Attention: The Editor of the Today Newspaper
Reference: Articles in edition of January 6, 2015:
(i) Political Pensions could cost taxpayers almost $ 2 million" (page 1) and
(ii) Political Pensions (page 7).
Dear Sir:
Reference is made to the abovementioned articles in your newspaper's edition of today, January 6, 2015. I quote the paragraphs in question:
In the first article: "Four former members of the second Wescot-Williams cabinet are still entitled to political pensions until June 14 of this year .....They are former ..., former Justice Minister Roland Duncan, ... and former deputy Minister Plenipotentiary ...";
and in the second article: "This is different for former ministers from the second cabinet who served from May 21, 2012 until June 14, 2013. Their benefits end this year, on June 14. The ex-ministers that did not get a new political job are ... Roland Duncan (Justice) ....... Duncan has a law office together with Peggy Ann Brandon, and therefore has a job."
As usual, your reporting regarding the undersigned is flawed, suggestive and erroneous. I refer to the national ordinance regulating pensions of political functionaries (Pensioenregeling Politieke Gezagdragers), which ordinance you have obviously failed to consult or properly interpret:
Article 2 of this ordinance establishes a right to an allowance ("uitkering" in Dutch) to the political functionary who leaves office, but has not reached the age of 60 on the date of termination of his/her office. Article 8, sub b of the same ordinance further also stipulates that the right to the "uitkering" ends when the functionary reaches the age of 60.
Article 11 (Chapter 3) of the ordinance establishes the right to pension, when the functionary reaches the age of 60. Reference is further made to section 2 of this article.
I left office on May 18, 2013 - not June 14, 2013 - as you erroneously allege. On leaving office I was 65 years of age and entitled to pension, according to article 11 of mentioned ordinance. I was, therefore, never entitled to or paid the "uitkering" as you have erroneously alleged and suggested!
Also, whether I have a law office, job or not is not relevant in this connection. I am entitled to the pension stipulated. As a matter of fact, my current pension consists of 3 pension components, as a [b] former Antillean Parliamentarian, [b] former Antillean Minister and [c] former Sint Maarten Minister.
By the way, I have also duly paid my share of premiums towards all components of my pension, which is not required for entitlement to payment of the "uitkering". So, I consider my pension fully and legally earned and not some favor!
The ordinance referred to also makes a difference in the definitions of the "uitkering" and "pension", and stipulates different conditions regarding the entitlement to each. You have confused these two different types of payments to former political functionaries in your aforementioned news articles.
In light of the aforementioned, I request that you correct your aforementioned reporting in your newspaper accordingly and at your first opportunity.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
Roland E. Duncan,
Attorney at Law,
Law Offices of Duncan Brandon & Hoeve,
Cannegieterstreet 46
Philipsburg, SINT MAARTEN
