St. Martin News Network

Tuesday
May 21st
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home Letters to the editor

The Prime Minister.

Tuesday, 21 May 2013 02:06 SMN NEWS TEAM
User Rating:  / 1

Dear editor,

When a Prime Minister speaks that Prime Minister should speak with authority. A prime Minister should speak about big things/plans for a country and have a long term vision. There is also a certain cachet that should be part of a Prime Ministers functioning. Unfortunately the Prime Minister of Country St. Maarten does not always portray the above in her speeches and actions. The Prime Minister of Country St. Maarten often times comes across as week and spends too much time on little things. Even though the Prime Minister of Country St. Maarten is the political Leader of the Democratic Party it appears that the Prime Minister has very little to say in the decision making of the party and that the two parliamentarians of the Democratic Party Leroy de Weever and Roy Marlin are calling the shots and is dictating to the Prime Minister their course of action, which makes the Prime Minister look extremely week.

The Prime Minister should realize that MP De Weever and MP Marlin are big business boys in this community and that there is where their allegiance lies. The action of these two parliamentarians in the budget meeting of Parliament speaks for itself.

For the Prime Minister to maintain credibility, the Prime Minister has to stand up to the DP parliamentarians in this ongoing political showdown and tell them enough is enough with their irresponsible behavior. The Prime Minister should have never accepted her DP MPS's course of action which is detrimental to country St. Maarten and its people. If the Prime Minister does not stand up to her DP MPS in this political showdown, history will not treat her kindly. Both of her cabinets will go down in history as failures and the Prime Minister would have no others to blame but her two DP parliamentarians.

This whole ongoing political showdown is solely to be blame by the actions of the two DP parliamentarians and independent parliamentarian Romain Laville. Power and greed are the cause of this whole affair.

Todd Peterson

Last Updated ( Tuesday, 21 May 2013 02:06 )

Write comment (0 Comments)
 

My Math is Fine, Mr. Gumbs.

Tuesday, 21 May 2013 00:21 SMN NEWS TEAM
User Rating:  / 0

First I want to thank you for taking the time to answer my article, a discussion with different opinions is always a healthy one. Now for my opinions on your comments.
In the first case, there is no need to change the words 'national ordinance' to 'Majority of the Council of Ministers'. Article 40 indicates 'National Ordinances and National Decrees shall be signed by the Governor and by one or more ministers'. Please note that the Article does not indicate 'Prime Minister' but 'one or more ministers'. So your conclusion is not correct.
Article 59 allows Council of Ministers to dissolve Parliament, even though you may not like it, that is part of the Constitution as well. We know that a vote in COM was taken to dissolve Parliament on the 7th of May. A vote that the Prime Minister is refusing to execute. She is refusing to do her job, which is also against the constitution.
A man is ultimately judged by his actions. My honor is very important to me. Since you are a Johnny Come Lately, you can ask around. I have publicly disagreed with positions of the National Alliance. The leadership of the party allows us to voice our opinion to full extent. I never quite understood why he was called a dictator as this label is truly underserved.
A few years ago, I had an exchange in the media with a good friend of mine when he had just returned from Holland. I used the term Johnny Come Lately with him as well, in the meantime he has been on the island for years now and has acclimatized to the island. You need some time to do the same. Now don't get me wrong, your heritage is not in question here.
As an experienced man in the area of Parliamentary procedures you should have been aware that the meeting held was not official and yet you let yourself be used as a pawn. Why would a man with your experience allow that. As I mentioned before, your actions seemed built on self-interest and not the needs of the people. Now I don't know you very well so I might be wrong.
The fact is, that the confusion caused right now is not William's fault, yet some people blaming him. He is called power hungry but has never offered money or blackmailed anyone to get in to Government, nor has he refused to do his job to stay as well. The real culprits are the 3 members of parliament and those in the background that for personal reasons broke the Government. Had there been a valid reason to show no confidence in the Ministers, I am sure it would be revealed by now. Not enough cohesion, and knocking on doors does not a valid reason make. De Weever even mentioned that he had no problem with the Government but yet he strangely supports sending them home.
In conclusion, if 3 members of parliament that represent less than 600 votes can throw down a government for absolutely no reason. I think it is good and valid for government to dissolve parliament. William on his own represents twice as much support than the 3. If you ask me, if the signature drive gets 1000 signatures, that's enough to call new elections since 600 can throw down government, 1000 can call early elections.

Kendall Dupersoy

Last Updated ( Tuesday, 21 May 2013 00:21 )

Write comment (1 Comment)

Consult the electorate, and take away the power from political "swingers".

Monday, 13 May 2013 00:29 SMN NEWS TEAM
User Rating:  / 1

Sint Maarten is about to get its 3rd government, based on the election results of less than three years ago. This does not feel right or "democratic." Core of the problem is that, on the one hand, none of the three political parties on the island can be blamed for having developed a political ideology that their members can relate to (opportunistic motives seem to be more predominant than anything else...), and that on the other hand, and even more important, in practice too much power lies with political "swingers".
Political swingers are parliamentarians who decide from one day to the next that they no longer support the party that gained them their seat, call themselves "independent", and suddenly decide to support other political parties or coalitions. Political ideology does not form an obstacle in doing so, as it is lacking, while it seems quite obvious that the urge to jump ship is primarily based on opportunistic motives of these political swingers. Again, this does not feel very democratic, righteous, or proper.
To enhance the possibility that parties will develop a well thought through ideology, laws should be put in place to bring a halt to these political swingers. It would be good, if the laws would be changed and forbid political swinging. If a parliamentarian decides to no longer support his "own" party, he should be obligated to give up his seat and make place for the person of that party who, based on the election results, is next in line.
In other words: if a parliamentarian of the NA, DP, or UP elects to no longer support "his" party, he should not have the right to call himself an independent parliamentarian and support another party or coalition. As said, such a parliamentarian should instead make place for the next in line of respectively the NA, DP, or UP party. The only exception that could be considered is for those persons who got sufficient personal votes to gain a seat by themselves.
Changing the law in this direction would definitely feel more democratic and just. After all, no one in his right mind can honestly state and defend that what is and has been transpiring in our political arena still represents the outcome of the elections that were held in September 2010, and thus is mandated by the electorate that voted back then. To that respect, it is incomprehensible that the present discussion about whether or not the Council of Ministers can dissolve Parliament is even being held, as any self-respecting parliamentarian and minister should at this point want to hear the opinion of the electorate in new elections.

Roeland Zwanikken and Joeri Essed
Partners at BZSE Attorneys at Law/Tax Lawyers

Last Updated ( Monday, 13 May 2013 00:29 )

Write comment (5 Comments)