Dear Editor,
The Council of State has reviewed the COHO [Caribbean Body for Reform and Development – Ed.] consensus law which was propped up by the honorable Prime Minister Silveria Jacobs and has found it wanting. The Council’s findings will lead many in the governing coalition to begin their high-stepping, back-patting, and congratulatory nods for their perceived personal/political victory.
However, the real question is: How does their personal/political victory translate into tangible relief for the citizens of this country during this COVID-19 pandemic? The realties being faced by a multitude of families on this island who are struggling to put food on the table and meet their monthly financial obligations will not be reflected in the fake victorious verbiage and sound bites that will resonate in the media in coming days.
While the political rhetoric that is to follow may boost the egos of the weak, excuse me, meek, the average citizen is overwhelmed with fears of what the next few months will bring with regard to their abilities to continue to meet their financial obligations for basic survival on a monthly basis.
Knowing that they have the ability to put food on the table, pay for the roof over their heads, job stability, earning a livable wage to maintain their livelihood, the ability to see a doctor and not have to pay out of pocket, and confidently sending their children to school knowing that there in a safe learning environment, is paramount on the minds of the people right now.
While the Council of State report may give credence to the petition to the U.N. submitted by the parliament of St. Maarten, please take note of the entire content and context of the report, as therein lies the unveiling of the defensive strategy that is going to be used against the petition.
In the same breath, the people of this country would like to know when the unveiling of a plan of action that addresses the concerns that are on the forefront of their minds be reviewed and debated on the floor of parliament.
While in victory mode please explain to the people of this country what the Council of State means by “it supports the aim of the Kingdom Act to make the economies and public finances of the countries healthy, strengthen public administration and improve the conditions of the population of Aruba, Curaçao and St. Maarten” as it relates to your supposed victory against the COHO law.
Does the finding of the Council that the State Secretary’s approach was literally inappropriate, and it doubts whether the setup he had chosen would have led to successful results, give any relevance to the governing coalition’s so-called victory and approach for attaining a healthy economy, and public finances?
Does the coalition’s so-called victory strengthen public administration and improve the conditions of the population? Oh, I’m sorry, the “victory” against COHO had nothing to do with having a plan other than “Holland, we need money at all cost.”
Prime Minister Silveria Jacobs signed on to the country package including COHO, and has already begun to implement some of the measures stipulated in COHO, without recognizing that “the division of responsibilities and powers (her powers) between COHO and the government and between COHO and the financial supervision were unclear,” I’m guessing because “Holland we need the money at all cost” was at the forefront of her mind.
The Council of State also found that the COHO had far-reaching powers that belonged to the local national administration (local government) and also questioned how COHO could be a Dutch independent body while functioning under the directive of the Minister of Home Affairs and Kingdom Relations, in essence making him the prime minister of St. Maarten. But “That’s okay,” says our PM, “I accept, take my position, because Holland we need the money at all cost.”
The Council of State also notes that the powers of the Minister of Home Affairs and Kingdom Relations were unlimited because not only did it place him as the director of COHO, but also as the director of the national administration of the county (the Prime Minister of St. Maarten’s boss) replacing parliament as the body approving decisions. But again, “It’s okay, let me initial all the pages of the agreement and sign,” says our PM, because Holland, we need the money at all cost.
The COHO law also gave the Netherlands the ability to change the rules of the game at will, any time during the 7-year period of its implementation, by using compliance to any changes as the trigger for support. That too was agreed to by the Prime Minister because Holland, we need the money at all cost. If this is how the Prime Minister deals with indecent proposals, I am not surprised that a plan to address the non-political issues confronting her people has never materialized.
If the Prime Minister was willing to let herself be steamrolled and sidelined without taking a principle stand on any of the many infractions of her rights and abilities to serve her country and its people as the leader of government, how can the people of this country expect her to stand up for their needs, wants and aspirations to be able to not only provide for their families but thrive in their own country?
Who’s going to ensure that the issues that are on the forefront of the minds of the people of this country and their family’s not get trampled on and sidelined while our government celebrates fake political/personal victories agreed to and signed on to by Prime Minister Silveria Jacobs.
The Council of State rescued the Prime Minister from her own signature. The more pressing question is: Who is going rescue the people of St. Maarten from the signature of the Prime Minister?
Cecil Nicholas
Dear Editor,
In what Pro Soualiga considers a timely assist, the Dutch Council of State has shot down the [Caribbean Body for Reform and Development – Ed.] COHO draft Kingdom Law. In what internet blog “Dossier Koninkrijksrelaties” billed as “Kingdom Law COHO in conflict with Kingdom Charter” the stillbirth of COHO was announced. The highest advisory body in the Kingdom issued a scathing 20-page analysis of the COHO draft Kingdom Law and advised Mr. Knops not to present the law in its present form to the Second Chamber, nor to the Parliaments of the islands. It’s back to the drawing boards for Knops and Co.
Pro Soualiga had initiated court action to stop COHO and many of the arguments presented by Pro Soualiga can be found in the Council of State advice. The law was hastily drafted and amateurish in many ways. The Council of State did not spare it.
The islands can now breathe a sigh of relief because one of their major headaches has been resolved. The excessive and needless interference in their autonomous affairs has been roundly criticized by the Council of State and now the Dutch Government is obliged to negotiate with them on a more equal footing.
This advice by the Dutch Council of State underlines one of the ways in which the colonial nature of the relationship with the Netherlands is structured. The report of the Council of Advice of Curaçao was also highly critical of COHO, but it is only the advice of the Dutch advisory body that matters.
The advice was finalized on March 3, 2021, and was not supposed to be made public as yet, but as is the case with those things, someone conveniently leaked a copy to the press, and now there are no longer any secrets to conceal.
This also brings an end to the court action Pro Soualiga was waging to stop COHO. The Dutch Council of advice saw the light and nipped COHO in the bud, albeit for different reasons than Pro Soualiga. Pro Soualiga’s position is that COHO is invalid because the Kingdom Charter conflicts with the United Nations Charter. Obviously, that finding was a bridge too far for the conservative Council of State. However, one does look a gifted horse in the mouth and, besides, there are many roads that lead to Rome.
Pro Soualiga Foundation
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,
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,
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
