Dear candidates,

The below questions you should be able to answer. These are the questions the media should be asking. If they are debating, all candidates should be able to answer these questions. These are the questions that people should ask all political candidates when they meet and greet them and when they come into your community.

* 1: What is your political ideology, and why did you choose to be part of the political party you are a part of?

* 2: Tell me about your past presence and your educational background and life experiences.

* 3: What is your vision for the children of St. Maarten?

* 4: If elected, do you want to be a minister or a parliamentarian?

* 5: Do you have any plans to solve the traffic situation in St. Maarten? Tell me how you plan to solve it.

* 6: Do you believe in God and in morality, and is your lifestyle presently in sync with your beliefs?

* 7: Is your loyalty first to the electorate of St. Maarten or the political party that you belong to?

* 8: If a member of your party is in the executive branch and you know they are corrupt, will you report them to the authorities if you have proof?

* 9: Define for me what you call good governance.

* 10: How many branches of government exist in our country, St. Maarten, and explain to me their portfolios?

* 11: Do you believe we should keep God out of government, and if so, who do you swear to when elected to power?

* 12: Do you believe in family values, and do you practice them?

* 13: Should all political candidates be people of good moral character, or does it not matter?

* 14: How do you create wealth and prosperity for St. Maarten?

* 15: If education is the key and many of the people in our present government are educated, why are the people of St. Maarten living in poverty and misery?

* 16: Define good and evil for me in your own words.

In conclusion, these are valid questions that should be asked if you love your country and have good intentions.

Refusal to ask and answer these questions proves that an individual has a hidden agenda and is not of good intent.

The patriot Miguel Arrindell

Dear Editor,

  Should a voter in the upcoming election choose a party with a large number of candidates or rather a party with a lesser number of candidates?

  Does a larger number of candidates mean that the party has more good people to become legislators and therefore a better choice?

  May I suggest that the number of candidates does not give any indication of the party’s suitability for governing? What the voter really should be wanting to know is the skill levels of the candidates and how they were selected by the party and how they were scrutinized for qualities of integrity. That is tough information to obtain!

  The likely motivation of parties to field a large number of candidates is that they will, through these candidates, pick up some percentage of votes due to the persons being well known in the community and well liked. Or maybe they will hope their families will vote for them. Do not assume that the larger number of candidates represents either existing popularity or suitability for governing.

  Even if they look good on the photograph.

Robbie Ferron

Dear Editor,

I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the ongoing legal proceedings involving former Member of Parliament Frans Richardson, who was recently found guilty of bribery and abuse of position in the 2021 “Aquamarine II” investigation. The defense team for Mr. Richardson has raised serious questions about the credibility of the prosecutor's case, particularly highlighting the role of who everyone assumes to be Carl Critchlow and the handling of crucial evidence.

The Richardson legal team has vehemently scrutinized the Public Prosecutor’s Office over the reliability of Carl Critchlow’s statements, calling into question the credibility and motivations of the individual, and challenging the integrity of the prosecutor's case as a whole. The defense argues that Critchlow, who has changed his story multiple times, paid a substantial amount to avoid criminal prosecution after making incriminating statements against Richardson. Such actions cast doubt on the veracity of Critchlow’s claims.

Moreover, the defense points out discrepancies in Critchlow's statements, where he claims to donate significant amounts to politicians during elections, yet asserts in court that he has never paid bribes to other politicians or officials except to Richardson. This contradiction raises serious concerns about the reliability of Critchlow’s testimony.

Let me go further: Since Critchlow’s arguments in this case are so contradictory, it is impossible for the case to stand on its own, especially if it means ruining someone’s life. Those who have followed this case will remember that at one point, Critchlow would respond to questions by answering “yes,” “no,” and then “yes” and “no” in succession.

He could recall everything the prosecutor asks him, but he conveniently forgets details regarding Frans’ defense. He testified in court that he gave Frans a donation without expecting anything in return or a favor. He alters that tale once more a short time after. In sworn statements, he identified to the police the recipients of his political donations and even called them by name. He later claimed to have given to Frans alone. This person would have been so tainted in any courtroom in the world that the case would have been dismissed.

The defense has also brought to light the absence of crucial correspondence and communication records between Richardson, the Bureau Telecommunication and Post (BTP), and the Minister of TEATT [Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport and Telecommunication – Ed.], arguing that the case file lacks essential documentation. Additionally, the defense contests the prosecutor’s failure to consider alternative scenarios and potential political motivations behind financial transactions.

One key point of contention is the prosecutor’s alleged confusion of entities in the case, specifically Carl Critchlow and his company Taliesin Construction NV. The defense argues that such confusion contributes to a misleading picture of the events in question.

Furthermore, Richardson’s defense highlights the prosecutor’s lack of clarity in specifying evidence and accuses the prosecution of failing to consider Richardson’s limited control over the Bureau Telecommunication and Post, challenging the allegations related to the LEA building purchase and post-Hurricane Irma repairs.

The defense also questions the prosecutor’s portrayal of Parliament’s committees having an oversight role, pointing out that committees cannot make contracts for government foundations or companies. They challenge whether the Justice Committee has ever summoned the Court to Parliament or called the Prosecutor in a meeting, emphasizing that such oversight does not align with the realities of parliamentary functions.

Put another way, the prosecution is manipulating word meanings to suit their desired context – a practice they have repeatedly engaged in. They give the false impression that Frans and/or the TEATT committee of Parliament, of which he was a member, attend BTP board meetings and are aware of all of the day-to-day activities and decisions made by BTP by claiming that the committee has “oversight” over BTP. The mere fact that the parliamentary committee is meeting to discuss BTP, Telem, etc., does not imply that the committee is in charge or has oversight over those companies. And, as a matter of fact, the Minister would be questioned by Parliament, not BTP directly. That is the wordplay used by the prosecutor to establish a fictitious connection to Frans.

This is not the way the law should be practiced when there is lack of evidence or no evidence at all to support claims. The prosecutor knows they have a tainted case built on the testimony of a tainted, unreliable person. Will the judge set such a dangerous precedent in this country? Will the Minister of Justice allow this butchery of the spirit of the law to continue?

In conclusion, it is imperative for a fair and just legal process that these concerns raised by Richardson's defense are thoroughly examined. The public deserves transparency and confidence in our judicial system, and a careful review of the case, including the credibility of witnesses and the handling of evidence, is essential for upholding these principles.

A concerned citizen

Dear Editor,

It is not customary of me to react to the writers of letters to you, but to the contents. This has become second nature to me because of what I did for 41 years. Even though the concern was there and sometimes visible, the problem was not directly mine and neither did I make it mine. I solved it as correctly and as peacefully as I could.

I am stating this because from experience I know that, especially during political campaigns season, the people tend to believe and sometimes indicate who is backing who. For instance, the people are inclined to believe that I will vote for Anna Richardson. And I do not mind if they think that way, but they must also say why they think that way. Fact is that until otherwise is proven, the person who got the most flack from the people both on the road and in office was Anna Richardson. And I believe that all that that young lady did was be sworn in as Minister of Justice.

On moving forward she realized that approximately 700 justice workers were left stranded. With the conviction that it’s a good horse that never stumbles, she remained on the farm and decided to take the bull by the horns. Even though several of the cowhands deserted her she persevered, because before her she saw these 700 deserted families. This was something that caught everybody's attention, even though her effort to get things back on track was met with great controversy, primarily from within.

This was because there were rivals in the field, who just like all of those who profited from the toppling of every St. Maarten government since 2010, but who were expected to have her back, were following her with hidden daggers.

Within the two last days I have read three letters from persons who I expected to defend their point of view, but differently. I had to ask myself, what can change a constitutional democracy into a dictatorship?

And who are these people? Are these people different from whatever we have been having since 2010?

And then this. I was busy writing this letter when someone called me and said to me: “Now I understand why sometimes when you write you does say that you write so that the people on the bus could read and understand it.” He continued by saying that he read a letter from Michael Granger and up to now he can’t understand where he’s coming from. I usually get myself in hot water with these people, because they expect me to have a comment or to voice my opinion. I told him like I usually tell everybody who asks me what I think about so-and-so. I usually let them know that what the writer means can be interpreted differently by every individual. And if I give my opinion it will be taken literally like I said it. Meaning that too could be taken out of context and by the time it reaches the fourth person it would be a complete different story.

The black horse would have become a donkey or a mule, etc. I prefer to have the article in front of us so that we can read it together and analyze it and then come to a consensus.

That is why sometimes my letters are lengthy. Like I have mentioned, I want the people on the bus (who do not have a dictionary at hand) to be able to read the letter and understand it. Beside that there are a whole lot of words that have several different meanings and then there are many words which are pronounced the same, but are written differently and have a different meaning. For example: hair, here, hare, hear.

That is why I prefer a healthy discussion, rather than to react on assumptions.

Good (sleezy) politicians use these tactics, because they are aware that the people interpret and absorb them in different ways and consider that politician wise. That, in my opinion, is telling the people what they would like to hear rather than telling them what is reality.

Russell A. Simmons