Dear Citizens of St. Maarten,

I share your concerns about Ottley’s National Healthcare Insurance (NHI) and the questions surrounding its financial implications and the sudden introduction of this policy. It is vital that we seek transparency, accountability, and thorough answers to these pressing questions.

Key questions about Ottley NHI:

1. The NHI Document: To make informed decisions, it is essential that the government provides the NHI document for public review. Transparency in the policymaking process is crucial.

2. Financial Relief: It's essential that the government outlines precisely how NHI will provide financial relief to the citizens of St. Maarten. Will these costs indeed be reduced, and if so, how?

3. Government's Financial Capacity: The financial stability of this program is paramount. The government must demonstrate its ability to manage the costs and commitments associated with NHI.

4. Funding and Taxes: How will NHI be funded? Will it result in additional taxes on the citizens? Transparency on the funding structure is essential to understanding the economic impact.

5. Comparison of Premiums: A comparative analysis of NHI premiums versus current premiums must be presented. Citizens deserve clear information about how this change will affect their finances.

6. Coverage and Transition: How will NHI cover existing obligations, such as Fund for Sickness and Accident Costs (FZOG)? A detailed transition plan should be provided.

7. Accountability: We demand accountability from our government representatives. If there are promises that have not been upheld, the government should address these issues promptly.

The concerns expressed by the citizens of St. Maarten are valid, and it is your right to seek answers and transparency. The government’s role is to provide clear, fact-based information on policies that have a significant impact on our lives.

Omar Ottley and Rolando Brison have a responsibility to address these concerns and provide clear, honest answers to the people they serve. It is through open dialogue and transparency that we can collectively work towards solutions that benefit everyone.

Let’s hold our leaders accountable and ensure that our voices are heard in the decisions that shape our future. Together, we can build a stronger, healthier St. Maarten.

Quincy Rochester

Dear Editor,

In these peculiar times, it’s evident that some individuals in power strive to avoid blame for unpopular actions while eagerly seeking credit for popular ones.

This results in a range of politicians who often remain inactive, deflecting the “negativity bias” and, in the process, neglecting their oversight responsibilities, leaving our country to grapple with its challenges.

This issue hits close to home when we witness the struggles faced by young homeowners in the Carbon project. They were initially lured in by impressive marketing tactics, enticing pricing, and financing offers that seemed too good to be true.

However, recent town hall meetings revealed disturbing instances of multiple sales of the same properties and possible embezzlement of funds.

Our laws dictate that no more than 10% down payment should be collected for mortgages, but here we see a blatant solicitation of 50% down payments. Furthermore, banks and regulatory departments failed to conduct due diligence, leading to the dire situation we face today.

The root of this problem lies in the fine line between negligence and incompetence, where various institutions and government oversight mechanisms have failed in their basic duties. Justice is imperative for the victims of this Ponzi scheme, not just because some are known or because the money was hard-earned, but because this level of fraud cannot occur without some form of institutional complicity.

Implementing punitive actions would not only bring justice but also send a powerful message. However, this depends on the existence of political will and a commitment to long-term policies. Politicians must be held accountable for their policy outcomes, especially in our short political cycles, where they often evade responsibility.

In the past, prior to 10-10-10 we could blame our problems on Curaçao, but today, we must own up to our issues. Strong punitive actions, driven by the best interests of our country, offer a path to tangible improvements in our society. It's time we take responsibility for our challenges and work towards a better future.

Vote correctly.

Viren V. Kotai

Dear Editor,

From the time I know myself I have been eating sweet potatoes, yams, tanias, eddoes, avocados, plantains, bananas. you name it. And we had to eat them because it was "Good food". What I know

about Marijuana is that it was illegal and that millions of persons have been encarcerated for using and being in possession of it.

I am aware that anyone who is about to venture into a certain business does research first to find out if it is possible to do it easily or conveniently. So I assume this is the case with MP Peterson. I do not

know which is easier to produce, but I know that it takes plots of land to plant both sweet potatoes, etc. (provisions) as well as Marijuana. What part of the community is served with Marijuana, compared to what part of the community is served with provisions? Who will be profiting financially from the proceeds of Marijuana, both above and under the table. I have to ask that question because there

are still people voting for certain political parties because they are under the impression that certain politicians were instrumental in getting them their passport.

The government records will show that there are pensioners who are collecting the same pension today that they collected when they retired more than twenty years ago. I believe that more vigilance will be needed to avoid robbery of the Marijuana plants than the sweet potatoes or bananas, etc. How many people could a bunch of bananas serve compared to a Marijuana plant? Permit me to put some food for thought out there.

If we decide to plant potatoes,for instance, and we condemn convicts to community service by

working the ground, could that be a means of getting people to "work the ground". I am also thinking the same by "cleaning up" those drug and alchol-addicted persons. In my opinion Sint Maarten is not ready for the cultivation of Marijuana.

I have written this because several people wanted to know if MP Peterson knows what he is getting us into? I want to know, what about pension reform?

Russell A. Simmons

Dear Editor,

I don't usually do too much writing during the political campaigning on Sint Maarten, which since

10-10-'10 has been a record-setting amount in the Netherlands Antilles or if I should say it differently, the Dutch Kingdom. I am stating this because what Stoker wrote to you did not sit right with me. I looked up the word "stoker" and it is explained the same in English as in Dutch." A person who tends the furnace on a steamship or steam train. In this case a person who is throwing gasoline on the fire.

I have this question. What can be made of a person who throws stones and hides his/her hand? My father would tell us that makes that person a coward, because that person is not man enough to face the consequences of his/her deeds, but that person has also decided beforehand, that the person who he/she is throwing the stones at will retaliate in a manner which the stone thrower is not ready to deal with. That to me falls within the definition of being a coward.

Those letters did not sit right with me simply because of the seven hundred odd people involved. I

read the letters, saw the name Stoker, and knowing the meaning of the word, I had to read them again, because this made no sense to me. If I have the ability to help more than seven hundred people, why would I be playing games about it? Is this not telling me something about Stoker's psyche? Is this sick or selfish, or is it trying to show up the Minister of Justice. I can assure Stoker that the only thing that he has done to that Minister is that it would make her feel sad to know that there are people out there who could have contributed to the process and for whatever sick reason did not make use of her open door policy.

The English translation of the Dutch saying "Dat spreekt van zelf" is "That goes without saying", but I can assure anyone this is not the case with the government. With the government there is a process for almost everything. Taking this into consideration, I do not think that Stoker is of good will. I hope that Stoker is not a potential candidate on any political list, because with people like him/her we would be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

By the way, how many Ministers of Justice did we have before Miss Anna Richardson? What did they do for the Justice workers? If Minister Anna Richardson was not brave enough to take that bold step and take on that Heracles task to make sure that more than seven hundred Justice workers got what is due to them, who would all of these "pundits have to blame?

When I was thirteen years old, the priest at the Anglican Church at that time said to me, "Yes. Mister backseat driver". We were not in a car so I was confused but my father was my backup, so he explained to me the meaning. He also told me to try to avoid people saying that to me in the future. So, I will say here "It is easy to be a backseat driver" (De beste stuurlui staan aan wal). Would not Stoker have been a bigger person if he/she had made use of the Minister's open-door policy and brought his idea forward. I believe Stoker would have gotten a better insight on why it was taking that long, and or why Stoker's solution would or would not work and everybody would respect each other.

Hi people, we are only 60.000 on sixteen square miles, what is with this constant ridicule of each other? Before time the school children used to be an example of how people could play together; nowadays it's gang-fight almost every day among the school children. I will go out on a limb and say it is the children becoming what they see the adults doing..

I am still of the opinion that Stoker should demonstrate maturity and make use of the Minister of Justice's open-door policy.

Russell A. Simmons