According to investigators of the ENNIA premium expropriation, at least two well-known citizens in St Maarten have received payments during the period 2006 to 2018 to a total of 10,5 million guilders from ENNIA group companies. This news is a huge contrast with the news of for instance the workers at the Towers who since March this year received 50% salary cuts which brought them under the minimum wage.
Last week Wednesday, Aug 26 under the heading “7 million guilders for ex-minister from ENNIA funds” and “Son of an ex-minister on the pay list of ENNIA group”, the Curacao newspaper Vigilante known for their very investigative judicial journalism, reported about the expropriation of premium monies of clients of ENNIA companies, in their majority workers who trusted their monies to cover their health care costs or to save for their pension.
The well-known citizens in St Maarten were not needy persons. They got large sums of money from the company. According to the investigators, they got payments for work or services which could not be accounted for. In the news of the Voice of St Maarten yesterday a Curacao reporter followed up on this investigation.
Since the Central bank of Curacao and St Maarten has been charged by the court with the management of the ENNIA group of companies, according to a press release from the CBCS, “in October of 2019 ENNIA initiated legal proceedings against several persons, including Mr. Ansary, who according to ENNIA and the CBCS are responsible for the serious problems that have arisen at ENNIA. The action was taken after an in-depth investigation had revealed that the serious problems at ENNIA were in part caused by large-scale unlawful withdrawals of funds that should have remained available to policyholders. The aim of these proceedings is to secure compensation for as much of said withdrawals as possible, in the interest of the policyholders.“
As Consumers Coalition we appeal to the members of parliament, the Minister of Finance as well as the Minister of TEATT and the Minister of VSA, to demand the findings of these proceedings and this investigation. If St Maarteners have benefitted of illegal expropriation of premium monies of workers, then these funds have to be traced and recovered before they evaporate, to protect the worker’s premium monies!
Topic 2: Are the 67 imposed conditions of the Dutch government violating workers' rights, yes or no?
In the recent political discussions on the Dutch conditions for liquidity support, one of the conditions, the Caribbean Reform Entity (Caraibische Hervormings Entiteit), met with a lot of discussion. Arguments pro and against had to to do with the following issues:
- the entity should be based on Dutch legislation,
- if the entity should only give account to the Dutch Ministry of Interior Affairs and Kingdom Relations,
- if the law to regulate this entity should be a consensus Kingdom law, etc.
What we observed in all discussions was, that apparently all politicians are in agreement, that all 67 Dutch conditions to get money for liquidity support, can be implemented to get the money of the Dutch government as a loan! Only the Reform entity they want changed!
Where the united worker’s organizations in the WICLU supported by the Anti-poverty Platform have protested the 18 conditions of the first and second tranche, and where they have demanded to annul the cuts and reverse decisions to cut in worker’s rights and their human rights until today no parliamentarian and none of the political parties in government and parliament has requested to reverse the conditions and annul the loan conditions!
Notwithstanding that the conditions the council of ministers is implementing to comply with the Dutch demands for liquidity support are violating international treaties, state legislation, and national legislation, which is even not in compliance with the motion of May 20th adopted in parliament, none of the politicians is instructing the government to stop the violations of these laws! None of the politicians is addressing the violations by the Kingdom government of the international and Kingdom legislative order!
The unions have not even received promised answers from the Council of Ministers on their letters with these conclusions of violations of international treaties, state legislation and national legislation! We informed you in former press conference, that the Prime Minister wanted to inform the Prime Ministers of the Kingdom about the conclusions of the unions. We also informed that the President of Parliament wanted to set up a meeting between the members of the Kingdom relations committee of the second chamber and the unions, for the unions to inform them about their conclusions! Do we have to conclude that the Prime Minister and the President of parliament agree with the unions and want to hide behind the unions to accuse the Dutch from being worker’s rights and human rights violators?
Internal discussions in the platform and within the WICLU about the 49 reform conditions presented to be implemented in the third tranche in the country package for Sint Maarten, are showing more developments which will affect the workers and their families, and which are not in the interest of the right to development of the workers and the people.
As Anti-Poverty Platform we will provide in more detail the intentions of the Dutch for the development in the coming 7 years to be implemented by the Dutch Reform entity with our money on the budget and if the Dutch government agrees on additional funding. We will also illustrate how the National Development Vision for the coming 10 years 2020-2030 is contributing to the Dutch development vision for the coming 7 years.
Topic 3: SMCC - Serious omissions in the advice of the SXM Council of Advice about monies from the Dutch!
In the Daily Herald of September 1, 2020, under the heading “As moneylender, The Hague is allowed to set conditions”, the Council of Advice of St Maarten gave arguments to explain why the Dutch government, as the moneylender, is in principle free to set conditions for liquidity support. The Council “compared the situation to a contract between a client and a commercial bank. The bank sets conditions to secure, as much as possible, a situation where the loaned money, plus interest, is repaid.”
Not even in the European Union has the Dutch government been compared to a commercial bank! Even in the European Union the position of the Dutch government, to demand conditions to the COVID 19 aid to other European countries. was rejected! So why in the Kingdom, we in the Dutch Caribbean countries, cannot receive aid, just as the Dutch citizens in the Netherlands and the BES-islands and just as all other European citizens in the EU, as aid and not as a loan?
Shortcoming number 1: Nowhere in the advice did the Council of Advice ask the question, if COVID 19 financial support to Kingdom citizens in the different territories of the Kingdom should be provided equally: some territories can get assistance as a loan, some can get assistance as aid, that is inequality!
The Council argued that “the law does not state that mutual assistance, based on article 36 of the Kingdom Charter, must be unconditional and as such legally enforceable”. Again the Council of Advice did not ask a fundamental question: based on art 43 of the Charter of the Kingdom, to guarantee human rights, also in a disaster situation like the COVID 19 pandemic in the different territories of the Kingdom, may the Dutch government violate art 2 of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights and impose discriminatory conditions on citizens in the Caribbean countries of the Kingdom and not on other citizens in the Kingdom? Not considering this question is another serious shortcoming of the ones who prepared this advice of the Council of Advice.
In the Council’s opinion, “the Netherlands or the Kingdom in principle may set non-financial conditions to the providing of a loan”. The Council argues that “the need to set conditions apparently was the result of the findings in reports of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the recommendations of various institutions, including the Committee for Financial Supervision CFT, the General Audit Chamber, the Ombudsman, the Central Bank of Curaçao and St. Maarten (CBCS), the Social Economic Council, the Foundation Government Accountant’s Bureau SOAB and the Council of Advice.”
Here we see again another shortcoming of the Council of Advice. Since the full realization of economic, social and cultural rights in the Kingdom of the Netherlands has to be promoted on a progressive, non-discriminatory measure, why did not the Council of Advice argue or followed the advices of the UN Committee on Economic Social Cultural Rights, in their different observations and recommendations to the Kingdom, so that the unequal realization of human rights is not more burdened by the conditions set only for the Caribbean countries in the Kingdom?
As Consumers Coalition we are of the opinion that the Council of Advice should give more balanced human rights-based advice, respecting our human rights as consumers in this part of the Kingdom! Leaving international public law out of the analysis and considerations is a serious omission, which not even with the argument that they did not have enough time to prepare the advice, cannot be accepted!
Topic 4: SMCC – Netherlands obliged to complement the St Maarten budget without conditions!
In our last press briefing, we alerted some parliamentarians about our right to demand monies from the Netherlands without conditions. We have been following the parliamentary meetings on the liquidity support challenges, and none of the Parliamentarians gave proof to be knowledgeable of our human right, to demand unconditional compliance from the Dutch government with funds, not only because of COVID 19.
Today we will provide you with some quotes of various reports of the UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, which show, that for more than two decades already, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has been addressed to comply with the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. Our politicians have to demand the Kingdom government to comply with the UN committee’s recommendations!
22 years ago in June 1998, the United Nation’s Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights recommended the Kingdom government to apply all provisions of the treaty in all parts of the Kingdom (see paragraph 21 in their Comments to the Kingdom’s report).
13 years ago in May 2007 the UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights[1] under the heading D. Principal subjects of concern, the committee wrote that all the concerns are expressed in this chapter are based on non-compliance with the International Covenant.[2] We quote paragraph 16 in the Comments about the right to social security, an important right not to be in poverty and to still realize the right to an adequate standard of living.
“16. The Committee is concerned that social security benefits are insufficient to enable the recipients to combat poverty. The Committee is also concerned by reports that social assistance is not provided to all those who need it. so as to ensure an adequate standard of living.
“34. the Committee recommends “that the State party take all necessary steps to guarantee the right of everyone to social security[3].”
“35. The Committee encourages the State party to provide social assistance to all those who need it, in particular the most disadvantaged persons and groups, so that they may attain an adequate standard of living.”
In other words, just as in the Netherlands social allowances, social pensions, minimum wages are being paid for people not to be in poverty, so they should be increased to combat poverty and to cover everybody in need by an adequate equal social protection floor in this part of the Kingdom! Today the social allowances, social pensions, minimum wages in the Kingdom are still not equal and are keeping more than 13.000 (94%) households in SInt Maarten in poverty, that according to the STAT Household Budget Survey from 2015! So since St Maarten does not have enough means, the Kingdom government has to provide the means, not as a loan and without any conditions!
One month after 10-10-10 the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights[4] in its concluding observations under C. Principal subjects of concern and recommendations, the committee addresses the inequality and the eradication of poverty again:
“304. The Committee is concerned at the unequal enjoyment of economic, social, and cultural rights among the four constituent countries of the State party (art. 2, paras. 1 and 2). As the State party is accountable for the implementation of the Covenant in all its territories, the Committee urges it to ensure the equal enjoyment of the economic, social, and cultural rights by all individuals and groups under its jurisdiction. This entails an obligation for the State party to ensure that all its enactments and policies should provide for all the same level of enjoyment of economic, social, and cultural rights. Moreover, the principle of “maximum available resources” should apply to the State party and not to its constituent countries individually.[5] “
“318. (…) The Committee urges the State party to continue taking all necessary measures to raise awareness of social assistance entitlements both in the Netherlands and in the islands of the former Netherlands Antilles, and ensure that all individuals and households in need of social assistance have effective access thereto. The Committee also encourages the State party to include these measures into national poverty action plans.”
“323. The Committee notes with concern that pockets of poverty exist in all the constituent countries of the State party. Moreover, the Committee is concerned that Aruba, Curaçao, and St. Maarten have not yet adopted either official poverty lines or strategies or action plans to combat poverty (art. 11). The Committee urges the State party to combat poverty and social exclusion by targeting disadvantaged and marginalized groups, such as single-parent families, migrants, and children, and reiterates its recommendation calling on the State party to:
(a) Establish, for each constituent country, an official poverty line which would enable the State party to assess the extent of poverty and monitor and evaluate progress; and
(b) Draw up and implement anti-poverty strategies and action plans, taking full account of economic, social and cultural rights.
In this regard, the Committee refers the State party to its statement on poverty and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (E/2002/22‑ E/C.12/2001/17, annex VII), adopted in 2001.” [6]
These are very important conclusions and recommendations. This has implications for the Governing Program, the annual budgets and for the assistance of the Kingdom government. The means to address the development needs in the national budget of Sint Maarten must include resources from the Netherlands. one of the richest countries in the Kingdom and one of the richest countries in the world. This has not been implemented in the budgets of the government of Sint Maarten, nor by the Parliament of St Maarten, nor in the advices of the CFT and decisions of the Kingdom government! The State party the Kingdom of the Netherlands must provide with all means possible in the State an equal enjoyment of economic social and cultural rights: so, the Netherlands have to put their money where their mouth is!
The Council of Ministers and the Parliament of St Maarten has to amendment the 2020 budget of Sint Maarten in such a way that it should reflect the means to eradicate the poverty in Sint Maarten and to realize fully all the economic social and cultural rights on an equal enjoyment level in the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
[1] third periodic report of the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning the Netherlands Antilles (E/C.12/2007/SR.9 and 10) on the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (E/C.12/ANT/3).
[2] concluding observations at its 21st, 22nd and 23rd meetings, held on May the 14th and 15nd, 2007
[3] The State party should conduct a thorough study on persons excluded from the social security system, indicating the reasons for their exclusion and the results of steps taken to address this situation, and include the study in the next periodic report
[4]the combined fourth and fifth periodic reports of the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (E/C.12/NLD/4-5, Add.1 and Add.2) at its 43rd, 44th, and 45th meetings, held on 10 and 11 November 2010 (E/C.12/2010/SR.43, 44 and 45).
[5] The Committee requests E/2011/22 E/C.12/2010/3 GE.11-42291 63 the State party to provide information on practical measures adopted and implemented in this regard in its next periodic report.
[6] The Committee also requests the State party to provide in its next periodic report disaggregated and comparative, annually collected data on the number of individuals and households living in poverty, and on progress made in combating poverty.
