THIS is apropos of the communication (Oct 4, 2008) issued by the Directorate-General, Ports and Shipping, saying that their letter depicts correct interpretation of the Pakistan Merchant Shipping Examination and Certification of Masters, Deck Officers and Safe Manning Rules, 2006. In this context the question is that under such circumstances which law should apply when there is conflict between international treaties and individual state's own law?
A lack of harmonisation would result in the slaughter of the seafaring profession in Pakistan. Shipping and the merchant marine profession are basically international in character, and governed by international regulations, instruments and standards acceptable to all nations of the world.
Maritime personnel, holder of Pakistan's Certificate of Competency, after Aug 9, 2007, i.e. the collapse of the STCW certification system, have to sail beyond Pakistani waters and earn their livelihood abroad. How can they be accepted at the international pool of employment to sail in international waters?
In my opinion, common sense should prevail we should look into a broader prospect for Pakistan's benefit and amend the incorrectly introduced SRO 109 (KE) 2006. The government should implement and respect international conventions and principles relating to the certification of the merchant marine officers.
The Task Force on Maritime Industry, notified on Dec 24, 2008, is requested to take notice of this scenario on a priority basis, as it is in alignment of their terms of reference pertaining to “build capacity of all sectors including manpower and to propose amendments to relevant laws and rules, to make them suitable for maritime industry”
At this juncture I would like to clarify that Chapter II, Regulation II/1, section 2.5 of the STCW Convention, clearly states “ ... ... have completed approved education and training and meet the standards of competence specified in section A-II/1 of the STCW Code.”
Whereas, SRO 109(KE)/2006, Chapter V, Regulation 32(c) relating to ancillary training as specified in appendix 'C', does not cover up, rather ignores, the requirements of Table A-II/1 and section B-II/1 of the STCW Code. The erratic clause specifies additional qualifications only.
And Chapter V, Regulation 32(2) relating to remission in sea service as specified in rule 25(c), is providing relief to candidates in sea time requirements only and does not provide choice of exemption from section A-II/1 of the STCW Code.
Section A-II/1 of the STCW Code stipulates standard of competence, which no one can compromise.
IMO Workshop material on implementation of the revised STCW Convention stipulates approved education and training required in all cases. Again there is no choice, someone trying to say 'voluntary basis' is having ill-conceived idea. You cannot put an officer on ship without ensuring his competence.
Competence is being compromised by non-attendance at approved colleges/institutes and without completing the notified courses, and examiners by neglect repeating the examination papers of the last three years to celebrate the bonanza.
These actions would leave seafarers high and dry somewhere on rocky grounds.
I.M. KHAN SAMADANI.
Chairman,
The Nautical Institute,
Pakistan Branch Karachi