|
|
|
 |
|
|
Sarah: Franco-Dutch Treaty must be in people’s interest
by The Daily Herald
Posted: Oct 24, 2006 19:27 UTC
|
PHILIPSBURG - Commissioner of Constitutional Affairs, Finance and Education Sarah Wescot-Williams said on Sunday the “last word has definitely not been spoken” about the Franco-Dutch Treaty if it turns out that it doesn’t serve the island.
The Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament approved the treaty in September and the final passage through the First Chamber has now taken place. In a press release, Wescot-Williams placed some question marks by the treaty, specifically article 1, which reads: “The contracting parties undertake to cooperate in conducting effective controls of foreigners arriving at St. Martin and in monitoring compliance with the regulations governing their stay on the island.”
“Should we pay closer attention to entry requirements into St. Martin? Is it here where the illegal entry is perpetuated? Or is it the control governing the stay of foreigners on our island? Has this treaty been ratified because of the needs of St. Martin or because of the pressure by the State of France and the face-saving manoeuvres?”
Wescot-Williams said the people’s representatives had to ponder these questions. She also asked if the treaty’s ratification on May 17, 1994, had been an act of wisdom and whether it was over-zealousness.
“Whatever the circumstances then, today it forces us as representatives to face a potential contentious issue: the openness of our borders, the freedom to enter our country and the lack of control on who stays for how long. This issue touches the way of life of many,” she said. She agreed with restrictions and limitations to this openness and lack of control.
Wescot-Williams said National Alliance (NA) had tried to find the easiest way out by finding a political scapegoat. But, she said, “This is no help to the people of St. Maarten.”
She said the issue for her was not that NA’s predecessor St. Maarten Patriotic Alliance (SPA) had been represented in the Central Government when the treaty was signed in 1994. The fact that NA supports today’s Central Government which has welcomed the signing of the treaty for her was also not the issue. “Who was where when does not matter, except for the sake of posterity,” she said.
All this doesn’t take away the responsibility of the people’s representatives to be clear as to where they stand. The foremost question, she said, should be: “What is best for the people at the time that we as elected representatives have the power to make a decision for the people we represent?”
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Content © The Daily Herald 2006 - All Rights Reserved.
You may bookmark this web page, print it or e-mail it to
a friend in accordance with the fair-use provisions of
copyright laws. The material is intended solely for the use
of the individual user.
Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this
material
on other terms, in any medium, requires the express
written permission of the author or publication and the
notification of the editors of Caribseek News. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
