Dear chairman and members of the Committees on Kingdom Relations and on Social Affairs and Employment,
In dossierkoninkrijksrelaties.nl of Friday, December 3, 2021, I read that State Secretary Wiersma does not want to raise the minimum wage to 70 per cent of the minimum wage, as in the European Netherlands. He is, according to the article, afraid that this will remove the incentive to look for work.
In a first reaction I would like to remark that this idea is full of prejudices (in the vein of “Antillians are lazy”) and therefore unworthy of the cabinet. If scientific research supports this (racially oriented) comment, I would be happy to take note, but of course it is only a “feeling”. But a “feeling” that is felt at high official and even governmental levels!
A treatise follows on the benchmark for the social minimum in the Dutch Caribbean. This benchmark has been leading a life of its own for quite some time. We are already talking about a “progress report 2021” on this subject. Can you imagine that we are talking about a benchmark for the social minimum on the Wadden Islands? No, of course not! I can already see you thinking “yes, but those are Dutch islands ... .”
In that case we are exactly where we need to be in the discussion. The islands of the Dutch Caribbean are Dutch too! So why all this contrived stuff? I am convinced that the Dutch Ombudsman will agree with me when I say that you – the Lower House – are letting the government pull all the wool over your eyes.
The starting point is (see article 132a paragraph 4 of the Constitution) that for the public entity (as the status of the individual Dutch Caribbean islands officially reads) specific island regulations may apply with a view to special circumstances that distinguish the public entity from the European Netherlands. In my letter of November 7 I have already given the “perverse” interpretation of this article whereby the Caribbean Dutch population can easily be put at a disadvantage, and in this case – about the social infrastructure – this is happening again. It would be worth it to me if you, via a motion, “force” the government to ask the Council of State for an explanation of how to correctly understand this article of the Constitution. I would like to ask you for that again.
If this hurdle is taken, then – as far as I am concerned (and assuming that my interpretation of this article is the correct one) – various other discussion and question points can easily be resolved by declaring the current Dutch laws and regulations applicable to the Caribbean Netherlands and for the truly distinctive circumstances (which must be substantiated) to apply the specific island laws and regulations created for this purpose.
Of course, there is the formation of a new government and there are probably other arguments one can think of not to take action, but I fail to see how asking the Council of State for an explanation of a (Constitutional) law article that already exists and was established in the past, can stand in the way of coalition negotiations.
I am pleased to conclude and wish you much wisdom (and courage?) in the ongoing critical monitoring of government policy in all our interests.
J.H.T. (Jan) Meijer
St. Eustatius
Dear Editor,
To my astonishment I read that SECAR [St. Eustatius Center for Archaeological Research – Ed.] at this moment is again excavating on St. Eustatius near the animal shelter according to the government website. This happens while the conduct of SECAR is under scrutiny by the St. Eustatius Heritage and Research Commission in relation to the excavation of enslaved people near the airport without consulting the descendent community.
How is it possible that they are resuming work at a different location while the commission is not finished yet? It can’t be the case that just because there is no alternative archaeological company on the island they continue business as usual.
It is reported that the commission was consulted and does not object to the test trenches. This makes the status of the commission problematic as it seems that they do not consider that their report leads to significant changes in how archaeology is done on St. Eustatius. What happens if again they find the remains of (enslaved) people? Are we going to have the same problems?
I think it would be wise to defer from archaeological excavations from SECAR and any other company on St Eustatius at least until the commission has submitted its report and it has been debated in the local community. There has to be a policy in place on how to deal with these kinds of archaeological finds before new excavations start, especially as it is not unreasonable to expect more burials of enslaved people on St. Eustatius.
Dr. Marjolijn Kok
Archaeologist (ally of the St. Eustatius African Burial Ground Alliance)
~ 2 tourism/economic development plans for St. Maarten government to own and operate ~
Dear Editor,
The tourism industry is a highly profitable industry. However, the main benefactor in St. Maarten is the private sector. The government plays a pivotal role of facilitator, yet it reaps insignificant benefits. The amount that the government eventually collects, and the time it takes for the government to collect taxes are both insufficient and time consuming and prevents the government from properly investing in the needs of the society. Yet, when it comes to maintenance and repairs of any infrastructure of the island, the government must step up and pay.
The government is at the end of the day charged with the wellbeing of the people and the country and must therefore make use of all its resources to meet this end. When seeking ways of providing viable and sustainable income for St. Maarten, the government will do well to consider direct investment in the tourism industry.
The practice of governments owning and operating tourist attractions is not uncommon and is found in various islands in the Caribbean. The government of Aruba owns and operates the Archaeological Museum of Aruba, the Bon Bini Festival, and the Renaissance Island. The government of Barbados owns and operates the Harrison’s Cave, and the government of Curaçao owns and operates the Grot van Hato, and the Sint Christoffel Park.
St. Maarten’s single-pillar industry is, after all, tourism. And St. Maarten tourism is a viable business. Therefore, the government would do well to make direct and sustainable investments in this industry. Based on this, I have two proposals for the government to consider as acquisition for investment purposes.
The first concept that I propose for the government of St. Maarten to acquire, develop, then own and operate as a semi-public company is an eco-tourism tourist attraction in the salt pond. The “Soualiga Fun-Pond” is a suggested name for the project. This project provides government with a unique opportunity to capitalize on the tourism industry as a direct player.
The salt pond was once a natural resource commodity production plant that today has the potential to generate livelihood once again for the island and its people. However, should the government opt to pursue this project, the salt pond will not be used for production of salt as a core business. The idea is to separate a portion of the pond for salt cultivation that will be processed for sale as a souvenir at the attraction and other locations.
An island surrounded with mangroves will be created in the pond on which simulation of salt processing will be performed by life-size robotic figures with movements. Local artists will record voices of the salt workers performing work. Songs of the era will also be recorded and played through sound systems placed around the island. The actual processing of salt will be performed off location as all space is required for attraction purposes.
Other proposed attractions for the pond include rowboat and pedal-boat rides. Beautification of the landfill water edge entails planting of vegetation, which include plants and trees on a small portion of the landfill, and mangroves at the water’s edge. Behind the plants, a wall will be erected to cordon the rest of the landfill from the attraction.
It is also the idea to clean the salt pond by dredging it. This will provide somewhat deeper and cleaner water for the Tilapia fish to prosper in. The intention here is to have food resource for sale, but more importantly, to guarantee a fresh and nutritious food resource for times of calamity. Consideration can be given for introduction of a second sort of fish for variety purpose. The fish can be sold directly to the public, or it can serve as an additional attraction, where visitors pay to fish. Locals are permitted to keep their catch. Visitors must catch and release. However, they may give their catch to a local if they feel generous.
The establishment of this project will create additional income for the food trucks/booths alongside the pond. It is, however, imperative not to grant any licenses for new business in this area until a proper plan and design are made of the proposed project. It is the intention to have all stakeholders involved in the design of the project. For the Soualiga Fun Pond project to be economically viable and sustainable, consideration must be given to four major points – 1. Redesign the landfill; 2. Dredge the pond; 3. Beautify the surroundings; 4. Police presence.
The second proposed project for acquisition by the government entails Simpson Bay Lagoon. St. Maarten has a beautiful lagoon that offers immense possibilities for business ventures in the tourism sector. The government will benefit greatly from capitalizing on this opportunity to place itself in a better position to provide for its people, as well as to be one step closer to financial independence. The government is in a unique position to capitalize on investing in this industry.
Our lagoon offers an enormous opportunity for investment in eco-tourism. The island known as Little Chicken located in the lagoon is designated as a protected area. The island and its surrounding water can be converted into a protected/conservation area, where local flora and fauna, as well as Caribbean Sea life find a haven to flourish in their (simulated) natural habitat, while providing income for the government to invest into its society needs.
The suggested name for the second project is “Soualiga Garden and Sea Aquarium”. The Soualiga Garden and Sea Aquarium concept encompasses a land and submerged sea attraction. The garden section features an Orton (variety of cactus plants) botanical garden that includes locally found animals such as the iguana, mongoose, monkeys, chicken, and hopefully, (indigenous) snakes. Except for the snakes that will be enclosed and serve as an attraction for visitors to hold in their hands for a picture opportunity, the rest of the animals roam free on the island.
A snack bar will offer small-portion edible specialties of the house such as johnny-cake and chicken drumstick. And featured as house specialty beverages are bush teas that are grown on Little Chicken Island.
Transportation to and from the island will be provided by tenders. This requires land availability for the access point in the Airport Road area, which must include ample parking, the ticket booth, and the pier. In order to create the attraction, the island must be expanded to twice its present size and must include a pier for access.
All consideration will be given to guarantee that the material used for landfilling will be environmentally friendly. For example, presently, truckloads of demolished concrete and steel bars are transported from Beacon Hill on the Dutch side to the French side of the island. Science has proven that these materials create perfect setting for development of coral. This debris (another man’s waste) could have been a treasure for this project.
Around the island’s edge, mangroves will be planted for fish nesting and protection purposes. The sea aquarium entails a submerged transparent tunnel that offers view of the Caribbean Sea life from one side of the tunnel, as well as from various parts of the top of the tunnel. The intention is to provide a natural environment for the sea life. This entails a replica rock edge coastline at the end of the tunnel, partially covering the top of the submerged tunnel. Research has been done to guarantee construction of a hurricane-resistant transparent tunnel.
Government should capitalize on the opportunity to invest in this innovative, informative, and exciting, viable project. A project that will provide a new and exciting tourist attraction in the Caribbean that is difficult to copy because of its unique location and natural setting. By investing in these projects, the government is creating new job opportunities and most importantly, the government can now rely on viable, sustainable direct income rather than additional and/or new taxes. Funding for these projects can be requested from the Algemeen Pensioen Fonds St. Maarten, and/or The Kingdom of the Netherlands.
When looking at the scope of these two projects, it seems very expensive. The question is, what big investment is not costly when properly executed? Important is to guarantee return on investment and sustainability. The entrance ticket price structure will need careful calculation and must be reasonable, according to the demand.
What is already well established is that St. Maarten is a destination of choice. However, nearby islands are competing heavily. Anguilla already has a resort that is offering a variety of attractions, and St. Kitts is competing strongly with its cruise tourism. Let us seek productive ways to alleviate citizens of St. Maarten from tax burdens. All it takes is creative thinking, and willingness to work together. And by doing so, we can pay our loans back. Financial freedom, how sweet that sound.
Louis R. Engel
Dear Editor,
The Kingdom would be deeply concerned about the detention system on St. Maarten had it taken notice of what took place on St. Maarten. It is unfathomable that the justice chain is still not respecting the court rulings of the ECHR [European Court of Human Rights – Ed.]. The unfortunate part of the matter is that the other Kingdom parties are surely unaware that this is taking place despite the rulings of the ECHR in the cases of Corallo vs. the Kingdom of the Netherlands and George vs. the Netherlands.
It is unfortunate that detainees here on the islands continue to experience the short end of the stick within the justice system. Worst of all is that no one is sounding the alarm on the matter. This failing system continues to be maintained by those who consciously turn a blind eye to the facts and circumstances.
Detention at the police station holding cells should not be taken lightly. Every day that a person who should perhaps not be detained or belong there in the first place is a day too much. The ECHR has been clear in this regard yet these decisions seem to be ignored. Crazily enough, it seems that these conditions are only continuously perpetuated in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Such acts could never take place in the Netherlands, so why is this still happening here on St. Maarten, I wonder aloud?
In the Netherlands, matters such as starting criminal proceedings are handled within a few days, while here on St. Maarten the wait is much longer. This act in and of itself diminishes the effectiveness of preliminary injunctions which prompt urgent handling of certain cases. As a result of the delay in scheduling the handling of the case, the purpose of approaching the ECHR for an interim measure would have lapsed. The importance would be no more as the client would either be already back to or soon be returned to the Pointe Blanche prison.
Had the matter at hand in fact been handled as an urgent matter, the case could have been referred to the ECHR. This would have then resulted in the Netherlands being reprimanded on this matter once more, with the hope that as result that people will finally learn that there is no longer a place for article 3 ECHR violations or even for the detainees on St. Maarten. At the moment, however, it seems that the saying “might makes/is right” is definitely taking its course.
I still reserve a small sparkle of hope in this system, and that sooner rather than later the necessary amendments will be made and action taken.
Sjamira Roseburg, Attorney-At-Law
Consider it Solved
Dear Editor,
I am sure that all you readers on many many occasions have used the expression “That’s impossible” “Dat kan niet” “Esey no ta bon”. All these would be reaction to something considered “not fair” (Papiamento “esey no ta justu”, Dutch “dat is niet eerlijk”). One of the occasions that I have used it was when Peter de Witte was head commissioner here and at a certain moment used what I as a seasoned police officer considered a lame excuse “There were no statistics to go on” I responded to that at that time already, and in one of last week’s papers I got confirmation of my perception that government did not have much concern for what was happening in law enforcement.
I can remember a few now-retired police officers in Curaçao who years ago told me that they went to the police academy in Holland because policial friends of their parents encouraged their parents to send them to Holland to study for inspector of police.
Those are the persons who are trained to manage a police force. Because that is not the case here, for a long while now we do not have professional managers in the St. Maarten police force. The force is being managed by, I must admit, competent, experienced officers, who have to bear the brunt. I tip my hat to them.
Another reason for thinking that this is not fair to the people of Sint Maarten. “The manager of the fund did not have any data from 2010 to 2016.” That too is not fair. When I read how much revenue was not collected because of delinquent governing, I said to myself, “That is criminal.”
I have been reprimanded twice over the years for not entering a summons report on time. The second time I had to work four extra hours without pay. So, who was in charge during that period?
Another lame excuse would be “We’ve never had a steady government during that time” and I would add to that “But heads had to roll and we permitted them to get rid of our own Head Commissioner”. And even though I am not privy to all the details, I am still of the opinion that that was not fair. Because of the vast amount of Justice Ministers during that short period, logic would tell me that certain things would not be in place and that is why at that time I stated that police people do not take to the streets when not satisfied. We, knowing that we are the only body which can arrest anyone, should also know how to deal with adversity. That is what we do. Personal friends might show understanding, but the community which usually puts “I” first, is not ready to accept correction. This will always be a problem as long as people are not ready to tell the whole truth.
Their negative part is almost always omitted. It has not yet registered by the people, after so many years of having police around, that the police is a “peace officer” first. It is imperative to all to calm themselves down in the presence of the police. What does that mean? Simple: when you and your neighbor are fighting it is not with the police you are fighting, So why not calm down and listen to the police? And since we know so much, we should also know that the police did not come to beat up on anybody, the police came there to make peace and try to solve the problem in an amicable way.
Too often quarrels begin because we do not listen to each other or we do not care to try and sort out problems among each other. But the biggest cause of people not liking the police is created by we the people ourselves. We are not ready to accept it when the police do not deal with the person for whom we called the police, to our satisfaction. Yes, we are not content. And then we remember who the police officers were that came to the house, and we develop a hatred for that/those police officer(s) (as we would say) and continue not liking the innocent police officers who just did what is often the best thing to do, given the circumstances.
When do you protect someone? Another thing that we do not want the police to do is what they swore to do. When we do not appreciate that the police are protecting a criminal. we get mad at the police. I have even been accused of protecting a suspect because he was my brother, but that is what we do. We always protect everyone. We are not the judge, we protect and serve. I asked the lady at that time, “If he was your brother, what would you want me to do?” After pausing for a while she said to me, “Okay go ’head an’ do yo’ job then.”
Another reason for the heading “that’s not fair”. I like what our Minister of Justice is doing.so far. Please, people, give the Minister cooperation. Our people in government should know that people with integrity are not afraid of snoopers.
Russell A. Simmons
