Dear Editor,
I have heard the saying “put your brains in gear first before you put your mouth in motion” in several ways, but I did not think that a Member of Parliament would be so adamant about the fact that he is a politician first instead of a representative of the people.
I met a Member of Parliament of whom I have written to you in the past waiting to be attended to. I greeted him and assured him that there is never anything personal. (I did not tell him this, but I hope that by now all of them know that they should be able to take criticism just like they enjoy the protection of article 65.)
After this I said to him that I had expected someone to direct a question to the Minister of Finance concerning the squandering of the people’s money in connection with what I deem a senseless dispute about what is written on the number plate for 2019. A whole lot of people have asked me what the dispute is all about. I will not mention the reaction that I got from the majority of them after explaining to them the reason that was given in the paper.
One person said to me that he going to the Receiver’s to get some of the leftover plates so that he could sell them as a collector’s item because 50 years is a milestone and that is a one-time thing.
One lady said to me, “They coulda overlook dah. St. Martin people always like to spoil thing for themself.”
Another one said, “Government coulda help somebody with a roof instead of wasting that money unnecessary on those extra stickers.”
This MP in question said to me that he is a politician and will not question the Minister’s unpopular decision because he is in oppostion. On my question “Even if it is in the general interest of the people?” he reiterated that he is a politician and that is what politicians have to do.
I then told him that his task is to represent the people and that the “Staatsinrichting” does not talk about being a politician but that he was chosen to be a Member of Parliament. I wanted to know what was the reason for article 32.3. He insisted that he is a politician and that politicians play politics.
It is one thing when it concerns hearsay, but on experiencing it personally I have a different opinion of this MP. Because that MP insisted that he is a politician first, I hope he is ready to accept anything coming his way as a consequence of him not representing the people.
This is precisely the reason why I continually suggest that civics be taught in secondary classes or even be deemed a subject for exams.
Just before sending this letter someone who claimed to be within earshot of our conversation called me and asked me if I intended to write something about what the MP said. I told them, “I’ll think about it.”
Article 23 states that any Dutch national living in St. Maarten can be elected to office, barring the exceptions mention in the general regulations. I will be straightforward in what I am going to ask now: “Why should there be a minimum age up to which children are obliged to be in school, but any dummy could be elected to office?”
I strongly believe that we should amend those exceptions to ensure that whoever could be elected should at least have an education equivalent to that which would have been obtained should one have attended school up to the minimum required age. You see that MP has the right to ignore the oath he swore to and ignore the reason for him being elected to office, because the law permits people, no matter their level of education, to be elected to office, whether they understand the meaning of the word responsibility or not.
I know who all follow my letters to you, so I would hope that his fellow MPs have him stop making wrong propaganda for them and pull him aside and school him. Otherwise we will accept that they all agree that they also are paid to be politicians first and not representatives of the people.
Is not it so that possible new elections are looming?
Russell A. Simmons
