Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697742962314.pdf (Guyana)
2739 2740 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL l'he Hon.

R B. Gnjraj Gn·iana The Hon.

It C. Tello under the Br·itish (Constituted (Constitutfon) Orcle1· (Temvorary in Council, Provisions) 1 D53.

Nominated Of ficia.l: Mr. J. I. Ramphal.

TUESDAY, 25TH JUNE, 1957 Nomincited l\'.k.

W. A. Phang Unofficials: iUr.

L. A. Luckhoo, Q.C ·The Com1cil met at 2 p.m. Mr. C. A. Cartet· Rev.

D. C J� Bob.b i\Ir.

H. Rahaman PRESENT: l\Iiss Gertie I-I.

Collins His Hon-our : Sir Eustace Gordon Woolford, tli e Speaker l\'lrs.
Esther E. Dey O.B.E., Q.C.

E'x-Officio Menibe1'.!

: Dr. H. A. F'rnser The Hon.

the Chief Secretm:y, Mr. R B. Jailal Mr. M. S. Porcher (Ag.)

The Hon.

the Attorney General, lHr.

Sugrim Sing.h _ Mr. A .

M. I. Austin, Clerk of the Legislature: The Hon.

the Financial Secretary, Mr.

I. Crum Ewing.

Mr. F. W. Essex.

Assistamt Cler7c of the Legislature: Nominatecl Uou11ci/: JJ!embers of E11Jecutive The C.lVI.G., culture, Hon.

Sir Frank l\'IcDavicT C.B.E.

(Member fo1· AgTi - Forests, Lands and Mines).


, Mr. E. V. Viapree.

Absent: Mr. T. Lee -on leave.

.Mr.

E. F. Correira -on leave, The Hon.

ber for Labour, P. A. Cummings (Mem­ Health and Housing).

Mr. W. T. Lorcl, I.S.0.-on leave The Hon.

W. 0.

R. Kendall (Mem­ The Speaker read prayers.

ber for Communications and Works).

The Hon.

G. A. C. Farnum, O.Il.E.

Social Develop­ (Member for Local Government, Welfare and Co-operative ment).
The Minutes of the meeting of the Council 1957, as· printed taken as read and confirmed.

held on Friday, 2ht .June, and circulated were 25TH JUNE, 1957 MINUTES I wppose I had better read the let­ The Minutes of the meeting of the ter.

It ic; dated the 22nd of June, 1957.

Council held on Friday, a0 printed and circulated read and confirmed.

21st June, 1957, were taken a.s ''Dear Sir, ANNOUNCEMENTS LEWE TO MEMBERS I�Ir.
Speaker: A verbal comm1mi· cation from Mr. Correia asking for leave from today's meeting has been received, don'!

: think any other Member has asked for leave.

Rev.

Mr. Bobb, I am glad to see you back and 1 have granted it.

I APPEAL FOR POSTPONEMENT Tlf.ARRI.-1.GE OF (AMENDMENT) BILL I have reeciv.ed a communication from va rions Indian Bodies, religious anrl otherwise.

I am afraid I do not know ex'-'l�th· how to pronounce the 11amec, and r" am not going to tl'y to do so-they are all here.
I do not know if are more qualified ,;ome M.embers it but I am not qualified.

I have been asked to prevent this Bill from going through.

I do not know whether I have the nower to do so and I do not pro1rnse to cio so even if I had.

I would be glad if Membel'f would look at it, especially the Chief Serretary, as the Mover of the Bill.

to do I have received a telegram and I am under the impression been dispatcherl to your office.

that it has The Chief Secl'etary (Mr. Porcher, arting) : I do not know.
Mr. Speaker: I will read it to you.

It reads as follows: "The Secretary of State for the Col­ London.

B, G; Lr.gisla­ g M a r r i a onies, The Colonial Office; Oblige Intervene Persuade ture Postpone P a s s i n Amendment Bill Now Being D2bated Legislature.

Bill Totally and Muslims Constituting .

Memorial Population la,ture Bill."

Against Hindus Fifty Per Cent.

Le'gis­ Without Justification Rushing Following.


g e We the representatives of Hindu & Muslim Religious Ol·ganisations operat­ ing in this Colony respectfully wish to appeal to you and also to the Mover of the Marriage Bill-thC' Hon­ ourable to con­ sidct· postponing the present Debate on the said Bill which is in progre�s in the Legislature.

Chief Secretary, Amendment Acting, The reason fol· this Application is that as urged by Mr. Sugrim this Amendrnent Singh.

M.L,C.
M.L,C.

is Hindus & Muslims in would work great hardship and bring more dissatisfactio Colony against to this Colony, c1nd on all of us n in the the Government.

totally unsuitable We met the H on.

the Chief Secretary express­ Organisations on Monday 17th June and all the Six Hindu & Muslim ed their Opposition Only the Muslim League of B.G.

headed by the Hon.

R. B. Gajraj is support;.ng this Amendment.

Four-Man Committee ed this Amendment.

Mr. Gajraj is one of the to this Amendment.

,vhich recommend.
,vhich recommend.

Both the Hindus & Muslims informed that they have Two for presentation to Gov­ the Chief Secretary Bills completed ernment, and while these Organisations are awaiting Secretary, the Executive Amendment who promised Council.

put before the Legislature to report to we see the the reply of the Chief .
We wish to appeal to Government further through you to ask Governn1�nt to postpone Debate on this Amend­ ment, and consider our Two Bills; have been accepted by the Hindu & Muslim Community respectively.

·.vhich Thanking you in advance for your kind in this very important mat.

intervention ter.''

Those 1\1.embers see it can do so.

I formally the table.

As I told you, the hon.

the Chief Secretary should see it firf't.


who would like to lay it on 274.3 Government 25TH JUNE, 1957 Notices 2744 PAPERS LAID The 1\Horney General (Mr. Aus­ tin) : I beg to lay on th.e table- Rules (No.

2 of 1957) made under the Deeds Registry Ordinance (Chapter 32).

The Financial Secretary (Mr. Essex) : I beg to lay on the table- "Be ii resolved: That this Council Or­ 309, confirms 9 of the Customs Order in Chapter No.
30 of 1957 which was :nade in terms of section dinance, Council on the 19th day of June, 1-957, and pub­ on the 22nd of lished in the Gazette June, Hl57."

That this Council '· Be it resolved: in 9 o.f the Customs Or­ in 309, confirms Orde1· No.

31 o:E W57 which was made terms of section dinance, -Chapter Council on the 19th cfay of June, 1'957, and pub­ on the 22nd of lished in the Gazette June, 1957."

Order in Council No.

30 of 1957 made 8 of the Customs 3-0!


), on the 19th day of under section dinance, Chapter Jm1e, 1957, and published on the 22nd of .June, 1957.

Or­ in the Gaiette No.

31 o.

{ 1957 made Order in Council under section Chapter and published of June, 1957.

309, on the 19th -of June, 1957, in the Gazette on the 22nd 8 of the Customs Ordinance, '' Be it resolved: That this Council of the :Supplementary approves Estimates for the month of May, 1957, totalling $295,742.63, table.''
which have been laid on the '· Be it resolved: That this Council proves of the Supplementary for the month of May, (Development) 1,957, which have $758,212.00, been laid on the table.''

totalling ap­ Estimates Schedule of Supplementary Estimates for the month 0£ May, 1957.

Schedule of Supplementary £or the month of May, Estimates (Development) 1957.

Sir Frank frlcl)avid (Member for Agricultme, Forests, L an cl s and Mines): I bog to lay on the table- Fisheries Regulations, 1957 (No.
13) WITHDRAWAL OF MOTIONS Mr. Speal,er: Before the Ordf.r of d, I .s,hould ihe Day is cc,mmence to mention that I have g;i:antecl mic·sion Lnckhoo, two motions which, I s to withdraw.

propo.se like per­ to the hon.

Member, .Mr.

to to say something he understand, in relation These Regulations are in .substitu­ CLirences) Regu­ 1957, and the Fished.es Oviar­ ns, la57, tabled on the tion for the Fi�heries lations, keting J Regulatio 20th June, 1957.

I formally withdraw those.

Mr. S11eaker: Ye,·.


Agreed to.

Regulations withdrawn.

GOVERN:ME='l"T NOTICES ORDER IN COUNCIL No.

30 OF 1957 The Financial Secretary: T beg to on motion,� give notice of the following - the Order Paper Mr. Luckhoo: I am obliged to The were negotiations between the Demerara Com­ for that permission.

Your Honour two motions are items 4 and 5 on th.e Order Paper.
With regard to item 5, I feel I should bring to the whole Council the fact that private condu�.ted p,i.ny and the Lessees' Ais,sociation of Alexander Village, and after a period of five months one is happy to see an between the own­ arrangement reached the lessees who own ers of the land and the buildings on the land, whereby the Demerara Company will be selling to those individuals the who own houses, Janel at much below the value_ I am very happy about it.
It shows a tremendous amount of good­ will on the part of the lessors, and a ce,·tain amount of tact in the represen­ tation made by the A,ssociation.

current mark.et I 2745 Witiu/ra.

wa,!

of Notices 25TH JUNE, 1957 Ma1·riage ( Amdl.}

Bill 2746 LMr.

Luckhoo] should mention the price is one ranging between 12 to 15 cents per square foot and the pmchasers up to thr.ee land free o.f interest.
.,·ears to pay the price of the will be permitted .. Be it resolved: That this House re­ to Government should either forthwith as was undertaken spectfully recommends that Government rehouse the tenants be done by Government, necessary and Alexander from the Industrial Georgetown steps to have the Ruimveldt Viillage areas excluded Zone in the Greater to or take the Plan.''

Another concession whil-h was ar.


and for which I am very happy, to the land on which there are ranged, related churches, tempi.es will all be transported fee of one dollar to the trustees of the :oeveral organizations.

I think it is quite an outstanding tlii.s achi.evement to.

has been resorted and mosques.


These at the nominal that ORDER OF THE DAY .MARRIAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL Mr. Speaker: I think the Council may nuw proceed se�ond reading of the BilI with the debate on the intituled: There is one nortion of the land­ "An Ordinance further to amend the scape, partly to the west of the public road, the use of which has.

not heen and I am hoping that def-ermined, that aim will be �·ubject to re· arrangement.
I am grateful, Your Honour, for me to mention thi.s, and permitting this with your !ewe, I beg to withdraw motion.

Marriage Ordinance'' to to prevent the debate from as Speaker, ng, and I am afraid I have no I am not in a position, intervene continui other option but to ask the next speaker to procc.ed.

had finished ,va:S rather hun-yi�1g I do not think his address.

I think he lVIr.

Gajraj it.


Mr. Gajraj: Yes, Sir, I was in a that afternoon, becanse hurry to fini,,h I expected to finish our work on the Bill that evening.

we would have endeavonl'.ed Qu.estion put.

and agreed to.

Motions, as under, withdrawn.


Item 4 - " Whereas under the Rice Farmers l 956; of Tenure) Ordinance, (Security tenant rice farmers commit an offence by keeping thefr oxen on the holding after reaping and threshing; and cultivation, in many cases "Whereas these tenants have nowhere to keep their animals and animals on have in the pa,t kept their the holding; " Be it resolved: That section No.
31 of 1956, Rice Farmers 56 (3) of Tenure) Ordinance 1955, be of Ordinance (Secudty repealed-" Item 5 - " Whereas the tenants of lands at are Ruimveldt and Alexander Village grea't hardship since suffering not freely sell, houses; and repair or sublet their they can·· own " Whereas these lands are included in the Industrial Plan,'' Georgetown Zone of the Greater Mr. Speaker: I will allow you to continue.

I hope that I will lVIr.


Gajraj: It is very obliging of Your Honour, and I shall take advan­ tage of yom off.er.
not in the c·ourse of my remarks repeat anything that I said last Friday evening, but I do feel that it is neces­ on the sary that a few mi.scon.ception.s part of the priests of the Hindu and Muslim community We liave hsard, and we have also read to Your in the terms of the letters which has Honour and of the been dispatched to the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the proposals before this Council, should be set right.

that it is claimed telegram '2.747 Marriage 25TH JUNE, 1957 ( Arndt.)
Bill 2748 , and Ordinance Hindu and Mus­ [Mr. Gajraj-J to amend the Mal'l'iage which aim at putting lim priests as Ministers appointed not solve our pro hlems.

Indeed :he claim is mad!]

that there will 11e g,reater I may use the confusion-if word u sed by Mr. Sugrim Singh.
in exactly the same position Religion will as marriage officers, of the Christian I want categorically to deny that confusion - to those who have for many of reli­ out the functions in the r.espective commun­ there can be any gr.eater and I want to say, with all c'.ue respect carried �·ears gious leaders ities - or if there is any confusion whatever, that it can only arife' a deliberate people.

To take a more cha;·it:i1}le view, it can only a1·ise themselves position.
do not understarnl the attempt to mislead the if the 1rn.rties out of been, there is no question ing an immigrant imagination.

of one be­ of th.e by any stretch Dubbing them as immigrants is for the .�·enera­ come after the ��·iginal merely a twist of the law.

The provi­ sions of the Indian Labour Ordinance were never intended tions who might .
They were intended to immigrants giv.e the indentured immigrants right::; and privileges-such as being sent back to India, and so on-and all the privileges promised were also ,ex­ The word "de� tended to the children.

scendants" is naturally those who des�ended who came here as immigrants ally.
as covering from the people interpreted appea,·.s in section origin­ 31 and it all certain But those who have been born in and who come within the they by that very act, from the this countl'y scope of the Indian Labour Ordinance, as soon as they become Christians are removed.

-::onfines liable bilities try.

There is no provision seek, if they wish, exemption Indian Labour Ordinance.
of the common law of this cotm­ for them to from the of that Ordinance, to all the privileges and re.sponsi­ and become l tried to make it clear that there their edu� betw.een and who will in a marria�e under the Indian Labom· Marriage (Amend­ In one· case.

und':lr .�e have persons Guiana.

is a difference registered Ordinance and a marriag.e, registered under the proposed ment) Ordinance.
the Indian Labour Ordinance, of immigrants, a marl'iage who, although born in British although they have rec.eivecl cation in, and are making their contri­ bution to this country, due course lay down their bones in the to the sa�recl soil of Guiana-accor�1ing are cfoblrnd wording of this Ordinance, 'immigrants.'

.

this Council th<it ashamed of in being an 'immigrant'.
would agree that if I left this counll'I' and went to another in order to mak my Jiving and my future there I would b.e an immigrant in that country.

went there with the object of helping myself and making that country ter pla�e, then there is nothing to be ashamed of in being dubbed an immi­ when one is born grant.
But certainly have just as one's parents in a country, W,e have been told in there is nothing to be I a bet­ If I e 0 There are many I know who wish to do so, but they do not wish when tlrn time comes for them to get married that their rnarriag.e should be solemnizerl with them professing that their marriage one performed should be a civil by the Registrar.
Christianity, or for full citizenship When it was realized that there was no provision rights for Hindoo,; and Muslims, it was decided that the matter must be put right; that that void must be filled.

The way in which it was proposed to fill that void was.

to extend the pro­ so of the Marriage vis'ions that not only ministers of the ian religion Hindu religion and the Islamic re­ ligion would be placed on the same Ordinanc8, of the Christ­ but also priests 2749 Mar1'ia-ge 25TH JUNE, 1957 (Atndt.)
Bill 2750 two, such as the peo­ Oi:dina clian Labour ple who belong· inte1lig·.entsia, provided for nncle1· this Ordinance.

to the upper-2Iass, the and others have been [Mr. Gajraj] ba&is and would be able to solemnize in accordance marriages own religious to .have these marriage.s registered accel)ted the land.

They would be able as marriages under the law of with their rites.
and If there are people in E ritish Gui­ to remain as who are satidied of in the special ana still, l'Ontext immigrants then they the Indian Labour Ordinance, are entitled so to do because Govern­ ment's proposals revocation Guianese Indian Labour Orclinanre.

of any rights which might have under the do not include the Indians Indeed, the proposals merely extend to Hindoos and lVIuslims an opportunity w ho wish to make use of their full citizen ship rights.
There is no doubt whatever, that, in spite of the many which have been written and reports to Gui­ mane in relation the statements anese Indians in this countrr, we that this is our country and we realize have to make our contributio its improvement spite of what others might say we shall continue shall continue that no citizens citizens; than we are, for there can be no g reater love and respect than the love and resped for the land Guiana is the of their birth - British land of our birth.
So long as we have such feelings, Sir, ,ve must claim our proper legal ]JOSition.

to make our contribution, to show that we are .good are better and upliftment.

8hown by any people n towards we In In these days of political fervour might be exeused.

As of this Council are are if charges 0£ this nature bv those who are able to do on the record.,; and such inferences far as the r e�ol'ds concerned, not refuted so they will {-emain be considered after us as true.
iJy those who will wme which af­ and not any Indians class.

If cel'tain people have d it their duty to have this are not true, we are at­ to get rid of the stigma under I e-ay tbat the charges Sir.

By this Ordinan('e tempting which Hindoos and Muslims are forced tu live.

This is some.thing fects all Guianese particular considere stigma removed, whatever a.� we have heard charges that the proposal whirh we have before us at the prnsent moment is the best and proposal could be accepted.
there is no reason why they should be charged made..

I feel that could be considei-,ecl I remember saying on Friday last of four .emanate and if in the that although I am no lawyer the law is nut static but dynamic, com·se of time other proposals either from Government or from the other s icle it would be the duh of the Government tai.ning the provi�ion w'ives, to examine thofe proposals mo8t carefully.
If the new pro­ posals were accepted Government could then make further the Ordinance sit here and wait; we haye to move step by ste,p until we r.each the top.

What we have 1n·oposect from ernment side is a step in the right direction.

and telcg-nnns of State, to the Seeretary is cloin�· Government ing these proposals before the Legis1a­ hue for considel'atio n. In spite of all the letters that may have been sent ac,·orclingly.
amendments to We cannot I say that the its clut�· in bring­ the Gov­ in power, desirou� of re­ Sir, we are By these proposals, making an avenue for Hindoos anct Muslims who do not wish to remain under the Indian Labour 01·dinance come out in the open and have th�ir like other people.

marriages es of a very unsavoury nature I11fer,enc have been imputed on those wl�o do not desire to remain and rngistered live under the In- to 2751 Mtrrriage 25TH JUNE, 1957 ( A melt) 2752 Bi//,!
I will refer to a part of the hon .. speech when he mentioned section was talking Mr. Singh's that a certain (·0mmunity to have four wives.

This is o.ne of the most controversial in the Mus­ Um Marriage Law.

of the Muslim about the right elements Mr. Singh: May I say, on a point of corre·:tion, an established that I was reading from .

-· nuthOl'itv on Muslims.

of a male in the it was nei.

;esc:i.ry of a husband or :father the protection home.
Therefore that those who were left without the protection in the home �hould have some prntcc­ tion.

In British Guiana, as in mQ3t other parts of the world there is a short­ age of men.

If one v,·ere to check on the population statistics one would find that ther.e are more women than men.

In the circumstances how couldl.

one with any degree or un­ derstanding ing tou many wives?

speak of a Muslim as hav­ of the world, 1\11'.


Speaker: I think the real fact is that it sprang from the day.s of immi­ gration.

Mr. Gajraj: I� that a corl'l�ction, Sir?

Mr. Singh : It was not my author­ my coming from me.

i it was read from a book, it is to Muslim law it is That, how­ opinion; not an allegation merely read from an .establisbecl itr on Muslims in order to· establish point that ac·cording lawfol to have four ·wives.
ever, cmrnot be inserted in English You mu.st remain monogamous as soon a:, you take mor.e th�m one wife I read the you become polygamous.

statement from au establish2d un Muslims, on the textbook and I will be glad to pa�,,' to my hon.

Friend.

law.

because authority Mr. Gajraj: The hon.

Member which I have studied tu me.

It is for many need not pass the textbook a jJoint y.ears.

The hon.

Member said in the comse uf his speech that Muslims a1·e here.

He will remember that at the over whi�h the hon.


the Conferen('e Chief Secretary the presided, to the Chairman of the counterpart Pundit� Council, point.

Let me say that it i'l definitely one of the moRt controver�ia] amon�·st all parts of the world.

Muslims not onl:v here but in .

'spoke on this ve1·y someone, subjects The �onditions of limited po]ygam�· for a particular whirb one fincl.s in the Koran were intended time.
It was after the battle of Uhud in which a large number of �·-olc and there were wives nnd daughters of the faithful l �ers were killed ,vho were without Mr. Gajraj: I want to say that who life.

One con­ what the Kornn says.

it.


There are many jurists do not permit of a change might wish to argue ( relating makes it dear that monogamy conditions even though one against have interpreted One point is that the injundion which begins with the statement tu marriage) i.s the basis of Islamic dition is that the husband must treat each wife equally well, and that is a con­ dition which it is impossible to fulfil.

It ,vou Id relate to every act.


There are also some jurists that a mrrn cannot take a wife today and a few years lat�r say that she had got old and that he wants to look for a younger 3.·irl.

It ha.s been said that if a husband has to look after each wife equally well he mmt have means in order to b'e able to keep three or four at the snme time.
who proclaim con­ Another point is th at in the Islamic is c�sential themselves law, ma,rriage ly a civil tract and there is this point which many do not fully rrppre­ IVIuslims ciate.

That is, a bride can lay down eonclitions which would make it impossible for the hm-band to take a seco.nd wife.
Is it in� conceivable riage Bill based on Islamic lrrw anrl which would satisfy among Muslims, that we can prepare a mar­ a_.s well as fit the views all shade; of opinion in the marriage contract 2753 Marriage 25TH JUNE, 1957 '( A)inclt.)

Bill 2754.

[Mr. Gajra] of priests under British mind it is absolutely law?

To my impossible.
To my impossible.

Organization, of the lVIuslim and about but one can­ in British At the moment we are hearing Bill for Muslims a separate not escape the fact that we have to con­ sider both side.s.

I can speak from per­ sonal knowledge Guiana Hindu communiti.es since I was for five years General Pre­ sident of the Muslim and there I came across both Hindoos and Muslims who felt that the marriages of th.eir should be legalised.

were noL prepared to subje'.


!t of their sons and daughters lim divorce of divorce the husband merely says to the wife three times: "I divorce thee".

Jaws.
The Mus.lim ceremony is ·quite They also �aid that they sons and daughters a simple one since the lives to the Mus­ There again, there are some Hindu whieh says that the should be pro­ intervals, and Muslim prie.sts who differ as to what three times (in repeating these woTds) mean, and the1·e is another school of thought wol'ds "I divorce thee'' nounced at monthh· being that and the wife would meet each other and, since there is an old saying that "old fil'estick does catch quick", ings would prevail and from going through the object in the· interval the husband better feel­ them pl'event with the divorce.
ng a three­ and by permitti There is a third side to the ques­ law a hus­ his wife if she is tion, and it is that in Islamic band cannot divorce enc,einte,, month period before a obtained tell easily or not.

I these details of those who would like to see a Bill in the intereg,t Colony.
divorce could be the husband would be able to whethel' the wife i.s enr·einte have endeavoureci to give all of everybody in this for the benefit esMcia]]y I make these points mer.ely to show the difficulty established ideas of Islami'.!

laws in- of getting all of these into any Dill which would corporatecl have the full approval this country.

fo this position, The answer is what is proposed in this Bill before the Council.

When we find ourselves what is the answer?


of everybodr in The Government takes no part of interpre­ have.

in the differences the rites of your marriage n might themE"elves it i:i not whatever tation ·which the a d h ere n t s of the religio The Government cannot, qualified to do s,o, but the Gov­ ernment can say as the Government p r o p o s e s your religion.

ti�n·s.

r.ccordance indeed, differences religion.


having done so, this marriage, which in the .eyes of your religio n and your re­ ligious law be ac­ by us, a civil autho1·ity, c.epted as such and we will have it registe!

'ed in our marriage registers.''

to say now : "This is You carry out the func­ in with your religion and, even in accorda,nce under the �ects ;n that is a sacred bond will You carry out your marrfoge; with the That is all it says.
It does a marriage, to interfere not ,;eek in the slightest degree with the religious E"cruples of anyone except in this res,pect - in the case of anyone wishing to cont,ract one marriage tered.

If anyone thinks he hi going to have a second, wife, he will be committing and will become liable regarding bigamy.
or third, or fourtl1 that can be regisr to the laws it is only big::1my it becomes ,necessary to be instituted When one has one's marriage thus registered, if for divorce proceedings and if it is argued that divoree under the law of this colony will take time then so does divor,c.e under Muslim law.

It takes at least three months.

This, of course, ought friends a�cording is not p.ermitted.
only concern Jaw, divorce it would to orthodox Hindu not to conrern my Hindu as we have been told, the Muslims from a re- Therefore because, 2755 J,fa1'?

'iage 25TH JUNE, 1957 ( Amidt) BW 2756 by having to standpoint.

The grounds.

for are accepted as being the basic ligious divorce in Muslim law.
If points of difference it is claimed that married persons ar.e in any way embarrassed go before the Court, let it be said that in Muslim countrie band pronounces theless in tho.se the positio magidrate ish constitution.
n equivalent or a judge under the Brit­ and the Qazi holds to that of a has to be recorded the hus­ it nev.er­ the divorce s although count·ies by the Oazi I heartil Mr. Speaker, There has been a suggestion I want to as.sure you that ther.e r in the pro­ y and Members of this Council whatev.er .siniste is nothing posal of the Government which support.

that my support stems from the fact that I ha v.e been a member of the Com­ mittee that ha.s put forward these views and proposals.
not wi.sh to take the credit for the ideas behind this Bill.

I want to say that I have done a bit of work, certainly; but of this thel'e have been many outside Chamber who have ideas to what we find in the Bill.

What we have done is to try to put them in legal form.
given me similar While that is so, I do If it is felt that difficulties are then let the an­ placed in the way of those who desire to divorce one anotha1·, is--that the swer be-�s it definitely Holy Prophet himself has said that is the most abomi1�able thing "divorce in the sight of the Lord" lJecau.se evei1 thou,g-h the method is easy the way in which the Almight;.- is one o:f supreme abomination.
words, it is not .expected that a good would seek the .slightest Mu.slim oppor­ from his wife himself tunity to divorc.e or the wife from the husband.

Every mud be made to preserve effort life and let it be the backbone community a place like this.

family of the as we all want it to be in In other looks upon divorce Before I close let me say thic: thnt this Bill this Bill.

d As- which also s,upports it is not only the Muslim League of Guiana which supports, British has mauy The hon.
the Chief Secretary letters in his file.

There was oue from Muslim Brotherhoo the Essequibo 1:,ociation, But in cases like these we normally find that those who wish to oppose write the most and their voices sound the l.olldest.

It is unfortunate in this country with a meas­ when people are satisfied ure they do not go out of their way to ed.

It is tell others that they are satisfi thos.e who wish to express dissatis­ faction who make the most of such opportunity.
that But like always, the pra�tir.e of a a11d becrnrne with the a Hindu this I want to say one other thing.

before I came to this meeting is so 9ften different and P,o we :find that in the West that women is but a chat­ with Islam and can religious injunction from its intention; there is a common belief, particularly, tel in ac�ordance he pushed out of her home by her hus­ of any band on any pretext, slight whim.
nut in actual fact family life i.s sacred and every effort is made to make it as sa�rerl ::i.s possible.

fore, I for one a11d there are hundreds, nay thournnds, their position understand wish to make the bo11d., of would not in accordance matrimony so loose that they can be just broken, 01· elastic, whereby they can be pulled aside by anyone.

and we dis.cusse<l The hon.

the Chief Secretary Shortly today I was at another meeting of the Aryan League, President organization, measur.e.

and the hon.
and the hon.

M e m he 1·.

Mr. Sugl'im Singh, will recali° ihat an officer of the American Aryan League at the meeting which we held on that Monday (Juno, 17J said thiat his orgi'.lnization of the Bill but there was one sertion there which they thought should be c ha?ged and that wa.s the minimum age .

Whereas sixteen and l11111t as the years of are proposed fourteen ag.e for the male and the female, they like me, when t!1ey for marriage.
was in favour squarely with Islam The1·e­ 2757 Marriage 25TH JUNE, 1957 A melt.)

( Bill 2758 that of this Ordinance, Indians will remove them­ stigma of 'immigrant• prov1s1ons Guianese selves from the under the Indian Labour Ordinance anil what is now offe1·ed ac�.ept and that is the full citizen.sl1ip ish Guiana in common with all otlier people who are her citizens.

to them� of Brit­ Sir- have to snp11ort but that apart, and twelYe wot1ld lMr.
Gajraj] thought fourteen been mo1·e satisfactory; he said they were prepared it.

I afked him: "How comes it then that we have noticed your organization have �ome together gram to the Secretary Colonies?"

that when they held the meet­ forwardly ing of their Council it was unfortunate that all of their member.s ent.

to send this tele­ of State for the He told me quite straight­ amongst those whkh the name of were not pres­ There was a division of opin­ ion and :dnce the hon.
Member, Mr. Su grim Singh, was t a k i n g the lead in th'is matteT ir was felt that there was no harm done in But he as­ giving him that support.

sured me that cerned and so far as many of the mem­ bers were concerned they were al!

in favour of this Bill.

so far a.s he was con­ One last propos•al I would make before Mr. Speaker: Mr. Gajraj, you are Am I that the more appro­ using that term "citizenship".

right in thinking priate expression rights"?

marry, the right to divorce.

citizens caEe may be.


I believe ing of civil rights-the you are think­ right to vote.

What I mean is, the right to of Guiana or Canada as the would be "civll We are all Mr. Gajraj: right�," I was thinking sine q11a won of citizenship.

Sir, but are a You are right, that "civil Mr. Speaker: Unless they reside or more.

I think I know for five yeal's what you mea11.


Mr. Gajraj: Thank you, Yout Hon­ of Hindu people and ·and it is thi.s: if it is true who and the moulvis to objeC'tors I close, that the majority the :Muslim people of this country-I feel that it is juo",t. doubt that myself-I merely the pundits al'e the main and principal this mean1re and who cio not wish to come out from the protection (Jf the Indian Labour Ordinance.
then there is an acknowledgment that there are some - though they might be in the minority numbers they would be a consiclerable number-who wish to g�t rid of that stigma.

our.

I am at the end of my talk; I could go on and on because it is a subject is near and dear to my heart and I know, of course, that there are others who would like to �ontribute to this debate.

But, I make thi.s last plea to my hon.


Friend ( Mr. Sugrim Singh) and I say that whilst I appr.eciate he, as an individual member of the community, to fee separate on the Statute will be a difficult of agreement.

would like ordinances Book of this Colm1y, thing to get that form neYertheless marriage fully that that it in and an important the duty of Gov­ It i� therefore ernment to make provi::oion who ,vould wish to come out antl oe subject to the general law of the country.
for thorn If it is only for that purpose that this Bill sncceetls great deal of goncl, is, Mr. Speaker, that as time moves on and as people get more infornied it will have done a and my own opinion of the However, let me repeat that before the road to doing that is Council the quickest to accept the measure so that in the period of time that is i.Jound to elapse quring which consult­ ations, changes take place some legislativ be on the Statute Book whereby hun­ dreds of people who would wish to be married in that period of time would have an opportunity to do so in accord- discussions e measure will and further 2758 Mcwria,ge 25TH JUNE, 1957 ( Amdt.)
Bill 2760 ance with thei1· the same time have th.eir ac­ cepted under the law of the Colony.

rites and at marriage religious Mr. Ramphal: I rise to support the the Council and if I do not as my hon.

motion as it is before.

without amendment, speak with the same fervour Friend, l\'Ir.

Sugl'im Friend, catise I am less intereste su,bject, but becau'se detached - i,ndeed way I am seeing perhaps, I may say, more than either party.
the last sp.eaker, it is not be­ d in the I am somewhat in an objective Singh, or my-hon.

I -want also to take this op· tribute to pay a very sincere Member, Mr. Sugrim Singh portunity to the hon.

whose views I am going to oppose, in just a short while.

It is seldom in this Council ,we have seen a Member strnggling with his con­ y. science and his.

rearnn so patientl I believe that the hon.


Mr. Sugrim in many of the Singh i� very "'iincere things he said, and I want to pay tl"ibnte It took immense courage for him to make certain to him for his boldness.

statement8.

I believe that this Bill is a result of and oppor­ in the Indian Labour Ordin­ an abuse of the privileges tunities ance ancl I do not think that the India11 Labour Ordinance matter now befor.e or its repeal is a the House.
But, before I g-o into a full discuss­ et a r y for he has given ion of this matter I want to pay a to the simple but very siwere tl'ihute the Acting Chief 3 e c r very simple exposition to us of a problem that has evaded us for 31 y.ear.s.

It is seldom that we have listened to the introduction that is so very controversial lic wbich ha� been so simply put to the Council.
of a Bill ta the pub­ For example, his forthright attack again, as "trial" which occur under the upon what he characterised marriages Indian Labour Ordinance.

Then he called for a complete Indian Labour Ordinance, it is a sorry thing that the whole Labour Ordinance fore the Council because he would have carded the day with his fort­ right and sincere repeal of the and perhaps.

Repeal is not be­ attiack of it.

There was anothe.r point; he ca11ed of all marriages.
led me to be­ for the legalising All these things have lieve that he was exceedingly sincere in what he was saying and as I sat and listened to him I wondered whether my hon.

Friend mitted suicide with those very people whose point of view he had put before this Council.

I trust that those pf'ople would see the sincerity he advocated will not judge him too harshly.

the point of view and with which has not.

com­ There was another side of the ex­ and that is the hon.
Mover put at position over his points without any offence all.

Tbere were periods of time when I o pass over believed that he was bound t the line that he had chalked out for himself and become somewhat harsh and critical, but at no time what.ever did I find in his speech that he was even faintly of the opposition which he had seen and heard in his office only the day before.

Indeed, may I say that we see g·limpses.

of a very good and very exce11ent permanent in the days to come.
critical Chief Secretary, in the post­ of this Bill until !

;otal I commend him for his courage doing what he did, but I cannot com­ mend him for his plea for po-nement action was taken on the whole matter.

I am sure he cannot forget 1.hti.t this matter has been before.

this Govern­ ment and the people of this country for 31 years.

Is it fair for any hon.

Member or any person in this country to say that this matter was without justification being rushed?
2761 Marriage 25TH JUNE, 1957 ( Amdt) BiU 2762 the proposeTs which are now said to the proposals be in some form are really well­ founded, them forward with gTeat speed.

1f indeed that was the only reason for this Bill, then it would do s.ome good.

ld put wo•.1 l".M:r. Ramphal] no to I am positive that on reflection Member can give ai1y credence Mr. Sugrim Singh such an agreement.
thinks that we should postpone total action and we should take this thing at one bitte-to use his own phrase "let us have one bite at the cherry".

That is the action of youth.

Youth wants to take a bite at the whole cherry at once.

Age and experience take s:everal we commend to this Council.

bites, and that is what but throughout his sin···.


Sir, Mr. Sugrim Singh has made He made a declaration �hat to him with great attention on this in a debate in which a declaration and he laboured point for a very long time.

I listened on the basis that I felt he was very sincere.
fuis Bill does not touch the real problem, cere advocacy he showed a maTked deal of resea1·ch, we find no statement at ail which gives us a clue as to what is the real and important problem which is going to be solved by that total action, ex-· cept that a new Bill was going to be produced or that there hatl been among all the parties con­ u11animity cer.ned side ar.d on the Hindu side, and that they had prnduced a new Bill.

on the Mohammedan I am sorry the hon.

Member, l\'Ir.
Member, l\'Ir.

Sugrim Singh, spoiled speech by a.n attack on the Indian in­ and those who considered telligentsfa it infra dig to be under the Indian Marriage Laws.

his excellent I ap•)logize Mr. Sugrim Singh: if I conveyed any impression that I was attacking sia the Indian intelligent of both Hindu and Muslim communities.

What I wanted to convey-perhaps I did not make myself clear-was that this Amendment Bill would benefit only those people who comider it -infra dig to be characterized immigrants.
as Book and the rLght to passage to argue that so long as laws are l:ltill on the I continued the Immigration Statute back to India i� still reserved fo1· Indian.s, elim­ you cannot completely inate the word "immigrant".

The only indigenous.

me the Aboriginal Indians, every other race here are descendants of immigrants.

persons in this country those of After 31 years they have produced that Bill.

Until this, other Bill is brought before the Council Member asks us to }JOstpone unanimous.
until the so-called wishes In of the people had been expres&ed.

the new Bill are proposals to Gov­ s ancl they ernment - Ye�·, proposal 31 years.

may take another this hon.

this Bill lVIr.

1 think the hon.

M:ember, in his first speech said "Let Gajraj, ns put this as law and iet the other proposals am satisfied in my own mind that if this Bill were to be made law and if come up in due course.''

I Mr. Ramphal: I did not misunder­ He has more or to from the truth than stand the hon.

Membel'.
Membel'.

le�,s confirmed what I said.

Nothing my mind is farther that this Bill deals with immigrants.

There is no such word as "immigrant" in the whole Bill.

Repeal of the Indian · Labour Ordinance Council.

out of order.

I will not be hard on my for me to hon.

Friend; do so.

This is a very diffb1lt time fo1· all of us, but particularly as he ha� given qualified support to this Bill, That to my mind is complet.ely it is not propel' is not before this 2763 Bfo1'1'iage .

25TH JUNE, 1957 ( A-melt.)


Bill 2764 [Mr. Ramphal] [ am going to �pare him much o:f the harsh criticism I woulc!

have madr.. but I shall not seek it as I can get from the Indian .

LabouT Ordinance •sish to go along with the India.11 people until they all are prepared take it.

I will stand with· �.hern.


to and touches I think it is n.ecessal'y as it life and happiness lhat we should examine this Bill very tho,:oughly concerns so closely; deavour to find out if this Bill in any way co11flicts either of the r.e]igion Hindu faith.

canons with the known also, I think we should en­ of Islam or of the The manner in which Mr. Sugrirn Singh made hi.s general Bill ]eel one to believe suppo.sed to b.e anti-Indian.
remarks on this that this Bill is Mr. ,Sugrim Singh: I mmt apologize intention degree I have given with this Bill is to bring· was good.

Mem­ can bear me out on that the effort in <'On­ Hindu on the rnme basis if in the t;li.ghtest that impression.

I have alwa�·s .said that Government's bers of this Council that.

I appreciate nection and Muslim marriages as those dealt with in Cha Dter 164 of the laws of the Colony.

Thi.s is a good th'ing-.


but I feel that if we adopt the method proposed we would only with the problem.

It coincides be playing with my objective, Mr. Ramphal: My frie.nd is adept nt getting up and putting over his point all over again.

I think ground he is on very difficult n.nd t h e 1· e f o r e we must allow possible.

him all the latitude giad he has given public expression to what he has said because the feiel­ ing I had was that among a certain was sectiqn of the Indian community .
a fear that this Bill was anti-Indian T am I am going to exercise an in­ of mind in this particular as I have clone from the start, dependence nrnttct· three and a half years ago.

I am be able sure.

Government will ll'c!ver to say I have not opposed them from time to time when I felt that my con­ scie.nce dictated that I should do so.

I was reminded a short while ago that I v,·af a Erahmin.

Well, everi as a Erahmin I wish to say I support this Bill very strnngly.

I am an asal Bl'ahmin.


I do - I am pure Indi�n by admixtul'e mother and father, at that.

I have eschewed that side of the matter in my approach to life but naturally to my blood relations.

not have any racial and Brah.min I have a strong affinity Let us examine this Bill aud see what it does.

First of all, as the pu11.dits I Mr. agrees with that, and exactly the hon.

Member, Mr. Gajraj; said although he may not have put it into these words, it provides �,nd the monlvis with a new 8tatus.
am sur'e that the hon.

Ill[ernber, Sugrim Si-ngh, also that the status which this Bill gives them they never had before.

They are now being placed, hon.

Mr. Gajraj said, on an equal ministers footing with Christian.

and with marriage officers of the Chris­ tia,n faith.

as the I also have suffer•ed the i11dignity of being considered an immigrant, and of having to get a non-impedi ment not only for myself, but certificate for my children when they were to get married.
I know of the exemption I Is that not something they should be proud of?

Even Mr. Su grim Singh had to admit that it was a good thing Government wa;:, doing!

The Bill also provides carry some new obligations.

if a maniage officer solemn­ example, it.

izes a maniage he has to rngister that this new status wi11 For 2765 Marriage 25TH JUNE, 1957 (Amclt.)

Bi/.!

276G the view that they, the are untl er [Mr. Ramphal] The hon.

Member, Rev.
Member, Rev.

Mr. Bou�}, expressed Christian Ministe1ls, penalty of law if they did not regis­ ter a marriage within forty-eight hours after they have peTformed the ceremony.

we should give this new status to Hindu priests and Muslim moulvis without obligations?

any valid reason that can be adduced that this should be so?

·what rcaPon is there �.hat Can there be They can elect to be marriage I wond'er another is, being so fair that the OrdinaP.ce.
officers or ii.at nnde11· ·when we come to clause 13 we fi;nd that Government it is providing method for om Hindu and Muslim priests.

if mv friends my colleagues of my caste�if I m;y be permitted to use that word - really want to see tbis status given without any I want this to examine thifl matter very closely and I ask if there is any canon of religion that iE being offended.

I have not heard of aJ1y.

No evidence Mr. Singh, howeve1·, vaguely to the abse.
;nce of any law in India in which the Mohammedan mar­ riage is, put into statute.

produced.

very of that has been obligations.

has referred Cou1ncil law with him.

He that in that colony there ic1 have the Trinidad admitted a law for Hind.oos law for Muslims.

to tell us Jamaica iF introducing law also.

Why shouldn't a,,.

well as a He \Ya8 good enough we?

a contra1·y to Mr. Sugrim Singh did bring up that of family priests.
I going to he if they do marriages a l)roblem, want to ask him how les8 l'ich are the family priests 1�ot solemnize �vhat this propos,ed Ordinance offers?

I,; it too mueh to ask pundits aml moulvis to forego filthy lucre in order to protect the women of this com­ munity (Hear, hmr).
The }Jundits and the moulvis will be doi1ng a wrong to Ure community marriage An u,uregistered mind, a wrong to the communit�,, wrong to the wife and a wrong to thie children as a principal distress Te­ brillian fu�ed a scholarship because the mar­ riage of his mother and father wan pot registered.

of that marriage.

of a school, and sorrow to see ma,ny a if they solemnize which they do not register.
t boy of Indian descent In my time, it was my marriage is, to my a a There are many but their chances it are ruled out because of ln other words, these boys were considered illegitmate.

clozeins of children who can qualify for a scholarship of getting the unregist parents.

children qualified moulvis and pundits I should hate to see any more horn of Indian parentage dis­ the action of the in this way.
,ered marriage of thefr th1·ough May I say, and I feel positive agree with me, law of the people he will on reflection that it was not necessary to do that because the marriage of the Idamic faith is enshrined in the Holy Koran.

This is accepted as the common law a.nd therefore would ,not lend itself to other legis­ lative measur�s.

reason to argue that becat(se there is no law in India the1·e should not be one in this country.

So there is no good it Let us look at Trinidad's in this matter.
I am rnrry my hon.

Friend (Mi·.

Su.grim Singh) d�es not example The hon.

Mr. Gajraj has, dealt with which I would have spoken everything about.

This Bill will put the Hindu and the Muslim prieSJts o,n an equal footing Marriage Offi­ cers.

I think the hou.

Mr. Gajraj and Mr. Singh are at one on this point.

They feel that we should be Guia!".ese.

I nieed hardly remind members that with Christian 2767 Ma.rriage 25TH JUNE., 1957 ( A melt.)
Bill 276ll of the Gov­ ourseh-les eve,n the Commissioners ernment of India have been telling us in print and in private that we must integrate in the com­ rnu,nity in which we live.

Even if we do not accept what they say, I am sure that other reasons compel us, to realize that we sihould integrate our­ in which we �.elves of society and live in the interest ourselves.

in this community gether when two people were about to be manied.
He could have go11e fur­ ther ancl mentioned that an Indian wed­ cling is a mattec· of civic conrem, the 1Yhole community knows of it.

An indtation is sent to every home the question of notice.

where the two parties and I cannot wh.,· the hon.

Member So open in the village live.

That is a notice, understand stres.�e.s is a Hindu marriage been made on it entitled macy".

Th') ,hon.

must realiz::> notice in a ma ttet· of this kind.
that a calypso has "Indian Diplo­ Member, of course, that there should be some In this Council I have heard made to tl?e effect that the must integrate them­ and that no speeches Amerindians selves i,n this community sp1ecial right should be given to them, I am snre that the Indian comml!nity than the need far less protectio�1 Amerindian, on re­ and I am poslitive that nobody would wanl to flection give them more protection than any other people in this country.
The ho,n, "Opposer" of the motion to Indians has one point.

He says that this Bill fa going to provide a great deal of inconvenience because they have to give notice.

I want the hon.

Member to remember that the Chris­ to give notice too.

Banns tians have for in Churches have to be publishP.d three weeks.

If people want to get a marriage riage they have to give the hon.

the Chief Secretary If office for they go to the Registrar's, a licence, notice has to be given also.
licence 48 hours' noti,:e. for a runaway-mar­ Even und::.•1· the Indian Labour is made for a the hon.

Member that as .�0011 as the parties re­ te the non-i1npediment c.ci·tifica roulcl take pla �c immediately.

1irovi,ion 01'[1inan:c notice.

I l'cmemb,�r s,1ying ceived a marriage I am sure want ns to pnstpone consideration thi.s Bill, and hold up people who dffiil'e to get married quickly.

marria'2,'eS as runaway-marriages.

exceptions.

the hnn.


Member does not of to which I have just referred The�-are the T11ose are the After taking the entire matter into stE·e that the hon.

rnnsideration, I feel Member will agree that there is no sub­ stance in t,he question raised by him and there will be no difficulty in giving a notice.

It will be seen that the Marriage The Chief Secretary: I have no­ Bill also provides for mauiages.

for a minimum age thing to do with runaway-maniageE.
Sir, you were good enough to call Mr. Ramphal: I am sorry that I but I clo know find an easy 'Nay gave that impression, that sometimes people out.

I would like to point out to my hon.

Fl'iend that Hindu and Muslim marriages are to be gazetted.

Mr. Gajraj referred the fathers and mothers ,g.etting to the question of to- The hon.

the other day; I what you meant.

The hon.

me a semi-lawyer realize Member wi11 understand that the qu'es­ t�c.n of capacity was taken into considerati mum age for marriages.
what surprised when, in my research � I, too, have done :come research o11, when iixing the mini­ I was some­ I 2769 Marriage .

25TH JUNE, 1957 ( Amdt.)

Bill 2'770 discovered that !

:Mr.

Ramphal] work on this matter-I we did not have it in our main Mar­ riage Ordinance.

Provision for the age of consent, age of capacity.

amendment to the ge�1eral now provides for that.

but not the I am glad that the Ordinance was mr,de at the meeting.

said that to the.se the hon.


the Chief Secretary he did not get any objections That is some­ requisite..� thing that one would expect but pos­ sibly the people who fire obj.�cting may have consulted a legal adviser may have found that the requisites which are now proposed fire in the Trinidad sibly discretion valour and the:v did not ·raise any ob­ iection or pos­ was the better part of Orclinanre, to this Council to them.
and they to find that no objection boys, 14 years I heard a disct1ssion and the age I was of 16 years was mentioned.

surprised was made to this, except that under the Indian Labour Ordinance it is 15 years-15 years for for girls; and it is now desired to make it 16 years for boys.

In the United Ki1ngdom it is 16 years.

In Trinidad it is 18 years for a Hindu and 16 years for a Mohammedan.
India - I take it from Mr. Singh hinrnelf [f this Governme,nt capacity be more or less in keeping with the minimum 1•equirement ized countries of the world.

for boys i.n the civil­ - it is a matter of 18 years: to 16 years it ,io)jld i·aised the ag'e of In Indeed, it is very smprising that because Labour Ordinance.

they did not try to find any objection of all, the Bill reserves the there.

Mo.st rig.ht to solemnize a maniage under I asked the Indian the hon.
Member whose cause he repr.e­ sented, there be anything proposal.c:; which Government have put forward?

The:1· have put forward ad­ vanced proposal�.

being, a marriage under the old Indian Labour Qr.

dinance.

yet.

for the time can be rnlemnized I do not know.


Could more fair than these I do not want to become legalistic, but we have heard argument in whlch Mr. Singh: I am sorry to rise, the term "personal law" has been Mr. Gajraj will be setting up a ··:must have been right when he said that Under the Indian Labour · the law only reilated to people who came Sir.

The point I was maki,ng is that .

"thrown into the battl.e".

this amendment dual system.

Ordinance it is 14-15.


It is not from India and w.ho still felt that their a question as to whethe-r 15, 16, domicile was in India.

Ind.eecl, it could or 18 years is high or low.

I am not real-ly accepting show that in the Indian Labour Ordinance not appear.

I would like uniformity because "personal laws," have a fixed in this matter.

this discussion ask my hon.

Friend tu refrain ferring· to the "personal law" too often relate to us.
I do not want of that nature into and therefore this, but I am just trying to to draw something these figures 14 - 15 do I would from r.e- connotation law.

in private international I want to ask the Chief Secretary Mr. Ramphal: Sfr, the hon.

Mem­ in what he says.

I want to which ber is correct to give him all the benefit he is entitled, that there is no substance in his o bjection.

but even at the end of Let me go on to the fifth condition in the Bill.

It provides itcs for a valid marriage and Muslims.


I was astonishe_d requis.­ essential for Hindoos whfil1 the abus.e-and he has must have had not to press for the amendment Government proposed.

an intention to cure wish to stress this point.

My contention is that if we are to accept the amend­ it would ment by the Chief Secretary put us bac·k in the position that we were· in before.

I do not think I am speak­ ing out of the hearing of people who I 2771 Marriage 25TH JUNE, 1957 ( Arndt.)
Bill 2'772 was that the sitna�ion in two way:, hut have told me that one of the things to which they objected seriou�ly could be remedied they wanted only one way.

I sugg.est to the Chief Secretary to accept the amendment he has pro­ posed we wou,ld all.

be doing no business that if we were at I In spite of re­ No injusti�e of Indian children n to whi�h I have referred, If the Bill is left as printed, how­ ever, I am sure ,ve would be doing no injustice.
is being done to the family as the Bill fr, hut injustice is being done to women and children if we accept the amendment.

patriatio want to lay emphasis on the fa::t that thousands are born ill.egitimate.

I cannot, in my conscien(:e, agree to the a m e n d m e n t pro­ posed even if I am the only per­ son to speak agaim:t it.

I cfo not ask for any deviation because I think it would be wrong, and \ve would be selling- the amendment proposed.

·pandering we do so.


the past if w.e allow from th� Bill of selfish to opinion We would be people if to I have tri.ed have been bestowed to find in this Bill any to the Hindu or the Muslim r,e­ but I have found none; I have On the eontrary, I find that great upon them.

injustice ligion, tried to find any great injustice Moulvis or Pundits and I have founcl little.

benefits On the other hand, I know the great in­ justice to women and children which this This Bill seeks to remedy and prevent.
Bill seeks to prote�t brook no furthe1· efpecially women of this country and I support it.

(Hea1·, heai').

them and it could delay.

It is a Bill for the good of the Indian At long last the womanhood of British Guiana of Indian parentage is getting, as a result of this Bill, proper matri­ monial prestige wherever from.

they may �.ome I can go on and on S1)eaking injustices that have been on the young Guianese about the perpetuated because there girls of Indian parentage was not such a Bill as this one.
As I see it, this Bill does not interfere with the custome·, any one group Guiana has got in it six different Tace.s of people.

and we do mind the womanhood not being able to be mar­ Indian group ried legally.

rights or p�·ivileges of people.

British but they are all Guianese, of the of Where I am living, day by day I enjoy the pl"ivilege of seeing the er.earn of our Indian girls taking their educa­ tion.

No pla�e is too high for bhem to fill.

This i.s not a question of intelli­ gentsia.


Their parents know what a prop.er is quality among those girls, hon.

Member, Mr. Ramphal, this Bill is not passed they cannot legal status in marriage.

but as the told you, if get c'ln do for them.

There education Mr. Sugrim Singh: I am sorry to disturb the hon.

Member but I must make it clear to her that this Amend­ ing Bill doec, not stop illegal Hindu and Muslim marriages.

That is what i.s asking for-to stop the "Opposition" that.
This Bill does not touch the ques­ tion of illegal marriage1,.

You can con­ tinue to do that.

All it does-in the words of the hon.

Mover-is to provide an extra.

method for whoever likes it.

l\'lrs.

Dey: I have been lis�:en- of this Bill.

ing to the rnpporters After a ll, I am but a woman, Sir, .-· a woman who has had the hon- our to be wed. As such, it is upon me to nipport this incumbent Bill, and I offer no apology for doing so.

Mrs. Dey: I am supporting the speech the hon.


the Bill as "a spanner I am prepared to be in his opposition.

Bill.

In his opposition Member described in the works".

n "monkey wrench" I am not a mechanic but my husband i:::', .

so I learnt from him that.

a "monkey wrench" is a tool the motion of machinery when revolv- used to stop 2773 Marriage 25TH JUNE, Hl57 ( A melt.)

Bill 277:1 Those are t.he things that make me this Bill.
I am a woman and support will not oppose a Bill whi�h improves of the women of British the prestige Guiana and moreso the Indian women.

that I I am proud to tell this Council an Indian in my could have married youth, but those were the conditions my mother was afraid of and would not give her con�ent.

With regard to the minimnm age will never dawn.


I this mnch I may say: I hope I will neve1·· 1iv.e to .�ee tbe day when British Gui­ ana would introclu::.e in this or any other Bill that a girl may be married t:t the age of 12.

I ferven°tly 11r::y that knnw that that day girl�.

oppose this Bill and everyone a�-sicted Bill is passed.

·when this are the people who are definitely need of our support of a Bill of this sort.

With thes.� this Bill.


will be affected by trying to words I beg to suppoTt They in will be Mr. Speaker: Is there any other Member w-ho would like to speak?

with these delivered It ·was on marriage address [Mrs. Dey] ing.

I remember in my yonth I by a Min­ listened to a lecture ister of Religion.

and he opened his "From time immemorial mar­ word.s: riage ,was a getting together of two people until the marriage at Canaan when the good Lord saw it was good it, and then the State came and ble,;sed d it."
The hon.

in and legalise Rev.

Mr. Bobb, and others should know that for registering fee is paid to t.he Marriage When I wa.s married the fee was 25 but I am given to marriage, cents per that it has been in�reased.

understand a marriage a small Officer.

Member, up a profession.

She marriage to your position in name so as to be able to go A young woman who,;;e mother was married tu her father three months after she was born, findr:.
her.,:�Jf in a most u n h a p p y iJ.<1 she cannot get a passport her father's abroad and take is told "Your mother's father i.!I not legal so a passport cannot be issu,ed to you in yam· father's name".

Those are the embaras�ments this Bill Only a woman will help to eradicate.

would know what are a girl's.

when at been known like a �hot from the b'lue that name is something prospects the age of 21 after she has by one name she i,; told he1· else.
The Chief Secretary: Well, Sir, has been dime moct of my replying for me very much more aclequately t}ian 1ndeed, I could have done it myself.

rather than try to attack the hon.

"opposer" sustaining uerves must be feeling the strain 11is monthly election country.

(Laughter).

furtll'er him because I feel more like I feel that his ventures into the after As I see it, Indians can continue Just tlie same, I have here a small accordin g to a".
('Ording- to their cus­ to have their marriages the custom of Hindoo�, and Muslims.

There is nothing wrong about it.

I hav.e gone to Indian marriages which were solemnized tom.

This Bill does not alter their It does not seek to prev.ent any­ custom.

thing that is done.
thing that is done.

But this is what it says-if my girl c.hild son, and as is the custom, to my home, your son never appears to take her to his home, if nine months after she gives birth to a child that child is not illegitimate marriage so long as the has been legalised, to your she returns of what t11e as he is now being dubbed, that Hincloos note or two, and I would like to men­ tion two points he made.

One will be almost a rep·etitio:1 hen.

Member, Mr. Ramphal said.

The hou.


"c,pposer", tried to n1ggest, and Muslims had in hand two draft Bil1s which could be produced ted for what with and could be substitu are trying to do today.

\'.

'e I see in the petition which 1m to you, Sir, tha.t it is 1,as pass.eel stated; cloos and Muslim,-informed if I may read again, "the Hin­ marries the Chief I think, forth­ 2775 Marriage 25TH JUNE, 1957 ( Amdt.)

Bill 2776 can ex­ we have a dual want to use.
Certainly system - so that the people pTess their will, and after a few years, 1,aving hope the people will show their prefor­ n:ce for one system or the other a:1d the one they do not wish to have can be dispensed seen how things are go,ing, I to Government, I had a verbatim (I take it at the meeting the reply of the Chief Secre­ to report to the we see, the amencl- Sec1·etary" we had) "that 1,hey have two Bills com­ pleted for presentation and while thec.e organizations are awaiting t.f!ry, who promised Executive Council, 1w,nt iR put before the Legislature".
·1Vell, that meeting by a Hansard reporter and th,"re is not in my record any statewent like that.

I think the Hindoos had claimed Bill which was very nearl:y ready, I think the Muslrms made it equally clear that they J1ad no draft Bill; they agreement among had not even reached themselves.

they had a draft note taken of with.

and But the whole point in my opening on right - I am a little ner .. - speech and the whole point of this thing is.
we a.re not trespassing anybody's Yous over the use of the term 'personal law' auy more.

The idea of appealing of State to stop this to the Secretar.1· Bill because it i�:· utterly against 50 per cent.

of the community is nonsense.

Complete nonsense.

measure need not affect anybody at all, unless tl1ey choose to let it.

That is I now beg to move the fund-amental.

of the Bill.

second rearling This Even if there were two draft Bills, back to 1927.

So I sug,gest, where rloes that g:et us?


It gets ns precisely rather than wait, we press on with •..vhat we are doing and if in futurn the.

draft Bills are.

found to be more suit­ N otliing able, they can are doing in this Council will them from being put forward.

we prevent be arlopted.

The Attorney General: I beg to sceoml the motion.

Question put, and' agreed to.

Bill read a ,,econd time.

The other point the hon.


"oppo�cr" with the Imlian I wrote down his to the dual made was that this Bill before the is "intenvoven f'ouncil Labour Ordinance".

words.

He was referring m, and these two "Bills", as he sys·te- called them, were "i11terwoven", and, I think his point was, they coulc1 not be separated one from the other.

That is not, in my opinion, visions from the provisions buur Ordinance.

of this Bill are quite separate of the Indian La.·· C'orrect.

The pro-­ lect?

has beel1 made.


Mr. Speaker: of this Information Bill might well have reached the people you wish it to reach, de publication.

I-fas any reference bf!en made to it in the India·,1 columns of th-e newspapers?

by separ­ Mr. Gajraj: Yes, Sir, reference Mr. Speaker: In the Indian dia· Mr. Gajraj: No, Sir.
COUNCIL IN COMMITTEE My whole thesis has been, from the we are taking nothing beginning: mvny; we are putting system for the reason that Mr. Gajraj has explained vVe are leaving cide for themselves so much better than m'3.

it to the people to de­ which o::ie they in an a1ternativ'3 Council resolved mittee to consid·er chi use.

itself into Com­ the Bill clause by Clause 1 passed as printed.

2777 Marria[!e 25TH JUNE, 1957 ( Anidt.)

Bill 2778 The pdests can, by themselves, officers.


the nu11ify until they saw how this Bill.

You could for not tak-· of this Bill - they ca,n refuse as marriage without this amendment, 'effects to be 1icensed People would not then be able to g.et married 11l1der hardly blame the priests ing a decision things ·were going.

I think Mr. Ram­ ph:.

:il has accused me of being 'unduly fair'.

I think one should try to be as fair as possible times.
It seems to me the fair an<l thing to do is to pe�:mit the logical to marry people under the two Friests systems.

ri;gisterf'd but they must only perform marriages.

at all Mr. Ramphal: I indicated whe.n co1Hcl the marriage officer having that I could not agree with �hP The fact is, as the B.i!l is I t·poke ,tmenclment.

printed, not then oper­ made al1 election ate under tJie two Ordinanc·es.

He has tc remain under one.


I feel it is fair and proper that we s1hould improve the status of the priestf, but at the same time I think they must be prepar'ed to take on the obligatio::-is as well.

Clause 2.

- Repeal and re-en­ of sect.ion 4 of Chapte1· actment 164, The Chief Secretary:I be.go to n:ove that this clause be amended by the insertion tween the words "proper'' son" in the fourth line.

of the word "male" be­ and "per-­ Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 passed as amended.

Clause 3.


- Amendment of section 5 of Chapter 164, The Chief Secretary: I beg to move that this clause be amended by of the words, "or of the t11e insertio:1 Indian Labour Ordinance,,.

after the word "Ordinance" after the deletion by the insertion ginal :;:iote.

in the seventh line, of the full stop, and of the suita1ble mar­ AE hon.

Members will appreciate, when this Bill was first drafted, we were at one in the Gover::iment with but when we cam,� t0 M1·.
Ramphal, con s i d er it again - and I am fo1· mys.elf speaking trying to frame in my mind what I would say in this Council about this Bill, I found it was .moT.e have clause - when I was.

3 ame11ded as is proposed.

logical to Now, I wi111t the ho11.

the Chisf not press I woulcl and hon.

Membern to look at but I doubt whether Secretary it this way: if you can satidactorily m1swer this question my conte:1tion, you can.

If we accept this amendment, when do you know th.e priest officer m; a marriage .
'lnce or he is acting under the other Ordinance; ing an ill'egal he is registering or not registering?

I conteml t11at .if you accept this y,ou would be leav'ing the amendment door wide open and a person need not a marriage at all.

register when do you know he is do­ act; when do y ou know under this Ordin­ is acting The Chairman: What form would you suggest they E,hould give it 1 of As I have said, the whole object what we are doing is to provid.e ,, period, and dual system for a limited only .solem.
if we insist upon priests nizing marriages und.er this Ordinance and not under any other, not only be making it rather difficult but for their people.

Ti' we for them allow the people to decide to have their under the Indian solemnized marriages Labour Ordinance if they wiEh, it is the priests to we .should allow logical too.

Tne these marriages solemnize option can be in the people's then we shall hands.

2779 Marriage 25TH JUNE, 1957 (Amdt.)


Hill 2780 is not in c011junction Mr. Ramphal: Sir, I suggest no­ with it and if he does not, 1 toriety validity.

must be registered do not think anything can be prescribed to make it registered.

The law prescribes that for registration under the obligation Indian Labour Ordinance-the obliga­ tion falls back on the parties I would ask, when is he a Maniage Officer under this Ordinance?

is he a Marriage Officer under the other Ordinance?
I did not make myself clear just now.

I am now putting the probl.e m squarely 01' when before the Council.

concerned.

The Chair.man: Is there rnme form?

Mr. Ramphal: I am afraid, Sir, I did not hear the words of wisdom from you; but the contention is, tha-t. i£ a man is made a marriage under this Ordinance gation to it is solemnized, rmendment, the::i. he does not need to clo it, the marriage after but if you accel)t tllr; he is under obli­ register The Chairman: ,vish to say anything?

Ivlr.
Ivlr.

Sin gh, do you office1· Mr. Sugrim Singh: Sir, we are • I. of Marriage and perlrnps with regard to the Officers.

Among running into trouble question Hindoos there art two sections: the Samaj is only a Brahmin, if you are an Aryan Samaj and you are edurated you can be made a Marriage Officer.

you can conduct Under this amendment Brahmins, Marriage non-Brahmin.s Officers.

ceremony.

you create As long as you are eclucated a marriage and others as The Chief Secretary: Of c;ourse Sir.
We will never be able to he <loes, stop a marriage officer from doing what the hon.

Member fears.

He will still be able to perform unregistered marriages on the sly, ,until Ire i� caught.

But once he is caught he is then struck off, and he will never be on the roll again.

That is the whole point of the a ., trial'' Ordinance.

We :may get a dishonest priest i',olemnized marriage even though he may be a marriag·e off­ icer but we cannot include this pos­ sibility.
All we can do is, when we catch him, him off the roll.

But l don't think that that is going in any way to affect th'is Bill.

str:ike Mr·.

Ramphal: Uncler the I1H1ian it is for the parties the marriage to register In the cas.e of this amend­ the Labour Ordinance contracting marriage.

ment with which we ar.e coneerned obligation to register the marriage way as any other Christian Officer.
rests on the Marriage Officer in foe same Marriage the If we allow a Man-iag.e Officer who has that obligation under the other law, then he has no to marry people I am sp.eaking in favour of the as a Marriage Offic.er amendment.

hon.

the Chief Secretary's If the Brahmin is made a Marriag.e Off­ ieer he has no salary, and he will re­ main up ther.e while his colleagues will be making a good trade as Marriage Offr.:ers.
As high as you set that pedestal you will not find one of them going np ther.e merelr to be named a Marriage Officer �it is a question of £.

s. d. a man is allowed If, as my hon.

Friend, Mr. Ram­ phal, mentioned, to man'y people under this Bill as well as under the Indian Labour Ordinan� e we wiU have to give careful consideration to this matter.

and Cap.

I will ref.er to Cap.

164 104.There is no provision uncler Cap.

104 for anything like a Marriage Off­ icer.


Any Priest can get two forms and conduct an amendment both sides, a ceremony.

If you a�cept that he can marry on do.es that prevent him ·from 2781 Marriage 25TH JUNE, 1957 ( Amdt.)

Bill 2782 between on illegal marriages [Mr. Sugrim Singh] carrying Hindoos and Muslims which are going on at the moment?

I propose an amendment lim marriage less it is registered Cap.

104".

'·that 110 Hindu or Mus­ should be sol.emnized un­ under Cap.

164 of to make the marriage.


officer under the present to remain under the In­ Bill marriage when it becomes law he is under an obligation to reg·ister When he elects dian Labour Ordinance obligation, are under the obligation ance.

If ,ve ac·�.ept we give him the privilege both sides, under both On!

iJJan�es.
iJJan�es.

of being on d but the parties of that Ordin­ that amendment he has no such he might not he obligate and themselves General: Mr. Ram­ go­ of two parties and inti­ or under the Indian Labour The option is left to the The Attorney phal drew a picture ing to a Priest to he married, mated that it was the Priest who had the option to marry them unde1· this Ordinan�e Ordinance.

parties the Priest under what Ordinance W.l\nted to be manied.
If the parties elect to marry under the Marriag.e dinance and the Priest does not register we should find him out the marriage very soon.

The Priest does not do the electing.

and they would tell they conremed Or­ v:m. Mr. Ramphal: The Priest has no the mar­ to re.gister legal obligation riage, The Chief Secretary: I !

'.uggest that we adjourn for tea, Sir.


The Chairman: We will resume at 5 p.m. Council ctd1,iourned for tea at 4.42 RESUMPTION The Chief Secretary: Honour's permis.<iion, rimenclment the addition w.e might defer the clat1se and come to it later.

which I have introduced of certain With Your the by may I am1)1ify words?

Perhaps back Sub'ject The Chief Secretary: what my learned Friend says, if the Priest marries has to r.egister posed amendment anything Bill he pl:!ople under this the maniage.
The pro­ does not take away from the Bill.

to The Chairman: Clause 3 is de- th.e amendment i!

'l being <·011- ferred; side1·ed.

Clause .3 deferred.

Mr. Ramphal: I want to suggest to the hon.

the Chief S.ecretary Clause 13 gives ample provision to any Hindu Priest who wishes to remain out­ side of the Ordinance to collect all the time.

money that The Chief Secretary: With your permission, 2'?

Sir, may I re�ommit clause Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 2-Recom mitte<l.


Repeal and 1·e-e11act'ment of sedion 4 of cha.pter 164.

Mr. Singh: Is the hon.

Member about that suggestion?

serious suggesting that a priest an illegal marriage?

minister cannot contract riage, priest be given such a privilege?
Is he would contract If a Christian an illegal mar­ why should a Muslim or a Hindu In the print­ that the Gov­ The Chief Secretary: ed Bill there is a provision ernor may, in his discretion, any fit and proper person marriage considera "male" .should be insel'ted between words "proper" and "person" and I would like to have an amendment made accordingly.

officer for the Colony".


tion it is felt that the word the "appoint ............ to be a On re­ Mr. Ramphal: �.ay is that when a Priest All I am trying to elects to he a 2783 lrla.rriage 25TH JUNE, 1957 ( Amllt.)

BUL 2781 The Chairman: Has Mrs. Dey heard this; or does any Memb.er have any objection to the amendment?

more universal acceptance the Ordinance can be easily amended.

of this idea Mrs. Dey: I have none, Sir.

Rev.

M1·.

Bobb.
Rev.

M1·.

Bobb.

: I s·hould like to as Minis­ women ar.e ordained point out that in some Christian churches ters.

So far as I am aware, there is no there woman Minister in this country; was one, but I do not think the keeping of this clause as it is, in the law, would with the appointment interfGre of a woman Minister as a Marriage under (bl or (c), but it would with re­ Rpect to (a).

Offi'.
Offi'.

'er The Chairman: I may recall that dlll'ing a visit to a rural district some per­ time ago I saw a woman minister form the whole of a burial service from memory and I could not help wondering how she was able to do it.

If I am rig-ht, then someone would have to explain to me why women should not be permitted to perform mal'l'iag-e cer.emonies also.

Mr. Gajraj: I am s1ire the woman Your Honour saw was not a Muslim, otherwise mitted to perform that ceremony, she would not have been per­ l\1rs.
Dey: For your information, Sir, I ·should like to state that the Pen­ tecostal connected Misl'ion with it.

has a woman Minister The Chief Secretary: This clause Sir.

to marriag:e, only relates The Chairman: Is the h011.

Mr. Ramphal pressing l1is amendment?

The Chief Secretary: Section (4) has, to use the test of time".

All of the Prin�ipal Or<linance n cliche, ''stood we are doing is to restore it.

we are not amenping the section, Rev.

M1·.


Bobb: What I meant was that we are less and less supporting the idea that the ministry is exrluded from women.

For the pmpose of the Statute Book I do not think the section do any harm if it remains would as it i::·,.

Mr. Ramphal: No, Sir.

Rev.

Mr. Bobb: I was observing that this amendment, as it stands, is not quite in keeping existing with the situation <'hurch.

in the Christian Question put, and :ig-reed to.

Clause 2, as arnel1ded, passed.


Mr, Gajraj: The preservation of Clause 4 -Application /01· Ap- Office1·.

1wintim ent as Marriage only a religion the word "male" to become a marriage off­ the words "proper" of the Chri.stian and "per­ it merely means that qn anyone.

Under the Or­ as it stands at present the status quo would not create any hardship dinance male Minister is permitted icer and if we insert between son" as proposed, only a male minister r.eligion would be permitted to rite.
I don't think there the marriage is any objection to that, but the point being made by the Rev.

Mr. Bobb is that the view is being accepted more that more women should be or­ dained as Ministers When of religion.

the time comes that there has been a more and perform an amendment.

on this quesition Mr. Sugrim Singh: I find myself - an appli­ as a marriage thinking cation for appointment officer mti'-s,t be made in writing.
With and Muslims I want re>,pect to Hindoos to suggest the Chief SecretaT y in his opening marks covered the question by that inquiries tegrity responsible Muslims to whom the applications be referred trar General.

I would like a Board of Hindoos and may The Hon.

re­ suying rather than to the Regis­ of the gentlemen.

will be made into the in­ of the Christian / 'l785 Marria,ge 25TH JUN�, 1957 ( Amdt.)
Bill 278\i The Chairman: The Registrar eral as a public ,official amount of responsibility ment, that is not the case with your Board.

Gen­ i1as a certain to Govern­ Mr. Sugrim Singh: It will be a Hindu and Muslim who are just like the Christian priests coming from Board of qualified priests denominational the Universities.

tha.n the fied to -make the· appointment Registrar General.

They are better quali­ obtain a re<:ommenda,tion after an application has is made.
the Govern­ I have stated, been recefred.

it will be fully investi­ gated before any appointment If the applicant claims to belong to any known organization, ment would from it; if the applicant is an iJJde­ pendent the distri-::t where people make inquiries •as to the status of the individual cerned.

I think we can be sure that tiiere would go to he comes from and person, Government amongst various will be no abuse.

con­ The Chairman: Oh, no; the Regis­ trar General does not make pointment.
the ap­ Mr. SugTim Singh: As you say, Sir.

The Chairman: I thought the hon.

slightly ion should stated bodies.

that the applicnt althougi1 in his opening remnrks of policy by the hon.

he did Member was going to a�k for a de­ claration the Chief Secretary, S1tate that it was thought in drafting the Ordinance be accompanied from certain spect ,to 1Ji1e Hindu bodies certain of them are so constituted that I would not like to see that stated in the Bill these bodies change from time because to time.
The hon.

Member must real­ ize that discretion the officer.

He does not act ily.

What I would ask-for is an ex­ of policy, pression retary wotcld always consider the ques­ tion of consulting most concerned because it very clearly.

feels he has been treated can go to the appropri-at place to have that settled.
person If an aggrieved he unjustly e and proper the bodies th·at are that would cover will be exercised by arbitrar­ that the Chief Sec­ Mr. Sugrim Singh: My intention which we have been trying is whnt is where a man's son will unless I depo· and in some cases tile amount is to see that we have as much done as we can.

Among the Hindoos we have a practire for years to stop.

There known as "tilac" not marry iny ct'aughter sit $5-00, is as much as $10,000.

In other words, the girl has to pay the boy.


I have known a case where a man with nine children nts for the made arrangeme payment of $500 and was $75 short of the amount and had to give a p1·omis­ sory note for that amount before the marringe of his daughter wns con­ tracted.

The Chairman: a rise under this clause?

How does that Mr. Sugrim Singh: I am corning of foe marrin ge officers or­ over the aP: to that.
By ha.-ing some central on having control ganizati pointment will b8 easier to put an end to that The rule is that you pay $5 practice.

to have the marriage but them to themselre leasing s they do as they like, and it is more than a hard­ ship.

contracted, it by a recommendation With re­ The Chief Sec1·et out, Sir, thh: ary: As you have claus.e dea!s with pointed the question of making application .

.As The Chairman: somebody sist the Governor pointment.
There iohould be lmowledge to as­ in making the ap­ But the hon.

Member's with some 2787 Marriage 25TH JUNE, 1957 ( Amdt.)

Bill 2788 to do with the ap­ decides [The Chairman] ing Bill must get exemption from the point has nothing Indian Labour Ordinance pointment.

The hon.

Member w:mts obtained he or she can­ that exemption to limit the prescriptive right of tile net go back to that Ordinance.

It Governor to strikes assist him and by giving him the of a Board.
assistance to come under this Amend­ proper officers me ns unfair.

to appoint but having The Chief Secretary: The pro• Mr. Sugrim Singh: There are in­ vision reads: deed about four _known organizations.

"No person who has contracted a marriage Ordinance dissolved pennitted the provisions of this upon that maiTiage being under the provisions shall, for any reason whatever to, contract be a. marriage under of the Labour Ordinance".

The Chairman: Would the hon.

an amendment?

The 0 The hon.


Mem­ Member ronsider Bill is in Committee.

b�r must come wifo a proper amend­ ment.

I can defer the third reiading ''dissolve", to allow him to do so.

The hon.

the of divorce.

Chief Secretary has already ask­ ed for the postponement sideration of clause 3.

We, therefore, have to go back to it.

I would that clause to be recommitted for him to amend it in ti1e light of the views but that is not the of the Committee, ease with this· clause.
Clat,,se allow of con­ 11 passed as printed, Clause 12 passed a.s printed.

Clause 13.-Saving Cap.

104.

The construction put on the word I take it, is to the extent Clauses 4, 5 and 6 p-assed as printed.

Clause 7-Amendment 164.

132 of Chapte1· of Section Mr. Gajraj: There is, a typographi­ cal error in the spellin "marriage" ter ( "i") in subdause g of the word (2,).

The let­ is in the wrong place.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, passed.


Mr. Ramphal: I do not know for that but I have been advis.ed Council certain, a large section of the Pundits would like to see this particular clause expunged from the Bill.

I would like to hear Mr. Sugrim Singh an observation on not the .spokesman this because I am of that body.

make Mr. Sugrim Singh: Even if we we have already officer.s, have removed this clause, in a previous clause admitted the marriage to marry people under the Indian La­ bour Ordinance.
the Pundits Council.

This clause reads·: I would pursue it with that the liberty Clauses 8 to 10 passed as printed.

Clause 11 - Person 11ia1-ried ce ma·y not contract this Onlina11 riage imder Indian Labour Ordinance, Chapte1· iinder mar­ "Nothing shall preclude formance the Indian Labour Ordinance.''

in this Ordinance the solemnization or per­ under Part X of of a marriage contained 164.

Mr. Sugrim Singh: I have been Mr. Ramphal: Perhaps we can speaking General about this clause.

to the hon.
to the hon.

the Attorney A per.son who take it a little further.

is that unregistered What it mea�s marriageg.

· can 2789 Ma,·riage 25TH JUNE, 1957 ( Amclt.)

Bill 2790 [Mr. Ramphal] still be performed.

That is largely what it means·, and it was put there out of the desire of Government to be fair.

M1·.

Sugrim Singh: This has no- thing to do with unregi,,tered marriagei>.
may in his discretio n of the Christian or otherwise the Governor appoint a minister religion, ordained, set apart, to the ministry to be a marriage officel' Thereafter, Colony.

·simply to a "minister think it is.

quite clear wishes to interpret Christian of religion".

I to anybody who this that it is a minister that is refened to.
of that religion, for the there is refel'ence do not have to register-it Mr. Ramphal: The fact is, the is under the In­ who mu.st do priests the J)arties dian Labour Ordinance are con­ that.

So far as the priests CP.l'Iled, concerned they do not have to register.

Rev.

Mr. Bobb: In clause 2, 4 (1) of the same thing.

(a); we have "a ministe1• Christian religion"-the I think that in order to be consistent throughout, similar clause 5 should read to the other one.

The Chief Secretary: speech.


I made lt per­ we fectly clear in my opening are not taking away from the people what they have already.

I think it would be quite wrong to alter this clause at this stage without any form of notification.

Mr. Ramphal: We are importing into the law two other religions than the Christia,n.

·would be lost and something would be gained if we accept Rev.

Mr. Babb's amend­ ment.

I think nothing Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 13 passed as printed.


The Chairman: Well, you must make up your mi11ds what expression you will use.

Rev.

Mr.

Bobb.

: Before you take The Attorney Yes.

General: the Schedule, ion to re-commit clause 5 ?

Sir, may I have permiss­ Question put, and agreed to.

Repeal Clause 5 re-committed.

7 of aiul re-enactment Chapter of section 164.

Rev.

Mr. Bobb: I would just like to observe before we leave this matter that a man may be set apart and not ordained may be licensed pensation.
He dis­ or given special to the Chl'istian religion.

The Attorney This re­ to people who are married General: under Rev.

Mr. Bobb: In this clause the of religion" have ference the Indian Labour Ordinance, and the words "minister of religion" and phras,es been used.

I suppose the intention "pers011al in the Indian La­ was to refer to the Christian religion re­ They are therefore bour Ordinance.

and those who profess peated here.

I8 that correct?
I8 that correct?

this particular afternoon, sonal law" does not have much relevance now because from India with the intention persona] but it may be there are still some General: a phrnse used throughout cipal Ordinance, Section ian 1·eligion.

to return, Jaw is the law of this country, As Mr. Ramphal said this phrase "per­ "minister law'' oceur Yes.

It i3 the Prin­ meaning the Chl'ist­ that religion.

The Attorney 4 (1) states that for those who actually came 2791 Marriage ( Amdt.)
Bill 25TH JUNE., 1957 Police 1Wl 2792 General] [The Attorney people who have a persona] is the law of India and therefore it can do no harm to lea;.e it in.

law which Mr, Ramphal: My understanding is that as soon as it come.s, Ordinance a certain form is used.

under this Clause 5 deferred.

Qu.estion Put, and agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, passed.

Schedule passed as printed.

Council resumed.

Title and enacting clause deferred.

Further consideration of the Bill deferred.


The Chief Secretary: Befo1·e I move that clause 3 be recom­ we tesume, mitted.

Question put, and agreed to.

POLICE BILL The Chief Secretary: I ris,e to move_ of a Bill intituled: the second reading Clause 3 recommitted-Amendment of section 5 of Chapter 164.

"An Ordinance to amend and con­ solidate Guiana Police the law relating Force."
to the British The Chief Secretary: I move that this clause be amended by the deletion of the full stop at the end of th.e clause and the addition of the words: At fir.st sight this Bill may appear e piece of I should like to emphasize to be a lengthy and formidabl legislation.
straight away the first ser1tence of the which reads as fol­ objects lows: and reasons "or of the Indian Labour Ordinance: that if a marriage oflicer with in accordance of the Indian Labour amend the law relating ·Guiana Police Force.''

"The bill seeks w consolidate and to the British a marriage Provided solemnizes the provisions Ordinance, thereof, fact to the immigration trict in which the parties reside."
he shall, within seven days of the ,give written notification dis­ agent for the to the marriage 'lip to date.

Many of the pro­ which ar.e contained in it are In other words the main purpose of this ­ Bill is to bring the existing Police l.e.gis Jation visions merely repetitions suitably ditions.

of the existing law modified to m.eet present con· Also the addition "Cap.

104.''

of the marginal note: The Chairman: hon.

Member, Mr. Ramphal?


Does that suit the Mr. Ramphal: It does not meet the but I am a Anything for objection which I raised, man of compromise.

peace!

It does not meet my objection fully, but I am accepting worded amendment.

gratulate hon.

Mover for being sn fair.

I wish to con­ General the Attorney the newly­ and the Rev.

Mr. Bobb: As a matter of procedure, wil1 thes.e marriage officers be re1quired form?
separate to ,give notificatio n by a that the When it is 1•emembered in 1929 it law was introduced present is hardly surprising zation fr.

now considered sary.
T,here are, however, in the Bill which I ber of new clauses should like to refer to bri.efly, that some moderni­ to be neces­ Sir, a num­ You may remember, Sir, that last Ordinance when I was moving the second of a Bill to amend the Volun­ I referred •"..eek reading te.ers line which appeared newspapers possible during that week and of the misconception which that head- in one of the daily to a head­ 2793 Police 25TH JUNE, 1957 'Bill 2794 in people's [The Chief Secretary] line might hav.e created minds.
I am referring the "Daily Ar.gosy'' on the 19th June and which carried its front page a headline To B.e Made Into Military Body If War Comes".

Clause 5 of the Bill makes l.egal for the first time for the Band to be part of the Police Band has provision Militia Force.

Administratively the as part of the Force for been treated some time now, but it is now being made legally Clause gives it legal statu.s a part of the Force.
This .. which was published to the issue of "Police reading on Strictl y speaking, Sir, that head­ of dause 13 preci,s nd tak.en line was an accurate of the Bill, but as a headline a out of the context of the rest of the Bill it could be extremely misleading.

It could give the idea that this BiII was designed whereas in fact one of the intentions of this Bill and also the Bill which I moved last week i.s to divorce and the Po1ice of Police connections as far as possible.
military the Commissioner For�e from their to create a military force, The next Clause to which I should security than they have at for two year.s.

Under this Clause wh.en a per­ like to refer is Clause 29.

This is an importan t Clause as it provides mem­ bers of the Police Force with a good deal more present.

son first joins the Police Force he will serve on probation There­ h.e after if his service will be confirmed and he will Police unless, He will have or becomes inefficient.
as a mem­ very much the same .security ber of the Civil Service has at the moment.

be entitled Force until the ag.e of retirement, of cours.e, in his appointment to serve in the an offence he commits is s�tisfactory As the law now stands, Sir, under I will Cap.
77-with your permission quote Section 3 which states: force .established "The police Police Ordinance, tinued as an arme.ct semi-military force .... " 1891, is hereby con­ by the Under the present law the members for a limited Force sign up of the Police number of years at a time, and when their services can be that period ado by dispensed the Adminicitration.

a good deal more security, anrJ pro­ vides as good a career as pos.sible.

further This.
further This.

Bil] expires with without gives other things, ex­ That Ordinance goes on to state in places that the duties of the of the Colony against Section 23 (f) also of the Force sewiral Force shall be, amo,ngst the p1·otection ternal aggression.

states is to defend the Colony against aggression.

existing a semi-military law is that the Police force.

Under the new Bill which I am now The whole theme of the that one of the duties Force is external Next, Sir, I should like to turn to force is Force.
for the members of all reference to the Police All we have done i.s to reserve introducing Force being a semi-military deleted.

in Clause 13 the power whereby the may by proclamation in time Governor cause the of war or other emergency Force or part of the Force to be turned into a Mi!itan defence that provision should be retained meet extreme .emergencies, the Police Force will now be an entirely civilian For�e to be used for the of th� Colony.
It i.s felt that to otherwise It must be remembered 33 and 34.

I have just referred Clauses to the fact that we have made provision for greate1· security the Police that the Police Force is a disciplined Force and, therefore, vice in it must inevitably from that of the Civil Service.

deals with withdrawa Clause no inspe�tor, subordinate In this e can withdraw or constabl officer the Force unless he giv.es at least six notice in writing months' ion to do so.
He may also with the Gov­ · ernor's l from the Force.

consent or the Commissioner's be different the terms of ser­ of his intent­ force.

Clause 33 from 279.5 Police 25TH JUNE, 1957 Bill 279S In practice would be as the case may be, be allowed notices by the Governor or the But it is a dis.ciplined coment, to dispense with the notice.

I may say that in almost one hundred per cent.

of the ca.ses dispensed with Commissioner.


Force and we must maintain months' be giv,en because not afford to have a mass withdrawa the preserv­ at short notice, ation of the Jaw and order in the Colony might be prejudiced.

that six we can­ l otherwise notice otherwise provided, lations and General Orders apply as we11.

the Colonial Regu­ Clause 105 sets out the varions upon which regulations can be matters made, and it i.s noteworthy that in­ clnd.ed among these matters , are the !
!for penalti offences terdictio officers and also the procedure fo11f in­ n, s.uspendon of and so on.

es which may be inflicted and dismissaf Clause 34 d,eal.s with the question I think those are the main, new This is a new provision In this Clause the Com­ of members of the Force.

of disclrnrge.

whi::h does not exist under the present law.

At firnt sight it might be consider­ ed to be a penal Clause operating to the disadvantage That is not so; it is in fnct just the opposite.
missioner will be able in future to dis­ charge a member of the Force who has become inefficient to do his duties, so discharge any superannuation he is eligible now in force or then in force.

d he will be able to enjoy for which under the Pensions law and is no longer able hut when a member is benefits, in the Bill.

As I ha\' e said, provisi011s the primary object of this Bili is to consolidate and bring up to date the existing· law of the Police Force.
At the same Lime, I have no doubt what­ ever that the Bill is improving the of servi�e in the Force.

By conditions parning this lJiece of legislation we shall be providing the country with modern and up-to-date ulations improved Police Force Federation with it.

I have no hesitatio n in com­ mending it to the favour of the Coun­ cil and I move that the Bill be now read a rncond time.

and the Police F orce with conditions of service.

The has.
The has.

agreed Police reg­ At the present moment there is no whereby the with a �an',s way other than dismissal Commis.sioner can dispense servic,e.

If a man becomes too inefficien t to continue his duties there is no al­ ternative than to dismiss case he loses benefits, missal on his record all of hi.s rights to prmsion and he has the stigma of dis­ for.ever.

him.

In that The AHorney General: I beg to second the motion.

COUNCIL IN COMMITTEE Council rernlved itself into Com­ mittee to consider clause.
the Bill clause by This is a form of honourable dis­ charge.

Just in case anyone may feel ou that this new power can be abused, y will note that there is the right of ap­ peal to th.e Governor days, within fourteen Clauses 1 to 48 passed as printed.

Cla11se 49 - Pe1·sons acquiJ.tfod by Court not punishable U,nder tli is Ordina-nce1 victed liab-ilfry of clisrnissal O?'

reduction on same charge and if con­ of Force to Membei11 in ra.nk.
FinaUy, Sir, the provisions of this Bill make it abundantlv Pension,s the Police Force, and also that, u!lless law of the Colony applies clear that the to Mr. Ramphal: I am a little dis­ turbed over this clause and must 2797 Police 25TH JUNE, 1957 Bill 2798 [Mr. Ramphal] therefore dance of others.

seek the advice and gui­ It says: Force, in which case it is, better to say "any member of the Force.''

particularly beyond all doubt.

in 44.


That will put it "49, (1) No person who has been ac· by a court of any crime or offence quitted shall be tried on the same charge or suffer any punishment under this Ordinance.

on account thereof to any penalty he shall be liable (2)If any member of the Force has in offence, of any criminal been convicted awarded by the addition from Court, to dismissal the Force or a reduction shall not otherwise to be pun­ be liable ished under this Ordinance for the same offence."
in rank, but the offe,n'.ce under on points, The Attorney would go in the or­ General: There are offences brought by members of the public against members of the Force.

If they are acquitted technical this Ordinance dinary way.

What the hon.

Member, Mr. Ramphal, gest, in clauses to have "any pereon" as the offence may be committed public, whereas suhclause clause 49 and particularly �,ubchluse to any member of the Force.

(2)relate Subclause (1) may well be for any member of the.

Force.
Force.

by members of the (1.)

of 44 and 45 it i!"

.• _right to, I sug­ is referriJig I take it that this Bill is for the control of the Police and discipline Force and I notice that this Clam,e deals with criminal wondering whether the proper place for that is not in the Summary Juris­ Ordinance diction e which deals than in this Ordinanc of the Police with the estoablishment Force.

(Offences) act�·.

I was rather Mr. Ramphal: That is the point.


My point if, he should not be subject­ ed to a second charge before some disciplinary Committee.

charge a member of the public for discipline in the Guard Room.

You cannot That is a fundamental principle of law.

I can understand subclause (2)but not subclause (1).
The Attorney General: I think offences of members of the point is that certain in re�pect prescribed the Police Force can be taken to the Court and if there is an acquittal they are al�o subjected charge:; are and disciplinary action, This en­ for by Regulation.

provided rnres that if a man is acquitted in a Court of an offence under the 01'­ dinance that charge should not have to the good something the Force.

It refers to the order of fame circumstances.

prejudicial to discip1inary less.


Mr. Ramphal: If you refe1· Jfack to Clause 44, "any pere-0n" appears to relate to :,omebody other than a member of the Fo1·ce, but it is likely it really means a member of the The Attorney General: The hon.

Secretary has drawn to the fact that there is the f'.inancial my attention in the Jirt of offences under this Bill "impersonation."

offence under Therefore under the ordinary not be a charge made under this Ordinance.

well leave it.

It is also an law.


the ordinary impers.onating a policema n law can­ That being so we may as criminal The Chief Secretary: It may be redundant but it is .neces.sary.

The Chairman: It is really harm­ Clauses 49 to 5� pac"sed as printed.

Clause 60-lnterpretation of con­ stable.

2799 Poiice Bill 25TH .JUNE, 1957 Adjournment 2800 'l'he Attorney General: "p" is needed in the wOTd "appointed", Another Schedule passed as amended.

Items 7 and 8 renumbered as 8 and Que�tion put, and agreed to.
!

), respectively.

Clause, as amended, passed.

Title and enacting clau·se passed Clau::es 61 to 68 passed aisi prhted.

as printed.

Clause 69-Powers to malce orders the Schedule be re-committed.

with respect of Police.

to property in possession Question put, and agreed to.

The Chief Secretar y: I move that The Chief Secretary: I wish to deleting the w0rds move an amendment '' by virtue of any seal'ch the second and third lines of this.
clause and sub.$.tituting therefol' v.rnrds "as the result of any !

''.earch out by a member of the Force.''

carried warrant" in the In the first The Chief Secretary: line of the new item !)

(a) there is reference this numeral be changed to '' 8'', mak­ ing the reference to '·item 7".

I move that , "item 8".

Quedion put, and agreed to.

Question put, and agreed lu.

Schedule passed as further amend- Clau::e, as amended, passed.

rd.

Clames 70 to 107 pa�.sed a;; print­ Council rennnocl.

ed.
ed.

The Chief Secretary: I beg to Sc1!1 ecl,de The Chief Secretary: After item move that the Bill be now read a third time and passed 6, I would like to move the insl:'.rtion of a new item, 7, which reads U8 fol­ lows.

: The Attorney rncond the motion.

General: I beg to "For the attendance officer or constable at any muster to per a subordinate diem ... $2.00" Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the third time aud past'!- Clause 7 will be Tenumhernrl as 8 ed.
P.nd clause 8 renumbered as D. Que-,,tion put, and agreed to.

Council adj onrned until Thursday 27th June 1857 at 2 p.m.