Mr Sultan Mohamed in comments on my letter (‘The preamble to the constitution…‘ SN, June5) associates me with a certain mindset (‘Kwayana has equated the preamhle to the constitution with its main contents’ SN, June 11).
Mr Mohamed wants to tell me about the elephant and its body. He likens the trunk of the elephant to the Preamble to the Constitution. Wonderful! He adopts a line of argument claiming that it comes from Sam Persaud, “The tail of the elephant is not the whole elephant.” This is the “knock out punch.” And it is quite true.
Turning to my letter about the Preamble to the Constitution he says that I ought to know that the trunk and the tusks of the elephant do not make up the whole elephant. Let me quote from my letter : “The Preamble does not compel it, but advises it.”
I enjoyed the reference to the elephant. The Preamble leads on to the Constitution. The trunk leads on to the elephant.
I googled ‘Elephant’s Trunk.’ Among many statements I found this: “The elephant’s trunk is the most versatile and useful appendage on the planet.”
I found that the elephant uses the nose in its trunk to understand its surroundings. It can be called a kind of guide. This is all I claim for the Preamble. It is not the main part of the Constitution. There can be a Constitution without a Preamble, but if one is there, it serves as a guide like the elephant’s trunk.
I give notice that I shall ignore other gossip, and discuss the 2001 Preamble and a few informed opinions on preambles in general.
Yours faithfully,
Eusi Kwayana
