~ Serves Dutch interests, not the people ~

 Dear Editor,

Dutch Special Envoy Edison Rijna, former governor of Bonaire, is being deployed by the Dutch government to the Global Sustainable Island Summit (GSIS) in May 2025 in St. Kitts and Nevis. Framed as an advocate for increased funding to the Forum for Subnational Island Jurisdictions (SNIJs), Rijna’s real function is to advance Dutch strategic interests. His presence risks misleading CARICOM partners, as he represents the colonial state – not the voices or needs of the people in non-sovereign island territories.

It’s crucial to clarify the actions of the so-called Dutch Special Envoy engaging with CARICOM and St. Kitts and Nevis. While he presents himself as a representative of Bonaire, he truly serves Dutch interests, not those of Bonaire’s people. He is working on behalf of the Netherlands, not reflecting the struggles or voices of the local population.

The narrative being pushed is misleading and deceptive. The envoy is attempting to secure funding under the guise of representing Bonaire's climate vulnerability and challenges, but these claims are fundamentally false. Bonaire is not located in the hurricane belt, and our island does not suffer from major natural disasters like many other Caribbean nations. While climate change is a global concern, it is not the pressing issue that is currently affecting our people.

The true crisis in Bonaire is not environmental, but a human rights one. The Dutch government imposes high taxes and collects all with zero accountability to the people. Our schools are stripped of cultural identity, forcing native children into a system that ignores and erases their language and rights. Unrestricted migration from the European Netherlands is driving overpopulation on Bonaire, straining the island's infrastructure, resources, and social framework – an undeniable example of modern colonial exploitation.

Healthcare in Bonaire is no longer serving our people – it’s being used as a tool of Dutch colonial control. The forced imposition of Dutch European laws like “euthanasia” violates our moral and cultural values, leaving families traumatized and the elderly afraid to seek care. Since its enforcement, the death rate has doubled, and our native population has plummeted from 80% in 2010 to just circa 30% today. This is not coincidence – it reflects a deliberate policy of displacement and cultural erasure.

It is misleading and harmful for this envoy to present a false narrative to the Caribbean, diverting attention from Bonaire's real struggles and reinforcing Dutch colonial dominance. We urge CARICOM leaders and the government of St. Kitts and Nevis to distinguish between a Dutch envoy pushing for Dutch interests and the true voice of Bonaire’s people, who are fighting for their survival, rights and self-determination.

James Finies

Bonaire Human Rights Organization

Dear Editor,

Following years of tracking by the Israeli foreign intelligence service, Mossad, Adolf Eichmann, the logistical brain, architect and one of the major organisers of the Holocaust, was captured in Argentina on May 11th,1960. Eichman was thereafter flown to Israel where he was made to stand trial and subsequently convicted for the gruesome murders of millions of Jews killed in the extermination camps during the operationalisation of Nazi Germany’s final solution. It was during Hannah Arendt’s coverage of the Eichman’s trials that she coined the phrase, banality of evil. Incidentally, Arendt was a German-American novelist who at one point in her illustrious and celebrated career became stateless.

Arendt’s conceptualisation of the term, Banality of evil, popularised in her book, “Eichman in Jerusalem”, provided scathing insights and depth of understanding into the psyche and moral world of Adolf Eichman. Arendt concluded from her analysis of the testimonies and actions of Eichman that he wasn’t necessarily an inherently charismatic murderous villain, but instead was blindly following orders, executing his duties without questioning the moral implications of his actions - the essence of the term banality of evil.

Eichman for his part, on all occasions when he was asked to plead during his trial, promptly pleaded not guilty to the crimes he was being accused of committing against humanity: he confidently maintained his innocence by merely proffering he was simply following orders and so wasn’t personally responsible for his morally complicit behaviour. Adolf Eichman’s desecration and attempted annihilation of the Jewish people was reportedly a deep source of pride and joy to him since as it is documented that he on occasion exclaimed that he would happily leap to his grave knowing he had six million Jews on his conscience.

It is horrifying if not nauseating to entertain the thought, even cursorily, that us humans possess such horrendous and diabolical capacities to commit such atrocities on scales that boggles the very mind that does the conceiving. If we were to survey the current global political landscape seeking to examine the moral turpitude of potential candidates vying for political office and those too who have already attained and dangerously consolidated political power we might very well unearth albeit frighteningly potential Eichmans in our midst.

If true, meaning, there are Frankenstein the likes of Eichman already in our presence, how do we vigilantly guard against the repetition of one of history’s darkest hours? How many likely Eichmans may be lurking silently in the shadows awaiting the battle call in service of their enablers, sinister political agendas and dystopias? Adolf Hitler’s orchestrated plan to exterminate the Jews and repopulate the territories of Europe with the purity of the “Aryan race” was for the most part aided and abetted by Adolf Eichman - the once average student who eventually found his “calling” in the industry of efficient mass killings.

Fascist and totalitarian regimes are enabled and perpetuated by those who, according to Hannah Arendt, refuse to critically examine the moral correctness of dictates emanating from authoritative figures. Blindly conforming to commands without self-reflection and robust interrogation requires the voluntary suspension or refusal to employ a critical aspect of what essentially makes us human - our capacities for agency and moral reckoning.

Eichman’s moral failure wasn’t necessarily an unprecedented low point in the brief history of enlightened and civilised man, as daily we continue to witness - albeit on a smaller scale - and at times are affected by the actions of those whose sole role in existence it seems is to unquestionably execute what they are instructed to do.

The banality of evil interpreted in the context of Eichman’s horrors highlighted the bureaucratic, routine thinking devoid of independent thought which made possible the misery of the holocaust. As a theoretically useful conceptual frame for examining the actions of Adolf Eichman the term banality of evil in my considered view doesn’t provide an absolute explanation of Eichman’s and his peers behaviour. As since it is quite plausible to conjecture that Eichman could have indeed critically examined and found wanting the orders he received to exterminate the Jews but was nevertheless motivated by a greater cause, namely: to aid in the realisation of a world ruled and populated by a “superior Aryan race”.

So, while some among us may find laudable Hannah Arendt’s mental labours to coin a theoretical construct to explain Eichman’s actions, does this in itself make the outcome or product of critical thinking as advocated by Hannah Arendt adequate enough to dissuade us from exhibiting incorrect moral behaviour? Or are we, despite our critical efforts, continuing to remain at the discretion of other yet unknown factors or forces deluding us into thinking we are agents morally responsible for our conduct?

As Fyodor Dostoevsky said, “don’t let us forget that the causes of human actions are usually immeasurably more complex and varied than our subsequent explanations of them” logical reasoning or critical thinking is just one mode of apprehending and examining ourselves and the world we inhabit. There are those among us who don't employ critical thinking for reasons known and unknown to us as a basis for ethical and moral guidance.

Orlando Patterson

Dear Editor,

Not too long ago I saw a response from our Prime Minster to the Dutch member of Parliament Baudet. I also did not receive what was said well, but … . Yes there is a but. I would have not expressed myelf in a manner which Baudet did, but there has to be a reason why Baudet believes that he is entitled to that kind of attitude towards us. We afforded him that opening. Since 10-10-2010 we have demonstrated what I consider unacceptable behavior on all levels of government. There was a lull for four years and then we went right back to our ignorant and irresponsible behavior, affording every politician of the kingdom of the Netherlands to ridicule us.

Even if there were tons of adjectives I could add to Baudet, that would not take away our shortcomings. The word is “list”. I would always want to be in the list of positives than on the list of negatives. If your name is on a certain list, no matter how you describe it, your name is on that list.

Unless someone proves me wrong the decline in the behavior of the people on St. Maarten began with the change of the government of St. Maarten. The different Ministers who did not know how to handle and maintain discipline would interfere with the maintainance of public order by the police and became enablers. In so doing they would interfere with the police work with all the ensuing consequences. To add to that in mind the behavior in general became more visible with the arrival of a Dutch chief of police who walked all over in uniform with his cap under his arm. There is a saying in Dutch “De kleren maakt de man” which also helped and is still vital in the decline and disregard of law enforcement. I lived through this so I know.

Beside that I constantly have to tell people who ask me why the police officers don’t wear caps anymore, I tell them to ask Chief John, he wears his cap when he is in uniform.

I will end by stating one of my father’s sayings: “Two wrongs don’t make a right.”

Russell A. Simmons

Dear Editor,

It appears as if pensioners are the ones who are carrying the load when it comes to the paying taxes. They are seemingly the ones pursued more than ever because of being the low hanging fruits. I am yet to have a discussion with a pensioner who is not complaining about the manner in which they are being taxed.

If I am not mistaken I heard the Minister of finance state that they are working on a law to exempt our SZV income from being taxed, a good gesture indeed but when will this happen. Can pensioners bankrupt government if the taxes they owe are cancelled, can pensioners bankrupt government if some of the taxes owed are reduced, can pensioners bankrupt government if they are allowed to pay what they can afford instead of insisting they that they pay large amounts within a short period of time regardless of their financial condition?

What makes matters worse, we are in 2025 your taxes have been filed and up to date. Then you receive a summons saying that you owe taxes for 2020?? You are told that it must be paid within the shortest time possible. Whose fault is it that they are way behind in their assessments? And now they want you to pay almost immediately or prove that based on your income and expenses the amount they request you to repay is unreasonable and that the requested period is not feasible. In my opinion it is immoral and insensitive.

I will be the last to say that it is not our responsibility to pay taxes but assessing one 5 years after the fact is very unprofessional and demanding almost immediate payment? This has been happening for too many years, the laws and the system is too outdated and does not reflect reality. Especially at present with rising food prices, electricity bills, building materials and the list goes on which will put a large dent into our income. A pensioner said to me about two or three weeks ago that it seems that they wait until you reach the pensionable age to harass and stress you.

I am quite aware that government derives the majority of her income from taxes but reality is that there are those who are still not paying their share. Tax compliance has been a discussion for ages and that is all, no action to address this very serious issue.

Sorry they are working on it by pressuring the pensioners. What is government doing about the casino and lottery fees? If I can recall, some casino fees in the millions were written off because of COVID19.

But I have a problem, which is the following; some 14 to 15 years ago during a budget meeting, I found out that the ordinance governing collection of casino fees of 50 thousand guilders a month was established in 1989 some 36 years ago and to date has not been changed, but going after the pensioners seems to be much easier. Government is losing millions by not changing this outdated law.

There is a lot of complaints about the turnover tax but are they paying the right amounts? How is government controlling or not controlling this? Or are they depending on the good morals of businesses?

On another note, is Government still repaying the illegal debt of 12.7 million guilders? It can better be used to pay our law enforcement officers, our teachers and, yes, other social responsibilities. But of course it is not important, just keep it on the backburner. Can pensioners bankrupt government?

George Pantophlet