Dear Editor,

  Students who go away to study are doing so for particular reasons, whether they know or not the ranking of the reasoning. But what guarantees do students have of a different life from those who came before; and if that is a good enough reason for such supercilious adventures. Their dreams at times are pilfered brazenly under the hot sun, as one returns to their native lands of an imagined community. In this quest lies a certain cantankerous ideal. Froth with the politics of the ability to climb the ladder, one goes on this Sisyphusian journey. Of not only coming back, but competing with others of similar and dissimilar ilk, where meritocracy has its discontents and caprice, its lineage. But one must persist, in order to have some semblance of decency in their existence.

  The search for a job is part of the process in this quest to become many yous (plural of you). This sort of a delusion has to exist within the mind so that it can perpetuate blindly and attach itself to you, like a long lost love. But this quest is a fantasy of symbolic parenticide, instilled by its own heredity, only to be engulfed by the realities of a generation of the Internet/social media. Why are the young ones this way must be yoked to why are the old ones that way. Nevertheless, the aim is to go away, study, and come back.

  But what are we coming back to? What have we inherited and what will the future inherit from us. The idea(l) of the benevolent ancestor of today is only that and for convenience sake. For when you come back, the process of getting a job. If you prepared for such, rarely, by performing well in school, interning by small or larger businesses, by government, by staying connected, by being involved in the community, by engaging politically, you increase your chances; if you don’t, that lessens your changes by a bit too much. Localness – of whatever extraction – and jobs are a fickle pair. There is no guarantee.

  Every now and again, there are jobs openings, and for each of these vacancies, there is the select committee, promises, and the unknowns; join that with the many candidates applying to fill said slot, some less than your qualifications, some the same, and some more. So, who gets the job? There are a multiple of factors to consider: education, experience, diligence, social and voluntary work, family connections and name, political links, chance, luck, etc. So how or what do you do, when you do not get the job, which is most likely the case. You go look for another. Then another, and keep on looking, maybe never to find that particular job, but simple a job. That may have to do.

  The thing with a job is that it takes some time, years maybe, to find the right ideal job that you want, patience is thin, but then that job is gone, or not what you thought. Jobs are maybe a capricious necessity, or so we think. There is no perfect or ideal job for most. We just have to do mostly with what we have; if we are lucky, that’s a different story. Attached to this idea is dealing with pleasant and irksome aspects of colleagues, managers, strangers, and the rest. Indeed one can find a nice temporary respite within work, but it is a persistent battle of continuous and fluctuating interaction, not unlike life itself. It’s simply the order of things.

  Another aspect of work, there are the local issues to deal with, globalization itself, capitalization of your personal data, the economy, unemployment, war, the educational system, labor laws, productivity, “high wages”, emigration, cost of living, cruise numbers, spending amounts, etc. In addition, and as a result, the ever-increasing downwards pressure on the worker to produce more for less. It’s unconscionable. Based on these trends, the future looks ominous, not that much as to challenge the value of our existence. Maybe the onliest solution is reciprocal acts of kindness that could possibly make easier the journey on this rock hurtling through the space.

  Within these two areas of light, however, there is some discernable temporary order that we have little control over. So, we veer off, as is inevitable, we are made to realize that we have wandered. But each one of us has a particular beat that we follow in our heads, some in our hearts, some neither, and the beat goes on, several beats, no beats, different beats. So what life throws at us, we have to deal with in one way or the other, causally, reluctantly, but certainly. So, the question to return home to St. Maarten to work, or to lie on the beach, is related to how we will eat. In this beaten quest, what are we willing to give up? Stay on SXM or go elsewhere. How did you get that job again? Is college worth it? What about those persons who did not go to college? All of us, college or not, deserve some semblance of a decent life.

  We all have daily lives to live, from taking care of a child(ren) to a parent to going to work to staying healthy to dealing with people to not having enough for the month. It’s rigorous for some; some, routine; some, brutal. It’s all complicated. So, it’s not just about finding a job, but one that you may like, one that brings satisfaction, some joy, some civility – such should idealism should not be a stretch of the imagination. But a realization, or at least a collective aim.

  In light of this, brain drain has been made to be real but it is a ghost, a reality that cannot be reversed. It is the world we live in. The market doesn’t allow it. To purport some kind of solution is within grasp is simply to prey on particular reaches of our prejudicial existence.

  It might be hard not to come back to dear ole SXM. But there is a choice that has to be made. Why the need to come back thus becomes real, the ever-present existential crisis. The benefits of history has its limits, so too for place, and the urge to return to a predetermined home. But home is a temporary and fleeting concept. We live in a world with no borders, yet we create such, we crave and we carve our way, even if it costs us ourselves.

  And too often, it does.

Pedro de Weever

Dear Editor,

  On December 1^st the government plans to reinstate certain articles in the traffic ordinance. This law at the time of its inception was created with the interest of safety and the free flow of traffic in mind, but like many laws in St. Maarten, it is in much need of modernizing. Some of the concerns lawmakers had then, would not be relevant today.

  In a September 26^th press release, the Ministry of Justice stated that heavy equipment was essential in the reconstruction effort after Hurricane Irma, which is why certain articles such as article 60A were not being enforced.

  Article 60A states that:

  It is prohibited to drive heavy equipment on roads open to public traffic and other traffic on working days from 06:30 to 08:30 and from 12:00 to 14:00.

  The article also defined what in the eyes of the law is heavy equipment; the law makes no distinction on the type of heavy equipment. This omission of distinct categories for heavy equipment is one of the law’s shortcomings. This law attempted to address the issues surrounding the free flow of traffic that were present at the time. It was created during a time when all forms of heavy equipment were woefully underpowered and posed a significant threat to the free flow of traffic, so banning the use of heavy equipment for four hours during the day would have been a logical solution.

  Nowadays most trucks no longer suffer from the shortcomings of their predecessors and should be a separate category.

  As for the issue of safety, Article 60A does very little. One needs only to look at the number of accidents involving trucks as opposed to other forms of transportation.

  Why is this of any importance? Trucking of whatever sort is a business, whether it is a dump truck removing fill from freshly cut lots of land, a garbage truck removing solid waste from our neighborhoods, a concrete truck hauling concrete to the various reconstruction projects, or a tractor-trailer pulling containers from the port to the myriad of local businesses that depend on them. Trucking is a business and the removal of four sunlit working hours hurts business, especially now during this period of austerity.

  As I work in waste management, let’s take the removal of solid waste for example, a rear loader garbage truck by nature poses a significant threat to the free flow of traffic; this is why in the past we tried to work in the night-time hours or early morning hours so between 8:00pm and 4:00am. In recent years, noise complaints and the dump closure during these hours have made working during those times impossible. Garbage trucks must now work during daylight hours, hindering the free flow of traffic. Now remove four hours of daylight. This makes the work almost impossible to complete.

   60A isn’t the only article that shows that the law is long in the tooth and in need of amendment. Article 23 which was also referenced in the government’s press release takes the cake. It states that:

  It is prohibited for a vehicle to drive on the public road if the height of the vehicle, including the load, exceeds 3.50 meters (11.5 feet) or if the width, including the load, exceeds 2.60 meters (8.5 feet).

  I am certain that when this law was created, the dimensions of the vehicles were vastly different from what they are now, and the fact that most power, telephone, and cable lines ran above ground. As it stands, this article prohibits using all tractor-trailers carrying a standard container on a chassis, double-decker buses, certain tour buses, and even large rear-loader garbage trucks, as these are in violation of the height limits stipulated in the article.

  Is it the government’s plan to indefinitely ban these vehicles for being in violation of article 23?

  As the country continues to look toward the future and improve, I believe the laws have to adjust to allow for that growth. I am currently working with Party For Progress Members of Parliament in hopes to amend and bring the aforementioned laws forward to the modern day.

Luciano Nicholls

Dear Editor,

  By now I believe that your readers know whatever I put on paper is not for my personal satisfaction but it is usually reminding those in government that they are there to serve the people. So many of us did it. and we know that it can be done in the right way. There is always enough to share. Greed should be the motivation to do whatever has to be done.

  Mr. Luciano Nicholls ends his letter to you stating that he is working “with” the members of the Party for Progress who are members of parliament in hopes to amend and bring the aforementioned laws forward to the modern day, I am trying to comprehend the motive behind this letter. First, what Mr. Nicholls writes about was published on September 23, 2022, and was expected to go into effect on December 1, 2022. I believe that there was ample time to address that in order that those involved would have had time to adjust to it, if whatever the desires were/are were amended and granted.

  That to me is not efficient. I am neither sure for what reason those members of parliament mentioned are using Mr. Nicholls, whereas they themselves are in a position to query the concerned minister about it.

  And then to top it off, your editorial of November 30 also deals with the density of traffic and illegal parking, so I am still not sure where they intend to find the space to make room for the kind of progress Mr. Nicholls is referring to. Mr. Nicholls mentioned the dimensions of vehicles and stated that that was then, but it is not only the size of the vehicle that counts. He forgets he needs an adequate road to drive over with those vehicles. He is not taking the width and condition of the roads in account.

  The room for progress that I would like to make is the hours for those delivery trucks which park in front of any place of business that they have to deliver stuff to, and at any time. I would suggest that that be done between 10:00pm and 6:00am. I would even go as far as to mention A.T.H. Illdge Road from Prins Bernhard Bridge up to Madame Estate. It is so bad that it even affects the purpose of the traffic lights by the bridge.

  Since I mentioned that, did anyone notice how many places of business there are on that stretch without adequate parking in front of those businesses? If I counted correctly there are 13 places of business on that stretch of road.

  I will continue by mentioning that in my opinion, even though we might need the type of heavy equipment which is being driven around the island, our road infrastructure cannot accommodate that kind of heavy equipment which is presently used here. They are literally a traffic hazard. We also do not need them in the hills.

  Suriname is 64,000 square miles and the capital Paramaribo is 70 square miles and up to today they only use coasters for public transportation and other transportation. School buses, church buses. Only the military uses bigger buses than the coasters. Heavy equipment is escorted by the police and preferable during the night.

  I do not think Mr. Nicholls made an in-depth study of the traffic on St. Maarten before writing that letter to you. I would suggest that he talks to some of the people at the Kadaster and VROMI [Ministry of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure – Ed.] to get a better idea of what can and cannot be done. I am not an expert but I have an idea where to turn to and how this should go in the right way. Progress should work for all of us and in the right way. Speed limit is one thing, reckless driving is another thing, and those heavy equipment drivers like to show that they can handle those vehicles, but I will repeat, the roads on St. Maarten cannot accommodate that kind of driving with those heavy equipment.

Russell A. Simmons

Dear Prime Minister Rutte,

  In memory and honor of our spiritual and courageous African ancestors who fought against oppression for our freedom, we, UCF, D’HERO [Ubuntu Connected Front and Decades of Heroes for the Elimination of Racism and Oppression – Ed.] and the Reparatory Justice Cooperative Alliance, request your kind attention to the following.

  1. Earlier this month (d.d. 3 November 2019) it was announced that the cabinet would soon apologize for the slavery past. A majority of the House of Representatives has insisted on this after a visit by a parliamentary delegation to Suriname, Curaçao and Bonaire.

  2. In recent days, various media have reported on the intention of the cabinet to apologize for the Dutch slavery past on Monday, 19 December.

  3. According to sources from The Hague, seven members of the cabinet will travel to Suriname and the Caribbean part of the Kingdom where they will give speeches in which they will express regret on behalf of the State of the Netherlands. The speeches will all be delivered on the same day in the Netherlands and in the former colonies that had to deal with slavery.

  4. Prime Minister Rutte will apologize in the Netherlands. Minister Weerwind (Legal Protection) will travel to the Surinamese capital Paramaribo as a descendant of enslaved people.

  5. State Secretary Van der Burg (Asylum) goes to Aruba, Minister Van Gennip (Social Affairs) to Bonaire, State Secretary Van Huffelen (Kingdom Relations) to Curaçao, State Secretary Van Rij (Finance) to St. Eustatius, State Secretary Van Ooijen (Welfare) to Saba and Minister Kuipers (Public Health) to Sint Maarten.

  6. The apologies are not accompanied by reparations or direct financial compensation for the descendants of enslaved people.

  7. Despite the fact that the content of the above messages has not (yet) been confirmed by the cabinet, the intention of the government and the cabinet to apologize for the Dutch slavery past after almost 150 years is in itself a good gesture.

  8. Our thanks go in the first place to all persons and organizations who have committed themselves in recent years in the context of the slavery file and making excuses and to all who had no doubt that this moment would arrive.

  9. In view of these developments, we recall on behalf of UCF, D’HERO and the Reparatory Justice Cooperation Alliance that the Netherlands has a long history of Afro phobia (anti-black racism), colonialism, slavery and the otherwise oppression of Africans and citizens of African descent.

  10. We agree that slavery and the slave trade (including the trans-Atlantic slave trade) were declared a crime against humanity by the UN in 2001.

  11. We point to the fact that the racist ideas that underlie slavery and the discrimination that characterized slavery can still be seen in society today.

  12. We emphasize that without remedial measures, which explicitly include reparations, the negative consequences of colonialism and transatlantic slavery, which are still present today, in particular for citizens of African descent, will continue to exist.

  13. We emphasize that apologies for the Dutch slavery past are only of value if they are expressed unconditionally (without restrictions on reparatory justice). Apologies without ethical, historical, educational, financial, socio-economic or cultural reparation are no apologies, especially when it is taken into account that the negative effects of that slavery past are still felt today in Dutch society, the Caribbean (Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao, St. Maarten, St. Eustatius and Saba) and the Republic of Suriname.

  14. We point out to the current government and cabinet that, despite the fact that they have been made aware of the need for legal reparatory justice for many years, they are partly responsible for allowing the various negative effects of the slavery past to continue to have an effect in the present.

  15. We would like to point out to the government and cabinet that other matters stand in the way of successful apologies at this stage, such as remedial measures (including payments), the crime scenes, the role of the current cabinet, the role of the prime minister, the position and possible role of the Koning, the proposed role of Minister Weerwind as the descendant of an enslaved person, the impact of the slavery past, etc.

  16. We are well aware that this is not the time to delve into the complexities, underlying problems and possible solutions of making unconditional excuses for the Dutch slavery past.

  17. We assume that if, as appears from the messages, you as a member of the government and cabinet intend to apologize for the Dutch slavery past on December 19, 2022, you wish to do so successfully. In order to achieve this, we have tried to make it clear that the government and cabinet will have to take more time to make the intention of apologizing for all involved in the spirit of Ubuntu a success.

  Ubuntu (I am because we are)!

Sincerely/Kind regards,

R.P. Vaarnold

President UCF

Director D’HERO