In a further reaction to the governing program 2014 -2018, " Ready to work for you", as received by Parliament from Prime Minister Marcel Gumbs , I cannot but express utter disappointment in the document that should have spelled out government's vision for the remainder of this governing term.
Considering that the government has presented the program to Parliament, I consider this the program of the Gumbs-cabinet. I will not accept from government that this program needs to be tweaked, because the coalition partners in submitting their program to government have called for it to be executed.
The government would have come across much more credible if in presenting the 2014 - 2018 program to Parliament, it (the government) would've stated that it needed to rework the "wish list" of the coalition into a coordinated, doable plan of what, how, who and when. If the government was unable to comply, they should have informed parliament of such.
So to respond to government's letter: "No, the parliament has not been sufficiently informed, definitely not this member".
Of course from the wish list of items, there are those that the Democratic Party (DP) recognizes as initiatives of its own, others fit the priorities that the DP has established for itself for this parliamentary term.
However, the contradictions in the document are blaring. See for example the matter of integrity and good governance on the pages 5 and 6 respectively. Is government yet to decide on these reports, according to page 5 or is government set to carry them out as page 6 would indicate?
So on that premise, I ask that government clarify the point on the integrity reports. By the way, no mention is made of the imminent report by Transparency International, due for release shortly.
The paragraph on financial discipline/management is the most puzzling of all. High level of social protection, welfare for all, stable economic development, but the budget will lay down the direction of economic policy. Can some-one explain this?
I don't know whether the poorly edited program was a strategy or total disrespect for the readers of this program, or if someone dropped the ball.
Without wasting too many words on the subject of presentation and grammar, I had expected after the long wait, a more thorough paper. But I guess, the adage "if you can't convince them, confuse them" seems to have been the leading thought. Again I refer to the paragraph on financial discipline/management.
Take government-owned companies etc. as another example. Many government entities by law are the responsibility of a particular minister. How does that jive with all responsibilities being put on the table of the Council of Ministers?
And am I to conclude after all that is written in the program about government-owned companies, that the approval of the budgets of all entities rests with the Minister of Finance? Is this not a contradiction?
PHILIPSBURG:---That the "adopt-a-school" program has become "to reallocate responsibility to the business community by allowing... is a win-win investment" needs to be clarified and swiftly so. This is beyond me.
What responsibility is being reallocated?
The constitutional responsibility to provide education lies squarely with the government!
What organization will monitor this massive shift of responsibility and how?
How is this a win-win investment?
Did the Ministry of Education, Culture, Youth and Sports not just recently release its vision, mission, strategic objectives & priority areas in which it is states that " the necessary repairs and overall improvements needed will be carried out through a long term maintenance plan?
Will government in the "reallocation to the business sector", in the meantime finance maintenance of "other" schools?
Does the government not in this very same program state that they will offer incentives to adopt a school?
On a different note, let's see what government's commitment to electoral reform will bring, if anything at all.
Government throws out statements like " we will build a modern medical facility, a mental health facility and there are many more such throughout the program. How, is any-one's guess. Where the resources will come from is a mystery.
This governing program is a collection of (ongoing) ministerial projects, parliamentary wishes and individual pet projects/ideas, totally void of the connecting dots and a bigger picture.
How will the government e.g. strengthen the legislative capacity within Parliament?
Or facilitate training for incoming parliamentarians?
I am pleased to read that the government is committed to the National Development Plan. Maybe they should have awaited that plan before making a presentation of this governing program.
While again, the government says all the "right" things about medical tourism, Columbia, that is beefing up its medical services big time to cater to medical tourism, proudly lists St. Maarten as one of its biggest clients.
Tax incentives is a buzz word throughout the governing program. Tax incentives for special groups, fiscal incentives for corporations, this incentive for that. But the government does not know yet what kind of tax system we will have. That, according to government, is to be studied.
A comprehensive labor policy is to be developed, again according to the program , but in the meantime, the government is keen on several single labor related projects.
I recommend to government that they do not have far to look. Read the Central Bank's report and the IMF's recommendations regarding our labor market and government policies. Which prompts the question, "What are government's plan with the monetary union?"
The governing program on this topic has 2 complete opposing views.
And then another remarkable intention of government is to "hire out" police officers to businesses, because in government's opinion, this will yield income and government can attract more policemen. Excuse me?
This statement follows on the heel of government's own admission of the challenges faced with recruiting officers, with remunerating officers adequately etc.
By the way, I will closely monitor government's commitment to the University of St. Martin.
Government establishes that the youth is the future and the most valuable resource, but yet dedicates 2 lines to the chapter of Youth Affairs.
While much is stated by the Ministry of Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transportation and Telecommunication, not a word about the National Economic Framework and its initiatives and input from stakeholders.
There are so many more questions, resulting from the governing program 2014 - 2018, "Ready to work for you" that it begs the question: who drafted this?
Let me give one example to explain that:
The government commits to draft a sustainable development plan for the Emilio Wilson Estate? Really, after the property has been leased out?
I hope this program is tabled for debate in Parliament soon, but I do not hold my breath.
Democratic Party Faction Press Release.
