Dear Editor,
I write this article on the day I received my last COVID-19 vaccination. Before registering myself for the vaccine via the governmental registration page of Sint Maarten, I tried to read up on the facts about this vaccine. A topic that I found interesting from a professional point of view is if COVID-19 vaccines should be compulsory. Here in this article, I will discuss the legal aspects of a mandatory vaccination. It is important to know though, that at the day I write this article, the government of St. Maarten strongly advises receiving your vaccine, but it remains the free decision of all inhabitants.
Before I get there, I’ll first explain what compulsory vaccination could entail. Vaccination can directly or indirectly be made compulsory. Direct mandatory vaccination would, for example, be if a healthcare professional accompanied by a police officer would knock on your door, and if you do not wish to open the door, force their way in, grab your arm, put out a needle and jab it forcefully in your arm. Or you could risk getting arrested because being non-vaccinated is turned into a felony. Luckily, this is not what is suggested when people suggest compulsory vaccination, and it is also a bit of a farfetched scenario in a democratic society such as St. Maarten with the rule of law.
However, certain measures may have as an effect that people’s choices are guided in a certain direction. For example, if by law you have to pay a small but significant fee, when you do not wish to receive vaccine, or if you by law you would be banned from participating in activities such as going to school, to work, to practice your favorite sports or to go out, if you refuse your vaccine, your choice to get the vaccine might not be made on an entirely free basis. When measures put in place, exert a strong pressure to choose for receiving a vaccine, people still might feel pushed into taking the vaccine. This kind of indirect compulsory vaccination – what still is a severe limitation of fundamental rights – is a way less farfetched scenario than the directly compulsory vaccination.
After all, this COVID-19 pandemic already made us familiar with several severe freedom-restricting measures under the guise of the protection of public health. Think about the lockdown, curfew, the closing of non-essential businesses and wearing mouth-masks in public. Interestingly, these measures, although being severe, (eventually) survived in the Netherlands against several injunction procedures initiated by interest groups who liked these drastic measures to be removed. The court in these cases acknowledged that dramatic times may legitimize drastic matters.
But times do not even have to be necessarily dire. Many fundamental rights such as the inviolability of the body, right of private life or the freedom of philosophy of life or religion may (and most are) limited by laws supported by just a parliamentary majority. Based on this principle, indirect compulsory vaccination is something what is already out there in several democratic countries and what is debated in many others. The European Court of Human Rights recently ruled, for example, in a case against the Czech Republic that on the one hand compulsory vaccination (for children against contagious childhood diseases such as measles), as an involuntary medical intervention, is an interference of physical integrity and thus it concerns the right to respect for private life.
On the other hand, the court recognized that the Czech policy – where parents who without good reason do not vaccinate their children are fined and where such non-vaccinated children are not accepted in nursery school – pursued the legitimate aims of protecting health as well as the rights of others. It noted that vaccination protects both those who receive it and also those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons and are therefore reliant on herd immunity for protection against serious contagious diseases.
Also, the high Dutch Council of State (Raad van State), a few months before said ruling from the European Court of Human Rights, formulated in an advice to the Dutch government – pertaining to questions from the health ministry to make vaccination for children a condition for going to nursery schools – that the protection of public health in a broader sense may be a legitimate goal for compulsory vaccination by law. However, it also emphasized that compulsory vaccination is only an option when it meets the criteria of proportionality and subsidiarity. Meaning that there is no (more) less invasive measure (proportionality) and the measures may not be more invasive than reasonable in the light of the situation (subsidiarity). It therefore reasons that compulsory vaccination should only kick in when the vaccination coverage drops to such a low point that children who cannot (yet) receive vaccination are in inaudible danger.
The argument of the protection of public health and the proportionality and subsidiarity is also relevant when considering compulsory COVID-19 vaccinations. Professor emeritus Dute, prominent Dutch legal scholar in the field of health law, argued in January of this year in his blog that – in the Netherlands – it was way too early to think about compulsory vaccination for COVID-19 there. I believe that he is right, and that many of his arguments are also relevant for St. Maarten.
Professor Dute rightfully states that we should overestimate the abilities of the vaccine. After all, what do we so far know about the vaccine so far mostly used by the St. Maarten government, namely Pfizer-Biontech? According to our government, RIVM and WHO, this vaccine is well-tested, and although it may – as most other vaccines – rarely cause serious side-effects, it is considered as very safe. So, according to experts, these vaccines do not pose an unacceptable risk for the (healthy) individual. The vaccine protects adults very well against developing serious COVID-19 related symptoms such as serious lung damage and breathing difficulties that are related to that. Therefore, vaccinations are expected to ease the pressure on the hospitals and intensive care units, what in itself is beneficial to the overall healthcare accessibility. This serves public health. The WHO expects the more people get vaccinated, the more the virus circulation will decrease, which also will then lead to fewer mutations of the virus.
On the other hand, a large group of the society cannot be vaccinated yet. After all, the vaccine has not yet been tested sufficiently on children below 16. This group can still transmit the virus. What we also do not know yet – since these vaccines, contrary to vaccines for children’s diseases, are relatively new – is how long this vaccine protects us against the virus. More importantly, at this moment we do not yet sufficiently know if vaccinated people are still able to transmit the disease to others. Recent provisional findings from the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control are hopeful, though, and suggest that vaccines at least limit the chance of transmission and therefore a relaxation of measures is suggested for them there.
In short, we know that the vaccine for the individual helps to avoid developing a severe case of COVID-19. Also, there are promising signals that vaccination might also be beneficial for unvaccinated people that surround the vaccinated person. However, we do not yet fully understand how much or how long vaccines protect public health, and therefore if they are really the key to normalcy that we all hope for. As long as there is considerable doubt about how much effect COVID-19 vaccines have on the public health, we have to be careful with making such vaccines mandatory.
On top of that, a government and legislator thinking about compulsory vaccination have to look to less invasive alternative measures first. Perhaps the public health might also be sufficiently protected by preventive testing with so-called rapid COVID-19 tests?
The strongest argument, however, why compulsory vaccination at this moment does not yet have to be considered is that voluntary vaccination, in combination with an urgent advice from the government to get vaccinated, seems to be working so far. According to the website of the government, 13,042 persons in St. Maarten on April 22, 2021, already received their first jab and 6,370 were fully vaccinated. This while a month earlier only 5,000 people had received a shot. This looks to me that St. Maarteners on average are willing to get vaccinated when they have the opportunity to do so.
That is comforting, since compulsory vaccination might break more than it heals. After all, making vaccination compulsory by governmental actions could very well feed rumors, and with that undermine the trust of the public in this new vaccine. People that already have concerns about this vaccine, might be even more daunted to take this vaccine and could prefer to dig their heels in.
In conclusion. It is preferable if people freely choose to get vaccinated and it is also preferable to persuade doubters with arguments instead of pressuring them. Compulsory vaccination is a heavy-handed solution that should only be considered by the government and legislator if public health is at stake and voluntarily vaccination does not do the trick (anymore) and other solutions such as preventive testing are not an (sufficient) option. Indirect compulsory vaccination against COVID-19, although legally a possibility, at this moment should not be considered yet. For now, it is better to inform all St. Maarteners about the availability of the vaccine, and to honestly inform them about its benefits and side effects.
This also means that we as citizens all have the great responsibility to inform ourselves with information from renowned sources, so we all can make an informed decision. Because of this, I urge everyone who did not yet get vaccinated to look at all the information that is out there and make up their mind.
Rogier Wouters
By Li Yigang
Hong Kong is among the most familiar Chinese cities to many people. As an international financial center, news about Hong Kong often appears in the press. After its return to the motherland, I worked in Hong Kong for 3 years, and have been paying close attention to Hong Kong’s development since leaving. I would like to introduce Hong Kong’s system and reform development to local friends in Dutch Caribbean.
Over the past two decades since its return to the motherland, Hong Kong has retained its previous capitalist system and way of life under the practice of “One Country, Two Systems”. The people of Hong Kong now run their local affairs within the purview of autonomy of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), and enjoy more extensive democratic rights and freedoms than at any other time in history. Hong Kong’s ties with the mainland have grown increasingly close, and the economy is further integrated. It has successfully withstood the Asian financial crisis in 1997 as well as the global financial crisis in 2008, and has increased external interactions and raised its international profile.
Besides emerging stronger as an international financial, shipping and trading center, Hong Kong has made substantial advances in various programs and the path of development has become broader. The practice fully demonstrates that the concept of “One Country, Two Systems” provides the best solution to the historical question of Hong Kong and the best institutional arrangement to ensure Hong Kong’s long-term prosperity and stability. There is no doubt that “One Country, Two Systems” has a strong vitality and an institutional superiority.
I. Upholding and Improving “One Country, Two Systems”
“One Country, Two Systems” is a great political initiative pursued by China that has no precedent to follow. Its implementation is not always smooth sailing, but requires exploration, improvement and development in practice. In the year 2019, starting from the turbulence over proposed legislative amendments, under blatant external interference in Hong Kong’s affairs, Hong Kong has witnessed rampant “Hong Kong independence” rhetoric and actions, social unrest and economic downturn. It has grossly trampled on China's national sovereignty, security and development interests, and exposed the huge risks that Hong Kong has in maintaining national security, posing severe challenges to “One Country, Two Systems”.
In order to maintain the stability of Hong Kong and the well-being of Hong Kong people, on June 30, 2020, the plenary meeting of the 20th session of the 13th National People's Congress (NPC) voted to adopt the Law of the People's Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the HKSAR. It’s Hong Kong’s turning point from chaos to stability and demonstrates that the central government bears the most important and the ultimate responsibility for safeguarding national security. Since the implementation of national security law, Hong Kong’s social order is getting back on track. “One Country” is upheld and “Two Systems” is guaranteed. The national security law legislation ensures sound and sustained implementation of “One Country, Two Systems”.
II. Improving the Electoral System to Safeguard Hong Kong’s Democracy
Under the colonial rule, there was no democracy to speak of in Hong Kong. Since its return, China’s central government, in accordance with China’s Constitution and the Basic Law of the HKSAR, guarantees the exercise of democratic rights by residents of the SAR as with the law. However, the anti-China and disrupting-Hong Kong rioting that occurred in Hong Kong’s electoral platforms and legislature in recent years reveal that the existing electoral system in Hong Kong has clear loopholes and deficiencies.
The NPC is China’s highest organ of state power and top legislature, and it has the power and responsibility to improve Hong Kong’s electoral system. On March 11, 2021, at the fourth session of the 13th NPC, it adopted a decision on improving the electoral system of the HKSAR, follow by the amended Annex I and Annex II to the Basic Law of the HKSAR during the 27th session of the Standing Committee of the 13th NPC on March 30. It is another important move to uphold and improve the “One Country, Two Systems”. It aims to develop, in a gradual and orderly manner, a democratic system that is in line with the constitutional order of Hong Kong and suited to its actual situation. The new electoral system will help improve the governance efficacy of the HKSAR, and help foster a better political, social, legal and business environment and usher in brighter development prospects for Hong Kong.
III. “Hong Kong People Administering Hong Kong” and “Patriots Administering Hong Kong”
“Hong Kong People Administering Hong Kong” is a principle based on the “One Country, Two Systems” framework. To implement that, the “Patriots Administering Hong Kong” must always be upheld to ensure the steady practice of “One Country, Two Systems”. To ensure the country or the city being administered only by people who love it is a common practice for almost all countries around the world, and patriotism is what any country would expect of its public servants. Therefore, “Patriots Administering Hong Kong” is in fact the minimum standard for “Hong Kong People Administering Hong Kong”.
Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China. Loving the motherland and loving Hong Kong are consistent requirements. Improving Hong Kong’s electoral system and implementing the “Patriots Administering Hong Kong” can effectively prevent anti-China forces entering into Hong Kong’s governing system and causing political and social turmoil. The purpose of “Patriots Administering Hong Kong” is to safeguard national security and development interests, promote Hong Kong's development through good governance, and continue to increase the sense of gains, happiness and security of Hong Kong people.
July 1 of this year marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China, and it is also the 24th anniversary of the return of Hong Kong to the motherland. Hong Kong has strong support from the central government, and enjoys the concerted dedication of Hong Kong people in all sectors. Hong Kong has the “One Country, Two Systems” framework as the broadest common ground of society, and has gained 24 years’ development and reform experience since its return as well as the trust and confidence of the international community, Hong Kong will be able to overcome all difficulties and challenges and have a bright future.
~ Li Yigang is Consul General of the People’s Republic of China in Willemstad, Curaçao ~
Dear Editor,
To say that the relationship between the Netherlands and the three Caribbean countries of Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten (constitutional states) is strained is an understatement.
The Kingdom Charter, a document that is some 67 years old, is supposed to have established a mutual respect for all involved and adhering to the principles of democracy and, might I add, good governance. However, experiences over the years and recent developments have proven to be otherwise.
The Council of State made some references to what investments should be made to improve this relationship. While conditions are things that even financial institutions such as banks require to obtain a loan, the ones set by the Dutch government will not lead to improvement in our finances but further deterioration and increase in poverty. I will remain adamant that the only recourse for financial improvement is debt cancellation, not debt restructuring.
I have the highest respect for the Council of State but what I have an issue with is that their advice is not binding due to no fault of their own but the insistence of the Kingdom Council of Ministers to maintain the possibility to have the final say. This behavior will not improve the relationship between the Netherlands and the 3 islands of Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten.
The procedures that must be followed to establish a Kingdom Law is a prime example of inequality when it comes to numbers. What should be considered is the impact it will have on the countries concerned, including the Netherlands.
I concur with the Council of State with its reference to trust which is a cardinal prerequisite for cooperation. The democratic deficit has not yet been addressed. The long-awaited dispute regulation has finally found the light of day again. But for me, as long as the advice is not binding, I will not accept the Law.
What must also be recognized and accepted is the pivotal role the Caribbean islands have played in the economic development of the Netherlands. I say this in lieu of a document on Britain’s slave trade written in a report done by the “Public University of Glasgow” and I quote, “A nation that does not understand its history and the roots of its wealth will struggle to understand how power, finance, politics and economics works.” End of quote. My interpretation of that phrase is that without us there would be no them.
I welcome discussions based on mutual respect for the human rights of all peoples in the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Then and only then will our relationship improve.
MP George Pantophlet
Dear Editor,
Citizens of the Caribbean are fully aware of the challenges we face. They know that governments across the region are financially stretched which has been further accentuated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Our citizens also know that we have limited access to either overseas development assistance or concessional financing from global financial institutions and that our options are limited in accessing finance for business development. Our people are clear on what they want – a brighter future for themselves and their children. More specifically, those with whom I speak have an overwhelming interest in either getting jobs or preserving the ones they have so they can take care of themselves and their families.
We, at the Caribbean Export Development Agency (Caribbean Export) also recognize these constraints and hear the voices of our Caribbean people. The question is how, as a region, can we emerge from this stranglehold. For us, the solution is obvious – attracting increased levels of local investment and foreign direct investment (FDI). Governments and other stakeholders across the Caribbean must have a singular focus on steering investment our way. To achieve resilience and economic transformation we need to significantly ramp up and draw investment to our shores.
But first, we must understand the trends and challenges so we can position ourselves accordingly. Globally, there has been a decline in FDI flows, with the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development reporting a 42 per cent decline in global foreign direct investment in 2020 in its January 2021 Report. The same report went on to note that one of the most affected regions is Latin America and the Caribbean which saw a decline of 38 per cent in investment inflows from external sources. On the other hand, Asia and Africa witnessed declines of only 18 per cent and 4 per cent, respectively. Further weakness in FDI flows is expected for the rest of the year and for our countries, if we continue with business as usual, the future will be a dim one.
The outlook for the tourism sector continues to be pessimistic. The World Tourism Organization reports that travel experts surveyed are expecting a return to pre-pandemic levels only by about 2023 (January 2021 report). Therefore, sitting and waiting for tourists to return in the numbers of yesteryear or for global prospects to drive up our export earnings cannot and will not lift us out of this economic quagmire. This is why increasing local investment and getting foreign direct investment to our shores is most critical.
For the Caribbean to be successful in attracting investment, new thinking in these unprecedented new times is required.
Firstly, we cannot continue to compete with each other as individual investment destinations, given our limited resources and populations. This approach cannot achieve the scale required to attract serious money our way. In view of this, we at Caribbean Export are working closely with the Caribbean Association of Investment Promotion Agencies (CAIPA) to support our countries in preparing investment projects that can be packaged and promoted as “regional” proposals with more than one country being promoted as an investment destination for a specific venture. This gives much needed scale, and the pooling of resources helps a wider group of countries.
Secondly, we need to focus on investment that can help propel a new economy, driven by climate-friendly business and digitalization. The world is going green and embracing digitalization and so must we. Therefore, we need to make a concerted effort to bring companies to our shores that are at the forefront of green technologies in areas such as solar and wind. This means an investment approach that is targeted and forensic in focus.
Linked to the emphasis on the “new economy” is the leveraging of technology in key sectors such as agriculture. The Caribbean is one of the most food-insecure regions on the planet, and this has been more eloquently demonstrated by COVID-19. A new emphasis on agriculture is required. However, this time around, it has to be about using technology to take Caribbean agriculture forward into the 21st century where our young people also see it as a viable business opportunity. This is precisely why Caribbean Export, in partnership with the CAIPA, has identified Agrotech or Agriculture Technology as a priority sector for us in the region. It connects all the dots in helping us to become more food-secure; treats agriculture as an entrepreneurial activity; and as one region we can offer the scale required for larger investors.
We at Caribbean Export recognize that innovation is imperative for our survival and must be central to our regional investment promotion strategy. As a matter of fact, we have already engaged the services of an alternative finance adviser with experience in raising capital across emerging and frontier markets for entrepreneurs and SMEs with high growth potential. We intend to fast-track support to the packaging and promotion of regional investment projects and focus on steering investment to sectors that are vital to what will be the new economy whether by focusing on Agrotech, digitalization or the climate-friendly investments.
We are acutely conscious that the future of our region and the prosperity of our people ride on the actions we take now for business to be a driver and central player in advancing a transformational agenda for our region. At Caribbean Export, we intend to do just that, with the attraction of local and foreign investment being a central pillar of our work in the years ahead.
Deodat Maharaj
Executive Director of the Caribbean Export Development Agency
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Dear Editor,
This topic is for people to think critically. From about 1960 until 1990, parents used to teach their children first about God, and then to get an education to make a good comfortable and quality life.
Unfortunately, that thinking is not enough to achieve a good quality of life. We have to go back to basics; we have to teach them about God first, and then teach them there are only 2 genders. We have to teach our children that God created men for women, and when they grow up, it is only the natural quality of life for men to marry women.
We have to teach them that men and boys go to the male’s restroom and women and girls go to the female’s restroom. We must teach our children that God made women and men differently because it takes two of opposite sex to create a new life. They must learn about a natural and decent quality of life, which is for a man to cohabit with a woman, and not with the same sex, which is unnatural.
You might ask me, but why teach that? The reason we have to teach this is that the world with the spirit of the age –be it the music industry and the movies and television – is painting a different picture with the intention of deceiving people.
To control people, you paint a picture that you want them to believe, say or show it over and over, and then it becomes acceptable. The acceptability of evil will produce a poor quality of life.
The big question is what do we accept as normal or good quality of life? Is education and having money and vanity a good quality of life only? Is a good quality of life a male and a female, which constitute a real family, even though they may not have money or graduate with education?
Is a man married to a man or a woman married to a woman, who is highly educated with lots of money living with children as father and mother a good quality of life? Does a good quality of life constitute the amount of money you have or does a good quality of life have to do with good moral character?
Would you accept your son to cohabit with a man and accept it because his partner is rich? Would you accept your son to marry a prostitute, if she is the breadwinner in the family? The point is this, what is a value and a quality life for you? Would you accept your children to spend some time with a rich paedophile?
The world we are living in presently has changed and the coward society is afraid to confront it. Parents and society are not teaching our children the values of life. We left it up to sports icons, media icons, movie stars and singers to teach our children what is good, and those are exactly the people who are deceiving them.
Many churches now are in bed with the popularity; they are using popular figures to see if they can promote Christianity. Jesus made it crystal clear, "a friend with the world is an enemy of God."
The conclusion is: do we value life, or what is a good quality of life?
What you accept is what you deserve. Freedom does not come free, and good quality of life is determined by your lifestyle, if it is pleasing to Christ or not.
I am not here to judge any person; the point is to identify who are you and what do you stand for?
Whatever you accept, be it bad or good, the consequences are yours to live with. Please do not blame the world. God gives you a mind to think for yourself.
The point is this, you cannot run from evil, it will come to your door sooner or later. You can choose to give in and accept, it or confront it and defeat it.
The end result is what determines your destiny. Value life and choose the good quality God has made it to be.
Choices have consequences, therefore choose wisely!
The Patriot Miguel Arrindell
