to by those same persons who they complain about.

  So because service is prime where there is tourism, what about doing something which could serve the people positively; for instance, in-depth courses in “customer care”, which would benefit both our tourism product as well as the taxpayer?

  By the way, we are constantly complaining about the motorbike riders. It is time enough we start doing the same thing to the drivers of heavy equipment, trailer-trucks and dump trucks. They also drive very recklessly and irresponsibly over the roads. The speed limit is still 30 and 50 kilometers per hour. The streets of St. Maarten have not grown and the curves and corners are still the same. Respect your fellow driver.

Russell A. Simmons

Dear Editor,

  With great interest we’ve read your editorial “clear answer” on August 24, 2021, and we fully concur with the statement that St. Maarten/GEBE is long overdue in establishing any non-fossil fuel energy production, also called renewables. St. Maarten does not even show up in international renewable ranking lists, together with very few other countries. Besides huge lost opportunities, this is devastating for its image as a green island.

  It must be said, however, that several initiatives have been taken over the past decade and VWMC, a Curaçao-based consultancy company, has been participating in and even leading many of them. As an example, a full feasibility study has been executed for the St Maarten international airport proving a viable [megawatt – Ed.] MW-sized renewable scenario from a technical, financial and operational point of view. Unfortunately, for reasons unknown, this has not led to further steps towards implementation. Studies, advices, proposals, et cetera, related to other specific MW-sized projects also to the entire energy sector are readily available for years.

  The opportunities are clear, a lot of preparatory work is done and the first steps are really straightforward. It only requires political willingness to simply take the first step. Not by reinventing but to act upon what exists.

VWMC

By Alex Rosaria

The oath of office as prescribed in our Constitution requires Members of Parliament and Government to: “... maintain the Constitution of Curaçao.” Yet, the same Constitution doesn’t have legal means to guarantee the supremacy of the Constitution and constitutional legality of (proposed) legal acts. Meaning, those who should safeguard our Constitution can breach it by accepting or enacting a legal act without independently determining its constitutionality. This doesn’t make sense. We should curb the absolute powers of Parliament.

  The dangers of not having a Constitutional Court aren’t theoretical. In 2013 the office of the Governor indicated that the Governor would not sign into law the unconstitutional “80/20” which was passed by the Parliament in 2011. Had it arrived on the desk of the Governor, this would’ve resulted in an unresolved constitutional crisis.

  The plea for a Constitutional Court (judicial review) isn’t new. Dr. Moises Frumencio da Costa Gomez made his case in 1946 (Curaçao in het Koninkrijk, p.123) for Curaçao to depart from the Dutch tradition to prohibit judicial review and make it possible. He didn’t propose a Constitutional Court, but felt that it could be handled by the Appellate Court.

  Building on da Costa Gomez’ proposal I’ve been calling for a Constitutional Court since 2010. As Member of Parliament (2012-2016), I presented draft legislation to the Parliaments of Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten for a joint Constitutional Court. It was well received, but Curaçao didn’t continue to lead. Below, the most salient points of my proposal.

Together or solo?

  The case for a joint Constitutional Court which is part of the already established Joint Court of Justice is overwhelming considering our scale. We could go solo, but it’s not recommended.

Scope

  The way we’ve dealt with Constitutional crises and multi-interpretations of the Constitution so far is based on opinions of constitutionally unlettered politicians and “expert opinions” by people with their own agenda. Evidently this isn’t constitutional review. On the contrary, it threatens the integrity of the Constitution.

  The Constitutional Court should be limited to establishing whether a certain legal act is in conflict or not with the Constitution. To clarify, (re)interpret constitutional provisions when it’s important to improve the protection of the constitutional values and control mechanisms enshrined in the Constitution.

Decisions are binding

  A legal act that has been ruled by the Constitutional Court to be unconstitutional may not be applied from the day the ruling is made public. It should be permanently revoked, removed from our legal system or amended.

  I don’t believe in retroactive effect of decisions made by the Constitutional Court, even if such possibilities exist in some countries. The final decisions and or interpretations of the Constitutional Court are binding on all courts, institutions, organizations, officials and citizens. Government and the Parliament should be given enough space to make the above–mentioned changes.

Establish constitutional jurisprudence

  The Constitutional Court should be bound by its own precedents and decisions in order to be consistent and ensure the continuity of constitutional jurisprudence. The importance lies in the fact that at all cost arbitrariness and subjectivity depending on the composition of Government, Parliament and even of the Constitutional Court should be avoided.

Curb and check the ‘absolute’ power of Parliament

  In our parliamentary democracy Parliamentarians too easily consider themselves almighty and like yelling “Vox Populi, Vox Dei,” ignorant that this was originated in 1709 by kings who were given celestial powers by Christianity. It’s especially harrowing in Curaçao where Members of Parliament with zero votes are able to represent the entire population.

  We like to talk about democratic deficiency as it pertains to our relationship within the Kingdom of The Netherlands. Rarely do we talk about deficiencies in our own house.

  ~ Alex David Rosaria (53) is a freelance consultant active in Asia and the Pacific. He is a former Member of Parliament, Minister of Economic Affairs, State Secretary of Finance and UN Implementation Officer in Africa and Central America. He is from Curaçao and has an MBA from University of Iowa (USA). ~