Dear Editor,
I read a letter written to you by someone whom I would refer to as a coward, but I will politely call N.N. In my last letter I wrote that I would recommend your readers to clip out that article in which the Prime Minister denounces "leaking". In a letter to you on Monday October 4, N.N. states that we were reminded by Mr. Peterson that all government documents should be public information, etc. I believe that N.N. has a problem with interpretation or "should be".
I also know that there are channels that the public has to go through to be able to obtain information from the government, whether it is public or not. And then N.N. goes on to state that, "We should be going in the opposite direction, providing protection to whistle-blowers" But from the time I read, "We talk about National Security as if we are under some form of terrorist threat , when indeed and in fact, the greatest National Security threat facing the people of St. Maarten is the enrichment of those in power at the expense of businesses and the poor".
I thought 'Oh, oh, something somebody did not get and their emotions are taking over'. I believe that N.N is considering a leaker to be equal to a whistle-blower and that is why he wants protection for the whistle-blower. I think I have stated it before in different ways. Think before you talk. Do not answer when you are mad because your emotions are going to get the better of you. If someone wants to remain in the closet, but his confidant leaks it out, it is not the same as when someone notices wrongdoing and secretly lets it be known.
I would advise when we are going to write letters to the Editor, that we do some homework first, yes do research before putting it black on white, because we cannot know how the reaction can be. I do not have any confidence in what was written by N.N because of the inconsistencies, nor do I know whether it is meant to be malicious, more so because no name was added to it.
Because I do not know everything and do not always understand everything, I have to ask questions. In this case it is not clear to me what N.N is considering 'a natural reaction to systemic unfairness' and what is global in nature? Is it really so that the Prime Minister's reaction to leaking is not acceptable? Who is clipping whose wings? I do not believe it is N.N's because his letter is in the paper. Or does N.N. mean that if a name is attached to the letter the author's wings will be clipped. If that is so, then I would not only have no wings, but all of my feathers would be gone by now.
N.N wrote about the National Ordinance referring to all government documents being public information. N.N. should have gone a little further to find out what is written in the Constitution concerning freedom of the press. Or probably N.N. should call someone from the newspaper to be enlightened on what is permitted to be written, without being sanctioned. If one would ask me, who would I prefer, the whistle-blower or the leaker? That is easy. The whistle-blower secretly exposes wrongdoing, whereas the leaker creates wrongdoing. Beside good governance I do not want anything from the Prime Minister, but she is right in what she said about the leaker.
By the way, I am fascinated by the article Law Enforcement Institute in St. Maarten 'to become reality'. Since I'm on the topic of Law enforcement, in connection with the article in which the police are seeking help to find owners of vehicles, someone called me and suggested that the police come down heavy on the gypsy drivers. "They take anybody, anywhere with whatever they are carrying, anytime of the day or night as long as they get their money."
Russell A. Simmons
