Dear Editor,
There is a saying “look before you leap” which over the years has come to mind often when reading what was written about politicians and people in government. Even though I like to share my experience, I believe that silence is golden. It enables one to hear what is being said.
Sadly to say, what I have grown accustomed to is that the majority of our elected officials are not or very poorly versed in the Constitution and laws concerning how the country is run. I use the newspaper for information because it is printed black on white and when mistakes are made or discovered, these are corrected.
People in government play the blame game. I know that some people will say that I should be aware that new laws are published in the “National Gazette” and to that I say, “Hey, people, wake up.” Why? Because I believe that it is time for us to be aware of the term “To photo shop”. I am referring to this because it is expected of those who live here officially to make sure that they are aware of the laws of the land. Who is responsible for explaining this to those who are given residency for St. Maarten?
Are we taking “photo shopping” into consideration when new laws are publicized? Since 10-10-’10 we have had umpteen governments and then, hoorah, the Silveria Jacobs government lasted its full term. New elections were held. And then, lo and behold, within three weeks after forming the new government, the electorate were again confronted with the fall of the government.
The Silveria Jacobs government helped us to regain some dignity. 0ne would think that those vying for a seat in government would appreciate the so-needed continuity of government. Wrong, that is not what those who have proven themselves not to be worthy to be called representative of the people were about. Within a year here we are again getting ready to inaugurate a second government.
And then in the paper of November 13 I read that Ministry of Justice introduces appeal process for civil servants placements. And I thought, are we reinventing the wheel? I stand corrected, but even though it is 18 years later, the process for civil servants to appeal against placements and promotions has always existed.
One of my qualms for years has been the reason for those salaries of members of Parliament. I never agreed with it for the simple reason that the SGs are expected to have a certain education, whereas it is not even required for members of Parliament and by extension a Minister of government to have any kind of education. But again, if CIVICS is not taught in school from an early age, in the land of the blind the one-eyed man becomes king.
By now anyone should know that I am very aware that nobody is perfect, but what I do not understand is when one is caught red-handed, why fight it all the way to the Supreme Court. Have they not learned yet that in St. Maarten for a long time now the term “under the table” has been “on the table”?
And on Tuesday last when I hollered out to a driver who stopped his vehicle in the middle of the intersection to talk to a pedestrian to “Do the right thing” the pedestrian said to me, “In Sint Maarten it’s not ‘do the right thing’ it is ‘do the money thing’.”
Again I am expecting all kinds of reaction, but since we are into making laws, what about a study to make DNA testing by birth a law in order to be able to establish who the father of the newborn baby is.? Hopefully this will become a deterrent in their behavior. I believe that the lack of both parents of any child plays a factor in the growth process of that child. Our census office should be able to provide statistics whether a child is acknowledged by the father or not and compare the behavior of non-acknowledged children as opposed to acknowledged children (father at home). We need all hands on deck.
And while they are busy with that, check to see what that gypsy gang on Cannegieter Street is all about. From Afoo to Sucker Garden (The Keys) is US $5.
Russell A. Simmons
Every so often, a crisis emerges that compels politicians to mobilize, promising to address pressing issues, such as, for examples, integrity, civic participation, and government transparency, just to mention a few. Yet, despite the urgency of these issues, they often seem to be mere echoes of promises unfulfilled – like “balls that have been dropped” or “cans being kicked down the road.” In this cycle, the credibility of politics and politicians has plummeted to an all-time low, leaving citizens disillusioned and disengaged.
The reality is stark: the systemic problems we face in governance are not new, and with some exceptions are only getting bigger and more complicated. They are the result of neglect, inertia, and a failure to prioritize the very principles that underpin a healthy democracy. When integrity bureaus are considered in response to scandals, when civic participation programs are launched without genuine commitment, and when government openness is touted but not practiced, we witness a pattern of behavior that erodes public trust.
This pervasive cynicism is dangerous. It breeds apathy in society and among its various constituents, who feel their voices do not matter. It creates an environment where the most vulnerable are further marginalized, as the political elite continue to operate in silos detached from the realities faced by everyday citizens. The gap between politicians and the populace widens, fostering a culture where accountability is an afterthought rather than a foundational principle.
To disrupt this cycle, we (all pillars of society) must demand more than just rhetoric. Actions speak louder than words, and it is through meaningful, sustained efforts that we can begin to restore faith in our political institutions. Politicians need to prioritize transparency – not as a checkbox on a campaign platform, but as a core value guiding every decision. This means establishing genuine channels for public input, listening to constituents, and acting on their concerns.
Moreover, integrity cannot be an optional trait for politicians; it must be non-negotiable. This requires robust mechanisms for accountability that extend beyond the occasional investigation or public statement. We need systems in place that hold leaders accountable for their actions and decisions, fostering a culture where integrity is expected and rewarded.
Civic participation should be more than a buzzword. It ought to be a fundamental aspect of governance where citizens are not merely passive observers but active participants. This can be achieved through educational initiatives that empower individuals to engage with their local governance and through policies that facilitate direct involvement in decision-making processes.
Ultimately, the restoration of credibility in politics is possible, but it will require a collective effort. Citizens must demand transparency and accountability, while politicians must commit to genuine engagement and integrity. This is not just about addressing the issues of the moment; it’s about building a political landscape where trust can flourish, and where every citizen feels their voice matters.
The time for action is now. If we are to break free from the cycle of disillusionment, we must hold ourselves accountable to a higher standard – one where politics serves the people, not the other way around. The future of our democracy depends on it.
Michael F. Willem, MBA
Ex-Minister/Commissioner & Governance advocate
Curaçao
Dear Editor,
It was with profound sadness and great alarm that I received the news of the tragic death of Asot Michael, the elected representative of St. Peter, possibly due to foul play.
Until the 2023 general elections, Mr. Michael had a long association with the Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party, to which he continued to express his commitment. His death is a significant loss for the party, made even more sorrowful by the circumstances surrounding it.
The party will honor Asot Michael's contributions to Antigua and Barbuda in due course. For now, we express our deep sadness at his passing and extend our sincere condolences to his beloved family, friends, and all well-wishers, including members of the Labour Party at every level.
E.P. Chet Greene
Chairman of the Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party (ABLP)
Dear Editor,
The city of Amsterdam has made headlines in newspapers and international news broadcasts in recent days. After the Ajax vs. Maccabi Tel Aviv match on November 7, 2024, supporters in the Dutch capital were chased, abused, and humiliated. Some referred to it as violence, others as a pogrom. No matter what label you attach to it, the behavior is in no way justifiable.
In this article, I provide a counter-narrative to the parrot-like media. Was this violence against, uhhhh … Israelis or the Jews and where did it come from?
I, Ramin, am the host of the podcast called From a Distance. In the first and second episode I discuss the history of Israel and the Jews, and Palestine and the Palestinians. Visit
https://shows.acast.com/from-a-distance to listen to my episodes.
The match
On November 7, 2024, Ajax played against Maccabi Tel Aviv. The police had 800 officers on active to keep everything in order.
A side note: 800 police officers for a football match. Shouldn’t the costs be covered by professional football sector itself, especially for a match where one of the parties is a stock company with profit as its goal?
After the match, things went completely wrong in Amsterdam. Not the Ajax supporters, but it appeared to be Moroccan youth on scooters who chased Israelis and beat or humiliated them.
Characterization of violence
Something stood out to me in the reactions of politicians and media coverage. When the Israeli army used violence against Palestinians, it was initially said that the Jews were the perpetrators. This could no longer be said, because it wasn’t about Jews, but Israelis. Talk shows and other media immediately adopted this terminology.
However, the violence against Israeli supporters was quickly labeled a pogrom. A pogrom is defined as a violent attack against a particular group of people, usually targeting ethnic or religious minorities. By calling the violence a pogrom, you are effectively saying it was against the Jews. But why are the Israeli supporters now suddenly all Jews? Let’s stay consistent and continue referring to the perpetrators of the wartime violence against the Palestinians as Jews.
Underlying current
For years, Jews from all over the world have visited Amsterdam, and this level of violence has not been seen in this form before. Where did this outburst of violence come from? Could it be the Dutch and international politics?
Politics should reflect society, but for years it has been said that politics is becoming increasingly estranged from the people. Citizens increasingly feel disconnected from what they voted for.
The same applies to the stance that the Dutch government and political parties have taken regarding the war in Israel. This stance consists of saying “shame on Israel.” But the Netherlands facilitates the Jews by providing supplies that allow them to oppress the Palestinians.
Mayors themselves are getting tired of the number of pro-Palestinian demonstrations that their municipalities must facilitate. Let alone all those police officers on the streets and behind the scenes. The political parties have no ear for this issue and do not change their course.
Isn’t the politics further alienating itself from its citizens by burying its head in the sand and ignoring what course its citizens really want to follow?
Once again, the Dutch government immediately issued broad apologies to the Jews and hosted an Israeli minister in the Netherlands. Not a critical word about the fact that the violence in Amsterdam is a consequence of the lawless actions by the Jews against the Palestinians – the Jews who have been driving out and slaughtering Palestinians for more than a year now.
Europeans and Arabs
We, Europeans, are loosely connected to each other. For the Arabs, it is different. The Arab people share a long and rich history, shaped by both flourishing periods and times of oppression. This shared past has forged a collective memory and a sense of unity. Although Arab cultures are diverse, they unite in many ways, such as family values, hospitality, and a shared expression in art, music, and literature. These shared cultural elements strengthen the sense of a common identity.
The “Amsterdam Arabs” feel even more connected to the Palestinians than Europeans do. For them, the injustice being done to “their” people in Gaza and the West Bank feels even more intensely than it does for the white European.
Amsterdam violence
Could the outburst of violence by the “Amsterdam Arabs” be an expression of powerlessness, of feeling unheard and not taken seriously by Dutch politics, ultimately leading to taking matters into their own hands?
I am only describing the emotional process here; I am not making a judgment on whether it is good or bad at this point.
In the Russian-occupied Ukrainian territories, Ukrainian resistance will carry out attacks and sabotage operations. We consider these actions justified. Now, a group of Arabs carries out an action against “their enemy,” and the strongest terms, such as pogrom, are immediately used.
Make no mistake: I do condone any violence … even that in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon by Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, or other countries and organizations. Can I understand that violence is used as an expression of years of pent-up emotion? Yes, I can understand that.
Political stance
It is no coincidence that the Dutch Advisory Council on International Affairs (Adviesraad Internationale Vraagstukken) has advised the Dutch government to revise its stance on the war in Israel. For more than a year, Israel has been slaughtering Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
The Dutch position is no longer tenable and causes disbelief and a sense of injustice among a large part of the Dutch population.
Where the politicians immediately spoke up about the violence in Amsterdam, they should look in the mirror and consider their own role in this.
Ramin Berwers
By Andres Oppenheimer
There are more than a dozen reasons why I would never vote for Donald Trump, but let me share with you six big ones that led me to conclude that he is the worst candidate in the Nov. 5 election.
First, Trump is an authoritarian populist who openly scorns America’s basic values of democracy, the rule of law and racial tolerance. He is an English-speaking version of the Third World demagogues that I hoped to leave behind when I moved to this country four decades ago. Trump is essentially un-American, which may explain why he so eagerly wraps himself around the U.S. flag.
He is the first U.S. president in recent memory who encouraged a coup d’Etat after he lost the 2020 elections, and more than 60 courts ruled that his lawyers’ claims of fraud were unfounded. On Jan. 6, 2021, he sat for several hours at his office watching Fox News instead of stopping his followers from attacking the Capitol in an effort to overturn the election. About 140 police officers were injured, and several people died during and after the attack.
But, to this day, Trump not only continues to falsely claim that he won that 2020 election, but calls the Capitol attackers “patriots” and “hostages” of the Biden administration. He said earlier this year that he may pardon all of the Jan. 6 attackers.
More than half a dozen former top members of Trump’s cabinet and closest advisers, including his longest serving chief of staff, retired Gen. John Kelly, are publicly warning that Trump has no respect for the rule of law. “He’s certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators,” Kelly said. Kelly added that the former president told him that “Hitler did some good things,” and that he wished U.S. generals were more like those who served the Nazi leader.
Even Trump’s former Vice President Mike Pence has condemned the former president’s contempt for the Constitution. Mind you, these are not “socialists,” or “communists,” as Trump likes to brand his critics, but hardline conservatives.
Second, while most politicians lie, Trump is the king of falsehoods. Like Florida Sen. Marco Rubio once famously said before he threw away his democratic principles and embraced the former president, Trump “is a con man.” Trump’s entire 2024 campaign pitch is based on two big lies: that undocu-mented immigrants have “invaded” this country and are mostly criminals, and that America’s econo-my is in a shambles.
On immigration, Trump is conveniently omitting the fact that unauthorized crossings fell by 70% this year, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency figures. And several studies have shown that undocumented migrants on average commit fewer violent crimes than U.S.-born Ameri-cans.
On the economy, Trump’s claim that the United States “is a failing economy” is ridiculous. The Inter-national Monetary Fund reported on Oct. 22 that the U.S. economy is the best-performing of all rich nations, and is set to drive global growth in 2024 and 2025.
The respected British magazine The Economist reported on Oct. 19 that that the U.S. economy is “the envy of the world.” As I’m writing these lines, the conservative daily The Wall Street Journal is carry-ing a front page headline reading: “The next president inherits a remarkable economy.”
Third, as an immigrant from Argentina myself, I could never vote for a man who has said among other things that immigrants “are poisoning the blood of this country,” and that most Mexican undocu-mented migrants are “criminals” and “rapists”.
Or, for that matter, I can’t support a candidate who is supported by Neo-Nazi groups, or whose fans
applauded a comedian who said last Sunday at a Trump rally that Puerto Rico is “a floating island of garbage.” That’s not just plain wrong, but dangerous: it encourages racial hatred and hate crimes against immigrants who, in most cases, came to America to make a better living, and do jobs that most Americans don’t want to do.
Fourth, on the economy, Trump’s presidency was very bad, and his current economic plans are even worse. During his term in office, the U.S. economy grew less than under Biden, and the national defi-cit reached a record high. Trump left office with three million fewer jobs than there were when he started his term, while the Biden administration added 16 million jobs to the U.S. economy, according to official figures.
Granted, Trump’s bad economic numbers were partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but so was the rising inflation during Biden’s first two years in office. The U.S. stock market is at a record high, and inflation is now virtually back to its pre-pandemic levels. Fifth, Trump is at the center of four criminal cases related to his business deals and political actions, and has been unanimously convicted by a jury partly selected by his own lawyers in one of them. And yet, the former president attacks his prosecutors saying he would fire them “within two seconds” if elected — and derides the U.S. justice system almost daily. Is that a role model we want to set for our children?
Sixth, Trump is 78 years old and is not immune to cognitive decline. He is already mixing names and making incoherent statements, and would end his term as the oldest president in U.S. history. Just as I wrote about Biden before he stepped aside as the Democratic nominee, there are reasons to think he no longer has the mental agility to perform what may be the world’s most demanding job. It may be no coincidence that Trump has not accepted a second presidential debate with his Democratic rival and Vice President Kamala Harris, and why he has declined an interview with “60 Minutes” and other news outlets that may ask him hard questions.
Many of my Republican friends concede many of these points, but say they will vote for Trump any-way because he supports the one cause they care most about, be it Cuba, or Venezuela or Israel. I don’t buy that line of reasoning, because Trump has no moral compass. As his former chief of staff Kelly and other former aides have said, his admiration for dictators such as Russia’s Vladimir Putin and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un prove that he could easily change course on Cuba, Venezuela Israel or any other issue it if suits his interests.
In short, Trump may win the election, but I don’t see any reason — including his stands on abortion, climate change and automatic weapons — to wish for that outcome. On the contrary, I see plenty of reasons to hope that he’ll lose, and that the Republican party can go back to its tradition of defending democracy, the rule of law and individual freedoms.
