Unbiased look at the Sint Maarten Elections
~ De Weever will offer 'no apologies' for telling truth ~
PHILIPSBURG--Several Members of Parliament (MPs) condemned on Wednesday the manner in which Minister of Health, Labour and Social Affairs VSA Cornelius de Weever addressed Parliament during the Central Committee meeting, with some MPs saying the minister had been "condescending," "disrespectful" and 'sarcastic."
De Weever responded by saying he had "sat quietly" and "took it all" from MPs in his three years going to Parliament to answer questions, while watching some MPs put on a "grand performance." De Weever said he would not sit and allow anyone to "play politics" with the work his ministry had done. He said he always would tell the truth and if this offended anyone, he made no apologies for it.
It appeared as though the Minister caught some MPs by surprise when the meeting started and instead of making introductory remarks on the topic being discussed, as is customary, announced that he had not prepared a presentation, he just had come prepared to answer the questions from MPs.
The meeting was called to address the draft changes to the National Ordinance on General Pension Insurance and National Ordinance on General Widows Insurance related to increases in the pension amounts and the pension age.
The minister's decision not to provide introductory remarks and answer questions posed at an earlier meeting, coupled with some of his statements, drew the MPs' ire.
Disappointment
National Alliance (NA) MP Louie Laveist, who had requested a brief break to obtain a document from his office before posing questions, was the first to express disappointment in the Minister's move not to answer questions MPs had asked in an earlier meeting, in which the Minister was not present.
Laveist said he was "very disappointed that the minster chose to just throw the matter "in our court" when the ball had been in the Minister's court. Laveist said MPs had asked "a litany" of questions on the draft ordinances and had "expressed serious concerns," but a response had not been provided.
De Weever said he had not received any questions, but President of Parliament Gracita Arrindell said later in the meeting that ministries were expected to note questions relevant to their ministry.
Laveist brought up a number of the country's seniors' concerns from a document from the St. Maarten Seniors and Pensioners Association (SMSPA). He said that while he supported the draft ordinances, as they had the input of the National Alliance, he was not in full support of them because NA's vision to help seniors was not included.
De Weever said later that he could not recall receiving any draft ordinance from NA.
Laveist called the draft a "watered down" document, adding that NA's vision had been "missed." He said the elderly now would have to wait on (NA) to take care of their needs after the August 29 Parliamentary elections.
He said an increase of the pension amount to NAf. 1,000 would give the impression that all seniors would receive the increase. He asked the Minister to "spell out" the qualification process and the scale that would determine the amounts pensioners would receive. He proposed that persons who had resided on the island for a number of years qualify for at least a threshold pension amount.
Support
Independent MP Frans Richardson, who supported the draft ordinances, said he was disappointed at how the meeting had started. He said a long and intense discussion had been held on this issue and the persons who had requested the minister's presence were not there.
He had hoped that the MPs' questions and concerns would have been forwarded to the Minister and said that although the Minister should have given an introductory overview, he did not know whether the questions had been passed on to the Minister.
Richardson said the draft had been headed in the right direction, but noted that a re-evaluation of the pension increase to NAf. 1,000 would have to be considered at a later date.
Democratic Party (DP) MP Roy Marlin said he had read the documents and understood their contents.
Doubled
United People's (UP) party MP Johan "Janchi" Leonard said that while he was in favour of an increase of the pension amount; if it had been up to him he would have doubled the amount. He said the amount to which the pension was being increased was "not enough."
NA MP George Pantophlet asked whether pensioners had to pay premiums or taxes and why. De Weever explained that pensioners only paid taxes on earnings they received in addition to their pensions. Income tax would have to be filed and income tax paid. Pantophlet also expressed concern that some medication for pensioners was not being covered.
One of the MPs' common concerns was the fact that many persons who had worked in St. Maarten for many years did not qualify for a pension because they did not have an address in Dutch St. Maarten or only qualified for a small portion despite working in St. Maarten for many years.
Not prepared
In his response during the first round, De Weever said MPs should do their homework. He lauded Laveist for "reading" the letter from the pensioners association to him because "it gave [him] something to say." He said Laveist had not been prepared, "but I understand your strategy."
De Weever said some MPs had a track record and had touched on subjects that they looked at solely in a one-dimensional manner. MPs, he added, can speak about whether the pension should be increased to NAf. 1,000 or US $1,000, but he said he was cognisant that in the current political season popular things were being said to "fool" the people.
He said all the issues Laveist had raised from the pensioners association had been addressed already in earlier forums and none of the questions needed to be answered at this time.
The Minister also said it was not "rocket science" who would come into consideration for the NAf. 1,000 pensions. He said "the good MP" was aware that someone's "legal status" played a role. He asked whether the country should award the same amount to persons who were not following procedures as to those who had been doing so.
UP MP Jules James later alluded to the Treaty of Concordia, which he said spoke about the free movement of persons. He said too that persons from French St. Martin had been allowed to work in Dutch St. Maarten and had possessed workbooks to do so.
De Weever said later in the meeting that while "many persons" spoke about the Treaty of Concordia, many had not read it and checked whether it had been ratified and signed by both sides of the island or whether it had been a "gentleman's agreement." The minister urged "everyone" to look at the Treaty, read it, look for the signatures and verify them.
De Weever also spoke about, amongst other things, the irregular issuance of bus drivers' licences in exchange for votes and said this was one of the reasons the country was in the quagmire it is in at the moment.
He also spoke about elderly persons "walking through Front Street" and "falling down" because of the potholes, the sidewalks and the coconut trees," which also made it difficult to manoeuvre a wheelchair or a baby carriage.
Disrespectful
After the minister made his remarks in the first round Leonard cautioned De Weever about his response to Parliament, saying that questions should have been answered "with dignity and pride," as Parliament was a serious body.
Laveist supported Leonard's statements, saying that the minister's remarks had been condescending, disrespectful and unacceptable. He said the minister must show respect for Parliament and respect for the Chair.
James urged the minster not to be "sarcastic" in addressing MPs and to not give "low jabs."
At the end of the meeting Arrindell also expressed concern about the manner in which the Minister had addressed Parliament and assured that documents to which the minister had referred during the meeting had been forwarded to MPs.
De Weever said he had not attended the meeting to raise his voice and be disrespectful to anyone. However, he said, the manner in which some MPs had addressed him could be considered disrespectful. He said in the future if MPs wanted him to make a presentation on matters, this should be indicated in writing.
He also requested that MPs provide their questions in writing so that he could respond to them in writing. However, Arrindell said a report including the questions would be sent to the minister prior to the handling of the draft law in a public meeting of Parliament, as is customary.
