Unbiased look at the Sint Maarten Elections
Topic 1: SMCC: NV GEBE discriminates among customers
Topic 2: SMCC: When fuel clause GEBE will be corrected?
Topic 3: SMCC: Snail pace of NRPB rebuilding back better stronger homes
Topic 4: SMAPP: Cuts in (semi)public remuneration now in legislation violating human rights
Topic 5: SMAPP: Unlawful proceedings of PM Silveria Jacobs and COM to please the Dutch
Topic 1: SMCC: NV GEBE discriminates among its customers.
NO RELIEF: PAYMENT PLAN OR DISCONNECTION. NV GEBE announced in a press release published on Tuesday Feb. 2, 2021, that after months of suspended disconnection of its electricity and water services, the company will be resuming its monthly standard course of action to collect outstanding funds. During the early part of 2020, and several times thereafter, NV GEBE halted the disconnection of services to allow the financial recovery of its customers who were experiencing economic difficulties due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. We fully recognize that the pandemic continues to be a time of hardship for many of us, however, there are many customers who had not made any attempt to take advantage of the opportunity to set up a payment plan or to make any payments. Is not there any relief possible for these consumers with hardship?
RELIEF FOR CERTAIN SENIORS. In a press statement from January 25, 2021 Dr. Sharine Daniel, Interim Manager of NV GEBE confirmed and we quote her to have said: "A lot of people are struggling because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Of all consumers in the more than 13.000 poor and needy households in St Maarten the Interim Manager of GEBE said: Seniors are an especially vulnerable group; we are pleased to at least be able to provide some financial relief. She said so on the occasion of the launch of GEBEs yearly Senior Citizens temporarily relief 62+ program, to assist seniors with their monthly utility bills. As Consumers Coalition we agree that a lot of seniors need financial relief. Because not even their recent old age pension increase took them out of poverty! But what about GEBE relief for other persons in households struggling with hardship?
ONLY CERTAIN SENIORS. This program is geared towards certain eligible Senior Citizens and its aim is to reduce the electricity costs for those individuals that qualify for this program. Why does not GEBE come with a relief for all the consumers of electricity? Not only in this time of the pandemic, but for years the poor and needy households in St Maarten are struggling every month to survive! Why not a relief for all the more than 13.000 poor and needy households, who are also vulnerable and are struggling in this time of the pandemic to pay their electricity bills?
WHY NO RELIEF FOR ALL CONSUMERS? From March to August last year GEBE gave a relief in the fuel clause amount to all consumers. The average fuel clause before COVID 19 was between 0.23 to 0.29 cents per Kwh. Since the COVID-19 GEBE has granted a relief in the form of a flat fuel clause rate of NAF. 0.18 cents per KWh. This reduced price of fuel clause went into effect from April 1, 2020, for 6 months. Which consumers are entitled to financial relief? Why are seniors the only consumers entitled to financial relief with their monthly utility bills? Should nt all consumers be treated equal? Why cannot GEBE provide all consumers with a relief in their monthly electricity bill?
TARIFFS. According to article 12 sub 4 of the electricity concession ordinance, the tariffs GEBE may charge are regulated in a national decree of general measures. The tariffs are based on the cost of investments and operational company activities. Based on social considerations tariffs might be different.[1] The fuel clause is not included in the operational costs of the company, but is being charged separately of the decreed tariffs.
FUEL CLAUSE. For quite some years now GEBE has been charging the consumers apart from tariffs approved by government, a fuel clause which determines more than half of the monthly electricity bill! The fuel clause is a fluctuating monthly cost that is calculated based on the fuel prices *locally* which NV GEBE then charges to the customer based on the consumed electricity during one billing period. While worldwide the prices of oil dropped hitting last year a 30 year low,[2] still GEBE is charging us the consumers a fuel clause which has not dropped! Why cannot the fuel clause drop or be eliminated?
NON-DISCRIMINATION. According to article 12 sub 3 of the same electricity concession ordinance, GEBE has to deliver electricity to all consumers under the same conditions[3]. In other words, GEBE is not allowed to discriminate among its consumers. If GEBE is not allowed to discriminate among its consumers, we have the following question for the interim manager of GEBE and the Minister of VROMI responsible for GEBE: based on which article in the electricity concession, GEBE is allowed to provide certain senior citizens a relief in their monthly bill to pay? Based on which article in the ordinance other consumers cannot get a relief in their monthly electricity bill?
Seniors relief is money of the company which is provided to certain seniors, who according to GEBE criteria qualify, to cover some part or the entire monthly electricity bill. Based on art 12 sub 5 GEBE has to reinvest money generated by the company (with the exception of the profit) in its entirety to cover investment or the cost of operational activities.[4] So the relief cannot be based on art 12 sub 5. Based on which article in the concession GEBE can provide only certain seniors with a relief, and not all the consumers of GEBE electricity? We appeal hereby publicly to GEBEs Interim Manager and to the Minister of VROMI to answer the questions raised.
NV GEBE explains on its website in one of its Frequently Asked Questions What the fuel clause is: Fuel oil (diesel) is used to generate electricity in Sint Maarten. The cost of fuel oil greatly outweighs the cost of other things necessary to provide our customers with electricity. Some of this cost is recovered in the basic electricity rate structure, while customers pay the remainder as a Fuel Clause. The Fuel Clause allows both increases and decreases in fuel costs to be passed on to customers automatically. Oil prices worldwide in the last 30 years have dropped! Why the fuel costs decreased is not being passed on to the consumers?
The ST Maarten based advisors of Mango Green Energy have on many occasions in the past offered GEBE advice and presentations. They even invited them to their presentation in Brazil in 2011 at the Smart Electricity Symposium. Many countries around the world are making use of their concept, which was endorsed by the UNDP as sustainable energy for all. What is their concept? They present solutions on how to Integrate a multi-functional infrastructure of energy distribution systems to reduce cost of services to the clients.
Transition to a digital distribution infrastructure, gives utility companies many new tools to help their customers save energy or water.
GEBE customers are still waiting on GEBE to deliver the benefits of the new systems like other utilities have delivered many cost reduction options for their customers. When will the fuel costs be decreased and being passed on to the consumers?
Topic 3: SMCC: Silence about the NRPB program building back better stronger homes
We are 5 months away from the hurricane season of 2021. What is the status of the home repair since Irma. What is the status of the building back better and stronger program of the NRPB?
In July 2018, almost 3 years ago, the former Ombudsman of Sint Maarten, Dr. Nilda Arduin and the National Ombudsman Reinier van Zutphen, called on their governments to hurry to rebuild Sint Maarten in the aftermath of Hurricane Irma.
In the report Home Repair. A revelation of a social crisis of October 2019, of more than 16 months ago, the current ombudsman of Sint Maarten, Gwendolien Mossel, described how residents - and in particular the most vulnerable - experience the delayed reconstruction. The conclusion was that reconstruction is now a social crisis. That is why she presented a number of recommendations and has made a film that shows the harrowing stories of the affected residents.
What happened since then with the home repair? How many of the 13.000 to 15.000 homes that had to be build back better and stronger have been rebuild? What happened with the persons who registered for the home repair program after hurricane Irma? How many of these registered residents got their homes repaired? How many new registrations for home repair the 2020 campaign of the Ministry of VSA has received? How many homes the Red Cross have repaired?
Are these homes now more resilient than before? The new hospital construction was redesigned to resist a CAT 5+ hurricane. How the social homes for the people have to be constructed to be hurricane and earthquake proof? When this new hurricane and earthquake resistant building code has been approved?
On the campaign trail we heard one politician speaking about construction of 1000 new homes? The minister of VROMI wants to develop Philipsburg and build some homes or apartments above some commercial spaces. Until today the Minister of VROMI did not present one proposal to rebuild homes in the neighborhoods of the people. He gave instructions to repair some roads going to these neighborhoods. When will we hear his project to rebuild the homes in the districts were the people live?
Is there an update of the report of the Ombudsman about how many homes have been repaired?
What is the quality of the home repair that took place? Everyone who has a complaint about the quality of the home repair can contact our Consumer Coalition or whose home is not rebuild back better and stronger can contact our lawyer Cor Merx who will address your individual complaint.
Those that still need home repair but for whatever reason did not get help yet, please contact our Consumer Coalition.
With the adoption of the three legislations in Parliament yesterday the Dutch imposed 12.5% cuts in remunerations of civil servants and semi-public workers benefits, as well as the 25% cut in remunerations of elected and appointed public officials, and the introduction of the Jacobs norm and the 130% maximum on remunerations of higher ranking employees in public and semi-public sector, the human rights of the persons who will be affected by the cuts will be legally violated. This is a gross violation of article 81 of the constitution of St Maarten which all citizens, appointed (ministers) as well as elected public officials (parliamentarians) have to respect!
Last week we illustrated how International Labor Conventions (the Equal remunerations Convention and the Collective Bargaining Convention) were violated. Contrary to art 2 of the ILO Equal Remuneration Convention C100, and contrary to art 3 of the same ILO Convention which stipulates that remuneration must be based on an objective job classification or evaluation[5], the legislation to cut the remunerations in Aruba, Curacao and St Maarten is not based on an objective job classification evaluation.
Today we will explain how two United Nation treaties are being violated. The cost-cutting measures imposed by the Kingdom government to get COVID 19 liquidity support, which our Council of Ministers and now also our parliament agreed to implement, as conditions to get the liquidity support tranches, affect the public and semi-public workers regressively in their acquired economic social and cultural rights. This is in violation of art 2.1 of the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights[6]. This article states:
Article 2.1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures
As these regressive solidarity measures are only imposed on workers in the three Caribbean countries of the Kingdom, this is in violation of the non-discrimination principle anchored in art 2.2. of the same covenant. This article reads as follows:
Article 2.2The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
This is what we call geopolitical discrimination within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Why we say so? Because these cuts were not imposed on the workers in the Netherlands nor in the BES-islands!
Furthermore this discrimination is an act of social and racial discrimination within the Kingdom, according to art 1 and 2 of the International Convention on Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination[7].
Article 1.1. In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
Article 2.1. States Parties condemn racial discrimination and undertake to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and promoting understanding among all races, and, to this end: (a) Each State Party undertakes to engage in no act or practice of racial discrimination against persons, groups of persons or institutions and to ensure that all public authorities and public institutions, national and local, shall act in conformity with this obligation;
By not promoting equal remunerations, but by implementing cuts only in Aruba, Curacao and St Maarten, even our local public authorities and public institutions such as the Council of Ministers and Parliament are not complying with this article in the treaty. This violation is worsening the inequality between the remunerations of workers in the European part and the Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands!!
The mandate from the members of all the seven unions in the WICLU represented clearly instructed the WICLU to get all these discriminatory regressive measures off the table! Therefore, as unions we will address these violations of workers rights and human rights with the Ombudsman and internationally with the International labor Organization and the United Nations human rights bodies, now that the government of the Netherlands (as Kingdom government), the government of ST Maarten and the parliament of ST Maarten have joined Knopsy and Co in violating the workers rights and the human rights, we have no other recourse than to denounce these violations internationally!!
Topic 5: SMAPP: Unlawful proceedings of PM Silveria Jacobs and COM to please the Dutch government.
In our press conference of last week Thursday we informed the public about incorrect statements made in two draft ordinances to cut in remunerations of workers in the public sector and in the semi-public sector to explain why the government sidelined the unions of the Windward Island Chamber of Labor Unions. Prime Minister Silveria Jacobs in response to our information went a step further in a live Facebook Prime Minister talks program of January 30th. In her topic of Communication she called our trusted sources as providing misinformation. Well here are the facts Prime Minister Silveria Jacobs she did not bring in her 10 minutes talk to explain why the Dutch conditions were accepted. The Prime Minister did not follow the laws. When did the Prime Minister presented the draft ordinances to the unions to be negotiated? Never. When the negotiation with the unions took place on the proposed content of the draft ordinances? Never. Where in which law meeting with civil servants instead of with the unions is allowed to replace negotiations government has to held with the unions? Prime Minister did not tell you. In other words, based on what letter of the law sidelining unions and not negotiating with the unions was allowed? Stating that the unions did not want to meet with the Council of Ministers is a blatant lie: here are the facts and judge for yourself. We will file a formal complaint with the Ombudsman and present all these facts also.
After the January 2020 elections a new governing coalition was formed and a new Council of Ministers was sworn in on March 28, 2020. The Windward Islands Chamber of Labor Unions as the most representative organization of workers in Sint with Maarten requested a dialogue with the new Council of Ministers on the status of workers rights in letters to the Council of Ministers (COM) of March 31, 2020. This dialogue became more urgent when in the local newspapers was reported that the Council of Ministers on May 20th, 2020 unconditionally agreed with the Dutch conditions for the 2nd tranche of liquidity support.
On May 28th, 2020 the Chamber of Labor Unions repeated our request to have a dialogue with the Council of Ministers, since our request from March 28th was not honored yet!
On the website from the Second Chamber we found letters from State Secretary Knops informing the 2nd chamber of the conditions which were unconditionally accepted by the Council of Ministers of St Maarten! The unions started to mobilize their members for informative meetings in the Jose Lake ball park (Little League stadium) and received a clear mandate not to accept any cuts in the remunerations of the workers based on international UN human rights treaties and ILO labor conventions.
On June the 9th the first meeting between the Council of Ministers and the Chamber of Labor Unions was held. Did the Chamber of Labor Unions receive the conditions unconditionally accepted by the Council of Ministers? No. The unions were informed that the correspondence with the Kingdom Council of Ministers was confidential and could not be shared. To continue the dialogue government requested the WICLU unions to put their position on the conditions in writing.
By letter of June 12th the WICLU informed the COM of her position on the workers and human rights violations in the liquidity support conditions, which the COM wanted to implement.
It was after manifestations in the street and after a meeting with members of the parliament of St Maarten on June 24th that on June 25th, 2020 parties were called to continue the dialogue at the table. No consensus was reached on the issues tabled by the WICLU. In other words, since the request of the Chamber of Labor Unions for a dialogue of March 28th, only two meetings between parties to dialogue were held (on June 9th, 2020 and on June 25th, 2020). The Council of Ministers promised to answer the letters of March 31, May 28, and June 12 of the WICLU, which answers are still not forthcoming!
On July 14th, 2020 the Council of Ministers called a meeting with stakeholders among which the Chamber of Labor Unions to inform them about the Dutch governments proposal of a consensus Kingdom law to establish a Caribbean Reform Entity and the position of the Council of Ministers which would be presented in the Kingdom Council of Ministers of July 15nd. Again no documentation was presented as this was confidential!
Until today no dialogue, no negotiation was concluded between the Council of Ministers and the Chamber of Labor Unions on the Dutch conditions imposed on the governments of Curacao, Aruba and St Maarten to get COVID 19 liquidity support.
Until today the three draft laws were not presented discussed in the Social Economic Council.
Until today the three draft laws discussed in Parliament last week and this week were not presented to the unions of the Chamber of Labor Unions, neither to the Committee of Civil Servants Unions.
Separate meetings with the Committee of Civil Servants Unions (CCSU) Government as employer from the workers in government started to discuss her proposals on implementing the 12.5% cut in remunerations of the workers in government. The CCSU meetings should not be confused with the dialogue and the negotiations the Chamber of Labor Unions has requested with the Council of Ministers! The CCSU had representatives of only two civil servant unions: WICSU and WITU. Two other civil servant unions ABVO-SXM and NAPB were not part of the CCSU. SMCU and WIFOL representing semi-public workers, SMCU and WIFOL were also not represented in the CCSU. In other words, four of the six unions in the Chamber of Labor Unions of which governments intention was to legislate changes in their labor conditions of their workers, were not represented in the CCSU. ABVO-SXM in September was admitted to the CCSU, the three other unions NAPB, SMCU and WIFOL representing public and semipublic workers were still not at the table to negotiate the proposal of government (imposed by the Dutch government) to change the labor conditions of workers and semipublic workers!
According to the ILO Convention on Collective Bargaining we illustrated last week how the government violated this international treaty ratified by the Kingdom applicable in St Maarten. Therefore, the Council of Ministers is unlawful and violating article 81b of the Constitution of St Maarten. Until today there is no agreement with the Windward Islands Chamber of Labor Unions. Until today the Prime Minister has not negotiated a consensus with the unions.
Even a Memorandum of Understanding drafted by the Windward Island Chamber of Labor Unions and a request of the Unions to discuss this with the Council of Ministers until today the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers has not addressed with the unions.
Parliament invited the Windward Island Chamber of Labor Unions to a meeting in Parliament on September 30th were members of parliament were informed by the WICLU about the facts about the development of the dialogue with government and the negotiation status.
So when did the Prime Minister had negotiations with the WICLU-unions on the cuts legislation adopted yesterday in Parliament? When did the Council of Ministers reached to an agreement with the unions as a basis for the legislation discussed in Parliament? When parties signed an agreement which formed the basis for the legislation presented to advisory bodies the GOA, the SER, the Advisory Council? Union representatives in the GOA and in the SER have not seen any draft legislation which was adopted yesterday in parliament! This is in violation of the procedure to establish national legislations and therefore unlawful!
Next week the unions will denounce these unlawful proceedings formally to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has six weeks to review the adopted legislation. The WICLU will request the Ombudsman to present the adopted laws to the Constitutional Court!
[1] National Ordinance Electricity concession. Art 12 sub 4 De tarieven die de concessiehouder voor de aansluiting op het distributienet en de levering van elektriciteit aan de gebruiker in rekening mag brengen, worden vastgesteld bij landsbesluit, houdende algemene maatregelen. De vaststelling vindt plaats op basis van kostenorintatie ter zake van investeringen en operationele bedrijfsactiviteiten van de concessiehouder inzake de opwekking, distributie en levering van elektriciteit, voor zover de concessie daarop betrekking heeft. Op grond van sociale overwegingen kan hiervan voor bepaalde categorien gebruikers worden afgeweken.
[2] Oil hit $0.01 a barrel before falling to as low as negative $40 and eventually settling at negative $37.63, the lowest level recorded since the New York Mercantile Exchange began trading oil futures in 1983. https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/493688-oil-trades-below-8-a-barrel-hitting-30-year-low
[3] National Ordinance Electricity concession. Art 12 sub 3. De aansluiting op het distributienet en de levering van elektriciteit aan een gebruiker vinden plaats op grond van redelijke, objectieve en non-discriminatoire voorwaarden overeenkomstig hetgeen terzake in de concessie is bepaald.
[4] National Ordinance Electricity concession. Art 12 sub 5.Inkomsten uit de levering van elektriciteit aan gebruikers in Sint Maarten, met uitzondering van de daarmee gerealiseerde winst, worden volledig aangewend ter dekking van de kosten van investeringen en operationele bedrijfsactiviteiten van de concessiehouder ten behoeve van de natuurlijke personen en rechtspersonen die in Sint Maarten woonachtig of gevestigd zijn.
[5] https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C100
[6] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx
[7] https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cerd.aspx
