St Maarten and The Caribbean’s Latest Weather Update Wednesday February 9 2022

https://www.sxmgovernment.com

DATE ISSUED: Wednesday, February 09, 2022 @ 06:00 LST (10:00 UTC)
VALID UNTIL: Thursday morning (06:00 LST) February 10, 2022

https://www.stmaartennews.org

WEATHER:    Today through Thursday morning: Partly cloudy and breezy, becoming cloudy at times with isolated showers possible.

Forecast High: 29°C / 84°F             Forecast Low: 24°C / 75°F

Sunset Today: 6:10 P.M.                 Sunrise Tomorrow: 6:41 A.M.

SURFACE WINDS:   Today through Thursday morning: East-northeasterly to easterly with a gentle to fresh breeze of 10 to 18 mph, and higher gusts possible.

SYNOPSIS:   A relatively stable atmosphere along with low moisture levels will restrict any significant shower activity across the region. However, patches of clouds drifting in the wind flow may produce a brief passing shower at times.    Seas will remain slight to moderate during the next couple of days. Small craft operators and sea bathers should exercise caution.

STATE OF THE SEA:  Moderate                  WAVES/SWELLS: 5 to 7 feet

SPECIAL FEATURE:  None.

OUTLOOK through Friday morning:   Fair to partly cloudy and breezy with brief isolated showers possible.

FORECASTER: Connor

The next weather forecast will be issued today at 12:00 LST (16:00 UTC).

  • Forecast
  • Special Bulletin

WEATHER:
Today through Thursday morning: Partly cloudy and breezy, becoming cloudy at times with isolated showers possible.

http://www.meteosxm.com/weather/forecast/

Caribbean Weather Forecasts – 10 Days

Caribbean Monthly Weather

Caribbean monthly weather has average daytime temperatures ranging from the low 80s Fahrenheit and high 20s Celsius in the winter to the high 80s Fahrenheit and low 30s Celsius in the summer.

The dry season goes from December to May. The Caribbean Hurricane Season with a higher risk of rain lasts from June through November.

Caribeez.com

Following is a summary of average Caribbean weather by month. Click on the links for average rainfall and temperatures by month for every major destination.

The Caribbean in February

My trips to the Caribbean in February have taught me to expect some of the lowest rain of the year but also some of the coolest water temperatures. Go to farther south destinations for warmer weather.

I suggest planning on shopping, shore excursions and other land activities in the mornings until temperatures get warmer. Hit the beach in the early to mid afternoon for the warmest land and water temperatures of the day.

Our February has average temperatures for every major destination.

March

March weather in the Caribbean is nearly ideal for a combination of warm temperatures and low risk of rain. It’s one of the best times to visit for a cruise or hotel vacation.

Average daytime temperatures hover around 85 degrees Fahrenheit or 29 Celsius for many major destinations. Although April is even better for warmth, Caribbean tourism jumps in March because of families on spring break from schools.

Western Caribbean cruises to Cozumel, Grand Cayman and other islands are popular during this month. Beware spring break for many schools and colleges that will flood some destinations with families and college students. Cancun in particular may get busy.

March Weather also offers one of the driest months of the year for the Caribbean. Many islands have two inches of rain or less for the entire month.

April

Great weather arrives in the Caribbean. In my experience, April  has the best weather in the Caribbean for any month of the year.

Temperatures warm to the point where swimming is usually comfortable even in northern destinations. It’s also near the end of the dry season, so most islands have low risk of rain.

The Bahamas may still feel a bit cool, especially in the water. Otherwise, most major Caribbean destinations will usually offer a good combination of warmth and dry weather.

May

Not surprisingly, the Caribbean in May has warmer temperatures than April. But May also brings a brief rainy season to some destinations.

They include the Bahamas, Cancun, Cozumel, Grand Cayman and Jamaica. It’s a better time of year for eastern or southern Caribbean cruises. It is not a good time for western Caribbean cruises; they have a lower risk of rain from January through April, which is the most popular time to go there.

June

 is the official start of hurricane season, but it’s a weak start. Although hurricanes are rare, the average rainfall climbs for many Caribbean islands. Warmer temperatures make a cruise or beach vacation more appealing despite the higher risk of rain.

The Bahamas have the highest rainfall among major islands with an average of more than eight inches.  Other destinations with higher than normal rainfall include Cancun, Cozumel and Grand Cayman. Belize and Costa Rica in the western Caribbean have high levels of rain, but heavy rainfall is normal.

Better vacation destinations are in the southern and eastern Caribbean. Islands with moderate rainfall include Antigua, Aruba and St. Maarten.

Average daytime temperatures for all major islands rise above 85 degrees Fahrenheit or 29 Celsius. Temperatures at Cancun, Cozumel and Grand Cayman increase to more than 90 Fahrenheit or 32 Celsius. Humidity in Cancun and Cozumel climb as well.

July in the Caribbean is more risky than June because of increasing rainfall from the Caribbean hurricane season.

The region averages three tropical storms during the month with two becoming hurricanes, according to the U.S. National Hurricane Center. This compares to one tropical storm in June.

Average daytime high temperatures reach or go above about 90 degrees Fahrenheit or 32 Celsius for many major destinations. They includes Aruba, Cancun, Cozumel, Curacao, Grand Cayman and St. Maarten.

Early July is less risky than late July because the Caribbean hurricane season gradually gets worse as its gets closer to the peak months of September and October. Anyone planning a summer vacation in the Caribbean should try to go in June rather than July and July rather than August.

August

August is usually grim for the Bahamas. Historically, Nassau averages more than nine inches of rain during the month, according to the Bahamas Department of Meteorology. Anyone planning a Caribbean cruise might want to avoid the Bahamas.

Other destinations that historically have higher levels of rain in August include Belize, Costa Rica, Dominica, Guadeloupe and Martinique. Islands with the lowest average rainfall are Aruba and Curacao.

Heat reaches the highest point of the year for many destinations. Average daytime temperatures often go above 90 degrees Fahrenheit or 32 Celsius for Cancun, Cayman Islands, Cozumel, Aruba and Curaçao.

September

September weather in the Caribbean is historically the worst of the year. Three types of people visit the Caribbean in September :People who don’t know that September is the worst weather month.People who do know but take a chance anyway.People who see a good 10-day weather forecast and book their hotels and flights at the last minute.

September weather is the worst of the year because it is the peak time of activity for the annual hurricane season. Historically, the region averages four tropical storms with three becoming hurricanes and two of the three becoming major hurricanes.

The dry island of Aruba in the southern Caribbean still is the leader for the lowest risk of rain, followed closely by nearby Curaçao. Most other destinations average between six and 13 inches of rain. Daytime temperatures for most of them average in the upper 80s to low 90s Fahrenheit.

October

October is the second worst month of the year for Caribbean weather. Visitors in October may hope for better weather than September, which historically has the worst . But they might not get it. October  also is the second worst month of the hurricane season with a historical average of three hurricanes.

A handful of destinations have lower risk of rain. Aruba and Curaçao historically have the lowest of any with three inches each, although these amounts are more than what both islands usually experience. Among all destinations, they have the lowest risk of rain. St. Maarten ranks third.

Places to avoid with an average of eight or more inches of rain include Belize, Cancun, Cozumel, Dominica, Guadeloupe, Grand Cayman and St. Lucia. Despite the bad historical numbers, some Caribbean cruise and resort vacationers may get lucky.

November

November  is the final month of the Caribbean hurricane season.

It has a much lower risk of rain than September or October for many Caribbean destinations. But it’s still the third worst month of the year for rain.

Caribbean weather in November historically averages no hurricanes and only one tropical storm every other year. But rainfall is higher than average for nearly all islands in the region, especially the popular cruise ports at Barbados, Grand Cayman, St. Lucia, St. Maarten and St. Thomas.

Temperatures stay in the mid to upper 80s Fahrenheit for most destinations. Cruise and resort visitors won’t have a problem staying warm.

December

Our second eastern Caribbean cruise in December had fantastic weather with temperatures in the low 90s Fahrenheit and almost no rain. But we had good luck. It was warmer and drier than usual.

Temperatures average in the mid 80s Fahrenheit during the day for most destinations. Rainfall averages about three to four inches during the month, which is slightly above average.

December is a popular month for Caribbean vacations because of better weather than the previous four to five months. People also flock here from northern destinations to get away from winter cold and snow. They also take advantage of Christmas break from schools.

The better options for weather in December include Antigua, Aruba, Grand Cayman and the Virgin Islands because they have lower risk of rain. Cancun, Cozumel, Jamaica and San Juan are usually still a bit wet.

The Bahamas are dry but cooler. Keep in mind that these historical averages may vary from year to year. See more about December weather.

January

January  offers a warm escape from cold northern winters. Most major destinations have an average high temperature in the mid 80s Fahrenheit or high 20s Celsius. Low rainfall is common because the region is starting the annual dry season.

Yes, daytime temperatures are usually warm for most destinations. But nighttime temperatures are cool enough to bring down water temperatures during the night. They become uncomfortable for swimming at times. My advice: click on the January link to see temperature charts for every major destination and choose the warmest. Western Caribbean weather is ideal during these winter months.

Posted in st maarten news | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Latest Dutch St Maarten Government Covid 19 Update

Posted in st maarten judith roumou, st maarten news | Tagged | Leave a comment

Convicted Pedophile Sex Offender Eduard Braam Remains Curaçao MFK Parliamentarian.

Convicted Pedophile Sex Offender Eduard Braam Remains Curaçao MFK Parliamentarian.

Sex offense conviction remains registered for 80 years https://antilliaansdagblad.com/curacao/25155-eduard-braam-blijft-onbenoembaar

The Court of First Instance has established that Eduard Braam (Member of Parliament for MFK) was indeed convicted of a sex offense and was also sentenced for this in 2002.

And an imposed sentence for a sex crime, because of its seriousness, remains in the registers for 80 years.
The Court therefore headlines above a press release: Conviction for a crime precludes appointment as minister.”
By way of comparison, crimes with a legal term of less than 6 years in prison are removed from the criminal record 20 years after the final verdict, and crimes with a 6-year or longer sentence are 30 years.

In 2002 it was declared proven that Braam committed fornication in his capacity as a doctor with a female patient of 16 years who at the time had psychological problems. It was explained that he had “had some intense conversations with her because of these issues.” At the time, he abused his superiority and his responsibilities as a doctor and did not respect his limits. Braam was sentenced to one year in prison, of which six months were suspended. It was subsequently ruled on appeal that he had not previously been convicted and that he had already suffered social damage. As a result, no punishment or measure was ultimately imposed on him. However, the conviction stood.
The court answered the question whether not imposing a sentence or measure should also be seen as a non-conviction, which means that Braam would be ministerial according to the National Ordinance containing rules regarding the integrity of (candidate) ministers (Lvim). The answer is ‘no’: Conviction is understood to mean a decision (judgment) of a judge in which a suspect is found guilty of committing a criminal offence. The imposition of a penalty or measure does not determine whether there is a conviction. One of the purposes of imposing a sentence after a conviction is retaliation. Furthermore, a punishment must prevent the offender from committing the same mistake again. Which punishment serves that purpose depends, among other things, on the personal circumstances of the offender. There is nothing to indicate that conviction in the sense of the Lvim cannot be considered if no penalty or measure has been imposed. Plaintiff’s argument on this point finds no support in the law or in the literature. So there is a conviction.” The fact that the Court, unlike the first judge, did not impose a penalty on Braam was not prompted by the minor criminality of his conduct. On the contrary, the Court emphasizes the seriousness of that behavior and only waives the imposition of a penalty because, according to the Court, the plaintiff has already been confronted with far-reaching adverse consequences of his crime”, it is explained in more detail.
Braam has also been convicted in the Netherlands, but, as stated in yesterday’s verdict: Fornication is also regarded as a (sex) crime in the Curaçao Penal Code.”
And, it continues, the Lvim aims to protect the integrity of government administration in the interest of trust in the government and the Country. In that context, the legislator expects political office holders to be of impeccable conduct,” the verdict continued.
The court also states that there is no discrimination of any kind, as argued by Braam, because this impeccable behavior applies to anyone who would like to become a minister in Curaçao. And, according to the judge: In addition, the plaintiff is not hindered by his criminal history from participating in politics, supporting and advising the Prime Minister and making a contribution to society. He is a parliamentarian and represents the people in the States.”
Finally, Braam refers to the explanation of the concept for a ‘Draft National Ordinance guaranteeing the integrity of candidate ministers’. Contrary to the current national ordinance, this does provide a time limit with regard to a conviction for a crime, namely 10 years. The judge stated about this: At the hearing it appeared that the draft design has no formal status and the question is whether the draft design will come to a bill.” In addition, the court wonders whether a limitation in time in the case of a conviction in the draft, without making any distinction in the nature of the crime, does justice to the desired protection of the integrity of government administration.

Bertie Braam: Back to square one
Lawyer Bertie Braam, who acted for his brother in this case, extracts one passage from the judgment from which he concludes that he

Veroordeling zedenmisdrijf blijft 80 jaar geregistreerd

Van een onzer verslaggevers
Willemstad – Het Gerecht in eerste aanleg heeft vastgesteld dat Eduard Braam (Statenlid voor MFK) weldegelijk veroordeeld is voor een zedenmisdrijf en hier ook een straf voor opgelegd heeft gekregen in 2002.

En een opgelegde straf voor een zedenmisdrijf blijft, vanwege de ernst ervan, 80 jaar in de registers staan.
Het Hof kopt dan ook boven een persbericht: ,,Veroordeling wegens misdrijf staat benoeming tot minister in de weg.”
Ter vergelijking, misdrijven waarop volgens de wet minder dan 6 jaar gevangenisstraf staat worden 20 jaar na de einduitspraak van het strafblad verwijderd en misdrijven waarop 6 jaar of langer staat, 30 jaar.
In 2002 is bewezen verklaard dat Braam ontucht heeft gepleegd in zijn hoedanigheid als arts met een vrouwelijke patiënt van 16 jaar die toen psychische problemen had. Uitgelegd staat dat hij ‘met haar vanwege deze problemen een aantal intensieve gesprekken heeft gehad’. Hij heeft toentertijd misbruik gemaakt van zijn overwicht en zijn verantwoordelijkheid als arts en zijn grenzen niet in acht genomen. Braam werd veroordeeld tot een gevangenisstraf van een jaar waarvan een half jaar voorwaardelijk. In hoger beroep werd vervolgens geoordeeld dat hij niet eerder veroordeeld was en dat hij al maatschappelijke schade had geleden. Hierdoor werd hem uiteindelijk geen straf of maatregel opgelegd. De veroordeling bleef echter staan.
Het gerecht beantwoordt de vraag of het niet opleggen van een straf of maatregel ook gezien moet worden als een niet-veroordeling, waardoor Braam volgens de Landsverordening houdende regels betreffende de integriteit van (kandidaat)-ministers (Lvim) wel ministeriabel zou zijn. Het antwoord is ‘nee’: ,,Onder veroordeling wordt verstaan een uitspraak (oordeel) van een rechter waarin een verdachte schuldig wordt bevonden aan het plegen van een strafbaar feit. Het opleggen van een straf of maatregel is niet bepalend voor de vraag of sprake is van een veroordeling. Een van de doelen van het opleggen een straf na een veroordeling is vergelding. Voorts moet een straf voorkomen dat de dader nog een keer in de fout gaat. Welke straf dat doel dient, hangt onder meer af van de persoonlijke omstandigheden van de dader. Uit niets blijkt dat niet van veroordeling in de zin van de Lvim kan worden gesproken, indien geen straf of maatregel is opgelegd. Het betoog van eiser op dit punt vindt geen steun in de wet, noch in de literatuur. Er is dus sprake van een veroordeling.” Dat het Hof, anders dan de eerste rechter, Braam geen straf heeft opgelegd was niet ingegeven door de geringe strafwaardigheid van zijn gedraging. ,,Integendeel, het Hof benadrukt de ernst van die gedraging en ziet enkel af van het opleggen van een straf vanwege de omstandigheid dat eiser volgens het Hof zich al met vergaande nadelige consequenties van zijn misdrijf geconfronteerd heeft gezien”, zo wordt nader uitgelegd.
Braam is overigens in Nederland veroordeeld maar, zo staat in het vonnis van gisteren: ,, Ontucht wordt ook in het Curaçaose Wetboek van Strafrecht aangemerkt als (zeden)misdrijf.”
En, zo wordt vervolgd, met de Lvim wordt beoogd de integriteit van het overheidsbestuur te beschermen in het belang van het vertrouwen in de overheid en het Land. ,,Van politieke ambtsdragers wordt door de wetgever in dat kader verwacht dat zij van onbesproken gedrag zijn”, aldus het vonnis verder.
Het gerecht stelt ook dat hierbij geen sprake is van enige vorm van discriminatie, zoals door Braam aangevoerd, want dit onbesproken gedrag geldt voor iedereen die op Curaçao minister zou willen worden. En, zo stelt de rechter: ,,Daar komt bij dat eiser door zijn strafrechtelijk verleden niet wordt belemmerd om zich in te zetten voor de politiek, de minister-president te steunen en te adviseren en een bijdrage te leveren aan de maatschappij. Hij is parlementariër en vertegenwoordigt het volk in de Staten.”
Tot slot verwijst Braam nog naar de toelichting op het concept voor een ‘Ontwerp-Landsverordening waarborging integriteit kandidaat-ministers’. Hierin wordt, anders dan de huidige landsverordening, wel een limitering in tijd gegeven met betrekking tot een veroordeling voor een misdrijf, namelijk 10 jaar. Daarover stelt de rechter: ,,Ter zitting is gebleken dat het concept-ontwerp geen enkele formele status heeft en het is de vraag of het concept-ontwerp tot een wetsvoorstel komt.” Daar komt nog bij dat het gerecht zich afvraagt of een beperking in tijd bij een veroordeling in het ontwerp, zonder dat daarbij onderscheid gemaakt wordt in de aard van het misdrijf, recht doet aan de gewenste bescherming van de integriteit van het overheidsbestuur.

Bertie Braam: Terug bij af
Advocaat Bertie Braam die in deze zaak voor zijn broer heeft opgetreden haalt één passage uit het vonnis waaruit hij concludeert dat het hele vraagstuk weer terug bij af is. Want, zo legt de rechter in het vonnis uit, het is uiteindelijk in het kader van de trias politica niet aan de rechter om te oordelen of iemand als minister mag aantreden. Uiteindelijk is dat een politiek besluit. In de woorden van de rechter: ,,De toets of de uitkomst van de onderzoeken zich al dan niet met een voordracht verdraagt en voorts of sprake is van andere beletselen behoort tot het domein van de politieke besluitvorming. De rechter dient zich niet op dat terrein te begeven.” Tegelijkertijd voegt de rechter hier direct aan toe dat in het kader van de Lvim gronden zijn om Eduard Braam niet als minister van Justitie voor te dragen. Kortom, zo stelt de advocaat: ,,De rechter zegt, dat de politiek hem iets in de schoot werpt, dat hij direct weer terug werpt. Het is wat dat betreft gelijkspel. Het vraagstuk blijft zweven.”
Of Braam in hoger beroep gaat weet hij nog niet. Er zal intern beraad gevoerd worden, zowel privé als politiek. ,,Het zal dan ook weer een langdurige procedure zijn. Maar een oordeel van een Hof legt wat betreft jurisprudentie wel weer meer gewicht in de schaal dan dit vonnis”, aldus Bertie Braam.
Het MFK partijbestuur laat weten later met een reactie te komen. </section

Posted in Curaçao, st maarten news | Tagged | Leave a comment

Agreement on Kingdom Act St Maarten, Aruba, Curaçao And The Netherlands

Agreement on Kingdom Act

News item | 08-02-2022 | 9:00 am

https://www.stmaartennews.org

Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten and the Netherlands have reached an agreement on submitting the proposal for the Kingdom Act of the Caribbean Agency for Reform and Development (COHO). The Kingdom Act forms the foundation for a new form of multi-year cooperation between the countries in the Kingdom.

The economies of Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten have been severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Netherlands offered help in the fight against COVID-19 and also supported with food packages. In addition, EUR 1 billion in emergency aid in the form of liquidity loans was provided to support public finances in the event of a sudden cessation of economic activity.

As a condition for granting the liquidity loans, it has been agreed that the countries will accelerate reforms that will strengthen them. The countries adhere to that agreement. The aim is that the economy and society will be better able to cope with a crisis in the future, so that governments are able to offer new opportunities to residents and businesses. To support the countries in this, it has been agreed that an independent Caribbean Body for Reform and Development will be established.

In anticipation of the formal establishment of COHO, a country package has each been agreed with Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. The measures from the country packages are further elaborated per country in successive implementation agendas. In this way, every Caribbean country is able to take steps in a way that suits them. COHO will provide support and monitor the implementation of the topics described in the packages. These tasks are currently performed by the Temporary Work Organization (TWO).

The four countries reached a final agreement this week on the elaboration of the Kingdom Act. Changes compared to previous consultations include clearer agreements with the countries about the incorporation of the country packages in the various budgets. It has also been agreed that the objections that exist about the powers of the financial supervisors C(A)ft will be further elaborated in the implementation phase.

Agreements on the possible implications of the elaboration of the cooperation protocol between the C(A)ft and COHO, including the mutual tasks, roles and responsibilities, are also laid down. COHO and the C(A)ft will consult with the governments of the countries about the cooperation protocol before it can be established or amended.
Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten have drawn attention to a number of concerns regarding the enforceability of the law within the constitutional legal order. These points include guaranteeing policy space and autonomy of governments, the convergence between C(A)ft and COHO and the space for investment to be able to implement the reforms and accompanying policies. The Netherlands has promised to discuss this and make agreements.

The bill now goes to the States of the countries and the House of Representatives. Later in the process, the Senate will also consider it.

https://www.sxmgovernment.com

Council of State

Kingdom Act Caribbean Body for Reform and Development.

By Cabinet Missive of November 10, 2020, no.2020002307, Your Majesty, on the recommendation of the State Secretary for the Interior and Kingdom Relations, submitted to the Advisory Division of the Council of State of the Kingdom for consideration the proposal of a Kingdom Act containing rules regarding the establishment of the Caribbean Body for Reform and Development (State Act Caribbean Body for Reform and Development), with explanatory memorandum.

The proposed Kingdom Act seeks to establish the Caribbean Body for Reform and Development (COHO). The aim of COHO is to promote the implementation of administrative reforms in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten, the realization of sustainable public finances and the strengthening of the resilience of the economy, including its constitutional embedding.

The proposal that the Division was previously presented for advice only applied to Curaçao. In a letter dated November 18, 2020, the State Secretary for the Interior and Kingdom Relations informed the Department that agreement had also been reached with the government of Aruba about joining the proposal. In addition, the State Secretary has indicated which changes will be made to the proposal and the explanatory notes in connection with this. In a letter dated January 5, 2021, the State Secretary announced that Sint Maarten had also joined and what changes had been made to the proposal. In the absence of a consolidated text, the Division will take the proposal as presented on 10 November 2020 as a starting point.

At the request of the government of Curaçao, supported by Aruba and Sint Maarten, the government submitted a number of questions to the Department. These questions will not be answered individually, but will be discussed in the advice below.

The Advisory Division of the Council of State appreciates the intentions expressed in this proposal to provide aid and assistance to the Caribbean countries. It endorses the need, on the one hand, to provide support to the countries and, on the other, to initiate necessary reforms that should lead to improvements in public finances, the economic structure, education and the functioning of the administration.

The proposal does not only focus on the nature and scope of the reforms, but also indicates the powers and means with which the reforms are to be implemented. The Division does not consider the way in which this approach has been elaborated in the proposal appropriate. COHO’s positioning and package of tasks and its relationship with other actors lead to a lack of clarity about the division of responsibilities and powers between different actors. This weakens the countries’ own responsibility and thus their commitment.

The Division does not consider it advisable to compensate for the countries’ lack of implementation power by making COHO largely responsible for drawing up and implementing action plans. This does not strengthen the implementation power of the countries and makes phasing out the scheme more difficult. It must therefore be doubted whether, with the current set-up, it can reasonably be expected that a reform program will lead to successful results in the short and long term. Partly because of this, questions arise about the compatibility with the constitutional structure of the Kingdom laid down, among other things, in the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands (hereinafter: the Charter), in which the autonomy and individual responsibility of the countries are important starting points.

On the basis of the information given in this advice, the Division is therefore of the opinion that the Kingdom Act proposal is inadequate. It concludes that the proposal should be further considered.

  1. Content of the proposal and reading guide

a. Content of the proposal
Since April 2020, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten have received liquidity support from the Netherlands to limit the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic for the population, business and employment in those countries. Since May 2020, this liquidity support, in the form of loans to the Caribbean countries, has been linked to conditions, the aim of which is to increase the countries’ financial and economic resilience. (see note 1)

For the provision of the third and subsequent tranches of liquidity support to Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten, the Kingdom Council of Ministers has made it a condition, among other things, that the countries agree to the Kingdom Act on the Caribbean Body for Reform and Development (State Act COHO), which proposal is now advice is presented. (see note 2)

The proposal aims at the establishment of COHO. The COHO aims to promote the implementation of administrative reforms in Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten, the realization of sustainable public finances and the strengthening of the resilience of the economy, including its constitutional embedding. (see note 3) The reforms to achieve these goals are laid down in so-called country packages. These country packages are individually agreed upon by the Netherlands and the three Caribbean countries as mutual arrangements on the basis of Article 38, paragraph 1, of the Charter. In the country packages, the subjects, projects, programs and measures with which those goals are to be achieved are broadly formulated. (see note 4) The country packages are then elaborated into an implementation agenda by COHO and the Ministers of General Affairs of the country concerned. (see note 5) In the end, this will often result in concrete plans of approach, to be drawn up by COHO. (see note 6)

The proposal assigns four tasks to COHO. (see note 7) The first task is to support and monitor the development and implementation of projects, programs and measures by government bodies and public enterprises of the countries. The second task of COHO is to initiate and promote projects and programs related to the subjects defined in a country package. Third, COHO provides grants upon request to citizens and private legal entities, including public enterprises, and COHO itself may participate in the equity capital in private legal entities, including public enterprises. Finally, it is COHO’s task to institute, if appropriate, enhanced financial supervision of part or all of the expenditure of the country concerned.

The proposal assigns various powers to COHO to carry out these tasks. For example, COHO can demand data and intelligence from government bodies and companies. (see note 8) It can provide financial resources, expertise and implementation capacity and screen governments and public companies. (see note 9) In addition, COHO may develop and manage projects and commission the provision of goods or services, as well as participate in equity capital. (see note 10)

If COHO is of the opinion that insufficient cooperation is being given to the reform measures, COHO may suspend support. (see note 11) It can also advise the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom to use a supervisory instrument – provided for in the Charter – if measures are not sufficiently implemented. (see note 12) In addition, it will be empowered to institute enhanced financial supervision in agreement with the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom if a country does not make sufficient efforts to comply with obligations under the COHO Kingdom Act, or the Curaçao and Sint Maarten Financial Supervision Act. to comply with the Aruba Financial Supervision Act (R(A)ft) respectively. (see note 13)

The Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations is empowered to issue instructions to COHO with regard to an action plan for the development and implementation of a project, program or measure by government bodies and with regard to initiating, promoting and executing projects. (see note 14) In addition, the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations can, on his own initiative, institute stricter financial supervision on part or all of the expenditure of one of the countries if this is required in an important interest. (see note 15)

b. Reading guide
In the following, the Division discusses the effectiveness of the proposal (point 2). The relationship between COHO and existing institutions (national administration, C(A)ft, Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations) is central here. The Division also discusses the need to arrive at clear conditions for the expiry of the Consensus Act. The Division then discusses the relationship between this proposal, taking into account the problems of effectiveness and proportionality, and the Statute (point 3). Thereafter, the Section discusses which elements are necessary for a credible and feasible approach to the necessary reforms (point 4). Finally, the Division makes a comment about the unclear legal framework regarding data processing (point 5).

  1. Effectiveness

a. Introduction
The Division appreciates the intentions expressed in this proposal to provide aid and assistance to the Caribbean countries. This fulfills Article 36 of the Charter. The Department endorses the need on the one hand to provide support to the countries and, on the other hand, to initiate necessary reforms that should lead to improvements in public finances, the economic structure, education and the functioning of the administration. The Division also appreciates the positive fact that the proposal not only provides for the identification and prescription of reforms deemed necessary, but is also aimed at actually providing support to the countries in achieving them. Furthermore, the Division considers it appropriate in itself that the framework for this is laid down in consensus national legislation on the basis of Article 38, second paragraph, of the Statute. This expresses the fact that the Netherlands, Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten endorse the desire and necessity to bring about reforms and to work together to that end.

The Division considers it self-evident that the liquidity support is linked to a reform programme. Financial support subject to conditions is in line with the international practice of, for example, the IMF and the European Union (see note 16), which is also characterized by lending under (strict) conditions, including the structural adjustment facilities aimed at structural reforms. The Division notes, however, that it is unclear which money flows will go through the COHO and which will take place directly between the Netherlands and the country concerned. It is also not clear to what extent there will be loans or gifts.

The proposal focuses not only on the nature and scope of the reforms, but also sets out the path with the powers and means through which the reforms are to be implemented. On this point, the proposal encounters several objections that could seriously undermine the effectiveness of the proposal. The Division notes the following in this regard.

b. Relationship between COHO and government
It is customary for countries to provide financial support with conditions, not only with a view to the proper use of the resources involved, but also with a view to achieving certain policy goals, such as improving public finances and strengthening the economic structure. In addition, forms of monitoring are usually also provided for. If the pre-agreed conditions are met, the country will receive the promised financial support.

In that usual approach, the conditions attached to the aid affect decision-making in the country concerned. After all, that decision-making is framed by the conditions that have been set. However, this does not interfere with domestic (constitutional) relationships. In other words, the granting of aid has no formal consequences for the tasks and powers of the domestic institutions concerned. This method has also been followed in the aid granted to countries of the Kingdom at various times to date. A recent example of this is the Growth Agreement with Curaçao in 2019.

A different approach has been chosen for the present proposal. The basis for the measures to be taken is formed by the so-called country packages. (see note 17) These country packages are still not very concrete in terms of the goals to be achieved. The country packages are then elaborated into an implementation agenda by COHO and the Ministers of General Affairs of the countries. (see note 18) This will ultimately often result in concrete plans of approach, to be drawn up and, in a number of cases, also implemented by COHO. (see note 19)

This means that aid provision is not based on a clear plan on which aid recipient countries are assessed. To that extent, there is an open commitment, whereby there is insufficient clarity beforehand as to what conditions are set for the granting of support. This carries the risk that countries will feel less responsible for meeting the conditions, which will lead to less achievement of the intended goals, or that new conditions will be imposed during the reform process in order to actually obtain the promised aid.

That risk is amplified by the combination of tasks assigned to COHO. (see note 20) The Division notes that COHO’s tasks go further than supporting and supervising the implementation of the country packages by the country governments. COHO’s powers also go beyond what is necessary for the performance of those tasks. For example, COHO has the task of establishing an implementation agenda with the national government. (see note 21)

It is then unclear whether the national government is still independently authorized to adopt such an agenda. In addition, COHO has the task of initiating, promoting and implementing projects and programs and can draw up action plans for this. Furthermore, COHO has the power to order the supply of goods or services and to participate in share capital, without the government concerned having control over this or having the means to prevent it. (see note 22) This also applies to granting and granting subsidies to citizens and participations in legal entities, even in the case of public companies. (see note 23)

In addition, COHO can cooperate with institutions and bodies of institutions of the European Union and other organizations under international law and with institutions and bodies of institutions of the Netherlands and other countries within the Kingdom with a development, financing, supervision or general administrative task. Where appropriate, COHO will draw up a cooperation protocol with the institution or organization concerned. In the alternative set-up that the Division outlines in point 4, in which more responsibility is left to the countries, it is obvious that they too could enter into such cooperation.

COHO thus has far-reaching powers that also belong to the national government. Thus competing responsibilities and powers arise. When it comes to drawing up the implementation agenda, a joint responsibility arises.

With the structure chosen in the proposal, it is not sufficiently clear who is responsible for what. After all, both COHO and the national government are responsible and competent. The Division considers this to be problematic: COHO and the national government can thus get in each other’s way, but a situation can also arise in which COHO and the national government start pointing at each other. This is all the more pressing now that COHO and the national government have to be accountable to various bodies. (see note 24) Moreover, a consequence of this design may be that the national government will experience less ‘ownership’, will feel less responsible for the implementation of the national package and will refer or refer to COHO in the event of any problems. That chance is further increased now that the countries have little influence on the composition of the COHO board.

These ambiguities and risks are not removed by the provision that, in the performance of its duties, COHO cannot exercise powers that are vested in a government body under the national law of a country. (see note 25) The Division understands the intent of this regulation, but notes that it increases the lack of clarity identified above rather than removes it. After all, when it comes to powers relating to the realization of administrative or economic reforms, these are simply vested in (organs of) the land administration.

From this point of view, Article 4, second paragraph, means that COHO does not have any powers. This raises the question of when powers are vested in a government body. This uncertainty is certainly present where COHO’s powers are concerned with subsidies and participations. A strict interpretation of this paragraph could mean that various powers that the proposal confers on COHO cannot be exercised by COHO at all. A flexible interpretation would quickly mean that Article 4, second paragraph, does not preclude the exercise of the powers given in the proposal, but that this paragraph then has no real meaning.

c. Relation to R(A)ft
One of the tasks assigned to COHO in the proposal is to institute stricter financial supervision of one of the countries, in agreement with the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom. This authority of COHO does not only apply if a country does not make sufficient efforts to comply with the obligations imposed on the country concerned by or pursuant to the proposed Kingdom Act, but also if, in the opinion of COHO, the country makes insufficient efforts to to fulfill the obligation under or pursuant to the R(A)ft. (see note 26) The enhanced supervision is exercised by the C(A)ft. If a compelling interest so requires, the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, in agreement with the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom and after the COHO and the Financial Supervision Board have been heard, may

In the R(A)ft, financial supervision is regulated by the Kingdom Council of Ministers on Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. The obligations for the countries are laid down in those Kingdom Acts. It also provides that the C(A)ft monitors compliance with obligations arising from the R(A)ft, applying the rules set by the R(A)ft for this purpose. (see note 27) One of the tasks of the C(A)ft is to assess whether a country is making sufficient efforts to comply with the obligations imposed by or pursuant to the R(A)ft. This raises the question of why it is necessary that COHO also has the power to assess whether the countries are making sufficient effort to fulfill their obligations under or under the R(A)ft. After all, the consequence of this is that two bodies supervise compliance with the standards in the R(A)ft,

In this regard, the Division further points out that assigning the same task to two bodies entails the risk of ambiguity and divergent judgments. It is unclear how the intensified supervision under the proposal and the issuing of an instruction under the R(A)ft relate to each other. Moreover, the independent position of the C(A)ft anchored in Article 7 R(A)ft and the division of responsibility as laid down in the R(A)ft with regard to the supervision of compliance with the budgetary standards.

These consequences are reinforced by the possibility for the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations to institute stricter supervision in agreement with the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom. After all, in the R(A)ft it is up to the C(A)ft to assess whether there is a situation in which there is reason to issue an instruction and it is then up to the RMR to decide on the basis of an advice from the C(A)ft to decide to issue an instruction. These powers for the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations interfere with the powers of the C(A)ft laid down in the R(A)ft.

Tightened financial supervision leads to an approval regime for all or part of the expenditure incurred by a country. (see note 28) According to the proposal, this approval regime does not have to be limited to expenditure incurred in the context of the implementation of the country packages, but can extend to all expenditure of a country. Moreover, the approval regime goes much further than the budget supervision regulated in the R(A)ft and relates to intended expenditure. On the basis of the R(A)ft, the C(A)ft only monitors the balance of government finances and thus allows the governments of the countries to choose which expenditure or income measures are taken.

Finally, the Division points out that countries will have to report to two authorities on virtually the same subject. In the view of the Division, this lays too heavy a claim on the countries’ already limited implementation capacity.

The Division can imagine that it must be possible to take measures if problems arise during the implementation of the country packages. It is then obvious that COHO takes such measures. If there were separate grounds for the desire to increase the effectiveness of the R(A)ft, provisions should be made for this purpose in the R(A)ft itself, instead of mixing the two tracks currently proposed. .

d. Relationship COHO – Minister of BZK and government
According to the proposal, COHO appears to carry out its tasks with a high degree of independence. Large parts of the Framework Act for Independent Administrative Bodies have been declared applicable. (see note 29) This does not alter the fact that the proposal gives the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations the authority on a number of important points to give instructions or to limit or flesh out COHO’s powers. For example, the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations can determine how financial resources made available to COHO should be spent by COHO (see note 30) and the provision of resources can also be stopped or suspended if – in short – the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations considers that the country concerned is making too little progress. (see note 31)

Furthermore, the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations can, within the outlines described in a national package, after consultation with the relevant Ministers, give COHO an instruction regarding an action plan for the development and implementation of a project, program or measure by government bodies. , as well as provide guidance with regard to initiating, promoting and executing projects. (see note 32)

The above shows that COHO functions to a significant extent under the direction of the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations. There are two restrictions in this regard: an obligation to consult with the relevant minister(s) of the country concerned, and the requirement that the minister must remain within the broad outlines described in a national package. The Department notes the following in this regard.

Although the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations has an obligation to consult with the minister(s) concerned, he is not required to reach an agreement.

With regard to the country packages, it should be noted that they contain few or no concrete measures as yet. Nor are concrete objectives, for example in the area of ​​public finances, included. This means that the condition that the minister must remain within the outlines described in a national package also has little normative effect.

The foregoing means that the powers of the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations are hardly limited. They cover the entire range of drawing up plans of approach, drafting, initiating and implementing projects, programs and measures, as well as their financing. This places the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations not only above COHO, but also above the national administration of the country concerned. (see note 33) The powers assigned to the minister thus infringe the responsibilities and problem ownership of the countries.

e. Phasing out of the scheme
In principle, the law expires after 6 years. At the request of the Netherlands or one of the countries, this term can be extended by 2 years each time. (see note 34) The Netherlands and the countries can also agree that the law will expire earlier. However, neither the bill nor the explanatory memorandum address the question under which circumstances and on the basis of which facts an extension or early termination could be appropriate. This is relevant because the relationship between the Netherlands and the other countries was not always equally good during the preparation of this Bill of Rights and there seems to be a distrustful attitude on both sides. In such a situation it is all the more important to be clear on the grounds on which it will be decided that the objective of the proposal, namely to carry out reforms,

This question arises with this proposal because it differs from previous partnerships between the Caribbean countries and the Netherlands. (see note 35) In those cases, all responsibilities remained with the (national) government. In the proposal, however, a number of responsibilities are shifted to COHO and it must therefore be clear at what time these will be transferred back to the (national) government. (see note 36) Before this can be done, sufficiently concrete and tangible results must have been achieved. It is particularly important here that the living environment of the population of the three countries is structurally improved.

f. Conclusion
In the light of the foregoing, the Division considers the proposal in this form problematic. COHO’s positioning and package of tasks and its relationship with other actors lead to a lack of clarity about the division of responsibilities and powers between different actors. The Division does not consider it advisable to compensate for the countries’ lack of implementation power by making COHO (jointly) responsible for drawing up and implementing action plans. This does not strengthen the implementation power of the countries, weakens their commitment and personal responsibility and makes it more difficult to phase out the scheme. It must therefore be doubted whether it can reasonably be expected that a reform program will lead to success in the short and long term with the current set-up.

In the light of these comments, the Division recommends reconsidering the chosen set-up.

  1. Relationship with the Staff Regulations

a. T er introduction
The Charter prescribes ‘mutual consultation’ when it comes to a Consensus Kingdom Act. (see note 37) The Division notes that these consultations have taken place and that the governments of Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten have agreed to submit this proposal to the Division. The Division therefore assesses the proposal as it was presented to it, namely as a consensus law.

b. Statutory principles
As can be seen from the foregoing, the approach chosen by the government poses risks to the effectiveness of the reforms. This is partly due to the fact that the national institutions themselves bear only a limited degree of responsibility for carrying out the reforms. The powers of COHO overlap with the powers of the national governments. This undermines the effectiveness of the approach. In addition, COHO is largely under the direction of the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, who in a certain sense will be placed above the governments of the countries.

The above aspects are also relevant from the point of view of the Staff Regulations. The fact that in this specific case there is a consensus Act, and thus a political compromise, does not affect the principles underlying the constitutional structure of the Kingdom. The principle of the autonomy of the countries and in particular the restraint that the Kingdom government and the Netherlands as the largest country must exercise in limiting the countries’ own responsibility is an important factor in this regard (see note 38).

In that light, the Division notes that it is insufficiently clear from the explanation why the limitations of that individual responsibility, as is now provided for, and the far-reaching influence of the Minister of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, are necessary and proportional in the light of the principles of the Statute. The Department’s earlier observation is important in this regard that the powers of COHO go beyond what is necessary for the performance of its tasks.

The Division recommends further consideration of the bill on this point.

c. Binding to international economic and financial agreements
As described above, COHO may cooperate with institutions and bodies of institutions of the European Union and other organizations under international law. It does not appear from the proposal that any consultation with the country concerned will take place in this regard prior to the decision to enter into such cooperation. The Department realizes that, formally speaking, it is COHO, and not the country involved, that makes these agreements. In view of the tasks of COHO, however, it is obvious that the country concerned is also actually bound by these agreements. It is not clear from the explanation how this relates to the fact that the Caribbean countries can declare that they do not wish to be bound by an international economic and financial agreement. (see note 39)

The Division recommends that the above be discussed in the explanatory notes.

d. Powers of the governors
On the basis of the bill, COHO can in certain cases advise the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom to make a provision by virtue of the Charter. (see note 40) The explanatory statement rightly states that this proposal does not interfere with the powers of the governor on this point. After all, the governors have independent powers in the context of their task of supervising, among other things, compliance with Kingdom Acts, including a Kingdom Act such as a proposal to that effect. (see note 41) Given that the Governor will therefore also have to monitor compliance with this law, the powers of the Governor and COHO may overlap in this regard.

As noted above about the relationship between the C(A)ft and the COHO, such an overlap of powers entails the risk of ambiguities, overlapping powers and divergent judgments. In concrete terms, this can mean, for example, that the Governor adopts a national ordinance or national decree, and therefore does not use his authority not to adopt it because of conflict with higher law, while the COHO sees this national legislation as a reason to grant a provision by virtue of the Charter. to request.

The Division recommends that further attention be paid to this in the explanatory notes and that the proposal be amended if necessary.

  1. What is the need for?

The points above discussed bottlenecks and possible undesirable consequences of the currently proposed approach that entail risks for its effectiveness. This raises the question of a different approach, which has less such risks, which could be a better approach. Below, the Department provides some information in this regard and outlines some contours.

a. Credible, feasible and flexible
It is a great advantage that the three goals (administrative reforms, sustainable public finances and strengthening the resilience of the economy) are pursued in conjunction with the proposal. At the same time, it must be recognized that these goals can be at odds with each other and can (temporarily) frustrate each other. For example, strengthening economic resilience and implementing reforms, certainly in the shorter term, can lead to tension with the objective of achieving sustainable and sustainable public finances. Measurement and coordination are therefore necessary to arrive at a balanced approach. This requires flexibility.

The Division notes in this regard that the proposal does not provide for an adjustment of the budget standards in the Rft. (see note 42) This raises the question of whether sufficient flexibility has been built into the law to arrive at the required dimensions in practice. The Division deems it desirable from this point of view to consider all of the measures that will apply (in any case the liquidity support, the R(A)ft and the present proposal).

b. Ownership
Furthermore, the Division considers ‘ownership’ and commitment of the countries to be crucial for the success of this approach. This is the only way to achieve fruitful cooperation and achieve sustainable results that will last even after the program has ended. In recent decades, the implementation power has been problematic in the implementation of the various measures.

As discussed above, the Division does not consider it useful to try to compensate for this lack of implementation power by making COHO (partly) responsible for drawing up and implementing action plans. This does not strengthen the implementation power of the countries. The responsibility for drawing up and implementing their own action plans should lie with the countries themselves. This does justice to the individual responsibility of the countries. This is also in line with the practice and experiences of international organizations such as the IMF and the European Union’s recovery instrument set up in connection with the corona crisis. Strengthening the implementation power of the countries themselves is one of the main goals of the measures to be taken,

This does not alter the fact that COHO has an important role to play in strengthening the administrative power of the Caribbean countries. It is therefore important that COHO can support the country governments in drawing up projects, programs and measures and in implementing the projects, programs and measures agreed by the countries. At the same time, this will require countries to be open to COHO’s proposals and, where possible, to make the requested and necessary efforts to implement the necessary reforms and strengthen governance. This may also be asked of the countries where the financial resources for the projects concerned are also supplied via COHO.

Only if COHO can fulfill its important role and the Caribbean countries accept that role will a fruitful cooperation between COHO and the national governments be possible. Linking liquidity support and support in tranches to achieving the objectives to be achieved is an important incentive to actually achieve those objectives. If the implementation of projects, programs or measures is insufficient, COHO may suspend support. (see note 43) In the unlikely event that this does not lead to the intended results and it turns out that, despite this support and the appropriate use of the power to suspend, insufficient progress is made to increase the administrative power and to fulfill the responsibilities independently in the long run, ultimately more compelling measures, whether initiated by COHO or not, are unavoidable. (see note 44)

In view of this, the Division considers it appropriate that the following tasks be assigned to COHO:
a) Approve the implementation agenda and the plans of approach of the countries for the implementation of projects, programs or measures, with clear performance requirements to which the availability of financial resources are linked over time;
b) Monitoring the progress of implementation by the countries;
c) Technical and other assistance support, for which COHO has its own budget;
d) Supervising the achievement of performance requirements, enabling the provision of financial resources.

In this context, the composition and appointment of the COHO board also deserves attention. In view of the role of the Netherlands and the role of COHO, a heavy Dutch stamp on COHO is understandable. However, support, ownership and commitment from the countries as well as insight into the local situation can be increased by representation in the board of COHO that finds support among the Caribbean countries. The importance of support from the countries increases as the tasks of COHO overlap more with tasks that also belong to the national governments. Under the proposed regulation, one of the members of COHO will require demonstrable affinity with the Caribbean part of the Kingdom. The question is whether this sufficiently ensures the necessary support from the Caribbean countries.

c. Clear frameworks
Support in the manner outlined is, of course, not without obligation. It goes without saying that conditions are attached to (financial) support and that compliance with those conditions and the (progress of) implementation of the measures to be taken are closely monitored. In this respect, COHO has an important role to play in monitoring the progress of the plans and programmes, providing support in the form of technical assistance and releasing financial resources as the action plans are implemented.

But that does require a clear approach. The Section points to the practice in IMF credit programs as well as in the context of the European Union (see note 45) where extra financial support is linked to pre-agreed performance indicators. It must be prevented that countries have to focus on moving targets in order to obtain support and financial support. This risk is high with the approach now followed, in which the measures in the country packages are formulated in a very open manner and COHO has a lot of room to flesh out the details. This is further enhanced by the intervention options of the Minister of the Interior (whether or not in response to reactions from the States General).

With an approach as outlined above, the concurrence between the proposal and the R(A)ft, between COHO and Cft, as outlined in point 3b, can be avoided in a simple manner. COHO can then focus on monitoring and support through technical assistance and release of funding as action plans are implemented. The C(A)ft continues to focus on maintaining a balanced budget.

d. The importance of differentiation
The proposal concerns all three Caribbean countries of the Kingdom. Each of these countries has its own history and its own administrative culture. There are also differences with regard to, for example, the implementation capacity and reforms that have already been implemented, for example in response to the Growth Agreement (Curaçao), protocols on financial supervision (Aruba), liquidity support after Hurricane Irma (Sint Maarten) and the experiences with the reconstruction facility established in cooperation with the World Bank. The challenges are partly the same, but it is important to recognize that the reform agenda is different for each of the three countries. COHO will therefore have to be enabled to differentiate in the performance of its tasks.

As explained above, the submitted proposal only applies to Curaçao. No attention has been paid to the foregoing in the explanation. In the letter about the expansion to Aruba it is stated on this point that the backgrounds differ per country and that the explanation on this point will be supplemented, but that these adjustments will be minimal because the differentiation will mainly be discussed in the various country packages. This point is not mentioned at all in the letter about the connection of Sint Maarten. The Division considers it insufficient that the necessary differentiation is only considered fundamentally in the national packages.

  1. Data Protection

Under the bill, all government bodies and public enterprises are obliged to provide, upon request, data and information that COHO needs to carry out its duties. (see note 46) It is not clear from the explanation whether this also concerns personal data. If this is the case, the processing of these personal data by COHO is subject to the GDPR. After all, it is established in the European part of the Netherlands and has legal personality under Dutch law.

In that light, the Division notes that provisions on data processing, including the appointment of a controller, are missing in the proposal. In addition, the explanation does not discuss the possible transfer of personal data by COHO to the Caribbean countries. If this is the case, the GDPR regime for transfers to third countries applies. (see note 47)

Since the European Commission has not taken an adequacy decision with regard to the Caribbean countries of the Kingdom, and the government has indicated that it cannot simply be assumed that such a level of protection can be offered in the Caribbean countries, the controller must provide appropriate safeguards. (see note 48) This requires data subjects to have enforceable rights and effective means.

The Division recommends discussing the processing and transfer of personal data in the explanation and adjusting the proposal where necessary.

  1. Conclusion

The Department endorses the chosen approach of linking aid to the Caribbean countries with a reform program to make the economies and public finances of the countries sound, strengthen public administration and improve the conditions of the populations of Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten. .

However, the Division does not consider the way in which this approach has been elaborated in the proposal appropriate. COHO’s positioning and package of tasks and its relationship with other actors lead to a lack of clarity about the division of responsibilities and powers between different actors.

The Division does not consider it advisable to compensate for the countries’ lack of implementation power by making COHO (jointly) responsible for drawing up and implementing action plans. This will not strengthen the implementation power of the countries, affect their own responsibility and ownership and make it more difficult to phase out the scheme.

It must therefore be doubted whether, with the current set-up, it can reasonably be expected that a reform program will lead to successful results in the short and long term. Partly because of this, questions also arise about the compatibility with the constitutional structure of the Kingdom laid down in, among other things, the Charter, in which the autonomy and individual responsibility of the countries are important starting points.

On the basis of the information given in this advice, the Division is therefore of the opinion that the Kingdom Act proposal is inadequate. It concludes that the bill must be reconsidered and therefore cannot be submitted in this form to the parliaments of the countries of the Kingdom.

The Advisory Division of the Council of State of the Kingdom has a number of comments on the draft Kingdom Act and advises not to submit the draft Kingdom Act to the House of Representatives of the States General, the States of Aruba, that of Curaçao and of Sint Maarten, unless it is modified.

The Vice-President of the Council of State of the Kingdom

Annex I: questions from Curaçao

The general question included in the request for advice has been further elaborated in the following specific questions:

  1. Is Article 2, fourth paragraph, read in conjunction with Articles 22 and 23 of the Framework Act for Independent Administrative Bodies, and the lack of involvement on the part of Curaçao in that decision-making, with Article 37 and Article 38 of the Charter?
  2. Is the composition and manner of appointment of the members of the Body as referred to in Article 7(1) in line with Articles 37 and 38 of the Statute?
  3. Is Article 6 of the proposal related to Articles 24 to 28 of the Statute for the Kingdom?
  4. Is Article 17, second paragraph, related to the budget law of the States of Curaçao with regard to the expenditure of liquidity support, referred to in Article 17, first paragraph, under b?
  5. Is the lack of involvement on the part of Curaçao in the decision-making, as referred to in Article 22 and Article 27, related to Article 28 of the Constitution of Curaçao and in particular the third paragraph thereof (ministerial responsibility)?
  6. Is the lack of provisions for the independent review of the decisions referred to in Article 17(4) and (5) and Article 23 in accordance with the principles of corporate governance as referred to in Article 43 of the Charter?
  7. Do Article 4, first paragraph, under d, Article 24 and Article 33 of the proposal relate to the legal order for the Kingdom provided for:
    a) Articles 50 and 51 of the Statute, in particular with regard to the granting of the authority rather than the Kingdom Government to decide on the use of an instrument of higher supervision; and
    b. Articles 15, paragraph 1, 20 and 21 of the Regulations for the Governor.
  8. Relationship:
    a. Article 33, first paragraph, with regard to non-compliance with obligations under the Financial Supervision Act as a basis for considering the introduction of stricter financial supervision, and
    b. the designation of Article 41, second paragraph, of the proposal as a lex specialis (see explanatory memorandum) in relation to the Financial Supervision Act, is based on the principle of consensus on a mutual arrangement as referred to in Article 38 of the Charter that is the basis is it due to the realization of the Kingdom Act on financial supervision? Is it advisable to apply Article 4, second paragraph, of the Financial Supervision Act instead of including Article 41 in the Kingdom Act proposal? As a result, a special instruction can be given to the Financial Supervision Board to hear the Body when assessing an application for a loan as referred to in Article 16 of the Financial Supervision Act.

Footnotes

(1) Parliamentary Papers II 2019/20, 35420, no. 12, no. 18 and no. 34.
(2) Parliamentary Papers II 2019/29, 35420, no. 37.
(3) Proposed Article 3.
(4) Proposed Article 5.
(5) Proposed Article 6.
(6) Proposed Article 22.
(7) Proposed Article 4.
(8) Proposed Article 20.
(9) Proposed Article 21.
(10) Proposed Article 26.
(11) Proposed Articles 24 and 40.
(12) Proposed Article 25.
(13) This enhanced supervision means that part or all of the expenditure of the country must be approved by the Cft. The Cft may withhold approval of a publication due to conflict with the law or the public interest: proposed article 35, first paragraph, and 36.
(14) Proposed Articles 23 and 28.
(15) Proposed Article 35, second paragraph,
(16) Reference should be made to the recovery instrument (Next Generation EU), which is included in the Own Resources Decree (see Parliamentary Papers II 2020/21, 35711 ).
(17) Article 5, first paragraph.
(18) Proposed Article 6.
(19) Proposed Article 22.
(20) See point 1 for an overview of these tasks.
(21) Article 6.
(22) Articles 4(1)(b) and 26.
(23) This may concern, for example, the establishment of basic facilities such as schools, hospitals and similar (public) facilities.
(24) The Court of Audit has pointed out in this regard that the proposal is also insufficiently clear about the origin of the funds made available to COHO and has drawn attention to the design of accountability for and supervision of management. by the COHO of the resources where they are provided to the COHO from the Dutch national budget. Letter of the Court of Audit to the State Secretary for the Interior and Kingdom Relations, concerning COHO; consultation pursuant to Article 7.40 Accounts Payable Act 2016, 2 February 2021.
(25) Article 4, second paragraph.
(26) Article 4, first paragraph, under d, and 35.
(27) Article 4, first paragraph, of the Rft and Article 2, first paragraph, of the RAft.
(28) Article 36.
(29) Article 2, fourth paragraph.
(30) Article 18, second paragraph.
(31) Article 18, paragraphs 4 and 5.
(32) Articles 23 and 28.
(33) See also what the Division noted above under a.
(34) Proposed Article 45.
(35) Fondo Desarollo Aruba, Netherlands Antilles Development Foundation and the Groeik Agreement with Curaçao.
(36) In this regard, the Court of Audit has pointed out that the proposal must also clarify what will happen to any shares, remaining funds and outstanding loans or advances after the closure of COHO.
(37) Article 38(2) of the Statute.
(38) See, inter alia, Article 41 of the Staff Regulations. The restraint that the Kingdom must exercise was previously discussed in the Decree of November 24, 2020 on the appeal of the Council of Ministers of Curaçao against the Decree of July 12, 2019, containing an instruction to the board of Curaçao to adjust of the 2019 budget, taking into account the standards referred to in Article 15 of the Financial Supervision Act for Curaçao and Sint Maarten, point 2.1 (Stb. 2020, 537) and in the Information of 17 September 2015 of the Department about giving instructions to the Governors of the countries in the Caribbean part of the Kingdom, item 1b (W04.15.0112/I/Vo).
(39) Article 25(1) of the Staff Regulations. It appears from Article 24, first paragraph, that this not only concerns agreements with other powers, but also agreements with international organisations.
(40) This includes, in particular, substitution and destruction powers under Articles 50 and 51 of the Staff Regulations.
(41) Article 20 ff of the Regulations for the Governor of Curaçao, the Regulations for the Governor of Aruba and the Regulations for the Governor of Sint Maarten.
(42) With regard to the RAft, the Division refers to the advice also issued today in the proposal of the Kingdom Act on this matter (W04.20.0423/I/K).
(43) Article 24 of the proposal.
(44) This is the case, for example, if the soundness of the administration can no longer be guaranteed, or if the present Kingdom Act is not or not sufficiently complied with. The Staff Regulations provide for various instruments in such cases. See also Article 25 of the proposal regarding the possibility for COHO to advise the RMR on making a provision under the Statute.
(45) Reference should be made to the recovery instrument (Next Generation EU), which is included in the Own Resources Decree (see Parliamentary Papers II 2020/21, 35711).
(46) Article 20 of the draft Kingdom Act.
(47) Chapter V GDPR.
(48) Letter from the Minister for Legal Protection of 13 March 2020, Parliamentary Papers II 2019/20, 32761, 161, p. 2.

Posted in COHO BZK, Curaçao, st maarten news | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Another Covid-19 Death Dutch St Maarten Government

Another Covid-19 Death Dutch St Maarten Government

Posted in COVID 19 Corona Virus St Maarten, Covid 19 St Maarten Sint Maarten Saint Martin Latest News Update, Covid 19 Travel Restrictions | Leave a comment

President St. Maarten bankers association addresses concerns about opening bank accounts

President St. Maarten bankers association addresses concerns about opening bank accounts

Sxm Government News Latest

Blaming banks solely for delays ‘unfair’

PHILIPSBURG – Applicants not always having all the required documentation at hand and having to go to multiple departments to obtain them and, in the past two years, staffing challenges due to COVID-19 are amongst the issues that contribute to the time it takes to open a bank account, says Windward Islands Bank General Managing Director Derek Downes, who is also President of St. Maarten Bankers Association.

Banks have come in for some amount of criticism in recent years over what some consider the lengthy time it takes to open an account and what is viewed as extensive documentation requirements.

https://www.stmaartennews.org

The Saint Maarten newspaper Daily Herald approached Downes to shed light on the matter. He said putting the length of the process solely on the shoulders of the bank is unfair. He made clear that the processes in which the bank engages to open an account are based on its interpretation of the requirements to satisfy the law coupled with due diligence best practices, as well as based on the Central Bank for Curaçao and St. Maarten (CBCS) guidelines, which guide banks on how to satisfy the law.

Not lengthy

Downes does not find the process to be lengthy when it concerns opening a personal account. He said personal accounts are easy to open. Once you have basic items – proof of address, valid identification and proof of income, the process is relatively quick.

“They are open in 24 hours. We give the client the account number right away. What makes it lengthy is, in a number of cases, clients don’t have the documentation or they do not have all the documentation that they need and in some cases do not want to provide the documentation,” explained Downes.

The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic might result in some delays, but this is the case at many establishments.

“We have to also take into consideration that we are in a pandemic and the pandemic has affected everyone. It has also affected WIB and banks – everyone.

“This means that you don’t have your full staff on hand at all times, as people are out –whether with COVID, whether in quarantine or due to contact-tracing. Simply because of that fact, banks are taking a little longer. All banks, including WIB, have implemented reduced opening hours because of the high number of positive COVID cases and reduced hours mean less time to work on requests,” he said.

Documentation, due diligence

Unlike personal accounts, when it comes to business accounts, the process is more lengthy, as banks have to conduct the necessary due diligence and if the applicant does not have all the required documentation, it can take time.

“What I know contributes to the delay is that customers don’t always have all the information that they need. They take time to get the information and what is frustrating for customers is that some of the information that they need for the bank they cannot get from one place.

“If they have to get a Chamber extract, they have to go to the Chamber of Commerce. If they have to get a proof of address they have to go to the Department of Civil Registry. If you don’t have the articles of incorporation and shareholder’s register, you have to go to a notary to get them. You don’t have one repository where people can easily access company documentation needed to satisfy the due diligence of the bank.”

The due diligence process on business accounts is important for the financial institution. “The business account opening process is more lengthy than for personal accounts because it involves a legal and compliance review, which is standard for banks. One of the reasons for the legal review is that the bank has to understand what the articles of incorporation allow the business to do or not do.

“You have to understand who represents the entity in and out of court. There have been cases where the articles were in conflict with each other and we had to advise the client of these conflicts. And in cases where persons want to authorize or deputize others who are not listed in the articles of incorporation on behalf of the entity, the board resolution to effect this needs to be vetted to ensure that it’s properly passed and not in conflict with anything else.

“That is the reason for the legal review of the documentation, because at the end of the day, we are granted access to monies of these entities and we have to ensure that we are standing on firm legal grounds when doing so.”

The law, he stressed, prescribes that the bank determines how business accounts are expected to operate. “For instance, you cannot just say you will deposit a million dollars. The bank needs to understand how. Do you have a business plan? Then the business plan has to be reviewed. Any financial projections you provide have to be reviewed so that we can get a clear understanding of the character of the account for monitoring purposes.”

He said many applicants have challenges preparing this information and WIB tries to make it easy by providing a financial projection template so that persons can make reasonable projections.

“Because applicants may have to prepare this information or may have to get help, this makes the process lengthy. There may also be a need to complete further due diligence or drilling down on the owners of an entity, as the CBCS’ guidelines require that the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO) of the entity be identified. You cannot just tell the bank that someone is the beneficial owner of a company. The bank must be able to see documentation that gets them to the UBO,” he explained.

Additionally, high risk businesses accounts are subjected to enhanced due diligence, which requires more procedures, more documentation and more searching. Downes said each bank has its own guidelines to determine whether an account is considered high risk.

No criminals

If someone has a criminal record, WIB would not grant them an account. One of the things that WIB does is Google search various databases to, amongst other things, determine whether someone has a criminal record.

“We will reject you,” Downes said of cases with criminal records. “We reserve the right to reject you, especially if it’s for a financial crime. As it stands today, banks are private institutions. We reserve the right to determine what clients we want in our books. We Google check you.” The bank also searches an entity that produces this sort of information.

“Politically exposed persons need additional due diligence. We get this list from an entity that compiles this information.

“The key thing is that we have to do KYC (know your customer) due diligence around the entity itself and around the persons associated with the entity and that is for us to know who you are dealing with, but mainly we also have to do due diligence on how the account is expected to be used – the deposits, the withdrawals – because the law requires us to monitor accounts.

“So you know what behaviour to expect – that is why we get the projections upfront. That will tell you the expectation and you monitor based on that expectation.

“These are some of the things that go into determining whether or not a bank would want to onboard a client.”

Don’t like waiting

While Downes advises what he sees as the importance of speeding up any process, he believes that the ability to have many things done right away may have also had a negative impact on people’s acceptance of the need to spend time to conduct due diligence. “Many people don’t like to wait. Everybody wants their stuff done right now.”

He also indicated that COVID-19 has had a devastating effect on employment and there are a lot of people who are opening businesses. “So now you have additional pressure for requests to be handled and this also puts pressure on resources.”

Basic bank account

CBCS has approached the St. Maarten Bankers Association to engage in discussion around coming up with a basic bank account to enable every individual to at least have an account. Basic bank accounts have restrictions. Downes declined to speak on the issue, as discussions are still in progress.

However, according to moneyexpert.com and information obtained online, basic bank accounts are essentially current accounts with restricted features. Unlike regular current accounts, some basic bank accounts do not offer certain facilities such as a debit card, overdraft or to be able to set up standing orders, etc.

Downes stressed that the country is in the midst of a pandemic and resources are being stretched as a result.

“The pandemic is also courting people to come up with their own business, their own enterprise and that is putting pressure on the system, because we are working with the same or less numbers than before the pandemic, as everyone had to cut back based on the situation that we are going through,” he said.

“Yes, you would get some delays and people will become legitimately frustrated. I won’t deny that there are some delays in the system, but trying to say that these are solely only coming from the banks is unfair, because I know for a fact, customers have challenges to provide their documentation to satisfy procedures.”

Posted in Sint Maarten, sint maarten news, ST MAARTEN, st maarten judith roumou | Tagged | Leave a comment

Sxm Government News Latest

Unvaccinated Civil Servants Do NOT Receive Wages During Mandatory Quarantine! State Secretary Van Huffelen

Posted in st maarten news | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Just In Unvaccinated Civil Servants Do NOT Receive Wages During Mandatory Quarantine! State Secretary Van Huffelen

Just In Unvaccinated Civil Servants Do NOT Receive Wages During Mandatory Quarantine! State Secretary Van Huffelen

Improved relations noted after ‘first’ Kingdom Council of Ministers meeting

Just In Unvaccinated Civil Servants Do NOT Receive Wages During Mandatory Quarantine! State Secretary Van Huffelen

Answers to parliamentary questions: unvaccinated civil servants do not receive wages during mandatory quarantine’
State Secretary Van Huffelen

(Kingdom Relations and Digitization) sends her answers to questions about the message ‘Aruba: unvaccinated civil servants do not receive wages during mandatory quarantine’. The questions were asked by the Member of Parliament Bishop (SGP).

The President of the House of Representatives of the States General

Subject February 7, 2022
Answer to parliamentary questions from the member of the Bishop (SGP) about the message ‘Aruba: unvaccinated civil servants do not receive wages during mandatory quarantine’ (submitted January 14
2021)

I hereby offer the answers to the written questions posed by Member Bishop (SGP) about the message “Aruba: Unvaccinated civil servant not paid during mandatory quarantine”. The questions were submitted on January 14, 2022, with reference 2022Z00470.
 
The State Secretary for the Interior and Kingdom Relations Digitization and Kingdom Relations

Alexandra C. van Huffelen


Questions from the member Bishop (SGP) to the State Secretary of the Interior and Kingdom Relations about the message ‘Aruba: unvaccinated civil servants do not receive wages during mandatory quarantine’ (submitted January 14, 2021)


Question 1
Are you familiar with the message ‘Aruba: unvaccinated civil servants do not receive wages during mandatory quarantine’?[1]

Answer 1
Yes.

Question 2
Is it true that civil servants who are not vaccinated have to use their vacation or ATV days or their overtime if they are required to quarantine? Is this an intended measure or is this measure already in force?

Answer 2
Although it initially appeared that unvaccinated officials would have to use their holiday or ATV, or overtime if they were to be quarantined, Minister Oduber of Tourism and
Public health indicated that the said policy is not an issue and that unvaccinated officials will continue to be paid during their quarantine period.

Question 3
Do you also find it unacceptable to affect civil servants in their basic needs and working conditions because they are not vaccinated, while they want to comply with the rules and vaccinated people can also spread the virus? Can you indicate how this measure can be legally justified, given the current knowledge of (the spread of) the virus?

Question 4
Do you believe that creating such a second-class status for civil servants does not fit within the responsibilities of the countries of the
Kingdom and the minimum standards they must observe in doing so?

Question 5
Are you prepared to contact the responsible government officials of Aruba to persuade them not to take this measure? If not, why not?

Answer questions 3, 4 and 5
It is up to Aruba itself to take mitigating measures to combat COVID-19, in line with the legal frameworks. Various OMT recommendations have been drawn up to support administrators in the Caribbean parts of the Kingdom in determining these measures.

https://www.sxmgovernment.com


De Voorzitter van de Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal
Postbus 20018 2500 EA DEN HAAG Betreft 7 februari 2022


Beantwoording Kamervragen van het lid Bisschop (SGP) over het bericht ‘Aruba: ongevaccineerde ambtenaar krijgt geen loon tijdens verplichte quarantaine’ (ingezonden 14 januari
2021)

Hierbij bied ik de antwoorden aan op de schriftelijke vragen die zijn gesteld door lid Bisschop (SGP) over het bericht ‘Aruba: ongevaccineerde ambtenaar krijgt geen loon tijdens verplichte quarantaine’. De vragen werden ingezonden op 14 januari 2022, met kenmerk 2022Z00470.
 
De staatssecretaris van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties Digitalisering en Koninkrijksrelaties

Alexandra C. van Huffelen


Vragen van het lid Bisschop (SGP) aan de staatssecretaris van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties over het bericht ‘Aruba: ongevaccineerde ambtenaar krijgt geen loon tijdens verplichte quarantaine’ (ingezonden 14 januari 2021)


Vraag 1
Bent u bekend met het bericht ‘Aruba: ongevaccineerde ambtenaar krijgt geen loon tijdens verplichte quarantaine’?[1]

Antwoord 1
Ja. 

Vraag 2
Klopt het dat ambtenaren die niet gevaccineerd zijn hun vakantie- of ATV-dagen dan wel hun overuren moeten inzetten als zij verplicht in quarantaine gaan? Is dit een voorgenomen maatregel of is deze maatregel reeds van kracht?

Antwoord 2
Hoewel er aanvankelijk sprake van leek te zijn dat ongevaccineerde ambtenaren hun vakantie- of ATV, dan wel overuren moesten inzetten als zij in quarantaine zouden moeten, heeft minister Oduber van Toerisme en
Volksgezondheid aangegeven dat het genoemde beleid niet aan de orde is en dat ongevaccineerde ambtenaren worden doorbetaald tijdens hun quarantaineperiode.

Vraag 3
Vindt u het ook onacceptabel om ambtenaren in hun basisbehoeften en arbeidsvoorwaarden aan te tasten omdat zij niet gevaccineerd zijn, terwijl zij juist de regels willen naleven en gevaccineerden bovendien ook het virus kunnen verspreiden? Kunt u aangeven hoe deze maatregel juridisch te rechtvaardigen is, gelet op de huidige kennis van (de verspreiding van) het virus?

Vraag 4
Bent u van mening dat het creëren van een dergelijke tweederangs status van ambtenaren niet past binnen de verantwoordelijkheden die de landen van het
Koninkrijk hebben en de minimumnormen die zij daarbij in acht moeten nemen?

Vraag 5
Bent u bereid in contact te treden met de verantwoordelijke bewindslieden van Aruba om hen te bewegen af te zien van deze maatregel? Zo nee, waarom niet?

Antwoord vragen 3, 4 en 5 
Het is aan Aruba zelf om mitigerende maatregelen te nemen om COVID-19 te bestrijden, passend binnen de juridische kaders. Er zijn verschillende OMTadviezen opgesteld om de bestuurders in de Caribische delen van het Koninkrijk te ondersteunen bij het bepalen van deze maatregelen. 

Pagina 2 van 3
Datum
7 februari 2022

Posted in Sxm Sint Maarten, sxm sint maarten government | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Improved relations noted after ‘first’ Kingdom Council of Ministers meeting

Improved relations noted after ‘first’ Kingdom Council of Ministers meeting

The relations within the Kingdom improved visibly after the first Kingdom Council of Ministers RMR meeting with State Secretary of Home Affairs and Digitisation Alexandra van Huffelen. In photo: Ministers Plenipotentiary Rene Violenus and Carlson Manuel, State Secretary Alexandra van Huffelen and Minister Plenipotentiary Guillfred Besaril after the meeting.

THE HAGUE–The relations within the Kingdom improved visibly after the first Kingdom Council of Ministers RMR meeting with State Secretary of Home Affairs and Digitisation Alexandra van Huffelen.

  The new state secretary and three ministers plenipotentiary were positive about the atmosphere during the meeting and the decisions. The RMR approved the request to deviate from the balanced budget norm prescribed in the Kingdom Law on Financial Supervision RFT.

https://www.stmaartennews.org

  “We have made a beginning – my first meeting as the secretary of Kingdom Affairs…I will do my very best to give substance to our cooperation on the basis of equality, in a way that benefits everyone in the Caribbean part of our Kingdom,” the state secretary said after the RMR meeting. The meeting is held once a month and precedes the Dutch Council of Ministers meeting.

  The ministers plenipotentiary said the state secretary and other new members of the Dutch coalition had an open mind and showed understanding for the challenges of the Caribbean countries. “It was an amicable meeting. We had a preliminary online introduction to the state secretary two weeks ago. We are happy that a lot of commitments that were made during that meeting manifested in this meeting,” said Minister Plenipotentiary of St. Maarten Rene Violenus.

  Also important for the atmosphere was the approval to deviate from the balanced budget rules as requested by the countries and advised by the Committee for Financial Supervision CFT. “We decided that the countries can deviate from a balanced budget. This is an important decision, because it makes it possible to draw up a budget that will help the countries forward,” Van Huffelen said.

  For Aruba, the decision was made about financial supervision. The agreements in the Protocol Aruba-Netherlands officially ended on January 1. The Dutch government first wanted to extend the agreement without a specific end date, while Aruba wanted an extension of a year. On Friday, they settled on a term of two years.

Amy Velasquez St Maarten Horror Story

  The same subjects had been on the agenda of the previous Kingdom Council of Ministers on December 17, 2021, but then all decisions were postponed. Former State Secretary Raymond Knops demanded that Curaçao, Aruba and St. Maarten approve the Note of Amendment to the Consensus Kingdom Law on the Caribbean Body for Reform and Development COHO. Excerpts of the amendment were also included as decision points for the RMR. Curaçao, Aruba and St. Maarten objected as these were new conditions and the Parliaments would have no chance to debate this aspect of the law.

  The conditions were not on the agenda of Friday’s meeting. “In discussions with the new state secretary she recognised that we definitely needed to deviate from the budget because of the pandemic. This is also stated in the Kingdom Act on Financial Supervision. We are happy to see a different atmosphere with mutual dialogue where people listened to each other,” Violenus said.

  The liquidity support and other topics were postponed to the next meeting of the RMR, which is scheduled for February 25, a day after the visit of State Secretary van Huffelen. One of the topics is the request by Aruba to gradually eliminate the 12.5 per cent cut in labour conditions. Minister Plenipotentiary of Aruba Guillfred Besaril said that while measures are necessary, it is also important to give people some positive perspective.

Improved relations noted after ‘first’ Kingdom Council of Ministers meeting
by u/MaximusOptimusPrimus in nederlands

Posted in sxm government, Sxm St Maarten News | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Latest St Maarten Weather From Metereological Department St Maarten

https://www.stmaartennews.org

Latest St Maarten Weather From Metereological Department St Maarten

https://www.sxmgovernment.com

Latest St Maarten Weather From Metereological Department St Maarten
by u/MaximusOptimusPrimus in Caribbean

Posted in st maarten judith roumou, st maarten news, ST MAARTEN WEATHER | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment