Dear Editor,
I was six years old when my aunt convinced my mother for me to join the juveniles of the B.I.A. in Aruba. In those days one would ask: “What does B.I.A. stand for?” which is Benevolent Improvement Association. Nowadays one would use the word “acronym”. I can still hear us saying our motto which we repeated at least nine times at the beginning of every meeting which was kept on Wednesdays and started at 5:00pm – “Let decency be your guide.” Among us It became a game as well as a guide and reminder because every so often, when we were being mischievous, one of us would say, “Don’t forget ‘let decency be your guide’.”
I am thankful for that up to today, because that motto along with the very vigilant and hands-on upbringing of our parents and as we would say, my village, went a long way in forming me.
Where am I going with this? “Jacobs: Talks with Knops mark ‘new beginning’ for Netherlands, St.Maarten”, the headline of the first article on the front page of The Daily Herald of Monday, January 11, 2021. What I got out of that is that partners are now speaking to each other and not at each other.
Lovers quarrel, siblings fight with each other, friends quarrel, so why don’t we expect people of different cultures to be at loggerheads with each other? Who started it or where and when did it start are essentials in a deliberation, but the atmosphere under which the deliberation takes place as well as the attitudes often determine the outcome.
As we know, this is the impression that the majority of us have had when reading about the way in which Knops was going about his business. I am not condoning, nor neither will I encourage hostility. I would even advise diplomacy and I also understand very well that a few well-chosen words could get the attention of those who are under the impression that they have the upper hand. Of course, expecting a reaction.
I feel a little more relaxed after reading that article. The people need to know, so “transparency” is the key word here. And I hope for the sake of good governance that all partners and everyone would “let decency be their guide”.
In closing let me say this. A few days ago I met a politician and while speaking to each other I said, “Everything that happens in the country is the responsibility of the government.” The response was, “No sir!” So I said, “Think of what I said to you and I believe that you will say certain things differently or probably don’t say them at all publicly.” The response that I got was, “Have you told that to other politicians also?” I answered affirmatively.
I do not mind if that person would prove me wrong, because I would then expect to be corrected and the reason why not would be explained. This would be very well accepted, because I have been constantly complaining about the lack of “Civics” in our education system.
Russell A. Simmons
Dear Editor,
This topic is about a part of Jesus’ character the world despises or hates.
Jesus Christ said he is love and compassionate and forgiving and gives grace. This is the part of Jesus’ character the world loves.
Jesus Christ loves all sinners (the world loves this part) but he hates the sinful act (this is the part the world does not love).
Jesus said, “I am the way. … No one comes to God but through me.” For the world this part is very offensive, many in the world say it is discriminating against other religions that have other Gods but that do not know about Jesus. This is what makes Jesus Christ public enemy number one. For the new world order that is discriminating and not a unifying message. The world wants a message that is inclusive and tolerant for the common good (globalism) of human society. This world does not care about righteousness, the world cares about unity regardless if Jesus does not approve of it. For the world, God is the answer, not Jesus Christ. The obvious question is what is the difference?
The word God brings unity, but the word Jesus brings clarity to the one and only true God, and this matter is what people hate about Jesus’ character. Jesus Christ clarifies who is the one and true God, that is his Father in heaven which he represents. No other God has a son that represents them, name Jesus Christ. All other Gods focus on unity and so-called peace, but the one true God with the son named Jesus focuses and demands righteousness.
Unity cannot save you; unity is simply saying we going along to get along. This is another part of the character of Jesus the world hates. But the part of Jesus Christ’s character the world hates the most is the part where he brings judgment which is punishment for our disobedience against his laws.
All other Gods speak about peace. What is peace? Peace is defined as freedom from disturbance, a state or period in which there is no war or a war has ended. Brace yourself for hardcore truth, this is another part of Jesus’ character the world hates, and now I quote the bible, Matthew 10:34, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” Read well, Isaiah 59:8, “The way of peace they have not known, and there is no justice in their ways; They have made themselves crooked paths; Whoever takes that way shall not know peace.” This means God will not make peace with any entity or person or government who refuses to obey His commandments.
In conclusion, Jesus Christ is a loving savior of judgment that punishes unrighteousness.
Jesus Christ does not tolerate disobedience or the breaking of his law and that is the part most people hate about him.
Therefore, the new world order and most people reject him. They want his grace and love but not his way or laws.
Choices have consequences. Choose wisely.
The patriot Miguel Arrindell
Dear Editor,
Let me start by wishing you and all your readers as well as the people of St. Maarten a blessed and prosperous 2021 with a complete recovery from COVID-19.
I am aware that our form of government is not the same as that of .the USA, but in my opinion more and more the majority of our people in government are too often at loggerheads with our kingdom partners because our people have a tendency to deliberate the way they see on American television instead of governing according to our constitution. I am aware that politicians usually do as much as they can get away with. That is not an excuse for irresponsible behavior..
Because of COVID-19 the people’s outlook on life has been altered and I expect responsible members of Parliament to be aware of this and act accordingly. There is a popular saying: “It is not what you do, it is the way that you do it”. In this case it is not only what is said, but also who said it. What I know is that everything that happens in the country is the responsibility of the government. Let me be clear, I did not write that the government is responsible for doing it. So, if you are a member of Parliament it is also your responsibility.
That is why I usually comment on certain expressions from the members of Parliament when they are expressing themselves publicly. If we follow the reaction of the youth all over the world of late, we should choose our words more carefully. Making a point to impress the people in order to be able to keep one’s followers can be done in different ways. That saying “you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar” is true. This tactic should be used by members of Parliament and not words bordering on incitement.
I would even smile at sarcasms, but these are definitely not the times for that kind of behavior. When we are ready to accuse anyone of not being responsible we should first look in the mirror and ask ourselves “Am I a responsible person?” I usually do when I write letters to the Editor.
The Dutch translation for responsible is “verantwoordelijk”. Check the Van Dale Dutch dictionary for the different meanings. This I also do, because words have different meanings and can be interpreted several ways and even be taken out of context.
Do the right thing, be responsible, choose words carefully, and think of our youth.
Russell A. Simmons
Dear Editor,
It’s Wednesday, January 6. I’m on my way from up in the Philipsburg Valley to my weekly tennis doubles match in Cole Bay. Or so I thought. One of my tennis buddies got over the hill 5 minutes before, as I find myself dead stuck next to Kooyman for 20 minutes. Traffic coming down G.A. Arnell Rd. blocks cars going up, and vice versa. Nothing moves. And of course I’m dumb enough to succumb to the impatience of many others, and turn around to take a detour up, only to find out it’s that road that’s being closed, and losing another 30 minutes before I get to where I would have been 20 minutes before if I waited just that little bit longer.
Finally, up and over the hill I look down, and see everything jammed there as well, all the way to the end of Union Rd., close to the border. The entire Dutch side of the island is jammed. I’m 1.5 hours late, and besides my buddy nobody else came to play that day. The courts, normally buzzing, were empty.
But all that is not the point. Two motorbikes crashed into each other, and one of them died. Impatience took that guy’s life. We all lost a bit of ours as well, but we’re still here. Waiting for it to happen again. It’s surprising it doesn’t happen more often. Most of these guys on motorbikes drive like they’re Valentino Rossi on steroids. Grand Theft Motorbike, but zero points and not an extra life. They had it coming, collectively, and so it did.
That’s what happens if law enforcement on our roads remains absent, only to be there when things have gone wrong. Drunk driving is another thing, for that matter. I know so many people admitting to it, telling me they do because they can. If only the police would be there every now and then, all those people might think twice, or think at all for once.
Arjen Kolthof
Dear Editor,
Is it possible for a foundation to represent the people of St. Maarten in court to obtain their decolonization? A good way of answering this question is by looking at the activities of the Dutch Foundation Urgenda. On December 12, 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) handed down a landmark sentence that drew international attention. In that verdict, the Dutch Supreme Court sided with Urgenda Foundation and ordered the Dutch State to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the Netherlands.
This verdict inspired activists from around the world to take legal action to force governments to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions. (It is worth bearing in mind that The Dutch Supreme Court's verdict regarding Urgenda Foundation's legal action was subsequently published in the Harvard Law Review.)
The Dutch State had argued that Urgenda’s case be declared inadmissible (niet ontvankelijk) which is a standard defense deployed by lawyers around the world. (US President Trump has repeatedly run into this legal roadblock in his attempts to have the courts reverse the results of the 2020 elections.) However, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that the Urgenda Foundation’s case was admissible and does represent the interests of the inhabitants of the Netherlands who are being threatened by climate change.
A lower court had earlier ruled that even if certain groups were against the position of Urgenda Foundation, that could not prevent the foundation from filing a collective action. It would appear therefore that a foundation can indeed, even in the face of opposition from certain elements, file legal action to obtain the decolonization of the people of St. Maarten.
Pro Soualiga Foundation
