To the Review Committee CPB
Chairman prof. dr. A. Barten
c/o drs E.A. Oskam, SER
PO Box 90405
2509 LK Den Haag
September 11 1997
In reply to your decision of September 5 1997
I hope that you allow me a short reaction to your decision of September
It may be that there are some misunderstandings.
An analogy may clarify matters. I enclose a newspaper klipping of a recent
case of similar abuse by the government. In 1984 military officer mr. Ovaa
died by a grenade. The Ministry of Defence (his superiors) judged that
he caused the accident himself, calling him incompetent. You would call
this a ‘remote event’, no longer worthy of your attention. However, by
a long fight with the Ministry, Ovaa’s widow got established that the type
of grenade was defunct, had been judged to be defunct long before, and
had been kept in use only since the grenade had been developed by the Ministry
itself. Just recently, the Ministry was forced to accept these facts publicly,
and to restore Ovaa’s honour.
Firstly, I do not consider your Review Committee to be a court of law or
similar body. I provided you with information that partly relies on legal
sources, not for you to decide on the information itself as a court would
do, but to consider the consequences for your task.
Secondly, you are correct in observing that developments in my case started
earlier, but you are incorrect in believing that they have ended. Very
recently the CPB directorate stated (before the court) that it could block
internal discussion by its own volition (notably by not allowing the use
of a conference room). Some matters are still before the courts. So your
qualification ‘remote past’ seens rather inadequate. In this context, it
is both ambiguous and unfortunate that you mention that you did not see
any evidence of a case similar to mine in the recent past: (a) does this
imply that my case is grave indeed ? (b) and if so, do you really require
people to go through my experience ?
In the same way, the abuse by the directorate of the CPB still is a
very actual matter, as is my protest against it. I do not ask you to do
anything other than to do your duty as a Review Committtee, which may involve,
as I wrote earlier, some public hearings and discussions with Dutch economists
to better understand the consequences of my case.
As your decision now is as I understand it is, my impression is that
you are failing in your duty. I kindly ask you to send me your final report,
so that I can publicly state my reaction to it.