What have we come to…they think we stupid?

31.JULY.09

Editor: What really have we come to? What do the politicians really think of us? They think we’re stupid, I presume.

I am convinced that Parnel R. Campbell, who was Chairman of the Constitution Review Commission, thinks that our people are stupid. Here is what he says about the call from the people to have the referendum done where we can all vote on each amendment instead of voting for the bill as a whole.{{more}}

“Some persons have suggested that in the Referendum the voters should be given the choice of voting on different parts of the Constitution, or that the voters should be required to answer a number of questions on different issues. That cannot be done, because section 38 is quite specific that the voters can only vote to support or not to support the entire Bill which a two-thirds majority of the members of the House would have already approved. The existing constitution simply does not permit voting in a Referendum on an issue by issue basis, as some persons advocated.” Parnel R. Campbell QC, A Brief Summary of the Main Proposals in the St. Vincent and the Grenadines Constitution Bill, Para 10.

So, I went to see what the current constitution says in section 38 to see whether Mr. Campbell was correct. Does section 38 forbid voting by amendments? Or does Mr. Campbell think we are just stupid? Can it be done? Section 38 (5) of our 1979 constitution reads:

“Every person who, at the time when the referendum is held, would be entitled to vote for the purpose of electing Representatives shall be entitled to vote on a referendum held for the purposes of this section in accordance with such procedures as may be prescribed by Parliament for the purposes of the referendum and no other person shall be entitled so to vote.”

A reasonable man, when he reads this section from our constitution, will never conclude as Campbell did. This section clearly puts the manner of the referendum within the discretion of parliament. Parliament will determine how it should be done, whether they think it should be by amendment where persons can vote yes to one section and no to another, or by voting for the entire bill with a single YES or NO. I think this is very clear. But it causes me to believe Mr. Campbell thinks we are stupid. Does he think he can, by decree, remake that section of our constitution? Nowhere in the section is his idea supported…it does not forbid voting by amendments! So please, Mr. QC, stop making people believe that foolishness. It is just not true and you know better! We not stupid!

What have we come to, when we will sit down and allow a Prime Minister to get away with the nonsense that if we vote NO to the draft constitution, we are somehow voting NO to the death penalty? We hanged persons under our current constitution, and we can easily vote on the CCJ as a separate question at a different time (if he believes that the CCJ will somehow guarantee the upholding of the death penalty for the crime of murder). Why should we be held hostage, forced to vote YES for a good thing, while at the same time voting YES to things we do not agree with?

What have we come to when we allow the same Prime Minister to get away with refusing to have our rights described as “inalienable” in our constitution, as if he has sovereign authority over the document? Why shouldn’t we acknowledge God as the source of our rights? We want the paragraph that the drafters had in our preamble which describes our rights as inalienable to be put back in our draft constitution before we vote on it.

While we’re on that, what have we come to when we allow him to get away with the idea that we must give up certain of our “absolute freedoms” to ensure protection? No freedom loving Prime Minister should require that of the people. Giving up our absolute freedoms such as freedom of conscience and thought makes us less than humans. We not stupid! Yet that is what we all listened to on the API program aired on SVG TV on June 4th, 2009. Is this not the idea of a monarch? Yet he is the one who determines what goes into our constitution and what does not?

And his chief supporters are refusing to allow certain citizens to air their views on their radio talk shows. Treating some of us as though we are not citizens! Then we had a minister of Government suggesting on national radio that some voices are not really the voices of the people, in spite of the fact that these voices are those of citizens calling for what is good for the people. I feel insulted.

Give us a definition for adequate compensation – we called for it! Check the CRC revised final report! Give us “inalienable”. It is good for us to know our constitution recognizes the nature of our rights and that they come from God. Give us a senate to keep the executive in check and to ensure real separation of powers. Don’t put what you feel like in our constitution. We never asked for reduction in the referendum votes to amend the constitution from 66.7 % to 60 %. We never told you to reduce the number of days we need to scrutinize a bill to amend our constitution from 90 days to 60 days between the first and second reading! Listen to the people. We’re not stupid.

I am confident that my fellow citizens desire a constitution they can embrace as coming from our bowels. This level of insults however must stop!

Shefflorn Ballantyne