SXMElections.com

Dear Editor,

I was shocked to read in the editorial of The Daily Herald on Saturday, May 23, 2015 that it will better serve St. Maarten maybe to have five ministers as a matter of cutting the expenses for the Country.

You know what, the editor may well be right in his assumption from the point of departure that they are even with the five not achieving any noteworthy improvement or should I say changes that serve this Community as a whole and his experience with the present ministers.

However, with all that said, our constitution explicitly says what constitutes an Executive Government for this Country and it also provides directives if and when we see the need to carry out any changes.

Mr. Editor, our constitution says in Article 39 section A that a Council of Ministers shall consist of seven ministers and can be changed by means of a National Ordinance that is approved by a two third majority of Parliament.

We may agree considering all the perks and freebies that are attached to a minister and the results we are able to get from the ministers that the job can be done with five or less, but our “Me and You” position does not matter as long as the constitution is written as is. We should instead be contemplating why the governor accepted a lesser amount from the Formateur and did not return it to get seven ministers in accordance with the Constitution of St. Maarten which he is to uphold.

We should be questioning politicians why they have not supported Mr. Christophe’s query about the violation of Article 39 when the Council of Advice replied to the MP that she could not say it clearer than what is written in Article 39. The Council of Advice stopped short in saying to the MP that we are in violation of Article 39 and that you should at all times have seven ministers.

Where was Mr. MP Maurice Lake then? Did The Daily Herald not hear the concern then or in the follow up meetings when it was raised by Mr. MP Christophe Emmanuel? The MP elucidated it with the statement that there are 23 candidates from whom a choice can be made. Even former candidates that served in the former UP/DP cabinets were mentioned on the floor. If I did not know better I would have considered this a phenomenon of “East Indian” deftness. Why not give them the opportunity to serve after running a winning campaign? This seems to be a mystery that only their leader has the answer to.

Mr. Editor we need to educate the populace of this young country and our opinion does not matter when it is clear what the lawmakers wanted for the voters and got majority support to do so. We are in a Democracy and shall govern through and by our Constitution based on democratic principles.

I do believe that more emphasis on the adherence to the constitution would have been more in its place as primary dedication and secondary the financial economic desired changes, which is derived from the factual functioning that we presently see……MP Maurice Lake would serve the populace better by moving a motion to appoint the additional ministers or move on to amend the Constitution to read five ministers instead of seven in Article 39. His party has the needed two third required to amend this Article.

By doing so he may save St. Maarten from the expenses you mention in your Editorial as they are not being paid that extra to hold the extra ministerial post (check it out and don’t be surprised with the answer).

Arnel Brown

Editor’s note:

The Constitution speaks of seven ministers, but nowhere is it stated that they have to be seven different persons.