To the Lieutenant-Governor of the Island Territory of Bonaire, Mr G.Thode
Plaza Wilhelmina
Kralendijk, Bonaire

Date: October 7, 2010

Re: New political structure of Bonaire as of October 10, 2010.

Dear Sir,

Introduction: My name is Serrio James Finies, and I was born in Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles, on July 13, 1964. My parents, Ellba E. Christiaan and Serrio I Finies, were also born in Bonaire. My grandparents and great-grandparents were all born in Bonaire. My parents, grandparents, and I have lived all our lives in Bonaire. As a result, I may call myself an indigenous Bonairian (more than five/six generations, and even more) and am entitled to speak out about the present situation on a personal basis and title.

We have all learned from the media that Bonaire and two other Antillean islands, Saba and St. Eustatius, will become a special municipality or public entity of the Netherlands, and that the Netherlands Antilles as a country will come to an end. This new state structure resulted from a 2004 referendum in which a majority of Bonaire chose the option “laso directo,” meaning direct ties with the Netherlands.

The explanation and information communicated to the population and me at the time were that Bonaire would gain greater access to financial support and development funds, which would then be distributed through Curaçao (read: the State of the Netherlands Antilles). Bonaire would then be less dependent on Curaçao for development funds and would be able to create more economic possibilities for itself, etc.

Hereby, the Netherlands will help Bonaire and assist with the central functions that in the past were coordinated through Curaçao (read: State Netherlands Antilles). Bonaire will then have the possibility to stand on its own two feet in the future and develop itself better. Nowhere, and never, was it communicated to me, or to any other Bonairians, that Bonaire would be integrated into the Netherlands, that Bonaire would become a special municipality (public entity) of the Netherlands, and most certainly not before, during, or after the referendum.

That was no option at the referendum, and no information indicated that we had to cede Bonaire to the Netherlands. Even worse, it suggested we would become more independent from the other partners with the Netherlands' support. To my utter astonishment, the Netherlands took Bonaire away from the Bonairians (like me) in a rather underhanded manner. This is completely against the spirit and resolutions of the United Nations, and as a former colonizer, the Netherlands should have supported us, Bonairians, in any way on our path to full autonomy.

In my view, this decision to change status was made without my knowledge or approval as a citizen. In my view, this action directly violates my and other Bonairians’ emancipation rights. I will describe, in simple terms, how I have personally experienced our emancipation and development thus far. My grandparents and my parents had their problems, economically and financially. They had to live very creatively, relying on agriculture, husbandry, and fishing on the island of Bonaire. They succeeded. There were few economic and financial possibilities.

I grew up with very few comforts (no house of our own, no electricity, no toilet/bathroom, etc.) and had to figure out day by day what we would eat, or whether we would have anything to eat. Through these experiences, I learned to respect others and appreciate the little things, and to appreciate the value of having nothing. Our value was in the education which our parents gave us and was not economically /financially connected.

Now I understand that value more and more, because no economic or financial motive can replace my principles and standards. I mean that we have learned to live with what we have and grow within our own possibilities by working hard. As a result, I have learned what freedom is and enjoyed it. I do not discriminate, not in any respect, no color, race, religion, etc., because everybody is a human being, like me, and has the same right to be himself.

As a result, I respect others and myself, and I fight for others (help them) by working hard and growing in proportion to my own talents. This is my value, and it is my freedom, and I will not let anyone take it away from me. My children have what I did not have, and that is our goal as parents and human beings. I will not and cannot accept that we are now incapable, that, ironically, with all we have, we must passively give up, and that our right to develop and emancipate has been taken from us.

I do not live in the past, and therefore I do not hate the Netherlands and the Dutch. I have forgiven them and have forgotten that my great-great-grandparents were their slaves; I have forgiven them and have forgotten that my grandparents had to manage for themselves, although, as a former colony they needed more care and support because their own development had been halted for decades; I have forgiven them that my parents had to raise us in very difficult social conditions, and although men have already walked on the moon, consequently the world was well developed, while they had to bring us up in misery.

I support this forgiving and forgetting, not looking back, and blaming nobody. I am serious about this and have lived like this all my life; I have no enemies and hate nobody. I am capable of this, so I think other people can do it too, as human beings, and we can work together for a better world where we respect each other and can mean something to each other.

But I will never be able to forgive myself, and I will never be able to forget that I am here now and will accept that I shall undermine, hamper, and stop the natural development toward independence and emancipation of my grandparents, my parents, myself, and my children. I have been able to understand it: freedom, no discrimination, and respect for each other, and I will not let go of it, for it is good for all of us.

I do not put the blame on our politicians of Bonaire, the Antilles, or the Netherlands, or anybody else, but I will not have the rights of myself and my children passively taken away from us. My children have a right to a better education, to better health care, and to better social well-being. Correcting the arrears in these fields may not be a favor or gift for which we have to cede our and our children’s right to develop toward self-emancipation, self-governance, and ultimately turn back this natural emancipation process.

As my parents went through hard times to raise my brothers and me and to give us what they were capable of, so we now will do everything for our children to give them the chance to realize the dreams we had and had not been able to realize, and to give them the opportunity to dream and to realize these, to give them more perspective for their future.

Bonaire is going to be integrated into the Netherlands; Bonairians are no longer Antillians on their way to complete decolonization, self-emancipation, and autonomy, but will become a different kind of Dutchman with different (fewer) rights than real European Dutchmen. As is shown now, this process of state structure is irreversible, which I doubt very much, because everything is possible if only there is the goodwill to find solutions together and make both parties happy.

But above all this are my rights and the rights of my children and other Bonairians in conformity with the Chapter of the United Nations, Chapter XI: “Declaration Regarding Non-self-governing Territories” and furthermore in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.,

Finally, I declare officially by means of this letter that I do not accept the violation of my rights and the rights of my children and that I am not bound to this – in my opinion illegal status – and I will do everything in my power to see to it in a passive way that our right to self-government and self-determination of Bonaire ( my country) as a former colony will be guaranteed.

I write this letter out of respect for my parents, grandparents, etc., who have for generations fought for me, creatively and respectfully, and I shall now do the same for my children and their children.

With kind regards,

James Finies
#3 Kaya Mamore
Bonaire

cc. Governor of the Netherlands Antilles
The cabinet of the Queen of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
International Court of Justice
States of the Netherlands Antilles
Island Council of the Island Territory of Bonaire

Dear Editor,

This recent backroom meeting, as SMN News called it, between SOL, the Prime Minister, and several MPs is yet another reminder: if you did not know it already, you should know it now. In my view, these politicians do not actually care about finding a real solution. They care about getting glory for selling false hope or using meetings like this for political posturing. Let me explain.

I believe we may be watching something even more troubling: using GEBE as a political instrument to protect certain politicians, reposition others, and possibly change the composition of the government.

Let us look at the players.

On the opposition benches, we have MPs Egbert Doran and Omar Ottley, both of whom participated in the recent meeting with SOL. To be fair, Ottley has consistently championed the GEBE issue. But it is hard to accept either man’s presentation as a potential savior without remembering the government they previously served in.

Their parties had four years in government. GEBE’s problems were not resolved during that period. In my view, the situation became worse.

And please spare us the explanation that Ottley was not the minister responsible for GEBE. This is a politician who embraced the image of being the “minister of everything.” Was GEBE somehow excluded from everything?

Surely, if this issue deserves the attention he gives it now, it deserved the same urgency when he sat around the Council of Ministers table with colleagues who could act.

Then we have the current government.

TEATT Minister Grisha Heyliger-Marten is reviewing GEBE’s fuel-cost calculations and SOL’s pricing through BTP. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Dr. Luc Mercelina has organized his own engagement with SOL and selected MPs.

From what I have read online, the Ministers of TEATT and VROMI signed a ministerial decision to enforce GEBE’s concession and authorize oversight and inquiries through BTP. What this will result in remains to be seen.

And, oh Lord, let me not start with Ludmila de Weever. Apart from a few sound bites here and there, ask yourself: what has she actually, really, tangibly delivered since entering politics in 2020? She left TEATT, a ministry that could have helped address GEBE, and ran to Parliament. She left UP and ran to PFP. Now she has voted against the budget and her own party’s VROMI minister, leaving the public to wonder where she actually stands. A rumor is even circulating that she is forming her own party, and I certainly wouldn't bet against her jumping ship soon. But then again, with Ludi, you never know. And that is precisely the problem. How can the public judge her direction or hold her to a consistent political commitment when, with Ludi, the familiar refrain is: “You just never know”?

Then you have Peggy Ann Dros, also trying to be the savior of GEBE, as though we have all forgotten that she was one of URSM’s founding members. She started with a whole lot of steam, but in my view has become yet another bickering voice, complaining like the rest of us without delivering real solutions. I'd prefer she focus on her job in Labor Affairs, where we already have enough concerns, rather than give us yet another voice on Facebook crying and complaining without delivering the relief people need.

Everyone wants the shine. Everyone wants to be remembered at the next election as the savior. Meanwhile, the people paying the bills are still waiting for relief.

And of course, now you have the Prime Minister, who was already, according to former Minister Richinel Brug, meddling in other ministries. Desperation seems to be kicking in, and now he is doing everything he can to pretend he is coming up with real solutions, even if it means meddling in other ministries or on the opposition benches. He seems to put his own survival above everyone else’s. So we have to look more deeply into why he is making these moves.

According to the published account, the meeting included a URSM MP, Doran from the National Alliance, Ottley from UP, and Ludmila de Weever from PFP, alongside the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

URSM has three parliamentary seats. The National Alliance has three. UP has two. Add Ludmila de Weever's individual support, should she ever choose that direction, and the total becomes nine.

I believe the Prime Minister is, at best, building relationships with opposition members to protect himself or, at worst, outright lobbying to form a new government that would line up perfectly with the nine parliamentary seats represented by that potential alignment.

That would provide a familiar excuse: a new government, a new arrangement, and more time needed.

Meanwhile, the same people would still be paying the same painful bills.

People tend to forget Luc Mercelina’s political history. As a United Democrats MP, he went against his coalition and joined the opposition to pass his motion of no confidence against Minister Emil Lee. Later, he withdrew support from that government and joined a different parliamentary majority. Now, according to SMN News, coalition members urged him to allow BTP’s inquiry to proceed without interference, yet he went ahead with the SOL meeting. To me, the pattern suggests that his own political calculations come first.

Sometimes the simplest answer is the most likely. The simplest answer is that Mercelina and everyone else aren't on the same page, and he'll do what he believes is best for him rather than, as he claims, what is best for the country. My only hope is that we all remember this in the next election.

Rutger Williams.

Dear Editor,

I request space in your publication to address what I consider a deeply troubling takeover of WIFOL union leadership. In my view, the circumstances raise serious questions about democratic procedures, membership eligibility, financial accountability, and respect for the union’s constitution and bylaws.

Before explaining my concerns, allow me to establish the experience from which I speak. I served as President of WITU for 27 and a half years and have 47 years of experience as a teacher. I also served three terms as President of WICLU.

I am a member of the C.C.S.U., formerly the GOA, and previously served on the Tripartite Committee, where government, labor, and business were represented as equal partners. I have supported local trade unions in their struggles for workers’ rights, including the efforts that led to the establishment of WIHCUA, an independent union representing healthcare workers. I also supported justice workers in their struggle over their legal employment status following October 10, 2010.

My trade union training includes programmes in the Dominican Republic and Venezuela under CLAT, congresses organized by Education International in Bulgaria and Argentina, and activities with FLATEC in Spain. Through the Caribbean Union of Teachers, I have also participated in training and strengthened regional ties in Antigua, Trinidad, Grenada, Saint Vincent, Saint Lucia, Anguilla, Barbados, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Belize, Jamaica, and Guyana.

I share this background because I have spent decades committed to workers and the trade union movement. When something is wrong, we must address it. The lessons learned should help build stronger, healthier organizations for current members and future generations.

I have decided to break my silence because I believe the actions surrounding WIFOL’s leadership change threaten the principles that trade unions should defend. Yet too many people have remained silent.

Why I regard this as a leadership coup

When I use the term “coup,” I mean a leadership change that, in my view, bypasses established democratic procedures and concentrates control in the hands of a small group.

The concerns include whether the union’s constitution and bylaws were followed, whether pressure or intimidation was used, whether the dues-paying membership meaningfully participated, and whether a properly constituted meeting authorized the replacement of the leadership.

A union belongs to its members. Its leadership must derive authority from a transparent, legitimate process. No individual or group should be allowed to disregard the rules while claiming the authority those same rules are meant to confer.

What should have preceded the October congress?

My understanding is that a WIFOL congress was being planned for October 2026. A properly organized congress requires preparation, documentation, and clear procedures.

First, the secretariat should prepare a report summarizing the union’s activities during the relevant term. Members should receive that report at least one week before the congress.

Second, the Secretary of Finance should prepare a financial report. Members should submit receipts, contracts, bank statements, and other supporting documents for an independent audit. The organization should pay for that audit, and the resulting report should be circulated to members before the congress.

Third, members should receive formal notice of the congress and a clear nomination deadline. Board-position eligibility must comply with the union’s constitution and bylaws, including applicable membership and dues requirements. Outsiders or non-members should not occupy positions reserved for eligible members.

Fourth, the agenda should clearly state that elections will take place. Nominations should be completed beforehand, and ballots should identify the candidates.

Fifth, an independent election committee should conduct the election. The outgoing board should step aside from administering that process. The committee should verify the quorum, distribute ballots, oversee a secret vote, count the votes, and announce the results.

My understanding is that the quorum consists of half the total dues-paying membership plus one, subject to the union’s governing rules.

Were these procedures followed? Where are the records demonstrating that they were?

Questions about membership and eligibility

The announcement of the new board raises questions that deserve direct answers.

Is Joanice Richardson, identified as the newly elected President, a member of WIFOL? Is he a dues-paying member, and did he meet the requirements to stand for election?

The same questions apply to Elton Jones. Is he a WIFOL member, and did he meet the applicable membership and dues requirements?

These are fundamental questions about the process's legitimacy. Members are entitled to clear answers supported by the union’s records.

Ashma Berkel and the unfinished financial audit

The questions surrounding Ashma Berkel are different. She worked closely with Mr. Thompson and served as WIFOL's Secretary of Finance, which also includes the CISCEF training institute.

She is now part of the new team. That makes explaining her role especially important.

At the time of the disputed leadership change, an auditor was already examining documents and receipts to prepare an audited financial report for the planned October congress.

Was Ms. Berkel aware of that work? Based on her position and responsibilities, I believe she was.

Why, then, was the auditor subsequently informed that persons affiliated with the former WIFOL board could no longer access documents? Why were instructions issued restricting entry to offices and preventing further collection of the records needed to complete the audit?

Preparing those financial records fell, at least in part, within her responsibilities. An unfinished audit requires cooperation and access to supporting documents. Members deserve an explanation of any decision that prevented that work from being completed.

René Richardson’s statement

The auditor also received two stern notices from Mr. René Richardson. Following those notices, he made the following statement:

“I know the corrupt scammer well. That is why I sent those messages.”

I was deeply disappointed by those words. Such a serious accusation should be supported by evidence. It should never replace a proper explanation for why an auditor’s work was interrupted or why access to financial records was restricted.

For someone returning to a prominent role in union affairs after years away from the forefront of defending workers’ rights, that statement is particularly troubling.

I also question how his advisory work with companies after his political career as a commissioner aligns with the position he now takes in this dispute.

My advice is simple: those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The windows they break may be their own.

Restore a fair and transparent process

I am calling for the disputed leadership change to be examined against WIFOL’s constitution and bylaws. If the process failed to meet those requirements, it should be set aside, and a properly constituted congress and election should be organized.

The financial audit should be completed, relevant records should be preserved and made available for that work, and members should receive the information they need to make informed decisions.

This matter must be resolved through lawful, transparent, and democratic means. Workers’ representation is too important to be undermined by personal attacks, unanswered questions, or procedures that members cannot scrutinize.

Trade unions across Sint Maarten must speak up. We cannot demand accountability from employers and government while remaining silent when serious questions arise within our own movement.

Wake up, trade unions of Sint Maarten. Stand up for workers’ rights, union democracy, and accountability.

Thank you.

Mrs. Claire Elshot-Aventurin
A trade unionist at heart