Dear Editor,

  I ended my last letter to you stating that somebody had alerted me that the police should concentrate on the gypsy drivers because they are the ones who help to move criminals and their loot all around the island. So, I told that person that the police have special tip-lines in order that the public who do want to remain incognito can be able to call without saying who they are.

  Some of them would tell you that the police don’t do anything when you tell them anyhow. This I know is not true. Because of experience I know that the police rely on those tips.

  What I also know is that the people who call are sometimes frustrated when they believe that the police are not doing anything about the tip that they gave. That is also not true, because it always takes research and the police also have to compare the tips and see where they fit in with those that they already have. When they have it served then they usually go out and get the person they need.

  It takes patience but the public should continue using the tip line.

  By the way, someone called me and asked me why I let Peterson off the hook so easily? Peterson is still a novice where politics is concerned. and will have to bump his head a few times along the way.

  What I never and will not agree with is the way politicians address each other publicly. I have used strong words off and on but I know my bounds. It has become so that our politicians believe that the way Donald Trump behaves and expresses himself is the way it should be, but they are gravely mistaken. Life is a reflection of nature and that saying about honey and vinegar is true and one must be aware that at the end of every dispute between couples, honey wins.

  From a child my father used to tell me that “too smart died at one smart door” I was under the impression that he meant “two” smart died at one smart door until when I was 16 years old and I said to him, “Daddy, explain me the meaning of that two smart and one smart thing that you always tell me about.” After giving me one of his famous talks he said to me too much of anything is not good. When you think that you are too smart, there is always someone out there who is smarter than you are.

  For the young politicians’ sake let me repeat this. The obscene words and foul language is the easiest part of any conversation or discussion that people remember. And so are words like disgraceful and reprehensible, etc. For instance, could not this be said differently: “It is reprehensible to me that the Prime Minister would have the audacity to stand in a press briefing and attack the freedom of the press and the rights of the public to have an informed debate.”

  Does the MP really want the Prime Minister censored and condemned for taking that bold risk? Should I believe that is the relationship these two members of government have with each other? If this is the case and this being the atmosphere in our legislative hall, then what kind of a representation should we expect? How does this sound? “I believe that Madame Prime Minister has misinterpreted the law on leaking and freedom of the press and the right of the public to have an informed debate.”

  I am aware that this kind of rhetoric and underhandedness has been going on for years, That does not mean that they have to continue forever. Those who are still around should remember the case about the then-Minister of Justice’s blue car.

  Let me say this. I read “Ministry of Justice fails to implement major advice”. I believe that when someone goes into a house for the first time and meets pots and pans in the bathroom, beds in the living room, sofa in the kitchen and the repairman and maintenance man breathing down your back for their money, should it not take a little time to try to clean up the mess and get the house straightened out to be able to accommodate anyone? Is that not a good comparison of what the present Minister of Justice was confronted with when she took office?

Russell A. Simmons

Dear Editor,

  Over the many years of corresponding with you, your readers might have realised that I do not discriminate when it concerns crime. I also usually state that “Not because a person is a well-known thief, means that every robbery that was committed, was committed by that person.” I have also learned over the years that that saying “Show me your friends and I’ll tell you who you are” is also not immutable. It is also not biblical, because that would require “judging”.

  What I know though is that “where there is smoke, there is fire”. When I read that letter written to you by Stuart Johnson concerning the Chairperson of Parliament [Rolando Brison – Ed.], my first reaction was “they caught another one”. Why that reaction? Simple. That was the “modus operandi” of a popular hotel owner here on St. Maarten, targeting influential people in government to provide complimentary rooms.

  I know this because of advice asked of me by someone who found himself in a similar situation /predicament. He told me at that time that he felt trapped because this hotel owner said to him in front of other people that he had not seen him since the last time he gave him the room. As I have always done, I tactically avoided the issue by claiming that we are not allowed to advise anyone on how to avoid the consequences of wrongdoing.

  I am not stating that what I have read about Stuart Johnson and the Chairperson of Parliament concerns that same resort owner, but again there are back-to-back articles in the paper about the unacceptable behavior of our leaders in government.

  Is only every four years the only possible way of getting rid of this reprehensible behavior? There is no doubt in my mind that Stuart Johnson could have ulterior motives for bringing up the past with those comments and questions, but it would not surprise me if it does not become a back-and-forth melee. However, this does not take away that when it is not one it’s another member of Parliament or Minister whose irresponsible and discredited behavior is in question and brought to light. Is this the kind of behavior that we would want for our children to look up to?

  So, my question is, what do we expect our teachers to instill in the pupils when the pupils are continuously reading about the not-so-admirable conduct of those who, as the saying goes, “get away with murder” just because of being an elected official?

  When I came here in 1975 one of the things that I realized very early is that everybody knew everybody’s habits and would notice when those habits changed and remark on them. Strange enough, after 46 years and so much change of immigrants not much has changed. The constant advancement of modern technology has constantly provided the opportunity to be able to survey each other. It amazes me that our political leaders (public figures) have not figured this out yet. At least they should know that the schoolchildren have an eight-out-of-ten average in knowing at least eighty percent of the truth about what is going on.

  So, when I read that the Prime Minister is furious about the leaks and what steps she would like to see taken, I am inclined to believe her and even applaud her for that. I also would like to applaud the Prime Minister for the extensive explanation given in connection with the Minister of VROMI-Ombudsman dispute. I would even go as far as to suggest for your readers to clip that article out and save it and once in a while use it as a conversation piece. I believe that this is the understanding that everyone should have about how to go about life in and out of government.

  This is why I do not agree with MP Emmanuel calling out the Prime Minister for not bringing down the hammer on Minister Doran. I wonder if the MP is familiar with John 8:7. By now your readers should have noticed that the MP is very energetic in hammering on the negative.

  I was always taught to be the best of whatever you are. So, if I am an elected politician and I am in government all I have to do is to do my best, be fair and I will have nothing to fear. But as soon as our politicians get in government their first and main objective is to make sure they stay in government. So, all of a sudden there is this metamorphosis. And instead of doing the right thing they embark on breaking each other down. My strong belief is that this is mostly for public observation, because they all consistently hang out with each other.

  I grew up hearing that saying, “birds of a feather flock together” and “if you scratch my back I will scratch yours”. But this is supplying the Justice department of the Kingdom with all kinds of material to have too many of them indicted. I was still pondering, if in an environment where the understanding is, if you don’t rat me out I will not rat you out, why does MP Emmanuel want the Prime Minister to put more pressure on Minister Doran?

  Then it hit me. Is the MP pulling for the Ombudsman, in order for the Ombudsman to be lenient in case the Ombudsman finds old skeletons in the VROMI closet? The fear is that if the Over the Bank affair wakes up the sleeping dog, the dog might go straight to the closet and somebody is afraid that the dog might find skeletons. Now, in order to avoid the dog from barking too loud they are hurrying to pet the dog. What I know is that dogs do not care for rats. So we’ll see.

  But somebody reminded me that that technicality the last time, did not sit too well. I honestly hope there is no sequel, because It is high time that our people in government realize that they are all fighting a losing battle and in doing so are constantly dragging St. Maarten in the mud. I would love to see somebody in VROMI show some integrity without asking what’s in it for me and clean up and straighten out the situation on Walter J. Nisbeth Road.

  In saying that, let me say this. I know that every citizen is allowed to voice their opinion respectfully, even by asking questions to our political leaders. Civics teach you that. For some reason or the other, of late people ask me why does not the Prime Minister fix her road? I know the reason, but my answer will remain, “ask her.” I will not promote gossip.

Russell A. Simmons

Dear Editor,

  I read a letter written to you by someone whom I would refer to as a coward, but I will politely call N.N. In my last letter I wrote that I would recommend your readers to clip out that article in which the Prime Minister denounces "leaking". In a letter to you on Monday October 4, N.N. states that we were reminded by Mr. Peterson  that all government documents should be public information, etc. I believe that N.N. has a problem with interpretation or "should be".

  I also know that there are channels that the public has to go through to be able to obtain information from the government, whether it is public or not.  And then N.N. goes on to state that, "We should be going in the opposite direction, providing protection to whistle-blowers"  But from the time I read, "We talk about National Security as if we are under some form of terrorist threat , when indeed and in fact, the greatest National Security threat facing the people of St. Maarten is the enrichment of those in power at the expense of businesses and the poor".

  I thought  'Oh, oh, something somebody did not get and their emotions are taking over'. I believe that N.N is considering a leaker to be equal to a whistle-blower and that is why he wants protection for the whistle-blower. I think I have stated it before in different ways. Think before you talk. Do not answer when you are mad because your emotions are going to get the better of you. If someone wants to remain in the closet, but his confidant leaks it out,  it is not the same as when someone notices wrongdoing and secretly lets it be known.

  I would advise when we are going to write letters to the Editor, that we do some homework first, yes do research before putting it black on white, because we cannot know how the reaction can be. I do not have any confidence in what was written by N.N  because of the inconsistencies, nor do I know whether it is meant to be malicious, more so because no name was added to it.

  Because I do not know everything and do not always understand everything, I have to ask questions. In this case it is not clear to me what N.N is considering 'a natural reaction to systemic unfairness' and what is global in nature? Is it really so that the Prime Minister's reaction to leaking is not acceptable? Who is clipping whose wings? I do not believe it is N.N's because his letter is in the paper. Or does N.N. mean that if a name is attached to the letter the author's wings will be clipped. If that is so, then I would not only have no wings, but all of my feathers would be gone by now.

  N.N wrote about the National Ordinance referring to all government documents being public information. N.N. should have gone a little further to find out what is written in the Constitution concerning freedom of the press. Or probably N.N. should call someone from the newspaper to be enlightened on what is permitted to be written, without being sanctioned. If one would ask me, who would I prefer, the whistle-blower or the leaker? That is easy. The whistle-blower secretly exposes wrongdoing, whereas the leaker creates wrongdoing. Beside good governance I do not want anything from the Prime Minister, but she is right in what she said about the leaker.

  By the way, I am fascinated by the article Law Enforcement Institute in St. Maarten 'to become reality'. Since I'm on the topic of Law enforcement, in connection with the article in which the police are seeking help to find owners of vehicles, someone called me and suggested that the police come down heavy on the gypsy drivers. "They take anybody, anywhere with whatever they are carrying, anytime of the day or night as long as they get their money."

Russell A. Simmons

Dear Editor,

  It takes psycho-spiritual and intestinal fortitude or guts to do something despite the lingering fear and especially so when the outcome remains largely unknown. So, when Seal Team Six departed from their base in Afghanistan en route to Abbottabad, Pakistan, on a daring mission to capture or kill Osama bin Laden it was undoubtedly a remarkable exemplification of courage par excellence. Members of Seal Team Six that conducted the raid which killed Osama bin Laden would have been rehearsing fervently for their operation, applying every aspect of their training in the process, leaving no detail unchecked. The Seals’ state of readiness prior to departing for Osama would have given them the confident assurance which persuaded every or most fiber of their being that they were adequately equipped to successfully execute their mission as planned and trained for.

  But digressing philosophically, since fear, like courage, are not quantifiable quantities, both cannot be measured or observed, it would be interesting to learn how courageous those Navy Seals had to be to relegate their fears into the deeper recesses of their minds in order to remain focussed and attentive during what could be considered one of military history’s most unsure 45 minutes. The preceding therefore begs the question, what really gives us the adequate amount of motivation to act without allowing the all too present fear of the unknown to paralyze us into a state of passivity and inertia? Perhaps we can look for and gain insight from psychology, particularly the writings of Sigmund Freud and his study of our unconscious ideas and purposes.

  Secondly, after the assassinated Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi fell out of favor with the powerful ruling Saudi family and fled to the US, he knew he was tinkering with and annoying violent and revengeful foes, albeit with his pen. Nevertheless, Khashoggi continued with his criticism of the Saudi government bringing into the Saudi popular consciousness the oppressive practices of the Saudi regime. Jamal knew the resources and influences of the Saudi elite he was targeting through his Washington Post columns could reach him anywhere on earth. But Jamal never relented with his offensives and attacks, and just like the courageous undertakings of DEVGRU no one knew or could have said definitively then or with any amount of certainty now what was required in terms of courage in the psychological milieu of both Khashoggi and Seal Team Six to act accordingly.

  So, whatever it was that motivated both Jamal and Seal Team Six to engage in selfless acts of courage, it continues to provide us with examples of inspiration and pleasant reminders that we as humans have the capacity to live courageous, purposeful and fulfilling lives.

Orlando Patterson