Tempu pa eliminá moneda di un (1) sèn

Promé ku e diskushon pa eliminá e moneda di 1 sèn, seis luna pasá mi a proponé den un ‘blog’ pa elimin’é pasombra su balor monetario ta kasi nihil i finansieramente e no ta responsabel pa mantené. Aki bou e ‘blog’.

Na 1926 minister di Kolonia a aserká Gobernadó di Kòrsou pa eliminá e moneda di 1/2 sèn den sirkulashon. E motibu tabata ku e kosto pa trah’é tabata mas ku 1/2 sèn. A dura pa eliminá e moneda, mientras Hulanda a eliminá su 1/2 sèn na 1940.

Awe e moneda di 1 sèn tin 20 biaha ménos balor kompará ku 1921 konsiderando inflashon. Ademas e tamaño chikí i inpráktiko ta pone ku fásilmente e ta kai pèrdè, djis ripará kuantu 1 sèn bo ta mira abou sin ku hende ta tuma molèster pa rekohé nan. Kontamentu di e moneda na establesimentunan i banko ta un aktividat kostoso. E kontinuo skarsedat di e moneda ta pone ku e kumpradó na hopi okashon ta paga di mas. E skarsedat ta e resultado lógiko ku e moneda aki ta ‘desaparesé’ di un manera òf otro for di sirkulashon. Na sierto tienda, restaurant ya kaba den práktika tur preis ta den denominashon di 5 sèn.

Klaro ku tin sierto desbentaha pa eliminá e moneda. Un banda semper tin konsiderashonnan sentimental. Tambe, ku eliminashon di e moneda tur preis mester keda ahustá. Normalmente un produkto di NAf 2,51 òf 2,52 mester bira NAf 2,50. Un produkto di NAf 2,53 òf 2,54 mester bira NAf 2,55. Lo tin abusu (manera ta tuma lugá debí na skarsedat). Un estudio ta un mester.

For di 2008 nos lo por a diskutí e materia aki despues ku a disidí ku nos pais ta haña e Florin Karibense, abreviá CMg, na 2010. E trein ei a bai laga nos sinembargo ya ku Banko Sentral di Kòrsou i Sint Maarten ta morto na soño. Tambe, pronto nos lo kibra nos rèkòrt mundial di ta usa un moneda pa kasi 11 aña di un pais ku no ta èksistí, esta Antia Hulandes.

Sin estudio (ku mi ta na altura) a determiná ku lo eliminá papel di Naf 25 i introdusí papel di CMg 20, ounke ku nos tin dies aña den espera. E aspekto di moneda di 1 sèn no a keda diskutí. Mi ta kere ku su tempu a yega.

Willemstad, Kòrsou

Emperador Haitiano a biba na Kòrsou

Despues ku a kore ku n’e for di Haiti, Emperador Haitiano Faustin l (Fautine-Élie Soulouque) eventualmente a bin buska refugio na Kòrsou pa algu mas ku un (1) aña. E Emperador a biba na Hoogstraat 11A ku tabata forma parti di un kompleho di monumentu situá riba un tereno di 1,290 meter kuadrá. Esaki a bira konosí komo Keizershof.

Kon bin e Emperador a resultá na Kòrsou? Na 1844 Repúblika Dominikano (RD) ta bira independiente di Haiti. Na 1847 Sr. Soulouque (1782-1867) ta keda apuntá komo presidente di Haiti. Na vários okashon e ta purba rekonkistá RD, pero sin éksito. Na 1849 e ta keda proklamá Emperador Faustin I i tres aña despues e ta keda koroná. Na 1859 militarnan di su mes pais ta lanta kontra di dje despues di algun derota militar.

Emperador Faustin l ta bai den eksilo na Jamaica. Su estadia eynan a dura 6 aña. Un revolushon sangriente ta fòrs’é kue un barku di Kòrsou, Rigolette, i ta yega nos isla ku algun siguidó, entre otro su yu La Princesse Royale, riba 19 desèmber 1865.

E ta residensiá na Hoogstraat 11A kaminda pa algu mas ku un aña e ta biba i tambe ehersé algun funshon komo emperador di Haiti. Na komienso di 1867 e ta regresá Haiti kaminda poko despues e ta muri.

Despues ku Emperador Faustin 1 a bandoná Kòrsou, Keizershof a dekaí i keda bandoná. Ningun di e poseshonnan -aparentemente spektakular- di Emperador Faustin l ku e a laga atras, a sobrebibí. Medio añanan 90 algun empresario Hulandes a rehabilitá e monumentunan i ta krea aktividat turístiko i di horeca. Tambe a re-establesé e nòmber Keizershof. E edifisio original na e adrès Hoogstraat 11A no a sobrebibí e rekonstrukshon.

Ta basta konosí ku Simón Bolívar i Juan Pablo Duarte a bin buska refugio aki na Kòrsou. Poko konosí ta e historia di Emperador Faustin l. Ta di spera ku ta hasi algu, eventualmente ku koperashon di Haiti, pa e parti di historia interesante aki no bai pèrdí.

Willemstad, Kòrsou

Let’s talk about fixing our democracy

It never fails. Discussions about democracy and governance always go back to the conventional criteria of Western-style democracy without asking if they reflect our reality and times.

Conclusions about good vs. bad are quickly drawn impeding any kind of useful debate. The group that considers itself “good”, labels the other as “bad” and then feels entitled. A better way may be to stop thinking in these terms and throw away thoughts of copy-paste.

No wonder we haven’t been able to move on from Dutch paternalism on the one hand, and us being defensive on the other hand. A meaningful discussion about democracy and governance should be guided by: What’s appropriate or inappropriate in our context and times? What are the consequences of our actions for the greater good?

In Southeast Asia there’s been an increasingly strong voice for an Asian-way of doing things. Many attribute the spectacular development in that region to looking East rather than West. Singapore is undoubtedly at the forefront and has been called “the 20th century’s development miracle”.

Whilst the West considers Singapore only “semi-democratic”, 84% of Singaporeans is satisfied with their government. In the U.S., the self-proclaimed stronghold of Western democracy, only 35% is satisfied with government (Gallup Poll 2020).

What’s the state of our democracy? Many citizens feel powerless, without a say in government’s decision-making. Members of Parliament consider themselves almighty since there’s no (significant) judicial review. Cultural nationalism and Christian dogmas are often invoked to suppress diversity, dissenting and minorities’ voices.

The biggest challenge however is political patronage (favoritism). This remains the preferred manner to get politicians elected and voters attain favors from them. Patronage stimulates short-term pragmatism rather than longterm programmatic thinking. Voters and politicians aren’t interested in problems that are beyond their short horizon. That’s until they become the problems du jour. Shouldn’t democracy be about the effectiveness of making hard choices that may not be popular? Should’t democracy be about doing what’s appropriate in our context and times?

These issues deserve a rigorous debate. We could turn a deaf ear to them, but the consequences thereof will soon stare us in the face.

Willemstad, Curaçao

2 yüli 2021: 70 aña nos mes gobièrnu

Sr. Gorsira, e promé Presidente di Konseho Insular

2 di yüli ta históriko pasombra eksaktamente 70 aña pasá, gobernashon propio pa Kòrsou a start. Ta tristu ku riba 2 yüli solamente ta para ketu na nos bandera ku tres dékada despues (1984) a keda subí pa di promé biaha. Un pensamentu ta pa riba 2 yüli selebrá “Dia di Bandera i Gobernashon Propio di Kòrsou”.

Outonomia a start ku Interimregeling riba 7 febrüari 1951. Basá riba esaki, nos promé Konseho Insular (KI) a sinta, despues di e promé elekshon pa KI riba 4 yüni 1951. Pues 2 di yüli 2021 ta selebrá 70 aña di gobernashon propio.

E promé 21 miembronan di KI tabata pa NVP: Hendrik Pieters Kwiers, Ernesto Rozendaal, Angela de Lannoy-Willems, Benjamin Römer, Philip Cohen Henriquez, Edward Broos, Romano Tschumie, Heraclio Henriquez, Charles Voges; pa DP: Efraim Jonckheer, Ciro Kroon, Ramez (Ronchi) Isa, Steef v.d. Meer, Cornelis (Nene) Hueck, Louisa Van der Linde-Helmijr, Julio Rosario i Tjerk Petzoldt; pa KVP: David Capriles, Elias Morkos i Jonchi Jonckhout; pa COP: Philip Evertsz. E promé diputadonan tabata: Jonchi Jonkhout (KVP), Philip Cohen Henriquez (NVP), Ciro Kroon (DP) i Gerald Sprockel (NVP).

S.E. Gobernador Struycken den su diskurso na apertura di KI ta bisa: Een eigen orgaan voor de behartiging van zijn belangen schept voor Curaçao grotere mogelijkheden dan ooit tevoren om de lens scherper in te stellen op de eigen problemen en mogelijkheden.

Michael Gorsira, e promé Presidente di KI, a resumí e importansia di gobernashon propio na Papiamentu (e promé biaha ku a usa Papiamentu den KI): Laga nos tur rekordá ku di awor en adelante nos lo haña e gobièrnu ku nos mes trese na poder i ku nos mes lo mester karga tur responsabilidat pa tur e loke e gobièrnu aki hasi. Laga nos demostrá responsabilidat. Esei lo ta e mihó prueba ku nos por duna ku nos meresé e outonomia ku tantu nos a anhelá.

Ta bálido pa analisá kon leu nos ta den e proseso pa usa gobernashon propio pa resolvé nos problemanan. Felis Dia di Bandera. Felis Dia di Gobernashon propio.

Willemstad, Kòrsou

Religion ta bèk den polítika

E lucha pa (mantenshon di) poder di iglesia katóliko na Kòrsou ta palpabel. Por ehèmpel kon hefe di Korte na Willemstad, dr. Charles de la Try Ellis (1881-1977), un yu di tera i prominente katóliko ligá ku e tòp di iglesia, ta laga èkspulsá un religioso pasombra e a defendé shofùrnan di taksi. Katólikonan tabata dominá sindikalismo (Don Bosco i Sceom) i no tabata tolerá desviashon di regla di iglesia. (1)

Den polítika iglesia semper a kampañá kontra “mal katólikonan” (2,3). Si nos kere ku e ambishon pa poder i influensia riba polítika ta algu di pasado, nos ta ekiboká. Por lo ménos 3 partido den nan evaluashon (preliminar) di kampaña tras di lomba a konkluí ku iglesianan kristian a influensiá e diskurso polítiko i resultado elektoral ku nan ponensia riba derechi igual di LGBTQ. Abiertamente algun iglesia poderoso na plaka a bisa nan miembronan pa no vota pa partidonan ku ta pro-LGBTQ. Nos ta mira tambe ku e dos partidonan ku ta igualito den nan oposishon pa LGBTQ tabata eksitoso na urnanan i awe ta huntu den Fòrti.

Por a premirá esaki for di momentu ku pastornan kristian huntu ku Obispu a subi tarima na Alameda i a skupi venenu i sembra teror kontra LGBTQ (4). Mi ta premirá ku nan lo sigi influensiá politika ku nan enorme kapital. Den mundu, pero prinsipalmente na Merka gruponan kristian di teror a oumentá nan retórika kontra di toleransia i repudio pa esnan diferente na nan.

Religion ta bèk den polítika. Kiko awor? Kisas nos ta leu pa igualá Merka. Lokual si ta e kaso ta ku a influensiá polítika ku retórika di odio. E pensamentu di divishon: ami ta “bon” i otronan ta “malu”. Ta di spera ku Konseho Elektoral den su rapòrt lo tin mas ku bunita potrèt i elogio propio manera kustumber, kon bon elekshon a kana riba 19 di mart 2021. Mester di atenshon profundo tambe pa e (nivel di) influensia di iglesia riba elekshon. Lo ta bon papia ku e partidonan ku a konstatá esaki i hasi un evaluashon. Final di kuenta pa un demokrasia funshoná manera debe ser no por tolerá e tipo di manipulashon aki, ku laga nos ta sinsero, ya a sosodé den pasado.

Willemstad, Kòrsou

(1) The Role of the Roman Catholic Church in the Social Development of Curaçao since the Abolition of Slavery, Cornelis Streefkerk

(2) https://alexdavidrosaria.blog/2019/06/04/kon-iglesia-a-kaba-ku-kvp-pasombra-esaki-a-traha-ku-dp/

(3) https://alexdavidrosaria.blog/2017/11/20/a-ninga-dera-doktor-den-santana-katoliko/

(4) https://alexdavidrosaria.blog/2019/07/13/iglesianan-a-uni-pa-antagonisa-i-sembra-odio/

China’s celebration of Gucci and Big Brother

On July 1st the almighty Chinese Communist Party (CPP) will celebrate its hundredth anniversary. It’s going to be an all out propaganda show. The CPP-dynasty has rebranded itself as the guardian of the New China and looks forward to the next century of total power monopoly.

It’s become clear that China isn’t interested in any type of Western-style democracy which in many ways has fallen short for so many people around the world (https://alexdavidrosaria.blog/2017/09/08/reinventing-western-democracy/). The past decades have, if anything, strengthened the Chinese leaders’ view that economic reform is possible without liberalizing politics. And, many Chinese believe that the country’s economic achievements have actually been realized because of CCP’s authoritarian style of government. The leading expert on Asia, Chung Min Lee, said: “China is celebrating Gucci and Big Brother” at the same time.

Something else we don’t realize is that China has been reforming. It’s just not liberal reform. One example is the reinvention of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection to deal with the corruption that had become so prevalent. The majority of countries in Asia, especially staunch US supporters such as Singapore, refuse to choose between China and the U.S. even as the relation between the two super powers continues to deteriorate.

The challenge in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), will be to balance the benefits from closer ties with China as Beijing’s gravitational pull becomes stronger at the same time LAC tries to sustain a relation with more traditional orbits, The Netherlands (and Europe) and the U.S. (and the rest of North America).

China updated its economic strategy towards LAC by emphasizing investment, financial and industrial capacity cooperation. Though the Chinese economic strategy is generally seen as positive by LAC countries, instabilities of some major partners such as Venezuela have complicated China’s efforts to achieve results they could show off to others.

It’s unsettling that Curaçao has maintained an eery silence on a possible China policy, whilst our Caribbean neighbors are pondering how best to move forward. China’s new Consulate General on the island looked very promising. However, the flagrant dishonesty of China’s Guangdong Zhenrong Enterprise and China Huayang Economics and Trade Group regarding the Isla Refinery project, have not fared well.

Apart from economics, China’s policy towards LAC will stumble or fall based on its soft power. According to the Pew Research Center the unfavorable views of China has reached historic highs in many countries. With the U.S. soft power prominently on display in LAC and Curaçao, China’s ability to conquer hearts in this region may be a tall order to fill.

Willemstad, Curaçao

Kon hunga ku bida di hende: desinformashon riba bakuna

Desinformashon i teorianan di konspirashon den kombinashon ku medionan soshal ta kompliká e proseso pa determiná e bèrdat. Esaki ta dolorosamente bisto den kaso di COVID-19 i e bakuna kontra di e malesa. Ta plama disinformashon pa rasonnan personal, polítiko i pa ignoransia. Kontrali na desinformashon manera “mundu ta plat”, den e kaso di COVID-19 e konsekuensia ta morto i sufrimentu.

Determiná kiko ta bèrdat ta importante. Pero, tin vários kategoria di bèrdat.

Bèrdat personal. Skohe bo realidat i ahustá kiko ta bèrdat pa bo. Bo por kere ku X òf Y ta bo salbador; ku dios ta èksistí òf no. No ta importante pa buska prueba pasombra ta bo bèrdat.

Bèrdat polítiko. Trosa òf fabriká ‘echonan’, keda ripití nan te ora hende kere pa asina logra bo meta polítiko. Ehèmpel: Holokosto nunka a tuma lugá, Presidente Obama no a nase na Merka.

Bèrdat ophetivo. Esaki ta un bèrdat sea ku bo ta kere òf no. E ta independiente di bo realidat òf loke hende bisa. Ehèmpel: Munda ta drei rònt di solo, velosidat di lus (den espasio bashí) ta 299,792 km pa sekonde. Pero tambe ku e bakuna no ta kontené COVID-19, ku e bakuna no ta kambia bo DNA, ku e bakuna no ta kontené un ‘chip’ i ku e bakuna ta mas efektivo pa protehábo ku keda sin bakuná.

Pakiko nos lo preferá kere algu ku no por keda probá riba un bèrdat ku sientífikamente a keda establesé? Segun Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition esaki ta e kaso serka hende di naturalesa deskonfiá òf ku no tin un mente habrí i no ta habrí pa ideanan otro di nan bèrdat personal. Hopi ta sinti nan mes empoderá di por pertenesé na un grupo via internèt ku ta pensa meskos. Prinsipalmente hende ta kai pa desinformashon pa motibu ku nan no ta pensa krítiko.

Pa kombatí desinformashon nos mester ta mas krítiko (algu ku nos enseñansa no ta enfatisá sufisientemente), mester wak di unda e informashon a sali, mester wak si fuentenan profeshonal di notisia tambe a raportá e mesun informashon, èksaminá e kontenido i ímagen (por ehèmpel Google Reverse Image Search) i no kore plama e informashon si bo tin duda. Realisá ku semper bo por haña ‘konfirmashon’ di tur kos riba internèt. Un búskeda riba Google di: “Proof that NASA faked the moonlanding” òf “Proof that we went to the moon” ta produsí miles di artíkulo. Konsultá ku Google so, no ta sufisiente.

Desinformashon ta funesto pa nos salubridat públiko den kaso di e pandemia, i tambe pa nos demokrasia. Staten lo dediká atenshon na kon atendé ku desinformashon enbes di kore tras di kos sin pia sin kabes djis pasombra e ta “trending” riba medionan soshal?

Willemstad, Kòrsou

The atheist versus believer discussion

The other day I came across a long discussion on a popular social media platform between an atheist and a believer. Both were devoutly fanatical and convinced to be able to “save” the other from damnation. Frankly, it was a very unnerving exchange.

These “shouting matches” have been raging forever in houses of worship, media outlets and have found a wider audience on the internet. This particular interaction made me recall a story a Buddhist monk told me a few years ago just outside a temple in Yangon, the former capital of Myanmar. See photo.

“About 2,600 years ago a group of people congregated one morning in a remote village to listen to Lord Buddha, Gautama Siddhartha. A man stood up and asked the Buddha if there is God. Known for his long answers, this time he spoke emphatically however: ‘There is no God’. In the evening Lord Buddha spoke in a neighboring village and was asked by another person: ‘Is there God’. He answered: ‘Yes, there is God’. After the session was concluded a Bodhisattva who always accompanied Lord Buddha asked him why he had flip-flopped. He answered: ‘Why would I flip-flop? If you believe there is God, or if you believe there is no God, you believe in something you do not know. You believe this, the other believes that. What difference does it make? Everyone can believe whatever he wants whether or not it is based on facts'”.

Now, do I think this story is real? I don’t know, there is no way of establishing that. Yet it tells us more about ourselves than anything else.

This above mentioned social media discussion is more about classifying people in “good boxes” and “bad boxes”. But, as soon as you do that, you divide the world. Firstly, how did you become good? Where did you get the idea that you’re good ? Chances are you’ve compared yourself with other people based on color, sex, religion, origin, sexual preference and labeled them as bad. And, now you feel good and liberated.

You may ask where I stand on this issue. Is there God? For me it’s an absolute irrelevant question. More relevant would be for example to ask why we create God(s) or deities? India has over 300,000. Maybe both sides need to be honest about what we would expect to see if God(s) do(es) or do(es) not exist. What would we have reached? Certainly not the end of social injustice, discrimination, global warming and all kinds of misery we confront on a daily basis.

Willemstad, Curaçao

Kapasidat di dirigentenan vs. struktura estatal

Un bista den nos historia ta demostrá ku semper a mira struktura estatal komo e solushon pa nos reto i problemanan. Despues di konkista, Hulandesnan a dirihí nos komo un entidat (semi)hurídiko (i no komo un propiedat privá) primeramente for di Recife, despues Nieuw Nederland i despues Amsterdam. Rònt di 1804 ta organisá nos den un Raad van Policie. Di 1816-1828) e seis islanan ta bira dos kolonia separá (Kolonie Curaçao i Kolonie Sint Eustatius). Di 1820-1845 e dos kolonianan ta djòin kolonia Sürnam ku un sólo Gobernadó na Paramaribo. Di 1828-1833 ta kombertí isla Kòrsou den un munisipio. No satisfecho ku e islanan Hulandes, na 1845 ta hinka tur seis den un sólo konstelashon konosí bou di vários nòmber: 1. Curaçao, 2. Curaçao en Onderhoorige Eylanden, 3. Staatsdeel Curaçao 4. Gebiedsdeel Curaçao i 5. Nederlandse Antillen.

For di despues di Statüt (1954), nos ta esnan ku a kreativo. Ya na 1955 Gezaghebber di Boneiru, Weis de Hasseth ta pidi Konseho Insular para (parsialmente) e outonomia ku Boneiru a kaba di haña pasombra “outonomia lo hiba Boneiru atras”. E ta proponé hasi Boneiru parti di teritorio insular di Kòrsou òf un Federale district van de Nederlandse Antillen.

Despues no tabatin un smak di eiskrim ku nos no a purba: Nieuwe Unie, Mankomunidat, Federashon Kòrsou-Boneiru, Provinsia, Estado Liber i Asosiá, UPG, Munisipalidat, Directe Banden, Koninkrijkseiland, Antia Nobo, Antia Restrukturá, Integrashon den Venezuela, Independensia i loke final di kuenta nos tin, esta Kòrsou Outónomo den Reino for di 2010.

Ketu bai nos ta buska e struktura estatal perfekto, e remedi mágiko ku somehow lo resolvé tur problema ku ni sikiera ta di índole konstitushonal: enseñansa, infrastruktura, mentalidat di kompleho, struktura ekonómiko antikuá, falta di konekshon komershal global.

Na 1938 durante di e delaster reunion di Koloniale Raad, su Presidente, Sr. Jossy Henriquez, a atvertí ku kos no ta drecha ku un struktura nobo. Avanse ta dependé prinsipalmente riba kapasidat di esnan ku ta manehá e struktura.

Garantisá ku e kartanan konosí di defisiensa demokrátiko den Reino (pero no ta papia di nos mes defisiensia demokrátiko), sklabitut, West Indische Compagnie, Calvinisme, i tur tipo di viktimalisashon lo aparesé. Enbes di wak otro den kara i akseptá nos fayonan, nos debilidatnan i traha duru pa bai dilanti.

Willemstad, Kòrsou

Until everybody is safe, nobody is safe: The case for vaccinating

UNTIL EVERYBODY IS SAFE, NOBODY IS SAFE is a United Nations’ slogan which makes the case for vaccinating everyone around the world. Failure to vaccinate prolongs the pandemic—with all the massive social, health and economic costs that entails—and allow new possibly vaccine-resistant variants to flourish, putting everybody back in danger.

We’ve seen new COVID-19 cases here in Curaçao drop dramatically, but we cannot lean back. We have to stay vigilant. Many countries struggle because they haven’t been able to get their hands on the COVID-19 vaccines. We, on the other hand are among the fortunate ones to have vaccines for everyone. Why should we care about what goes on elsewhere? COVID-19 has taught us—at a terrible human cost—that we all live on a interconnected planet and our fate is in each others’ hands.

We cannot lean back either whilst false information is leading to people hesitating to take the vaccine. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that those hardest hit by the pandemic are often those most likely to be skeptical of vaccination. Here we have to double our efforts to try to dispel some of the vaccine myths which are a real threat to public health, i.e. the health of everybody. A study by the University of Illinois this year found that 63% of vaccine-sceptic people changed their minds after reading/watching news reports about people who had already been successfully vaccinated. The study also found that people are more likely to be hesitant when politicians talk about the need to vaccinate or contact them directly with information on how to get vaccinated. Now is probably the time to stop pointing fingers at the antivaccine movement, and change our communication strategy.

Willemstad, Curaçao