Let Us Be Bound By Our Contracts
The Alliance For Change Column
By Khemraj Ramjattan
Kaieteur News
December 10, 2006
It is indeed an act of hypocrisy and an indulgence in double standards when a political party, whether in Government or Opposition, says one thing, and when put to the test, does not do what it says.
Exceptionally, it is understandable that a change of circumstances can realise a review of an earlier decision, resulting in a legitimate overturning or reversal of that earlier position.
However, on a matter of fundamental principle, no one should countenance such reversals. And whenever such reneging of an earlier position occurs, everyone should roundly criticise it.
Both the PPP/C and the PNCR must be criticised for not supporting the abolition of corporal punishment in schools when the Chantalle Smith Motion, resolving that it be abolished, came up for debate on December 7, 2006.
These parties negotiated successfully to defer the Motion for a period of 6 (six) months for further consultation with stakeholders. This they did through respective proposed amendments which diluted the essence of AFC's Chantalle Smith's Motion and which would have delayed its effective support.
Both these parties, however, supported the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child when in 1991 Guyana ratified and became a signatory thereto. Article 19 of that Convention makes it clear that signatories must take legislative and administrative measures to protect children from all forms of physical or mental violence.
There is a proposal that Guyana needs a new Education Act. The old one of 1939 made express provisions for corporal punishment. What Ms. Smith's Motion was seeking to achieve is that in the new Act there must be an express provision for the abolition of corporal punishment, and, additionally, administrative arrangements throughout all schools must enforce this new regime. This is the direct consequence of supporting the Motion.
But what do the PPP/C and PNCR say? “Hold on! Wait awhile! Let us hear what the stakeholders will say!” A good pretext used from time immemorial in Parliament for not giving support to some proposal or the other.
I wish to ask these parties if they ever consulted or listened to stakeholders when they supported Guyana being a signatory in 1991 to this Convention. They did not. Both supported the Convention because it was the right thing to do.
But now both want to play politics with the issue, being fully aware that a substantial percentage of Guyanese parents may very well still want to support corporal punishment on seemingly irrational grounds - probably because of unawareness of the arguments against, or embedded archaic instructional and cultural attitudes. This is an approach reminiscent of the recent irrationality, which resulted in the continued racial patterns of voting last elections.
When there is a signing on to international Conventions and Treaties, there must be an adherence and an abiding conformity with their terms.
I remember all too well the obscene inconsistency and outright hypocrisy of the leaders of the PPP/C as regards the denunciation of the right to life provision after acceding to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Signing on to this Protocol in 1993 by the then Cheddi Jagan administration was one of the proudest moments in my life. It was walking the talk as it were. Remember the PNC never wanted to accede to this Protocol, which entitled ordinary Guyanese to take their complaints of human rights violations to this august body, the United Nations Human Rights Commission. This is what I wrote then - “Our country's accession is proof of how seriously human-rights oriented and democratic our PPP/C Government is; how the Government will allow scrutiny by dispassionate referees of international standing without any local biases in accordance with, and upon application of, universal standards. We have imprinted our commitment, by this accession, to be part of a community of just States by sanctioning certain moral standards, which claim universal validity beyond our own legal community. This is indeed glorious and noble.”
But then the notorious convicted murderers, Yasseen and Thomas, tested this commitment by taking their complaints to this august body, complaining about human rights violations. And the Committee recommended that the nation should free them, in view of the Committee's findings that the violations of their human rights were severe and fundamental!
What resulted shamed me beyond imagination. The PPP/C Government proceeded to denounce the right to life provision of the Protocol. This backtracking occurred through a Clement Rohee Motion in Parliament in1998. At the behest of the Janet Jagan administration, he had argued that these conventions and treaties were not binding because Guyana was a sovereign state.
I have lengthy notes on this episode. A passage caught my eye, and I think it useful to share it at this point --- “ This false sovereignty argument, which avers a convenient non-binding attitude whenever it suits us because we are a sovereign country, must not be used to suffer us to depart from our agreements with the larger world, especially when the consequence will be to disengage ourselves from the obligations we have to third parties, like Yasseen and Thomas, who were the intended beneficiaries of these agreements. Rather, our sovereignty should operate to bind our consciences, as far as they can be bound, to a true and literal performance of our agreements.”
Yasseen and Thomas were third parties who never benefited from our agreements with the larger world because of our failure to perform our obligations under them. Please let this not happen to our schoolchildren. Let us be bound by our contracts!