Editorial: Nagging questions (Bada Bing bribery scandal)

POSTED: 03/12/13 11:06 AM

Daily Herald reporter Mike Granger denied yesterday that he received the Bada Bing-tape from UP-leader Theo Heyliger. That leaves the party-leader to answer the nagging questions. Did he ask Van den Heuvel to set up Patrick Illidge in an attempt to bring him over to his side? So far, Heyliger has not reacted, but it is safe to assume that he will deny the statement.

And since there is no proof for either statement, we’re back to square one, where people wonder about Van den Heuvel’s predicament and Illidge’s understandable attempts to work himself out of a very embarrassing situation that could potentially signal the end of his political career.

Investigators will not quickly be blindsided by statements that could be designed to confuse the real issue. After all, they have plenty of material to go through after several house searches. Until there is proof of the opposite the suspicions against MP Illidge will simply stay on most people’s radar.

Did you like this? Share it:
House Property For Sale on Beacon Hill, St. Maarten

Comments (3)


  1. Bienvenido richardson says:

    Dutch Minister of home affairs and Kingdom Relations, Mr. Roland Plasterk should apologize for statement made by Van Raak.
    In reference to the staments made by member of the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament Mr.Van Raak , which was printed in the Daily Herald on Tuesday March 12,2013 , The undersigned would like to state the following:
    The Dutch Minister of Home affairs and Kingdom relations should apologize for the statement made by Mr. Van Raak of the Dutch second chamber for his deliberate objection of St.Maarten attaining the status of country within the Dutch Kingdom on October 10, 2010, and tarnishing all politicians on the Island of St.Maarten in the Dutch media and Internationally.
    Mr. Van Raak is deliberately tarnishing our touristic island and should be held liable for such.
    Checks and balances are there in our democracy if things should go out of place or bad
    Roland Plasterk in all respect to your function, you of all people should know that St.Maarten has followed and assigned to all rules and regulations governing a democracy, and it would be wrong to let the world believe the contrary.
    All citizens of this young Country of St.Maarten have expressed their right to self determination and this right should be upheld and respected; especially by members of the Dutch Second Chamber.
    Furthermore it was agreed upon that after obtaining country status, St.Maarten and all other Islands of the Netherlands Antilles will have the right to once again after five years go to the poll to revise their Constitutional Status in which they found themselves in, and determine if they want to continue with such or move on .
    In other words five years after 2010 the citizens of this country have the right to call for a referendum if they so desires. And it is up to the Parliament of St.Maarten to see to it that such a referendum take place.
    The Netherlands Antilles and the Netherlands have also before St.Maarten obtaining Country Status within the Dutch Kingdom came together and setup Constitutional agreements and rule of law.
    These Laws and agreement was on a constitutional corporation level established , indicating to each member (country)what their limitations and obligation on constitutional level are.
    One such agreement was the “ Slot Verlaring”
    The “Slot Verlaring “accord was agreed upon “ which was signed on the 22nd of October 2005 between The Netherlands and the Netherlands Antilles and that during the mini Round Table conference that was held on the 26 of November 2005 , and that every agreement that was made in the mini conference ,which was held on the 10th and 11th of October 2006 shall be upheld.
    In such agreement it is stated that when it comes to tracing and pursuing punishable acts by law , these shall be dealt with in the country own society by means of its justice ministry.
    The justice Minister is then to give orders to all relevant institutions to pursue such case in order to determine its relevancy.
    In such investigation all parties involved will be questioned ,the video tape authenticity shall be determine under forensic analysis ect.
    I can only conclude and to let the Member of the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament know, that Constitutionally the Second Chamber has no competency in dealing in the affairs of the country, when it is agreed upon that this falls under the competence of the Justice Minister.
    Van Raak is doing an injustice to country of St.Maarten by scandalizing our rule of law, democracy and self determination and is using this opportunity, with regards to what has transpired with a member of the St.Maarten Parliament, to express himself and damage the image of St.Maarten Internationally.
    When such accusations comes from a member of the Dutch Second Chamber, the world will have the tendency to believe that St.Maarten do not have any rules or regulations governing its Country.
    And I would also like to remind all citizens, the media on the island and abroad that, a man is innocent until proven guilty.
    Let the law of the land prevail.

    Signed :

    Bienvenido Richardson
    St.Peters lime road 10
    Tel: 556-3251 or 581-8926

  2. Michael says:

    Mr. Richardson, I would agree with some of your points, but the mere fact that the “Justice Minister” Roland (I only know of one minister by the name Roland) is named in the video. This should precluse him from any involvement. Now since he is not an elected official, he should be replaced during the the investigation. Yes, a man is innocent until proven otherwise, providing he does not tamper with the investigation (therefore proving his complicity). In the current position he has all power to foul up the national detectives’ investigation. That is not a good thing for democracy. The law of this land has so far proved itself to be an ass, and I think international opinion would agree. This is a young country with ministers tearing around in police escorted limos earning $10K a month plus all expenses, answerable to no one including Dutch parliament. THat’s what I see.

    I would allow the law to prevail If I had confidence in the process and the people involved. Not here.

  3. Betancourt says:

    Innocent till proven guilty is a courtroom argument. It means nothing else than that the prosecution must proof charges in a criminal trial. A MP that is seen taking money in a whorehouse on a sunday morning -on video- is not yet guilty and sentenced for bribery in a criminal trial. And a minister that runs a whorehouse is not necessarily “guilty” of human trafficking or tax evasion. But there are also morals, ethics and good manners. And there is simple logic. If I shoot 20 school kids tomorrow, I am certainly innocent until proven guilty of murder charges in a court of law. But would you still give me a job as a teacher? People should stop using the presumption of innocence argument to condone that our politicians put us to shame and embarrassment. The argument has nothing to do with improper behavior and shouldn’t be used as a justification for everything that is morally wrong.

What do you say? Leave a comment