Dear Editor,
The time has reached for us to put our cents where our mouth is, because the Netherlands has put their money where their mouth is. Let me start by saying this has to do with independence, and what I think is not important but what the electorate (voters) of St. Maarten want or need.
For too long now, all the politicians of St. Maarten and Curaçao are toying with becoming an independent country. We should have been already prepared or preparing for independence since 1954. Technically or realistically, we have failed our people for the last 67 years. Wow, that is a massive blunder of all politicians of Curaçao and St. Maarten, who were in government from then to the present.
The Netherlands Antilles was a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The country consisted of several island territories located in the Caribbean Sea. The islands were also informally known as the Dutch Antilles. The country came into being in 1954 as the autonomous successor of the Dutch colony of Curaçao, and Dependencies, and was dissolved in 2010. In 2010, St. Maarten and Curaçao were granted to have their own Parliament, and make most of their decisions for themselves.
Let me get directly to the point. It is time for all politicians in St. Maarten and Curaçao to live and show what they truly believe in. If the Netherlands is so racist, you all should be glad to run like hell from the Netherlands, put independence on the table, and let the chips fall the way they may.
By this I mean that all politicians who believe that now is the time more than ever for St. Maarten and Curaçao to be independent, must (not should) make a contract with the people of St. Maarten and Curaçao to hold a final referendum with only 2 options. The status quo of being a constituent country within the Dutch kingdom, or once and for all be completely out of the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
It is clear that the politicians in St. Maarten and Curaçao love putting on a show, but you all are cowards. If you truly believe in independence for St. Maarten and Curaçao, go to the population and tell them to prepare for sacrifice. Sacrifice, people of St. Maarten and Curaçao that is up to the politicians of your countries to explain to you, that is not the responsibility of the Dutch Kingdom. If you all are not willing to this please, put it up and shut up. The moment of truth is at hand. St. Maarten and Curaçao, please show me your trump card.
The conclusion is, choices have consequences, choose wisely and choose now!
The Patriot Miguel Arrindell
Dear Editor,
I submit this letter to the people of St. Maarten through your daily paper. On Friday, March 19, I read a letter written by former minister of finance of St. Maarten Perry Geerlings addressed to Mr. Peter C. Choharis of the Choharis Law Group, PLLC, in Washington. In his letter, Mr Geerlings stated that the 12 Members of Parliament who submitted the petition do not represent him, and the country cannot be bound by obligations that those 12 Members of Parliament might have entered into.
I have a few questions for the former minister who is also a former member of parliament.
1) When you were a member of parliament, who did you represent? Yourself only? Or all the people of St. Maarten?
2) If 12 of the 15 members of parliament do not represent you, nor the people of St. Maarten as you mentioned in your letter, then why do we adhere to laws and legislations approved by parliament? After all, according to you, they do not represent you.
3) Why do the people of St. Maarten go to the polls to elect members of parliament who, according to you, do not represent them? Are you suggesting that the people are just wasting their time? Did they waste their time when they elected you into parliament?
4) If the members of parliament do not represent the people of St. Maarten, then who do they represent?
Mr. Geerlings, if you do not agree with the petition, just say so. That is your right. But to say that the members of parliament do not represent you, nor the people of St. Maarten, is an irresponsible statement, and you should retract it.
You stated that the 12 members of parliament do not represent you, but yet, you as a regular citizen, take the liberty to speak on behalf of the people of St. Maarten. You do not have that right.
If you wrote your letter on your own personal behalf, you are demonstrating that you are a lawless citizen who has no intentions of adhering to the laws or regulations approved by parliament, as they do not represent you. You are clearly saying to the people of St. Maarten that they should never vote for you, because you, as a member of parliament, will not represent them.
Fernando R. Clark
Dear Editor,
Frontline, sideline, backline … social workers are always on the line assisting in every way possible!
So, on this day, March 18, 2021, we honor our unsung heroes for pushing forward and not giving up, even through challenging times!
The St. Maarten Social Workers Association(SSWA) established in 2014 with its main objective being to promote, develop and protect the practice of social work and social workers and to seek to enhance the effective functioning and well-being of individuals, families and communities through its work and through its advocacy hereby honors each and every one of you social workers.
Since 2014, many activities have been held to support and stimulate social workers in their field on the island. However, much more awareness of what exactly the work entails needs to be shared with the community at large.
Social workers are present at the various schools on the island, in government offices, in the corporate sector as well as at the hospital and correctional facility. Social workers main focus is on assisting and supporting others. However, due to the heavy workload, social workers often neglect themselves, which causes burnout or forces them to change their profession.
Social work is a calling and it takes special persons to carry out this function. It is also very honorable, as once you have helped someone the gratitude shown is unmeasurable.
More advocacy is needed, however, for the field, on all levels in the public and private sector.
On this day we look back in pride at our accomplishments as an association thus far; trainings, teambuilding events; expanding our membership; connecting with regional and international associations in the field of social work.
At the same time, we look to our future in which we will champion the field of social work more intensely, advocate for more public- and private-sector involvement in the area of social work.
Congratulations today, social workers! Continue to fight for those who cannot and will not!
Jina Mamtani-Mahbubani
President, St. Maarten Social Workers Association (SSWA)
Dear Editor,
When the Netherlands attached what many consider quite harsh conditions to COVID-19 liquidity support, including the need for a Caribbean reform entity, many politicians and legal experts in Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten voiced their outrage and concern about the violation of human rights and the potential trampling of our autonomy; this caused the decolonization movement. There continues to be, understandably, confusion about the decolonization movement. I would like to clear up as much of it as I can.
It’s not about independence but autonomy.
Decolonization means the release of one country or territory from political control by another country. It includes different constructs. At the end of one process is full independence, at the end of another is our current constituent status. According to Julio Romney (2020), “Simply, the transitioning from a colony to a non-colony status involves the dismantling of governing structures that preserve the colonial status quo for an indigenous structure. To this end, the UN General Assembly has concluded that the process of decolonization can be realized through independence, by association or integration within an existing State.”
Twenty years ago St. Maarten, through referendum, chose to become an “autonomous country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands.” So, for those of us who believe that we are fully decolonized and that our associative state is satisfactory, you are well within your right. But there are those of us who believe that the democratic deficits that exist within the Kingdom are too great to accept. This is why I proposed the establishment of a Constitutional Affairs and Decolonization Committee, which was unanimously supported in Parliament.
In November 2020, 11 Members of Parliament signed a motion giving the President the mandate to commence a United Nations fact-finding mission, because we believed that as a Kingdom partner, St. Maarten should be treated fairly, without discrimination and that our autonomy and the right to manage our internal affairs should be respected.
This movement is not about independence. Only the people can say whether or not they are ready for independence through referendum.
Democratic deficits and discrimination
In March 2020 a joint alternative report was written by academic experts and civil society organizations and coordinated by the Dutch Section of the International Commission of Jurists (NJCM) in which it was stated that “the European Netherlands are a majority in the Kingdom government and therefore are always able to overrule the ministers plenipotentiary of Aruba, Curaçao and St Maarten. Furthermore, due to the fact that there is no Kingdom parliament, the Dutch parliament acts as the Kingdom parliament without the other countries having a right to vote. Scholars have referred to this as the democratic deficit or colonialism. Consequently, this historically-grown constitutional imbalance upholds racialized discourses and practices.”
I understand that discrimination may be a word that hasn’t been used before in talking about our relationship with the Dutch Government but there is both academic and legal agreement on this matter lest we forget historical context.
For years the Caribbean islands in the Kingdom have been awaiting the installation of a dispute regulation (Geschillenregeling). The Parliaments of Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten have pleaded for the regulation and an accompanying independent body that will be able to issue decisions following disputes within the Kingdom. Why has this regulation not been implemented as yet? Or do we not deserve to have a mechanism that allows us to object to a situation when we find ourselves holding a different opinion to that of the Netherlands? The dispute regulation may well be one of the main tools to eliminate the democratic deficit. However, it remains on hold for whatever reasons.
At this moment our people and this country remain extremely vulnerable. Our economy has been devastated and with an increase in poverty, our people are living in conditions that are unacceptable. So, what are we fighting for exactly? Equal treatment in the Kingdom.
The temporary laws that cut the benefits from civil servants should be just that; temporary. To be decolonized means to be free from political control by the Netherlands. With a new Dutch government being formed it is my hope that new negotiations and agreements can take place.
Most importantly, if we are indeed equal citizens within the Kingdom then not only do our people deserve more – they deserve better from politicians here and in the metropole.
MP S. Ludmila Duncan
Dear Editor,
The Parliament of St. Maarten’s recent petition to the United Nations regarding racial bias on the islands of the former Netherlands Antilles has come under great scrutiny by varying members of the public. As a matter of fact, the topic of decolonisation seems to have caused a lot of anxiety, as well as confusion, amongst the general public, which is quite understandable. When discussing and analysing decolonisation, it is imperative to focus on the facts presented by the United Nations, the United Nations Charter, and the Kingdom Charter.
What then is decolonisation?
In his letter of September 15, 2015, to the Dutch Prime Minister, Marcel Gumbs along with the Prime Ministers of Aruba and Curaçao recalled that the United Nations had great doubts about whether or not the Kingdom Charter had really brought about decolonisation. They pointed to the danger that the UN observed in the ability of the Governor to violate the islands’ “full measure of self-government” or “autonomy”.
The UN pointed out four areas of concern during their debate on the Kingdom Charter:
1. The position and function of Governor. The United Nations General Assembly felt that a Governor, especially with the role assigned to him by the Kingdom Charter, conflicted with the full measure of self-government.
2. Article 44, which requires the permission of the Kingdom Government for an island to change its constitution or its legal system. The members of the United Nations questioned why an autonomous island would need to seek such permission.
3 and 4. Articles 50 and 51 allow the Kingdom Government to implement higher supervision. Here again, the UN had the “great doubts” that Marcel Gumbs alluded to. The UN members felt that truly autonomous islands could never be subject to any form of higher supervision.
We can conclude that to meet the UN standards of decolonisation the four items mentioned above must be removed from the Kingdom Charter. That, according to the United Nations, is what decolonisation means for St. Maarten and its sister islands.
Is a referendum needed?
The four changes to the Kingdom Charter mentioned above do not require a referendum. They conflict with the UN Charter and all we will be doing is aligning the Kingdom Charter with the obligations set forth in the Charter of the United Nations. St. Maarten would remain part of the Kingdom with all the rights and privileges we currently enjoy through association with the Netherlands.
Bear in mind that decolonisation does not necessarily mean independence. Puerto Rico is fully decolonised, but not an independent country while still maintaining its American citizenship. The same concept would apply to St. Maarten and its sister islands.
Pro Soualiga Foundation
