Let us be bound by our contracts

Sep 23, 2012 AFC Column, Features / Columnists

---

By Khemraj Ramjattan
AFC Leader

It has become necessary, in view of the appalling state of affairs where as a matter of policy the Guyana Government is supporting the piracy of textbooks with the expenditure of over $100 M of taxpayers monies, that there be this timely reminder that we be bound by our contracts.
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 realize a review of an earlier decision, resulting in a legitimate overturning or reversal of that earlier position taken.
However, on a matter of fundamental principle hardly should such reversals be countenanced.  And whenever such reneging of an earlier position is taken, it should be roundly criticized.
I recall my criticism of both the PPP/C and the PNCR for not supporting the abolition of corporal punishment in schools when AFC Chantalle Smith’s Motion, resolving that it be abolished, came up for debate in 2007.
These parties negotiated successfully that the Motion be deferred for a period of 6 (six) months for further consultation with stakeholders.  This they did through respective proposed amendments which diluted the essence of her Motion and which delayed its effective support up till this day….some 6 (six) years! Their proposal for broader consultations with stakeholders will come up for hearing in the October 2012 session of Parliament.
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.
Our old Education Act of 1939 made provisions for corporal punishment.  What Ms. Smith’s Motion was seeking to effectuate was that in the new Act there must be an express provision for the abolition of corporal punishment; and, additionally, administrative arrangements must be made throughout all schools to enforce this new regime. Corporal punishment, however, remains as the subsisting regime, notwithstanding our 1991 ratification of the Rights of the Child Convention.
I did ask these parties whether 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 both wanted to play politics with the issue, being fully aware that there was a substantial percentage of Guyanese parents who wanted to support corporal punishment.
When there is a signing on to international Conventions and Treaties there must be an adherence and an abiding conformity with their terms.
Another example of non-conformity to international obligations was the support both parties gave to the Recall Bill of 2007. This Bill sought to give the Representative of the List powers which even Burnham did not dream of giving himself.  How times can change! And how the PPP had changed with the times!
It was and is power to smother independent thinking and free debate in our National Assembly. It is power to curb and confine elected Parliamentarians within the safe perimeters of the List Representative or his/her cabal’s, confidence. And to commandeer candidates once elected never to vote according to the dictates of conscience or reason, but according to the instructions of party whips.
I argued then that since Parliamentarians have to be elected by voters, then the power to recall them, if it is desired in the first place, similarly, must best reside in the voters. Never should it be in one person, that is, the Representative of the List. Such an objectionable feature was a legalizing of party-leader paramountcy.
But the abhorrent feature of this legislative development in Guyana was that the PPP Law Minister in 2002 in St Vincent and Grenadines, and more significantly, its Head of Government in 2003 in Abuja, at Commonwealth meetings, had endorsed and signed on to what is well known as the Latimer House Guidelines. Under the sub-title “Preserving the Independence of Parliamentarians”, this document wisely prescribed against “laws allowing for the recall of members during their elected term, such being a potential threat to the independence of members”.
Yet in the face of only 3 (three) years signing on to this important Commonwealth Principles, the PPP Government flung it over its shoulder like Janet Jagan did with the summons.
This most recent case of permitting the violation of intellectual property rights of text-book publishers, flies in the face of the PPP Government’s acceding to the Berne Convention of Literary and Artistic Works on 25th October 1994 and becoming on the same day a member of the World Intellectual Property Organisation.
I also 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. And I proudly wrote these words: “Our country’s accession is proof of how seriously human-rights oriented and democratic we are getting; how we 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 Yasseen and Thomas, convicted murderers, tested this commitment by taking their complaints to this august body, complaining against human rights violations. And they secured recommendations that they should be freed, in view of the Human Rights 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. It was a backtracking which occurred through a Clement Rohee Motion in Parliament in1998. He argued that these conventions and treaties were not binding because Guyana was a sovereign state.
Though a PPP Parliamentarian at the time, I asked to vote my conscience. I was not allowed to and so stayed away. But I had written on the issue to counter Rohee’s nonsense, thus:
“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 benefitted from our agreements with the larger world because we failed to perform our obligations under them. Please let this not happen to our schoolchildren! Please let this not happen to our legitimate booksellers! Please let this not happen to our conscience-voting independent-minded Parliamentarians!
Let us be bound by our contracts! Otherwise we become institutionally corrupt!

---

---