Dear Editor,
I ask that question because when one puts two and two together the outcome should be four. And in this case I do not understand why a simple sum like two and two can cause so much confusion.
By now any well-thinking person should know that the only Minister of Justice who has made an effort to set the police straight is this present Minister of Justice. It is no secret. I was surprised and saddened when I read a response from the president of the police union to the extensive explanation that the Minister of Justice gave in connection with the progress of the monies owed to the police. I would have expected a “thank you”, but instead there was a challenge and a charge to stop with political rhetoric.
Initially I did not understand why the Minister connected the president of the police union with politics, because since I joined the force in 1965 up to now the police have always been on good terms with the Ministers of Justice, simply because it is the Minister of Justice who, in this case I will use the word “plights” to get things done for the police, which any reasonable thinking person can understand. But after reading the reaction of the president of the police union, I too am of the opinion that there is more behind only the Minister having to comply with the governor’s decision.
As I am typing the thought “Why bite the hand that feeds you” comes to mind, which in this case can be interpreted in different ways. I believe if one wants to see the positive in things that is what one will see, which should always be the case with people who have sworn to be peace officers. Since 10-10-’10 not one Minister of Justice did anything tangible for the police. As soon as this Minister set foot in office everybody got gumption, but it was gumption against gumption, which is a pity, because the police should have rallied behind the Minister in the face of the community. What’s in it for me” is the detriment of all that could be good for St. Maarten.
The minister clearly outlined for everyone that the “hold up” was due to the demands of the governor, why did not the president of the police union direct his words to the governor? The minister did not mince any words.
I am disappointed, because this has never been the way police go about doing business, but it seems that somebody is providing that stick to beat a dog. I can guarantee anybody that good dogs do not forget. They do not always lay and wait, but they let you know that they are aware of you.
I wanted to know, especially since 10-10-’10, which government can boast about anything that they have done for the people of St. Maarten. Now that the present Minister of Justice is bending over backwards to get things regulated for the police, the minister is being accused of using persuasive language which lacks sincerity and meaningful content. I do not think it takes me to defend the Minister of Justice, but I will say that all that came from that piece from the president of the police union is “empty rhetoric”. There is never anything personal, but I believe that the governor should intervene in this matter, not concerning the money situation, but to let the president of the police union know that this is not the correct way of handling this situation. This is
unacceptable, period. This is not how the police conduct
business.
This Minister of Justice took the bull by the horns and instead of assisting her she is being attacked with contemptuous and dismissive language. I am deeply disappointed with the whole situation. This is not throwing water on the fire, this is fanning the fire.
Russell A. Simmons
