FULL STATEMENT BY WESCOT WILLIAMS.
Philipsburg:--In the earlier meeting of the island council today,(Monday) the members of the Democratic Faction had attempted to sail a new course in the relationship between government and opposition. We tried to steer clear of attacks, rhetoric, blaming, accusing, innuendos etc. etc. It is clear from the proceedings in the island council meeting of this morning that this will not be easy and we are not close to an ideal situation. That’s a pity.
The well known quote by Maria Robinson (author and poet) has been paraphrased in many different ways, but the essence remains the same:
“Nobody can go back and start a new beginning, but anyone can start today and make a new ending.”
We can rehash old things over and over again, but unless we make up our minds how we want to change things for the future, we will remain going around in the same circle, over and over again.
This stalemate is also evident, from your release regarding this central committee meeting. It is our belief that the office you hold as chairperson of the central committee should be a neutral one. In that position, you represent the island council, not a political faction.
I am not sure how to interpret your statement regarding convening of meetings.
Maybe you can explain that and I re-iterate again, the DP faction is not a minority government.
We are part of general governance. In democratic forms of governance, you have the government and the opposition. The roles of these 2 are quite clear and internationally accepted.
Some regard these roles more serious than others, whether it is in government or in opposition. It is pretty much a personal choice and dependent on personal circumstances (knowledge etc) how one acts or neglects to act in carrying out the function entrusted to him or her.
Our letter requesting this meeting is self-explanatory. We expected with the elucidation provided in our letter to set the tone for this meeting.
We stressed the commonality of purpose to get beyond the stage “who did or who did not do”. If getting beyond this stage takes me admitting that I should have anticipated a sudden government change on June 8th and thus rush through everything that could have been finished before that date, then let’s accept for argument sake, that that is the case.
And indeed, I could have put everything aside and focus for example on this matter. Or put this aside and focus on completing some other matter before June 8th. I yet need to see the day that any government can brag: “today we are where we should be with nothing left to be done”. That would be the day.
The matters mentioned in our letter are but a few that contribute to improving governance, that contribute to good and better governance. How the governance of a country is measured, includes many components. The more complex the society, the more governance and governing need to be regulated. And it is not static. As a nation develops, so does the need for new practices and new approaches to governance. In this morning’s meeting, I mentioned accountability, openness and transparency, dialogue and communication as tools to improve governance.
With the crafting of our country’s constitution which in itself has been a process of several years, we needed to rethink our basis of governance: the rudiments of the relationship between the government and those who are governed.
Discussions like on the fundamental human rights of all citizens are discussions we have never had the opportunity to have until now.
With a constitution comes the enshrinement of other rights and obligations as well.
Our constitution establishes the basis for more than 40 laws. These laws embedded in the constitution are called organic laws.
It was a quite a feat completing those organic laws that needed to meet the criteria as agreed to in the letter of the VRTC of March 2006. Some of them could be taken over from other parts of the Kingdom, but others need to be crafted carefully to suit St. Maarten.
Having done this, having passed the vetting process of these laws and receiving the acknowledgement of such in the RTC of December 2008, as commissioner I embarked on identifying those laws, already drafted, that we have the authority as an island territory to implement presently.
The first one that comes to mind is that of the ombudsman. The relevant law for country Sint Maarten can be adapted to serve as an island ordinance.
This is one of the first laws for which it was commissioned to prepare the implementation plan. A plan of which the first draft was submitted in May.
Roughly, we have analyzed that at least the four mentioned in our letter can be implemented without having to wait for country status.
Upon close scrutiny, there will probably be more, where while the matter has until now been regulated by the central government, nothing prevents the island government from establishing legislation in that area. The “comptabiliteitsverordening” is one that comes to mind in this context.
We would gladly hear from the government which other draft laws specifically can be passed and implemented now.
Let it be stated that none of these draft laws, although they have been deliberated upon and vetted, have been handled in a public meeting of the island council.
And while it might have politically expedient to call for an island council meeting, we don’t believe that the objective would have been met.
Namely, to discuss:
1. Does this committee agree with converting these existing drafts to island ordinances?
2. Are there others that the central committee feels should be added to the list?
3. Can we have a research done to determine such?
If there is a general consensus, then we ask of the island secretariat that these draft be submitted within short to the island council with an advice as to the conversion of the drafts into island ordinances, which will then follow their course.
For clarity sake, it is not as if there is no consensus on the issues under consideration, the only thing is they were approved for country Sint Maarten. Given the reasons outlined in our letter of September 7th; the constant pounding on “show us how it will work in practice”; the apparent consensus amongst us, we think it can work.
With respect to the matter of integrity, we have a two-prong trajectory: 1) the draft country ordinance “integrity in government” and part of the integrity trajectory of the island government, we have 2) the draft code of conduct as referred to earlier.
