Dear Editor,
After being on this island for more than 44 years, and doing the work I did, I think I have an idea of who were here then, who came and went, who came and remained for whichever reason, who left and were not encouraged to return, but most of all I know how this country should be run and how it was and actually is run.
In the paper of September 24, 2019, I read that the meeting with Knops was cancelled, and I will add because again we cannot get our act together, or even more realistically, because of personal gain and blatant disregard of the sentiments of the taxpayers and the rest of the people of St. Maarten.
What should actually have been more necessary? Was it to have a meeting with with Knops, see the results and then see what positive would come out of that meeting, and if they were not satisfied, they could make up their mind whether to split up or not. Not even in this computer age vital decisions are taken in two days, much less the forming of a government.
You have the timeline of the events before as well as leading up to the declaring of independence by MPs Meyers and later Mercelina and Brownbill, so anyone, no matter who, could see that that was coming. I do not recall reading or hearing that those who intended to form a new government had made known that they did not have the intention of welcoming Knops.
Even though they are all politicians among each other, those who caused this cancelling of that meeting are from St. Maarten, and when things do not get done for St. Maarten it is the people of St. Maarten who are going to feel the brunt of the backlash. The more the reason for the people to analyze and sanction the actions of MPs Mercelina and Brownbill along with their accomplices.
I read the comment made by MP Meyers. From experience I have learned to use a measuring-stick when dealing with what is promised by politicians, but in this case I agree with a great deal of what he stated.
Our elected Members of Parliament continue to show their intentions and so far as I see it is for personal gain. If this is not so then let me ask why are they still reluctant to give back part of their salary?
When in a discussion it was mentioned that the members of Parliament go about their business as if they are enemies of each other instead of fellow Parliament members who should lobby with each to get things done, some one answered, “That is not what they went in there for.” I will not write what else was said, because those were not my personal observations, even though in my opinion it was not farfetched.
I am disappointed, because it is the same 15 people. No matter who forms the government it would have remained those same 15 people attending that meeting. Or perhaps they were not ready to hear facts. Something worthwhile could have resulted from that meeting.
There is a time and place for everything and this latest action has demonstrated to me that those involved are not mature enough to know where and when not to behave how. Shame on them.
I wrote this before and I will repeat it. My father told me when I was 20 years old and just a couple of months on the road, “If you cannot represent what that uniform stands for, take it off.” I believe that something similar should be said to our elected officials.
This to me is more proof why I suggested that the oath of office should not be taken from Members of Parliament.
Do they really believe that the people are that naive? They are making it tougher on those of us who include our members of government in our prayers as a conviction.
Russell A. Simmons
