Unbiased look at the Sint Maarten Elections
THE HAGUE--The Dutch Labour Party PvdA and the Democratic Party D66 have contradicting views when it comes to the proposed intervention by the Kingdom Council of Ministers to tackle integrity violations in St. Maarten.
The PvdA is of the opinion that intervention by the Kingdom Government in the case of St. Maarten is merited because the country has offered insufficient redress to effectively deal with integrity violations in government.
PvdA Member of the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament Roelof van Laar made this clear during a public debate in The Hague on Thursday evening, organised by the Committee Kingdom Relations and the Kingdom Youth Parliament.
Member of the Second Chamber Wassila Hachchi of D66 condemned the extreme measure of the Kingdom Council of Ministers to start the procedure to impose a General Measure of the Kingdom Government ("Algemene Maatregel van Rijksbestuur AMvRB") to establish an Integrity Chamber for St. Maarten.
Hachchi said that while good governance was important to everyone, The Hague was wrong by using the intervention tool of article 51 of the Kingdom Charter without having exhausted all other avenues to reach a consensus with Philipsburg on the setting up of an Integrity Chamber. Intervention should be the ultimate remedy. D66 is in favour of investing in more cooperation between the Kingdom partners.
Van Laar contended that so far St. Maarten's government and others with vested interests have shown insufficient willingness to tackle integrity violations at the roots. He said that if The Hague hadn't intervened by ordering an independent screening of the candidate ministers in October last year, United People's Party UP Leader Theo Heyliger might have become prime minister.
"That screening was highly necessary, because now we have an entirely different set of ministers at the wheel," said Van Laar, who mentioned that Heyliger had been mentioned in the vote-buying case. He said that as prime minister, Heyliger would also have been a representative of the Kingdom.
Hachchi said that The Hague seemed to have only two sets of behaviour: looking away and intervention. "I favour investing in better relations, cultivating a solid friendship. You assist a good friend and warn him if things are not going well, but you don't force draconic measures on him."
According to Hachchi, the Netherlands should assist St. Maarten to strengthen the governmental apparatus and democratic institutions. "We don't do that enough, but we are ready to intervene," she said. "I miss the equality and respect in the Kingdom. Those are essential components in a friendship. We are investing too much time and effort in fighting each other."
"Theo is not my friend," replied Van Laar. He said that The Hague was willing to support the St. Maarten Government. However, a government that doesn't want to accept that help and doesn't want to cooperate, needs to get a stiff warning." He said that intervention was also needed when a country threatened to go bankrupt or when a government had illegitimately gotten into power.
A lively debate with the audience of more than 50 people about intervention and good governance ensued after the introductory words by special guests Van Laar and Hachchi. More on this debate in Saturday's edition of The Daily Herald.
