PHILIPSBURG:--- In todays’ news Mr. Haar elected once again to target individuals and I guess today was my turn. One must wonder what the agenda is of Mr. Haar who seems to utilize the Today’s newspaper to target individuals in Sint Maarten, through suggestive articles. The success of these articles may be found in the fact that no one reacts and as such the information starts to lead a live of its own. You might expect that investigative reporting would be undertaken by someone of Mr. Haar’ s caliber, yet his forte is to place some facts within a suggestive setting so matters may be misconstrued serving to support the fiction part of the story, and for him to successfully destroy his target.
Many before me have been targeted by Mr. Haar and have permitted Mr. Haar to time and time again rehash stories, headlines with (subtle) implications. So as long as you are the target of Mr. Haar you may expect to make the headlines every chance he gets to place you in a particular setting. Mr. Haar your suggestions of supposed relationships that may have caused appointments or the sale of a building have absolutely no relevance. It is a sorry attempt to misinform the general public of St. Maarten and to tarnish peoples name and reputation. Had you utilized the law and requested advices pertinent to the sale and the appointment referred to, you would have learned the following:-\
1] That the Director of the BTP has no power, say or influence whatsoever in the decision to purchase a building;
2] That the advices on the matter clearly reflect that the Director of the BTP followed the law and procedures and submitted the advices pertaining to the purchase to the Supervisory Board of Directors prior to submission to the Minister;
3] That in said advices the Director of BTP never advised to purchase and that the advices show an outline of pros and cons to be considered by the Minister in his decision-taking process;
4] That said advices were supported by all relevant documents, internal advices, notes from the Supervisory Board and appraisal reports;
5] That the decision on said advices were taken by the Minister of TEATT after numerous of consultations with the Council of Ministers and the blessing of this Council;
6] That the decisions on advices were taken by two separate Ministers representing different coalitions, who were further advised by their policy advisors and legal counsels. (so even implied party alliances would not support your story);
7] That the financial institution conducting the financing for the purchase undertook a thorough due diligence and demanded in the conditions precedent for the Minister to issue the pertinent instructions to the bank following his decision, for appraisals to be conducted by an appraiser approved by the Bank (to support your story the people must believe that this director had the power to have both the bank and the appraiser execute her wish);
8] That the Minister complied with all the conditions set by the Bank, which enabled the financing and so the purchase desired by the Government (again you would require for the director to influence a decision of an entire coalition making up the Council of Ministers);
All of the above you would have distilled from the documentation, and that information you could have provided the people of St. Maarten, if you so really wanted to. In your e-mail to me you said to be working on an article on BTP and had two questions. Based on the questions it was clear that you were not writing about BTP but that I was your target this time, as the formulation of the questions showed a biased departure point. I still answered your queries, which should have been the reason for you to act with caution, since you said to want to: ”put things in the correct perspective”. You elected still to twist and turn so your fiction could still be published as you intended even before you e-mailed. This is a regrettable act, and falls within the qualification of slander.
In any event to set the record straight and to provide a correct perspective:
The law that regulates the BTP, outlines the tasks and authority of the Director is available online. The director of BTP, by law, had no decision power, conducted no influence on any Minister to purchase any building. The director of the BTP had no power or influence to dictate the due diligence by the Bank, or the requirements set by the Bank in this regard. So suggesting that a supposed personal relationship was served by the actions of the director of the BTP is utter nonsense, baseless and solely intended to mislead people. Yes we have a tendency to marvel on juicy stories such as the one suggested by you, yet I am sorry to disappoint in this instance for your story is merely intended to insult, deliberately harm personal relationships and discredit persons. Freedom of speech and the freedom to print through the newspaper is one thing misusing that medium to cause harm is another.
We live on a small Island where most people know each other, have some form of a relationship with one another, so the assumption of a conflict of interest is easily made. Yet the manner in which we position ourselves and handle matters determines whether or not there is a conflict of interest. The suggestion of a conflict of interest regarding ACTIS is also intentionally created through the statement that this entity was incorporated by my firm. The supposed investigation executed by you apparently did not permit you to provide correct information, for your statement that my firm incorporated this entity is not true. This statement is malicious and solely intended to support your fiction to follow. Whilst I support people in this country to grow and attain their own, I do not need to share in that growth. Not because some are corrupt, we all are corrupt. I refuse to accept that stigma that you may want to continue placing on us; that in St. Maarten we are all corrupt. I have contributed positively to this country and will continue to do so, no matter how hard you try with malicious melee to counter that. I am fully aware that you will take my response and continue to highlight your supposed truth in the newspaper because you can, and that you will continue to twist and turn a story if not only to fill and sell a newspaper, but I have said what I had to say. The many audits performed at the BTP, were left unpublished or did not result in an article because those reports did not formulate the conclusion that BTP had acted incorrectly. The audit into the purchase clearly concluded that all laws and procedures were followed by the BTP, and that is not reported because it suggests no wrongdoings. No one in St. Maarten wants to hear that. The truth may not be as interesting and as juicy as your story but it is the truth and my conscience is clear. Given that my continued contributions are aimed at the development of this country in a positive manner and are evident, the question is: “Is this your contribution to us?” How have you today single handedly contributed towards the growth of this country and its people? Hopefully one of these days you will put your talents and skills towards a positive contribution. I for one find that easier to do than to focus on the negative and to exert energy in actions to try to destroy people. To each his own.
P. Brandon.
