Submitted by crinadmin on
[8 December 2006] - The debate in Parliament on a proposed ban on corporal punishment in schools was deferred yesterday in the hope of building consensus among political parties. Alliance For Change (AFC) MP Chantalle Smith asked for a deferment of not more than six months to allow further consultations on the issue, and in the hope of reaching a consensus among the parliamentary parties and other groups. It was an anti-climactic conclusion after several civil society groups and prominent individuals rallied their support around the motion, which urged the National Assembly to declare the continued use of corporal punishment in schools to be a violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which was ratified by Guyana in 1991. It also sought to have the National Assembly declare it a violation of the constitution and to recommend its abolition under the new Education Act. Supporters of the proposed ban stood in the rain with their placards outside Public Buildings yesterday in a show of solidarity. "Corporal Punishment Teaches Fear," read one of the signs, while others said "Violence Breeds Violence" and "A Life Free From Violence Is Everyone's Right." There were parents, teachers and students among the demonstrators. Groups like the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) had been lobbying MPs, while individual citizens also wrote letters imploring them to support the motion. Later, in a brief address to the National Assembly, Smith told members that the deferral resulted from requests made by civil society groups and individuals, who want to see a consensus among the political parties on the issue. She said in a statement that the AFC remained firm in its belief that corporal punishment in schools should be abolished for reasons that included the country's obligations under the CRC. However, she added that the party does recognise that public opinion on the issue is divided. At the same time she said other political parties as well as groups and individuals that may not currently support the motion have indicated signs of their willingness to further study the issue. As a result the party is proposing a discussion in the new year among various organisations and individuals that have expressed strong opinions on the issue. Smith said reasons for this course is to allow sufficient time to obtain expert advice on the effects of corporal punishment in schools, alternative forms of discipline and to study best practices from other countries. She said too that it was also in keeping with the party's wish to see greater collaboration among the parliamentary parties and civil society. She emphasised that increased dialogue and consensus building are integral to the party, rather than scoring cheap political points. Based on her discussions with members of the governing party, Smith said it appeared as though they were open to further dialogue. She was not worried that the deferral would erode the support that has been mobilised for the motion. She said the issue was bigger than her and that those who support the ban would ensure that it would not drop off the national agenda. PPP/C MP Clement Rohee said the request for a deferral was reasonable in light of the seriousness of the issue. PNCR MP Winston Murray also agreed. Without the support of the PPP/C, which has 35 of the 65 seats in the Assembly, there was no chance for the passage of the motion. It was clear that the main opposition PNCR-1G would not support it either. Cabinet Secretary Dr Roger Luncheon recently contended that most Guya-nese support corporal punishment in schools, although Human Services Minister Priya Manickchand has called for it to be re-examined. Meanwhile, hours before yesterday's sitting, the PNCR-1G said that the Task Force established by the Ministry of Education to look at the reform of the Education Act should be the vehicle for wide consultation on the issue. As a result, there was an amendment to the motion in the name of PNCR-1G MP Amna Ally, which departed significantly from Smith's resolution by seeking to have the Assembly call upon the Task Force to solicit views of the various stakeholders on corporal punishment and to make specific recommendations on the issue in its submission on the reform of the Education Act. Discussions were held with the AFC on the proposed amendments in the hope that common ground may be found for a consensus motion. The PNCR-1G noted that the Task Force has had public consultations in all 10 Regions of Guyana and has also met with various stakeholders, including a meeting in November 2006 with the AFC. It added that during these consultations the issue of corporal punishment in schools was raised and discussed with strong representations made for and against the continued use of corporal punishment. The party said the retention or abolition of corporal punishment has great social implications for Guyana and as a result the Education Ministry Task Force must be allowed to continue and widen its consultations with all sections of the Guyanese society. Additionally, it felt that important social issues like corporal punishment and casino gambling should benefit from the widest possible involvement of the country's people so that legislation when enacted will truly reflect the needs and aspirations of Guyana. The party also pointed out that despite the country's ratification of the UNCRC, Article 154A(3) of the Constitution (which deals with International Treaties, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child) says that, "The State shall, having regard to the socio-cultural level of development of the society, take reasonable legislative and other measures within its available resources to achieve progressive realization of the rights provided for." This is the second time in recent years that corporal punishment has prompted fierce national debate. However, two years ago it culminated when the National Commission on the Rights of the Child (NCRC) conducted a National Workshop on Discipline without Beating, where both adults and students agreed that the practice should be retained in the school system. The workshop was conducted by the NCRC in collaboration with the Ministry of Education and the United Nations Children's Fund. Apart from the retention of corporal punishment, it was also agreed that guidance programmes should be created in schools and stakeholders should examine why corporal punishment is not used in some schools. A number of Christian churches, most notably Pentecostal and Evangelical churches, supported the retention of the practice as well. The Education Act allows for head teachers or an assistant teacher over 20 years of age to administer corporal punishment on students for serious or repeated offences. It also says that whenever a head teacher authorises an assistant teacher to administer corporal punishment, it must be done in the presence of the head and under his direction. The law requires an entry on the same day in the punishment book detailing the nature and extent of the penalty along with the reason for it. Some critics have argued that the guidelines are not adhered to in schools. Further information
Owner: Stabroek Newspdf: http://www.stabroeknews.com/index.pl/article?id=56509394Association: Stabroek News