What is the real reason for the proposed sugar estate loan?
Dear Editor, The Guyana Chronicle, which is the stateowned newspaper, on February 22nd, 2018, reported under a caption which reads, ‘$15 billion to reopen estates’ and that, ‘Gov’t seeks funds to restart operations at Skeldon and Enmore’ according to Finance Minister Winston Jordan.
Now after many criticisms from the public, the Finance Minister has changed his tune, not unlike the US$18 million signing bonus. An official from the Ministry of Finance has stated that, “I can confirm to you that the Minister was misunderstood. The finance being sourced is for the operations of GuySuCo and its three estates ‒ Albion, Blairmont and Uitvlugt ‒ it has nothing to do with the four closed estates. This is being handled separately”. If this is so then how come the SPU is involved in the negotiations of the $15 billion loan from the commercial banks? The SPU is involved in the preparation for sale and the sale of the closed estates and not the operational estates. The closed estates are separate entities. Albion, Blairmont and Uitvlugt are still run by GuySuCo and not NICIL.
Furthermore, Minister Jordan was reported to have said that the revenue from the sale of the estates and land will be used to repay the proposed $15 billion loan within 3-5 years. He stressed that, “This will be a government debt, so that when we get a buyer we will service the debt”. When this is evaluated from the statement made by the same minister that there is a new model of operations which will make GuySuCo more ‘cost efficient’ and therefore profitable it leaves us in a quandary as to the real reason for the requirement of the proposed loan to finance existing operations at the three estates. Why not use this ‘model’ on the three estates?
It is also reported that 30,000 tons of canes will be harvested at Enmore to produce sugar for DDL. Let us do a simple calculation about the revenue factor. At a TC/TS of 15, it means that 1200 tons of molasses will be produced with 2000 tons of sugar. This should bring in an approximate income of $19.5 million from molasses and $212 million from sugar sales at US$500 per tonne, a total income of $231.5 million. However, if all the canes are utilized for molasses purposes only, then approximately 4500 tons of molasses will be produced at a local market value of $73.3 million. A loss of approximately $158.2 million will result. Is the government actually financing DDL? How will this bring profit to GuySuCo? In addition, we need to be given some estimates and some hard facts by the Minister of Finance how the injection of $15 billion will result in profits? Not a figment of his imagination?
We have been exposed to voodoo economics by this coalition government for too long. Yours faithfully, Haseef Yusuf Councillor RDC Region 6 not yet made. That is tantamount to impermissible, pre-emptive self-defence.
(III) Mr Ramson also said my statement that “Since 2005, the nation has been without a substantive Chancellor and Chief Justice,” is also false.
Response: in 2005, Justice Carl Singh, while occupying the office of Chief Justice, was appointed acting Chancellor, when Chancellor Desiree Bernard was elected to the CCJ. Justice Singh functioned in both capacities until Justice William Ramlal declared the conflation of the two positions unconstitutional on November 16, 2007. The corpus of Justice Ramlal’s ruling is that a permanently acting Chancellor cannot also perform the duties of Chief Justice. Hence, since 2005, there has been no substantive Chief Justice or Chancellor. As an attorney, Mr Ramson should avail himself of the facts before making public statements.
(IV) In response to my assertion that “If the GBA has a genuine concern about the President’s fidelity to the Constitution, it should have met or written the President on the matter,” Mr Ramson claimed that the GBA did just this. He cited utterances by Justice Denis Byron, President of the CCJ and Mr Teni Housty, Vice President of the GBA, as evidence.
Response: How could anyone surmise that the referenced comments constitute a reasonable substitute for the GBA’s failure to meet, or formally correspond, with the President. Mr Ramson cannot obfuscate this issue. I insist that instead of engaging in partisan politics, the GBA should have written directly to, or met with the President on the instant matter. Had it done so, it would have been more effective and credible.
(V) Mr Ramson said it is false to contend that the GBA can raise hell and sue the President to overturn any substantive appointments without the agreement of the Leader of the Opposition, as required by the constitution.
Response: Mr Ramson’s refutation of this option is laughable. I sympathize with his inability to grasp this concept of the GBA being an amicus civil society arbiter with an obligation to promote fidelity to the Constitution and to seek judicial intervention to enforce the Constitution and preserve the integrity of the judiciary. His real problem, however, is that he is beleaguered by the GBA’s complicit silence on constitutional abuses by the PPP government.
VI) Mr Ramson disputed that the GBA was silent on constitutional and human rights violations by successive PPP administrations, but has now suddenly found its voice to criticize the Granger administration. He again cited personal letters from Messrs Brynmor T I Pollard, Teni Housty and Nigel Hughes.
Response: I respect and admire these men immensely, but their individual opinions do not constitute that of the GBA. Mr Ramson struggled to cite one example where the GBA, as the regulatory law body, denounced or passed a resolution condemning PPP excesses, because it never did. Furthermore, Mr Ramson is the wrong messenger to refute claims of a pattern of association with the views of the PPP. Apart from being a member of the opposition, his very letter was a regurgitation of PPP talking points, and therefore confirms the said worrying pattern. Yours faithfully, Rickford Burke