By Hilbert Haar
Was it a serious collective Carnival hangover or a deliberate attempt to sabotage the government’s attempts to put legislation in place that regulates the cross-border transport of money and valuables? Fact: the parliament was scheduled to take a decision about this legislation on Tuesday afternoon. Fact: only five parliamentarians were present for this meeting. The meeting therefore could not take place, causing a delay of a decision about the long overdue legislation for God knows how long.
The complete opposition – National Alliance and United St. Maarten party – was absent. So now these parties can blame the coalition for the mishap, because United Democrats MPs Luc Mercelina and Chanel Brownbill and Christian Party MP Claude Peterson gave notice of absence.
The irritating thing about these notices of absence is that they don’t tell you anything. A parliamentarian could be seriously ill, not feeling like going to work or attending the funeral of a non-existing uncle. You just don’t know.
Another possibility is that these MPs deliberately stayed away from the meeting. The collective absence of the opposition certainly suggests that this could be the case.
But what, if anything, do these politicians attempt to achieve with their no-show? If you oppose legislation, you have the option to roll the dice and vote against it.
Most people with half a brain know that not implementing the guidelines of the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force – like the cross-border money transport legislation – will hurt St. Maarten in several ways.
The CFATF will issue a public notice advising other CFATF-member states to think twice before doing business with St. Maarten. Justice Minister De Weever has warned that there will be a negative effect on interest rates, the cost of living and the way banks are able to do business with the outside world.
So what inspires members of parliament to oppose such legislation or to sabotage the decision-making process? The answer ain’t blowing in the wind, that’s for sure.
MP Franklin Meyers created an interesting smoke screen when he complained in parliament in February that the Financial Intelligence Unit (MOT) “does not have to answer questions from citizens.” Had Meyers read the law that regulates the FIU, he would have known that FIU-staff is bound by confidentiality rules and that the organization falls under the responsibility of the Minister of Justice.
To create the impression that the FIU is not accountable to anyone is therefore either a deliberate lie or a gross misunderstanding of the law. And besides – the FIU has nothing to do with cross-border transport of money and valuables. This legislation targets the physical movement of cash and valuables across borders.
If parliamentarians have a problem with that, it makes me wonder what they have to hide – or how much cash they have been moving out of the country undetected so far.
Follow the money is always a good idea if you want to find out who is up to no good. The proposed legislation is part of a package that is just doing that – and the undeniable fact that some politicians oppose it tells citizens all they need to know.
