Wordplay and Consequences

Practice journalism anywhere long enough and you recognize and understand word-play better than most. You also have several "shake my head" moments when covering governments and governing.  

On Thursday, The Daily Herald reported that the Prime Minister described reports of Jairo Bloem’s appointment as Chairman of the Central Bank of Curacao and St. Maarten CBCS Board as “not true,” and reportedly told Curacao newspaper Antilliaans Dagblad they were “onjuist.” What precisely was meant by those words remains unclear.

What is clear is that St. Maarten’s Council of Ministers on Tuesday, September 16, approved the advice to appoint Mr. Bloem. Five ministers were present, giving COM a quorum. Three voted in favor, and that decision now sits on the record. The public is not privy to it, but the coalition fallout from this decision was swift and unrelenting. This is where the predictable, yet unfortunate, word-play begins.

Because the CBCS is a joint institution between St. Maarten and Curacao, a single Council of Ministers cannot complete an appointment on its own. This is well known, that has never been in dispute. The reporting reflected this by stating that the St. Maarten COM approved the advice to appoint, which is one crucial part of the process. The PM's comments to Curacao media, though unclear but invites interpretation, risks suggesting that the COM did not take that step at all, namely approving the advice.

Caught in a coalition uproar, the next step was to seemingly determine how to spin-out of the mess. History have shown that in such cases, governments tend to lean heavily on creating technicalities which are not actually technicalities.

This is where we suspect that the urge to use the classification of “nomination” needs careful handling. If the government chooses to now characterize the action as "only" a nomination, several questions arise that are procedural, not political. Did the Supervisory Board of the CBCS originate the nomination as required, and did it meet the five sixths threshold. If the answer is yes, when was that decision taken, through what procedure, and what documentation supports it.

If the answer is no, where did the nomination originate, who else was considered, and why was the Supervisory Board’s role not the source. The approved advice in St. Maarten refers to an appointment, not a nomination. If “nomination” is the preferred term today, clarity through paperwork is essential.

It would be unhelpful to suggest that St. Maarten’s COM did not approve the advice for Mr. Bloem’s appointment simply because the bi-national process is not yet complete, or because Curaçao and/or the Governor of St. Maarten might later reject it on procedural grounds. One part of the process is complete, St. Maarten’s approval. That is fact.

If you go with the word "nomination", then COM have nominated the candidate with confidence for appointment. The question then becomes, why is your coalition so up in arms about this particular nomination? The very credibility of every MP or Minister who did not support it would then be called into question if they do not truthfully explain their stance to the public.

There is a difference between an incomplete process and an unmade decision. The former invites explanation; the latter invites doubt. Careful language can preserve space for legitimate review, yet deliberate word play that blurs the line invites questions that documentation and/or statements from say the Supervisory Board of CBCS, will ultimately answer. Semantics can soften a headline for a day, yet records have a way of speaking plainly once released.

And consequences, can be aplenty.

‍