Legislation as a weapon: The legalized plundering of Suriname
While the robberment is busy protecting itself and its own wealth through ‘legislation’, other ‘legislation’ is simultaneously paving the way for the maximum plundering and confiscation of the population’s wealth. Here’s from Starnieuws, “SOVA Warns National Assembly: Amendment to State Asset Seizure Laws Undermines Legal Protection” (August 27th 2026):
The Suriname Bar Association (SOVA) is calling on the National Assembly (DNA) not to adopt, in its current form, the proposed legislation that would further restrict the seizure of state assets. According to the Bar Association, the proposal goes too far and threatens to deprive citizens and businesses with legitimate claims against the State of the ability to effectively enforce a court judgment. The legislation could also undermine confidence in the State as a contractual partner and ultimately lead to higher costs for the government.
…
The proposed legislation aims to further restrict the ability to seize the State’s property and assets. It also proposes lifting existing third-party attachment orders affecting certain bank balances, monetary claims, and other property rights belonging to the State. In addition, old attachment orders could automatically become null and void after five years under certain circumstances.
…
This creates a fundamental rule-of-law problem. A citizen or business may take the State to court, win the case, and obtain a judgment confirming a claim against the State, yet subsequently have virtually no means of compelling payment. According to SOVA, a court judgment must not be reduced to merely “a right on paper.”
Put that in contrast with the following, from Starnieuws, “Parliament Concerned About Protecting Citizens Amid Tougher Tax Collection Measures” (October 10th 2026):
The new Tax Collection Act is intended to give the Tax Administration more powers to actually collect outstanding tax debts. However, members of the National Assembly (DNA) have expressed concerns about protecting citizens and businesses. Particular attention on Thursday was given to the continuation of asset seizures while a tax assessment is still being disputed, as well as the protection of the minimum means of subsistence.
The draft law stipulates that filing an objection or appeal against a tax assessment does not automatically suspend the obligation to pay. As a result, the Tax Administration can, in principle, continue collection proceedings even when the taxpayer has presented substantiated objections to the assessment.
…
In the case of a business, for example, the seizure of working capital could make it impossible to pay salaries and suppliers. If it later turns out that the tax assessment was excessive or incorrect, the business owner may get their money back, but lost customers, jobs, or business operations cannot automatically be restored.
…
The possibility of third-party attachments was also discussed. Under certain circumstances, the tax collector can directly claim money that a third party owes to a taxpayer and use it to settle the taxpayer’s tax debt.
Another notable provision is the possibility of digital bank account seizures. During the debate, it was pointed out that under the proposed legislation, a notification to the bank could be sufficient. Questions were raised about whether and how the account holder would be notified, and what portion of the bank balance would have to remain exempt from seizure.
And also from Starnieuws, “Parliament Unhappy With ‘Severe’ Coercive Measures in New Tax Law” (October 11th 2026):
Over the past week, considerable concern has arisen in Parliament regarding provisions in the new tax law currently under consideration. The law provides for the possibility of depriving people who are unable to meet their tax obligations of their liberty and sending them to prison. It also allows the government, with a judge’s approval, to seize the assets of taxpayers who are unable to pay. The resulting financial damage to taxpayers could be enormous.
Imprisonment for debt (lijfdwang) and compulsory debt collection (dwanginvordering), as these two sanctions are called, are regarded as extreme measures and potentially in conflict with human rights. Members of Parliament particularly want to prevent citizens who cannot afford to pay from being treated in the same way as taxpayers who deliberately refuse to pay. During the proceedings, it was emphasized that depriving someone of their liberty over a tax debt is an exceptionally severe measure. Parliament therefore asked what safeguards would be put in place to prevent imprisonment from being imposed on someone who is simply unable to pay their tax debt.
All of this is happening against the backdrop of a ‘judiciary’ that, also thanks to ‘legislation,’ receives astronomical sums from those very same ‘revenues’ of the robberment. Here’s from Starnieuws, “Payslip Showing SRD 1 Million Net Salary Emerges Following Van der San’s Criticism” (February 13th 2026):
Evidence regarding the remuneration of the Prosecutor General (PG) has now been provided. Eugène van der San, former director of the Office of the President, told Starnieuws that he had obtained the payslip of Prosecutor General Garcia Paragsingh. The payslip shows a total gross amount of more than SRD 1.4 million. After deductions, the net amount comes to more than SRD 1 million. The payslip lists, among other items, a basic salary of SRD 562,018 and various allowances — including representation, car, housing, and management allowances — as well as employer contributions toward pension and social benefits. It also includes deductions for wage tax, pension contributions, and SZF (State Health Insurance Fund) contributions.
…
The disclosure follows earlier political controversy over the remuneration structure within the judiciary. Member of the National Assembly Poetini Atompai (NPS) recently raised pointed questions in the National Assembly about the proportionality and reasonableness of salaries within the judiciary.
Atompai noted that, according to information that had come to light, certain forms of remuneration within the judiciary were reportedly three to five times higher than the salary of the President of the Republic of Suriname.
You would expect this blatant and shameless further consolidation of the existing grip on power by the robberment to set off every alarm bell immediately. Apparently, however, the people on the plantation Suriname have by now been lulled into such a deep slumber that they fail to realize what’s about to come their way.
This hasn’t been surprising to me anymore for years. After all, these are the same people who celebrate the ‘abolition’ of slavery every year on July 1st without realizing that the current system is simply another form of slavery into which they have been duped — one that, according to Anton de Kom, is even harsher than what existed before. Slaves who live under the illusion that they’re free, and that the daily abuse they experience is ‘normal’ and in their own best interests, are, after all, ideal slaves in the eyes of their owners according to former American slave Frederick Douglass.
Life on plantation Suriname
And then there are a few “members of parliament” who are ‘concerned’, or at least pretend to be, even though we all know what will ultimately happen. They’ll simply vote in favor of the new ‘legislation’ like a good house slave, who also gets to enjoy the crumbs the master leaves behind while eating. Who knows, perhaps something is still gnawing at their conscience, and they may yet realize, if only to a very small degree, what they’re about to unleash on the population — including themselves, their children, and their future grandchildren. Perhaps somewhere deep down they sense that the karmic consequences they’re bringing upon themselves will not be particularly favorable.
On April 12th, 2012, I wrote an open letter to the then supreme overseer of the plantation Suriname, copying Jennifer Simons and Adelien Wijnerman. In my letter, I explained the role of (income) taxes within the current anti-social system of enslavement. Now, 14 years later, we see these very same people, while claiming that “[den] o kenki a systeem” (“we will change the system”), not only continuing that system but also actively contributing to it becoming worse for the individual. I understand them, though, because an overseer doesn’t have much choice: you have to do what the masters want, or else there will be consequences. No wonder Simons now regularly states that she wants to stay alive. It would be worthwhile to investigate where the impulses to introduce such ‘legislation’ are coming from because it certainly isn’t coming from the slave population against whom it will be used. Who actually benefits? That would be interesting work for the few investigative journalists among us.
The consequences of the ‘legislation’ they’re about to force through are predictable, and I discussed them in lots of detail in my open letter. While there’s much talk about tackling corruption, the irony is that this ‘legislation’ will actually lead to an increase in corruption and even more severe forms of it, as people will soon (quite rightly) seek all kinds of ways to protect themselves against the terror inflicted by the robberment. This will further sicken society and accelerate its decline. Ultimately, it will end in a total collapse.
This is a recurring pattern in systems fundamentally built on the violation of the individual’s Universal Right to Life. They contain a fundamental contradiction: they claim to organize and protect society, among other things through ‘legislation,’ while simultaneously violating the rights of the very people who make up that same society. Over time, this internal contradiction makes the system unsustainable.
History offers countless examples of this, but we’re now seeing it happen on other plantations as well, such as the Netherlands and Belgium, where increasing numbers of people are fleeing their own local robberments. Because they certainly no longer have justice on their side, especially not when the judges themselves benefit from the legalized extortion and exploitation by the robberment.
So, the question isn’t whether or not the bill will eventually come due, but who will have to pay it and how much will be left to salvage by that time. Because anyone who today cooperates in further enslaving and impoverishing the population, is contributing to the very conditions that will bring about their own downfall tomorrow.
Comments
There are 0 responses. Follow any responses to this post through its comments RSS feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.