Dear Editor,
In the complex world of governance and corporate leadership, the principles of integrity, transparency, and truth are often presented as the bedrock of sound decision-making. Yet, an examination of official communications and procedures reveals instances where these foundational values appear to be tested, raising critical questions about the space we allow for untruths and the individuals who might peddle them. When the integrity of leaders is in question, the stability of the institutions they oversee is put at risk.
The process of appointing individuals to high-stakes positions, such as the Supervisory Board (RvC) of a central bank, is a clear example where truthfulness is paramount. The Central Bank Statute for Curaçao and Sint Maarten explicitly requires members of the RvC to be "expert, impartial, and independent." This is not merely a suggestion, but a legal mandate designed to safeguard the institution's credibility and functionality. To enforce this, a national decree outlines a mandatory integrity screening for candidates, which includes a general background check and a judicial investigation.
However, situations can arise that challenge the straightforward application of these rules. Consider a scenario where a Minister of Finance appears to misunderstand or misrepresent the appointment process. In an August 2021 letter to the Court of Justice, the Minister of Finance of Curaçao contested a request from the RvC for the temporary reappointment of several members. The RvC cited a "threatening severe understaffing" as its reason, a situation that would leave only one member on the board. The Minister countered this by stating that nominations had already been made, rendering the RvC's position incorrect.
This response, while technically accurate, overlooks the practical emergency. The nomination process, including the integrity screenings, was expected to take at least three weeks. During this period, the RvC would be critically understaffed, jeopardizing its ability to function. By focusing on the fact that nominations were underway, the Minister's communication sidesteps the immediate governance crisis. This raises a crucial point: is a partial truth, used to deflect from a pressing issue, not a form of untruth itself? Does it demonstrate the integrity expected of a high-ranking public official?
This same principle of integrity extends to the candidates themselves. The established procedure requires candidates to consent to an integrity investigation. A refusal to do so automatically disqualifies them from appointment. This is a non-negotiable checkpoint. It underscores the idea that those unwilling to be transparent about their past have no place in a position of public trust. The system is designed to filter out individuals who may have something to hide, reinforcing that there should be no room for liars or those who are not forthcoming in positions of power.
Furthermore, the internal dynamics of the RvC itself highlight the importance of consistency and truth. In late 2021, the RvC recommended Mr. Dennis Richardson for the position of chairman, following the withdrawal of the previous candidate, Mr. Etienne Ys. The letter of recommendation emphasizes Mr. Richardson's extensive experience, his strong performance in internal evaluations, and his unanimous selection by the board. This process, conducted with a qualified majority as required by statute, appears to be a model of good governance. The RvC followed procedure, maintained transparency with the Ministers of Finance, and made a recommendation based on a clear profile and the candidate's proven track record.
Yet, official pronouncements and the realities of power rarely unfold without public scrutiny, differing interpretations, or political tension. A case in point is the recent, highly charged debate over the chairmanship of the Central Bank of Curaçao and St. Martin—a controversy that drew fervent remarks from Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina. Responding to vocal criticism over a nomination process that has yet to result in an appointment, Dr. Mercelina lamented what he described as a lack of unity and an unwillingness to support St. Maarten's rightful claim to the position. For him, this moment should have been celebrated as a step forward for the country; instead, he saw it devolve into divisiveness and suspicion.
The Prime Minister highlighted how St. Maarten had for years been entitled to the chairmanship but failed to act on this opportunity, questioning why previous governments were not pressed by the public or media to claim the role sooner. He framed the current minister’s initiative as long overdue and potentially heroic, arguing that the attempt to secure the chairmanship is a matter of national pride and agency. Dr. Mercelina criticized the reactionary, sometimes hostile discourse surrounding the process, suggesting that it reflects a “crab mentality"—a societal impulse to undermine those striving to achieve collective advancement.
Importantly, Dr. Mercelina also clarified the procedural facts fueling public confusion: no one has yet been appointed, as the process remains in the nomination phase; the government’s move is a conditional step, not a fait accompli. He invited citizens to shift focus from personality politics and distrust and instead rally collectively for the strategic benefit of St. Maarten’s increased say in the Central Bank's direction.
Incorporating the Prime Minister’s perspective into a broader analysis of truth and governance, his call for unity and forward-thinking resonates with the ideal of national interest over partisan squabbling. However, the situation also demonstrates why transparency, process, and honest communication remain crucial: when information is fragmented, poorly conveyed, or colored by political motives, suspicion inevitably follows. Calls for unity, while necessary for progress, cannot substitute for clear, open processes and genuine engagement with public concerns about appointments to powerful institutions.
When these events and perspectives are considered together, a pattern emerges. On one hand, we have robust formal procedures and integrity checks that should close off space for untruths and liars. On the other hand, we witness how official communications, political rhetoric, and social dynamics can confuse or even manipulate the public narrative—sometimes obscuring truth as effectively as an outright lie. Manipulations, omissions, or half-truths show distrust and weaken the very institutions designed to serve the common good.
Ultimately, the space for untruths and liars in leadership is as much a product of legal and institutional safeguards as it is of cultural and societal expectations. Laws and integrity screenings count for little if leaders and citizens alike do not value whole truths and transparent engagement. If unity is urged at the expense of open process, or criticism is dismissed rather than addressed, the door to deception remains ajar.
The challenge, then, is to demand both: supportive, nation-building discourse and an unwavering commitment to the truth, in all its complexity. Only by closing one eye to neither unity nor integrity can societies truly ensure that there is no room—no space at all—for untruths and liars in their most vital institutions.
An upset Voting Citizen.
The author's name is withheld upon request.
