who shall we choose?

Dearest Gentle Reader,

Or should I say, people of St. Maarten? For it appears we have all become characters in a most fascinating novela.

The spin doctors have emerged from their chambers, the media blitz has commenced, and the carefully crafted narratives are now being distributed for public consumption. Yet this author finds herself entirely unimpressed by the smoke and mirrors set before us.

We are being asked to focus on the perceived injustice suffered by one minister. But tell me, dear reader, how does one discuss the injustice of a single individual when an entire country has been subjected to injustice for sixteen years since attaining country status?

And before that? Well, some would argue it was even worse.

But I digress.

The good old days of "who you fah?" have evolved into something far more sophisticated, though no less damaging. The family business has finally revealed its face in real time on the floor of Parliament. One might have assumed that elected representatives would vote according to conscience and principle. Instead, we are repeatedly reminded: "This is politics."

How convenient.

The truth is that change begins not in Parliament but at the ballot box.

Stop voting for the same regime.

Go sit in Parliament's public gallery. Look left. Look right. Then look again. For sixteen years, the same families, the same circles, and the same networks have been running amok while presenting themselves as agents of change.

How many times have qualified young professionals been told they were on the "wrong party"?

How often have voters chosen party colors over individual competence?

And now many express outrage over what happened to Minister Brug.

Shame on all of us.

For too often we have chosen convenience over conviction.

How many capable candidates have been overlooked because someone, somewhere, was promised a position? A board appointment. A government contract. A permit. A taxi license. Or perhaps something even more remarkable.

Did we not once hear stories of permits issued in the name of children barely old enough to attend primary school?

Country above self, we proclaim.

Then let us stop being hypocrites.

We, the voters, have enabled this system. Sixteen years of limited progress and endless promises.

Ask yourself a simple question.

Compare your life today to your life in 2010.

Has your quality of life improved?

Are public services significantly better?

Is governance more transparent?

Are opportunities more accessible?

Or have a select few simply become wealthier, more connected, and more powerful?

Yet election after election, we return the same faces to office.

We re-elect individuals who have never changed a single meaningful law.

We re-elect individuals whose names repeatedly appear alongside controversy and legal troubles.

Then we act surprised when the outcome remains unchanged.

As this author has observed, money and power function much like a psychological magnifying glass. They do not create character; they reveal it.

If entitlement was present in primary school, evident in high school, and visible throughout adulthood, it does not disappear upon election. It expands.

And once appointed to high office, that sense of entitlement often reaches the moon.

Sixteen years of evidence should be sufficient proof.

One final observation before I take my leave.

Many ministers and parliamentarians have recently become quite visible in church pews and on social media, sharing scripture and inspirational verses for all to see.

Nothing wrong with faith, of course.

Yet actions remain the truest sermon.

So I leave you with these words:

"A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favour rather than silver and gold." Proverbs 22:1

The question, dear reader, is not whether the next election is coming.

The question is what and whom we shall choose when it arrives.

Until next time,

Sint Esquire

‍