UP faction leader MP Grisha Heyliger-Marten.
~ Urges govt. to ask Curaçao about its plan B ~
PHILIPSBURG--On Tuesday, May 18, United People’s (UP) party faction leader Grisha Heyliger-Marten sent a letter to Prime Minister Silveria Jacobs and several other ministers asking government what its plans are if the Dutch government refuses to provide liquidity support to St. Maarten by the end of this month.
In the letter dated May 18, the Member of Parliament (MP) urged government to reach out to Curaçao’s incoming government to learn more about its “plan B” and see to what extent a similar plan or solution can be devised or is available for St. Maarten. “An alternative course of action, if feasible, will give the St. Maarten government the necessary flexibility to continue meeting the urgent needs of St. Maarten and its people, while continuing negotiations with Holland,” the letter, entitled “short and long-term financial-economic solutions for St. Maarten,” read.
Heyliger-Marten said she was concerned about the recent developments regarding liquidity support. She said from its recent actions and statements, it is clear that the Dutch government continues to use liquidity support to strong-arm the government of St. Maarten into (not) making decisions that do not “fit the long-term colonial agenda of the Dutch government.”
Heyliger-Marten’s 16 questions to government included asking what government’s plan is if the Dutch government continues to refuse to provide liquidity support by the end of this month; whether government has considered legal action against the government of the Netherlands based on local, kingdom, or international laws; whether ministries, jointly or individually, explored local/regional alternatives for short, medium, and long-term funding for/of government, and if alternatives were considered, which criteria other than interest rates were used to assess these alternatives?
The MP also enquired whether the minister of finance is willing to carry out a legal review to determine if floating a bond and/or accessing funding outside of the kingdom is possible; whether any ministries contacted the incoming Curaçao government to learn more about its “plan B,” and see to what extent a similar plan or solution can be devised or is available for St. Maarten and whether government believes that an alternative course of action, like the incoming government of Curaçao is considering, is feasible for St. Maarten.
“Do you believe it will give the St. Maarten government the necessary flexibility to continue meeting the urgent needs of St. Maarten and its people, while continuing the negotiations with the Dutch government and exploring alternative options?” she asked.
Heyliger-Marten also wanted to know about the status of the document “A Path to Economic Recovery,” which was presented to Parliament last year; the status of the tax reform that was included in that document; whether the Ministries of Finance and Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport and Telecommunication (TEATT) are collaborating on this tax reform and if so, how; how are the elements in the document, including the tax reform, related to the elements in the country packages and whether government’s plans in the document can be overruled by the Dutch government or any other third party based on the country packages.
The MP said the current Dutch government resigned over a long-standing scandal in January of this year, and as such it has a caretaker status. The Caribbean Body for Reform and Development COHO proposal which the Dutch government “tried to impose on the Caribbean islands,” was shot down by the Council of State. One of the main reasons was that the proposal violates the autonomy of the islands. Also, the budgetary cuts which this Parliament passed on the Dutch government’s insistence were sent for review to the Constitutional Court by the Ombudsman.
“Despite these two major rejections of attempts by the Dutch government to impose unlawful legislation on the government and people of St. Maarten, caretaker State Secretary [for Interior Affairs and Kingdom Relations Raymond – Ed.] Knops stubbornly continues his efforts to bully his way through. He does so while trying to save face about these two failures. He wants to now ‘discuss’ the same COHO law which first was non-negotiable, and it remains to be seen what his response will be to the decision of the Constitutional Court once issued.”
The UP-faction leader said Knops’ visit to the islands this week should be seen as him “making his rounds to inspect his subjects and impose on them, instead of seeking cooperation with equal partners for the benefit of the population.”
“Time and again, it has become abundantly clear that the Dutch government is an untrustworthy partner. It keeps moving the goal post, reneging on agreements, and providing different excuses for doing so. We have to conclude that the Dutch government is not willing to, [nor are they capable of,] working together with that of St. Maarten in good faith and in accordance with local, kingdom, and international laws. And most importantly, as the Raad van State [Council of State] clearly pointed out, the current COHO proposal will result in the Dutch government being placed above that of St. Maarten. Needless to say, this is unacceptable, unconstitutional, and unlawful on a local, kingdom, and international level.”
Heyliger-Marten said the Dutch agenda only re-emphasises the need to finalise the decolonisation process post-haste. She said also that it is incumbent on government and Parliament to take decisive actions based on a review of the viable alternatives for achieving reform, securing our sustainable social-economic development, and ensuring the financial stability of St. Maarten based on the needs and wishes of its own population. “This must be done without outside interference by an unreliable partner who imposes unlawful demands on us, and it is our duty as representatives of the people to take this responsibility seriously.
“As far as government is concerned, moving forward requires an integral approach. This in turn will mean close cooperation and coordination by at least the three ministries which fall under your responsibility, of course supported by your colleagues in the Council of Ministers. Parliament can support the process with the required legislation.”
In addition to Jacobs, the letter was also addressed to Minister of Finance Ardwell Irion, and Minister of TEATT Ludmila de Weever.
