From the Diaspora...IAN CHANG BUDGET RULING AND FIVE DUCKLINGS

From the Diaspora…IAN CHANG BUDGET RULING AND FIVE DUCKLINGS

Feb 09, 2014 News

…where commonsense meets “book sense”

By Ralph Seeram

I am sure you readers are wondering what five ducklings have to do with Chief Justice (Ag) Ian Chang’s ruling on the budget issue.
During last week we heard and read the opinions and reactions of various groups, legal experts and so many non experts. Obviously I am no lawyer but anyone with reasonable comprehension skills can understand what is being played out here.
It reminds me of a late friend and bar owner, Eugene Jardine , who was defending himself in the New Amsterdam magistrate’s court in front of a magistrate whose name I think was Alexander.
Jardine was asked if he went to Law School. The meaning was clear, it meant to criticise Jardine, who shot back,”If anyone with your level of intelligence can make it, anybody can be a lawyer.”
Naturally, lawyers on both sides of the political fence are divided, as their party is; the same holds for pro and anti government groups, not to mention journalists. Everybody is an expert. One of the things the layman must be aware of is that lawyers and judges are not always right. That’s why you have different levels of Appeal Courts. But even there, disagreements occur. In the United States Supreme Court on quite a few occasions the justices come out with a 5 to 4 decision. At some point we have to accept the decision of the highest court, regardless of how we feel.
It is my view that this case will go to the Caribbean Court of Justice where again in my opinion the CCJ will overturn CFhang’s ruling. My reasoning? COMMON SENSE.
Quite a few years ago my old late friend Rupert Trim was sitting as magistrate, when a case of drunken driving was before him. The prosecutor spoke about the defendant’s blood alcohol level being over the legal limit by some British standard.
Rupert objected to the use of the British standard. Trim who studied law in England said Englishmen can’t hold their “drinks” like Guyanese men. Guyanese men, he explained, take a lot of “cutters” with their drink and eat well so they can “hold their drinks better”.
In reality he is correct to a point, we all know some men can hold their drinks better than some men, while the law is the law Trim took a common sense approach and dismissed the case.
Trim knew what he was speaking about; I had quite a few “drinking sessions” with him and he definitely “held his drinks” back in the day.
I paid attention to the various opinions on the subject, especially the one by former Speaker of the House, Ralph Ramkarran, whose views and opinions I respect and give weight to. In his blog on conversationtree.gy this line of his opinion caught my eye. “Therefore the actions of the Opposition appear to fall within the parameters contemplated by Article 171(2).”
The Chang ruling of an all or nothing approach to budget does not make sense. He is saying the Opposition can only approve or disapprove the ENTIRE budget and not parts of it. I am gathering from the former Speaker that in his view the opposition is within its rights to cut parts of the budget. Whose approach is right?
We now come to the story of the five ducklings and common sense. Some of you might have heard or read this story with a little variation. A teacher told the class that Mother Hen and her five ducklings were walking along the road. Mother Hen went across the street, so the teacher asked how many ducklings were left on the side of the road. She called on the boy that grew up in the city all his life and he said the five ducklings. The teacher said that was the correct answer, but the kid that was raised in the countryside raised his hands.
The teacher asked him why his hand was raised, to which he replied “da ansa wrang; none duckling left.” The country kid was asked to explain himself, and he explained that if the Mother hen crossed the street all her duckling will follow her across the street, none will be left.
Those who grew up rearing poultry will know that to be true.
So who’s right here “book sense” or “common sense?”
The Acting CJ took the book sense approach; I think he is actually “splitting hairs”. One must ask if the intent of the framers of the Constitution was to deny the Opposition Parties the right to “cut” sections of the Budget; whether that was the spirit of the Law. I think not.
My view is that Chang took the “book sense” approach, not the reality of the situation. Common sense deals with the real world. Whenever there is a doubt “common sense” should always prevail over “book sense”.
Ralph Seeram can be reached at: [email protected]