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

Dear Editor,

  There are two controversies in St. Maarten I would like to suggest to readers to examine together.

  Firstly, we hear frequently complaints that the private sector in St. Maarten is dominated by foreigners. Secondly we know that St. Maarteners tend to favour employment in the public sector. The likely reason for this preference is the job security and consistency that the public sector offers.

  In this period where the country has suffered a huge downturn in economic activity as a result of the global pandemic, those in the private sector have had to suffer severe hardship in respect of the employment availability and in most cases have had to suffer a reduction of income in various ways and there has been little or no loss of income in the public sector.

  Will the manner in which this income distribution has been managed not result in an even greater preference by St. Maarteners to choose the public sector over the private sector when choosing careers? Will the private sector not be further challenged by the most talented St. Maarteners choosing the safe and secure public and “semi-public” sector?

Robbie Ferron

Dear Editor,

  Who was the first Minister of Justice for St. Maarten?

  And how many ministers of justice have we seen since then? And also: How many Head Commissioners of Police have we seen since 10-10-10 and of what caliber?

  I can remember around 2013/2014 when the then chief of police said that there were no statistics to be able to evaluate the performance of the police. So, there cannot be any pointing of finger, because none of them have done anything for the police over those years.

  Sorry, yes they did, they transformed that respectable looking police officer dressed in navy blue and light blue uniform into a riot police officer without a cap. We went from one of the best dressed to the worst.

  In Dutch there is a saying “De kleren maken de man” (fine feathers make fine birds). I wonder … Yes, if the caliber of service by the police has gone backwards, nobody else is to blame but those who took pleasure in constantly toppling the government of St. Maarten and bragged about it among themselves.

  If over just about 11 years there are at least seven different policies from personalities who knew nothing about the directing of a police force, and how the justice system works, what should you expect? The only words I have for that is “They did not care”. I did not agree when the police took to the street in protest, but when nobody listens and demonstrates not to care, strange things happen.

  I strongly believe that the current Minister of Justice did not and most probably still does not have an optimal team around her and is honestly trying her best. Because it is common for people to give extra life to the bad, it drowns out and overshadows the good. I agree with Mauricia when he stated, “Be the first to encourage your people Do not blindly follow rumors, look for the facts and trust your …,” but if I can recall when the present Minister of Justice, after being made aware of the protest, invited a delegation of the police to come to her office to be able to have a discussion, they refused.

  I remember clearly that I told an ex-colleague, “In the days of Leo Chance, this would not have reached this far. This is the result of all of those different governments.”

  I am not sure if the present minister had time to get to know all the players. Fact remains that too often even coalition partners attempt to intervene in matters not concerning them just because those implicated are from a family which supported that politician or political party. Too often trying to avoid the appropriate steps to be taken against whoever is involved in that situation.

  Because of this kind of an atmosphere those representing parties (in this case the police) already have a preconception of what they think the results will be. Reason why these meetings often result in loggerheads is because of a lack of cordial dialogue.

  Because the policeman is the only person in the world who can arrest everybody, the first reaction of anyone when approached by the police is fear or hostility. This at times causes unacceptable reaction and can escalate the situation. I can remember very well when I applied for the job. I was still in school and the police came to my home to get information about me. My mother told me she almost dropped down when the police came to the door and asked if I lived there? She thought something bad had happened to me. And yes, I have experienced similar reactions when I went to get information concerning the person who had applied for the job.

  So, it is always going to be hot and cold between the public and police but Internal Affairs have to know the integrity of the members of the force and act according to that intelligence, along with the facts, and not solely on what comes from the outside.

  People constantly ask me how to go about making a complaint against the police? I have a standard answer: “I will not do that.” So, I know that the complaints against police are increasing.

  Because of what I hear about the police behavior and what I definitely know about the behavior of the people in the traffic here on the island, I would advise the police to make use of the ideal road infrastructure of St. Maarten. This would oblige every driver to pull up their socks and stop using the traffic on St. Maarten as a free-for-all.

  Mister Chance was a boat captain, but those who know would tell you that he was one of the most respected and fair ministers of justice in the Antilles. He once told me that he found out long ago that people usually tell that part of the story which is in their favor. He also said to me, “I lasted as a politician that long with difficult ministries because I made sure to be fair to the voters. There are only 30 people in government but approximately one quarter of the population are voters and they are the ones who will elect you, not the members of Parliament or the Ministers.”

  I honestly believe that the police should welcome that “complaints committee”, because it will ensure the public of their right to be able to voice their concern. This should serve as a deterrent for all.

  I am aware that airing one’s dirty laundry in public is not advisable. I also understand the saying, “You are damned if you do, and you are damned if you don’t”, but the police are expected “to do”. And we should be aware that one cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs. It’s a good horse that never stumbles, I accept that there is nothing wrong with keeping an eye on things.

  Let me mention this. Many years ago I told Mister Blackman that he should try to accomplish that one of the requirements for every Windward Islander (Saba, Statia, St. Maarten) who applied for the job of a policeman is to be prepared to be in Aruba, Bonaire or Curaçao for at least four years before coming back to serve in the Windward Islands.

  I believe, because Justice is still of the Kingdom. this should be implemented.

  I would suggest with all due respect for all who are involved in unionism to be in solidarity with the police in their quest, but do not encourage them to fight from the outside. This is not what we do. Cordial dialogue creates mutual respect.

  Now this. In your editorial of September 7 you cited the judge’s ruling, stating that although COVID-19 measures can be an infringement on individual rights, in some cases the latter is outweighed by employers’ obligation to provide a secure working environment for all, and then you continued to elaborate. Who were the experts whom this judge consulted? And what proof is there to ascertain this ruling? I believe that this ruling is biased because COVID-19 measures are infringements on individual rights, the ruling is questionable and premature.

  Fact is that doubts, disputes and protests concerning the validity of the whole COVID-19 saga, with its so-claimed necessary multiple vaccines, have emerged from all points of the globe. On September 9 I read your editorial and asked myself, “Where is the fundamental difference?”

  What remains a puzzle to me is that those who accepted to be vaccinated have had to sign a disclaimer not holding the pharmaceutical companies nor the government liable for any adverse effects as a result of taking the vaccine. Is this not absolute proof that that vaccine is not reliable, neither to cure or not to cure?

  I believe that this is the third letter in which I state that I will not try to persuade anyone whether to accept the vaccine or not.to accept the vaccine. All I wish is for government to tell the people the truth. Or just like we usually say, “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.

  I am baffled that a usually “matter of fact” Dutch judge could make such a ruling. What I would have desired or actually expected is that people of the Caribbean (and we have them from every island here) would have been able to concoct a “COVID-deterrent bomb” and just like they spread gossip via the social media do the same with that local “COVID deterrent bomb” and prove to the world that as long as you keep your immune system up to date and maintain that social distance COVID-19 would have been kept in check.

  By the way, what do the COVID-19 statistics really prove to us? I would like to know who are the first people that these persons, who are involved in making those strange decisions, see in the morning, and what do they think?. And most of all, when they are leaving their homes, do they look up and say “Guide me Lord,” and mean it?

Russell A. Simmons

Dear Editor,

  Politics has no place in the police force. Someone else’s brother is the same to them as your brother is to you. If your mother commits a crime, others are going to see it as “that woman committed a crime. which means you have to perform your duties without distinction”. No one is above the law.

  The police officer is the only person who can arrest everyone. The only politician directly involved in the police force is the Minister of Justice and that is not always the case. In the government apparatus there is a term “plichtsverzuim” which in English is “dereliction of duty” or “derelict of duty”. Any government employee who is guilty of dereliction of duty is liable to be punished consistent with the punishment also laid down in the law. The punishments range from extra service without pay to dismissal . Somewhere in between there is “suspension”. The conditions determining the severity of the punishment vary from department to department.

  This includes the police also. On assuming his employment the police officer is sworn in and takes an oath. You may ask yourself where is this going? In the paper of August 27, I read that the officer in charge of the traffic accident whereby a person died was suspended for “failing to provide all relevant and correct information to his supervisors based on which further action could be taken regarding that fatal accident”. That did not sit well with me, because I had never heard of this before.

  There is a list of authorities who are automatically notified when there is a fatal accident. Let me state that I was not present at the accident. I have no proof of anything concerning that accident. All that I know is what was related to me. Reliable of course, otherwise I would not write to you.

  I was told that the motorbike rider was following his road when a motor vehicle coming from the opposite direction made a left turn in front of him to enter a private gateway on the left side of the road and the two vehicles collided with the ensuing consequence. Fatal accidents happen all the time, but what I did not understand was what is the actual cause of this suspension.

  So, I pondered about it. Because of what I know and because of what the schoolchildren have been saying, it brought me back to a similar question I asked in a few letters ago. If there is no one who knows how to deal with traffic accidents, who must that officer give that information to? I’m thinking of karma, because I am sure that I have had conversations concerning the lack of expertise.in the different departments of the police force.

  Let me ask this question. Did that police officer cause the death of that person involved in the accident? Were there other authorities present at the scene of the accident? Were there any superiors on the scene of the accident to oversee that the right measures, measurements, photos etc. were taken?

  Usually when it concerns a fatal accident the investigation could reveal that articles of other laws – for example, the penal code, etc. – were violated. With teamwork of the supervisor and the investigating police officer all of this could be detected. So, my question is, does not the chief of police know that this is how it works or is it possible that because there are people, as we would say, high up in government, intruding in the police affairs, that that decision was taken to suspend that police officer?

  By now we should know that nothing hides in St. Maarten, because we always have to let someone know what we did And because every friend has a friend, on this 16 square miles of land, within the shortest while, news gets around. Much more so in this era of enhanced social media. I said this to someone not too long ago and that person asked me how come then they don’t spread the positive things? Because, bad and negative news sells.

  When a police officer is suspended there should have been dereliction of duty, So my question is, can anyone of his superiors who are involved in the reason for the suspension of that police officer put on paper what the grounds of his suspensions are? I am thinking, if that police officer, owing to the lack of knowledge or expertise, is not able to be able to investigate a fatal traffic accident and in so doing was not able to “provide all relevant and correct information”, who should actually be liable?

  I believe it comes down to “if I do not have a gun I cannot shoot”. Where are the lawyers who want a beautiful case? I believe that this is also a great opportunity for the Ombudsman to justifiably find out the reason for the constant grumbling of the people in connection with the non-functioning of the police force. The people of a peaceful country deserve to know that they can rely on their police force to do that which is expected. But what can we expect when every two years we change the Minister of Justice of which only one had law experience.

  Anything was slapped in the face of the people after they faithfully voted. I must be fair and admit that I believe that the present Minister of Justice has St. Maarten at heart, but I do not think that she was dealt a fair hand. Usually there are no deals to be made by the justice department and people are punished for wrongdoing, so being the Minister of Justice is not usually a popular position.

  Instead of suspending that police officer, my advice would be to send two police officers for a special course in traffic accidents investigation.

  Am I the only person aware of all of these shortcomings? A traffic sign which was damaged could be straightened, painted and serve its purpose until it could be replaced with a new one.

  Talking about traffic signs, what about a police officer and an employee from VROMI going out together to check on those signs which need to be repaired or replaced so that they can temporarily do their duty in regulating the traffic situation.

  By the way, I am ashamed of whoever is responsible for the placing of that bus stop sign right in the intersection on Back Street. Instead of interfering with the police work, people in government should try contributing by pointing out that which is obvious. Schoenmaker blijf bij je leest.

  Now this: Because government is hell-bound to have people vaccinated even though increasingly doctors all over the world are dismissing whatever theory was put out there concerning the vaccine, which by the way began with one and then two and now it is up to a fourth vaccine that is necessary to combat COVID-19. The fact that it is said that four vaccines are necessary and nothing definitive concerning the cure or eradication of COVID-19 is proven should tell anyone that governments all over the world are grasping at straws (or not?).

  My thoughts are my thoughts and right now I am thinking that government are proving to be going about it in a very inhumane manner in trying to force the vaccine on the people. Why should someone who has been working for about 20 years for the same company be threatened with dismissal because that person refuses to take the vaccine and holds firmly to their constitutional rights? If government does not protect that person then government is on the verge of creating a dictatorship.

  At the same time I would hold those who are in charge of government liable for the consequences. Social distancing should become the new norm, then why is government not insisting for the bus drivers to maintain that which is laid down for buses regarding social distancing. Not longer than this morning (Sunday) I saw two people get into Bus-193, both had masks, but one had his under his chin. I could not see how many persons were in that bus, because every glass on that bus is black. This is the kind of behavior which causes the rapid increase in positive COVID-19 cases and not the idea that people are not taking the vaccine. We should not try to enforce something which is constantly heavily disputed by the professionals in that field.

  The last I heard is that the majority counts, and that democratic lawmakers always have advisers who are professional in their field. With all the logical explanations that I have heard and read about this COVID-19 saga, I strongly doubt that this is the case. I will repeat: I am not telling or advising anyone to take or not to take the vaccine. Government has to let the people know the truth. It does not interest me who financed whose campaign, stop permitting employers to take advantage of employees who take a stand against infringement of their constitutional rights.

  If we so sincerely want to save lives, we are aware that the majority of those who caught COVID-19 recovered without being vaccinated. Why not make it a priority to widely advise the population of the preventive measures and medicines? Take those tints off those buses and maintain that social-distancing law or policy and do not forget to control those gypsies.

  Without little St. Maarten those in government would not be able to enjoy the life like they are doing. One should not foul one’s own nest.

Russell A. Simmons