Unbiased look at the Sint Maarten Elections
Dear Editor,
If government officials cannot address the public in a sober and civil manner, then they need to reconsider their position and move on. It is totally unacceptable for representatives of the people to express themselves in ways that are substandard to effective leadership. This pattern of behaviour seems to be a developing trend - a style that exposes their state of mind – a mind that is overruled by frustration, which has lead them to the point where they are unable to guide their thoughts.
Politicians, who are called to lead, would be cognizant of their choice of words and actions. True leaders are more concerned about the content of their message, rather than the pleasure of exciting their ego, whenever they are challenged by someone else's viewpoint. This narrow perception has been the downfall of the Prime Minister and the Justice Minister alike. They have always exhibited a defensive attitude in circumstances that need clarification; rather than to be open to feedback, that could very well assist them in moving forward.
First, it was the Prime Minister who draped himself with these outrageous comments, which suggested that persons jump out of a plane and commit suicide. This time around, it is the Justice Minister, who told the Attorney General of St. Maarten to "Shut the hell up!" These are not positive behaviours of persons who are put in positions to lead. Besides, it is a very subtle way of developing bad habits. It was not too long ago, the same Minister of Justice took off his shoes in Parliament House while indicating to Member of Parliament (MP) Christopher Emmanuel, that he cannot walk a mile in his shoes. What should we expect next? Would we see nudity and the use of the "F" word as well?
It is obvious that these two ministers have found themselves in situations that are way beyond their expectations and are therefore unable to cope with the stress that comes with the task. Instead of removing themselves from the situation to get a bird eye's view of the circumstance, they do the exact opposite, which continues to fuel the frustration. Then it calls to mind: Why burden the tax payers to support these astronomical salaries that are paid to advisors? It is a fact that the decisions of a leader are often influenced by the advices that he or she receives, and so in whose interest are these advisors rendering their services? Or, do their skills align with the task that comes with profession?
Some time ago, my ex-manager called me into his office to have a heart-to-heart talk. He disclosed his dissatisfaction of the direction in which the company was going. I was surprised to hear him say the things he did, because I thought to myself that all is well. He told me a lot, but what stuck with me is when he said, "Anytime you feel uncomfortable doing a job, it is time to move on." It wasn't long after, he packed up all his belongings and left.
When one is charged with the task to direct, he or she would make decisions that are in the best interest of the company, its employees and clients. Likewise, government officials must utilize the expertise of its personnel and make proper choices that would sustain its apparatus, and then transcend that professionalism to the citizens and visitors.
It is mind tickling to see how these two ministers get very offended every time reference of corruption is made to St. Maarten. What has agitated them more are the comments that were made by the Police Chief of Holland. How did both ministers deal with the situation? They blew off steam by announcing that the Police Chief is not welcome in their offices anymore. Who cares? His task was to deliver the message and get the live reaction from the Justice Minister. In my view, the compelling part of this whole episode was overlooked when they failed to get a bird eye's view of the situation.
No matter how insulting his statements may have been, a clear-minded person would have handled the situation differently, because the comments are just the crust of the underlying matter. The ministers had to be nimble enough to ask themselves the following: What is his real purpose for coming? Who sent him and why was he so specific with his statements? As we can see, exactly what the ministers were afraid of, is precisely what is handed down to them whether they like it or not. Instead of huffing and puffing, these officials need to focus on how to collaborate their efforts, because this is not the last time they will be hearing from the Police Chief of Holland. Similarly, the same approach should be given to the Attorney General of St. Maarten.
It is puzzling to see how the Justice Minister gloated, when he read the conclusion of reports on corruption that was taken from a newspaper, rather than from the original source. Isn't this the same minister who accuses politicians in Holland of feeding their minds with information from the press, instead of basing their claims on the facts? Member of Parliament (MP) Christopher Emmanuel should have asked the Justice Minister: What is the meaning of corruption; then present some examples and get his feelings on the illustrations. This poker game is very interesting; but, perseverance is the factor that will reveal everything.
Joslyn Morton
