(Referencum, Bonaire. Continued from page 1)

summary regarding the rights of having a referendum. Although the concept of a referendum is not clearly stated in the Antillean laws and constitution (only in art. 24 of the ERNA), it's still the most popular form to directly access public opinion. In addition the UN approves the right of self-determination in the choice of a country's constitutional status.
The coming referendum is categorized as a consultative referendum, which means that the outcome is NOT binding upon the government. Still, UN observers will supervise the whole referendum and the government should take the outcome seriously into consideration.
Mr. Abdul strongly recommended that the questions provided on the ballots should NOT be able to be interpreted in two or even three ways. People should not be confused and should be able to make a decision based on clear questions the moment they cast their votes.
Regarding his own experiences he shared that a referendum always creates an emotional process among the people, as its consequences are serious. Therefore sufficient, adequate and accurate information should be provided to the public. He warned about external groups trying to lobby and influence the outcome. The same rules on the voter's admission that apply during the regular elections should be adopted for the referendum. He finally recommended the commission to introduce pre-referendum polls to evaluate and monitor  the effectiveness of the information campaign.
Mr. Sealy pointed out that the commission is already taking some public comments seriously into account and even reported them to the UN observer. Examples are lowering the voting age limit to 16 years and making it possible for Bonaireans abroad to cast their votes.
During the question period that followed the formal presentation the first person to speak was Bonaire Reporter writer, Natalie Wanga, who elaborated on Mr. Abdul's warning on external groups lobbying. She referred to the last week's visit of  Jacob Gelt Dekker , a wealthy Dutch businessman known for his Kura Hulanda project on Curaçao. According to Ms. Wanga he profiled himself during the information evening and in the media as an expert, while the information he delivered was clearly very subjective and with a clear mission. Although she recognized and believed in the constitutional right of freedom of speech, she strongly advised the commission to inform the Bonairean people properly when the information is provided by a subjective source or direct from the commission or an objective explanation of an expert.
The commission agreed and informed that deliberations already took place to avoid these kinds of incidents in the future.
Next, Ms. Martiza Juan-Pedro asked about the future monetary policy if Bonaire becomes part of a Dutch province. Will the euro be introduced?
In response Carlene Peterson said she was in favor of the introduction of the euro and the prospective that chances are great that this will occur, Hans Els was more careful. He stated that the choice should be made afterwards by for example a Ronde Tafel Conferentie (round table conference) and by experts.
Mr. Boy Clarinda required more information on the validity of the referendum's outcome. Mr. Els once again stipulated that although it's not defined in the legal system it's still recognized. As a consultative referendum, however, its outcome is not binding, but the government should take it into account on its further decision-making.
Others, like Mr. J.Finies, strongly questioned the need of a new referendum, as the 1994's outcome was clear but still not dealt with. (note: the outcome back then was for a united five-island Antilles-the current structure). Besides, he did not believe that Bonaireans were ready for it as more information and education were  required. His opinion was shared by Eddy Christiaan who added that these kinds of discussion meetings were too premature for the public due to lack of information.
The commission strongly suggested avoiding  terms like 'too late' etc. and referred once again to the information in the newly available flyers as the legitimate base for the referendum.
Mr. Anibel Clarinda took the honors of making the final remark/question from the public by asking what kind of Antilles will we be choosing for? Mr. Els remarked that the Antilles that have not changed since the Statuut of 1954.
Finally Mr. Abdul concluded by stating that money should not be an obstacle in the information campaign. He referred to the fact that in 1994 they used an open budget till the end and strongly recommended the same for this referendum. Natalie A.C. Wanga

NOTE: Next Panel Discussion in Antriol, Friday, 19 March at the Meralney Village, Kaya Papa Cornes 26.