By Alex Rosaria
In Curaçao, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons face increased discrimination, especially since Christian churches have escalated their opposition to equal rights for this group. Of all people, you would think that we should know that discrimination, prejudice and bigotry is a deadly poison. Our fight against injustice goes way back to the dark days of slavery, racism and sexism. Yet, the tables have turned. Many who used to be (descendants of) victims of discrimination are now doing the discrimination. I doubt that this was the intention of the likes of Dr. Da Costa Gomez, Tula and ‘Damanan di Djarason’.
Last’s week’s Court’s decision that determined Curaçao is violating the Constitution by excluding same-sex couples from marriage gives hope. Fortunately, the Courts have shown to care about the Constitution which cannot be said for the Staten and Fòrti.
Marriage should not be a heterosexual privilege for if we are created equal, then the love we commit to another human being must be equal as well. We must realize, however, that there will not be a magic day when we wake up to a country without discrimination and prejudice, but it’s a starting point. I stand with you, LGBTQ. I will continue to denounce ignorance and the hate from the pulpits every Sunday.
Alex David Rosaria (53) is a freelance consultant active in Asia & 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’s from Curaçao and has an MBA from University of Iowa. (USA).
Dear Editor,
I have called St. Martin home for 27 years and have grown to love this little island, its people and even its politics. It is cute politics. I often marvel at the simple approaches and arguments. Please don’t get me wrong I am not diminishing the island’s politics and issues. They are just so silly at times.
Very recently we saw the President of the Parliament in Dutch St. Maarten call one of his fellow MPs [Members of Parliament – Ed.] lazy. This was strange to me because the MP in question, Emmanuel, seems to be creating all of the news on the island this entire year. In many countries opposition MPs do exactly what Emmanuel does on a daily basis. They hold the government accountable. How else would any population anywhere in the world discover what their government is doing? You cannot depend on any government to volunteer information.
Let me remind you of some of the things Emmanuel, in my opinion, has brought to light for being “lazy”: The disclosure of the COHO stipulations, the cut to the income of public workers, the cabal at the airport and false claims of good corporate governance, the attempted hiring of an Australian to run your hospital, warning of impending property taxes, the garbage contracts controversy, the trust fund strange selection of projects instead of focusing on more schools, homes and the like, the rundown event village and its vanishing insurance money, the blatant lies of the island’s liquidity, the relocation of vendors in your capital, the joke that is the integrity chamber, the lack of a recovery plan post-COVID and now lately keeping your government on its toes with tax reforms.
Now your first question might be how do I recall all of this? Simple, GOOGLE! The good gentleman has trended the entire year. His activity has either completely changed the trajectory of whatever the government was attempting, stopped it cold or at the least gave the government pause and forced them to do the right thing or reconsider their course of action. His predictions have also borne fruit.
This, good sirs, is the definition of good and powerful and effective representation. It is also the kind of representation that governments all over the world can criticize using only one old line: “the MP is only complaining.” Well, hear, hear! for the complaints!
If the good MP is lazy, then I say we need more lazy MPs. If that is what laziness looks like, then I’ll take it! Finally, considering the above dubbed “laziness”, how exactly then, would one classify the complete inactivity of the same President of Parliament (save for the controversies he keeps creating)?
Name withheld at author’s request.
Dear Editor,
As an operator/employer of a bar and restaurant since 2013 on St. Maarten I can clearly remember that within 2 weeks of opening my business 2 inspectors came to check if I had a business license. Because I didn’t have my license as yet I was granted 2 weeks to take the receipt of my notary payment to the office on Cannegieter Street.
I always pay my taxes every month and license fees every year as I am confident that by paying my taxes will benefit when I am no longer able to work. Last week my bar and restaurant were visited by a VSA [Ministry of Public Health, Social Development and Labor – Ed.] inspector during the evening hours while I, the managing director, was not present, to carry out a control. The employee present during the control was asked to show proof of the following documents during the control:
Copy of ID, employment and residence permit of the employee
Copy of Chamber of Commerce for the year 2021
Copy of Business license
Copy of Director’s License
Copy of Labor Registration
Copy of list of Personnel
Copy of last 2 months of AVO/AWW and TOT receipts
Work schedule of employees
2 last pay slips
The employee was also told that the business license should be placed at the front of the bar even though they were displayed on a wall facing the front of the bar. There were a number of documents that she could not produce at that time. A name and number were left on a document that contained the logo and heading of the Inspectorate of VSA for me to call, with a check mark of the missing documents that I was requested to take to the office within 2 days which I had no problem doing.
On Friday September 10, 2021, I visited the Festival Village and walked from booth to booth. I counted at least 30 open booths and never once saw one booth with a single business license displayed as was requested to be done in my place of business.
Why are the VSA inspectors are going from business to business all hours of the day to control bars and restaurants in different areas of the island but not controlling a single bar and restaurant in the Festival Village? All bars and restaurants on St. Maarten are compelled to pay yearly for 2 licenses, including one to sell open alcoholic beverages to the public, plus the Chamber of Commerce fee. My question is, why are the bars and restaurants in the Festival Village exempt from paying these fees?
Over the last 7 years numerous prominent local businessmen have been dragged to court because of not paying their fair share of taxes with the prosecutor claiming that they are disadvantaging other businesses who are paying their taxes. Is it fair for business owners of the Festival Village to have an advantage over other bar and restaurant operators just because they are renting from government?
Since the operators of the Festival Village are allowed to operate their establishments tax free, I believe the inspectors should halt controlling other establishments on St. Maarten until everyone of those bars operating in the Festival Village can display their operating licenses and start paying their fair share of taxes like all other businesses on St. Maarten must do.
P.S. Before anyone starts thinking that those documents were requested from my business because my business has been receiving government stimulus, let me make it clear that my business never requested nor received any government stimulus.
Name withheld at author’s request.
Dear Editor,
St. Maarten parliamentarians, government and State Secretary Raymond Knops, more funds are urgently needed for the K1 team food programme to keep proceeding with providing groceries to the people that are in need. This situation is very serious and more funds are urgently needed.
Prime Minister of St. Maarten Silveria Jacobs must put her act together and get more money as soon as possible for the next three to six months.
We have suffered with a low minimum wage and lack of justice for so long on this island, even the hurricane and coronavirus put the poor men into a situation of great need.
Many are waiting for this great help and appreciate the help they got from Red Cross and the K1 team food programme.
Cuthbert Bannis
Dear Editor,
The debt owed to the Dutch government by St. Maarten should be canceled. The first step should be immediate suspension and then definite cancellation. Discussions on this matter should commence forthwith. The NAf. 12.7 million has to be handled next month. These funds go towards the NAf. 1 billion already owed to the Dutch government.
The economic challenges that St. Maarten is presently facing support this request of suspension and cancellation. Making payments on these debts puts a further burden on the economy of the country and takes away much-needed funds that can better go towards meeting its social needs such as health, education, law enforcement and infrastructure.
And need I remind the public that the International Monetary Fund mentioned in their recent report of July 2021, and I paraphrase, that if the Dutch government does not turn the loans that are given for liquidity support into grants or donations, St. Maarten will not be able to return to the GDP [gross domestic product – Ed.] which was the lowest in the Kingdom. Prior to that they had warned that St. Maarten should not continue to enter into loan agreements as these actions would negatively affect their GDP. Some might be asking if debt cancellation is possible. It is.
In a report entitled “Suspending public debt repayments by legal means” written by Cecile Lamarque and Renaud Vivien (CADT), it is possible. Here is a quote taken from the said document under the heading “Repayment of the public debt is not inevitable”. The quote reads as follows: “To be bound by a loan contract, the State must have given its free consent” end of quote.
I would like to explain. Did St. Maarten give her free consent to the liquidity support? We all know the answer to this question. St. Maarten was ridiculed by some for playing hardball because the government did not want to submit to these austerity measures that the Dutch government required to get the urgently needed financial injection. But after 6 months of intense discussions, government was left with the stark reality that at the end of December it would not have been able to meet any of its financial obligations to civil servants, subsidies and so on.
According to Article 26 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the state is obligated to repay the debt it has contracted. However, and I quote: “These principles are not absolute and are only valid for debts contracted in the general interest of the community” end of quote. In other words, St. Maarten is not obligated to repay these loans because the conditions that were and are continued to be set for liquidity support are not in the general interest of the community. This is in accordance with international law. Article 103 explains this and one has to also look at Article 55 of the United Nations Charter.
The article mentions in sub c, universal respect for, and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Article 1-2 talks about the right to self-determination and international cooperation for the development of peoples (Article 1-3). This was extracted from the Report. “All these provisions designed to protect human rights have precedence over other obligations entered into by States (St. Maarten), including the repayment of debts, and also the application of austerity programs enforced in particular by the IMF, the World Bank and the European Commission” end of quote.
Furthermore, the reforms should not be used as a condition for liquidity support. The NAf. 12.7 million payment should be suspended and the loans that were issued for liquidity support must be turned into grants or donations as was mentioned by the International Monetary Fund.
George Pantophlet
Member of Parliament
