There were concerted efforts to improve sugar production and productivity under the PPP/C govt

Dear Editor,

The GAWU has fully considered the editorial of the September 01 Guyana Chronicle titled `PPP destruction of the sugar industry’. The editorial of the state-owned newspaper – which is coincidentally funded by the nation’s taxpayers and has a responsibility to be reflective of the views of all Guyanese – unfortunately, it appears, has taken on a partisan political tone, undoubtedly, to justify the incumbent Administration’s bungled and confused sugar policy. While the editorial’s main target was the PPP/C, which is very much capable of responding, our Union’s name was also drawn into the mudslinging that is now a hallmark of the state-owned newspaper. It is against this background, that we find it incumbent to bring clarity to the several misguided contentions which, undoubtedly, were being used to score cheap political points.

The editorial posits that the industry was “… destroyed… through a combination of reckless and illadvised economic initiatives…”, however, it failed to really provide any empirical evidence of this. It seems to us that the Chronicle, like many who make up the present-day Administration, is engaged in blowing hot air. The paper goes on to say nothing was done to “… improve productivity, to close the gap between production cost and market prices and ultimately to put the industry on an economically sustainable footing”. Whether the newspaper is feigning ignorance or not, as it more and more dons a political mask, it is engaged in major distortions of the truth. The facts remain that there were concerted efforts to improve production and productivity. Those efforts saw between 2002 and 2004 sugar production averaging about 320,000 tonnes per annum and cane yields in excess of 75 tonnes per hectare.

During the period, as well, there was the introduction of mechanical cane loaders and mechanical cane harvesters and efforts were being made to further the mechanization thrust to improve efficiency and hence lower costs. The Sugar CoI report, which the Chronicle alluded to in the editorial, had pointed to the cost benefits of mechanized operations. Moreover, thousands of hectares of cane fields were converted to facilitate mechanized field activities. At East Demerara and Skeldon Estates, for instance, a significant proportion of the cultivation was geared towards mechanized operations and, notwithstanding that fact, the Government closed those estates without a second thought. In fact, we believe, the Chronicle may wish to query why the current Administration refused a CDB loan that was approved to hasten mechanization works in the sugar industry.

Apart from that, there were also efforts to diversify and add income streams to the industry. The Enmore Packaging Plant was one such initiative. Again, if the newspaper fully considered the Sugar CoI report, it would have seen the industry’s highest sugar return came from this plant, which now-a-days lies closed with cobwebs and dust taking over the equipment. The very Chronicle, nine years to the day, in its September 01, 2010 editorial said “[a] major component of GuySuCo’s strategic plan to turn around the sugar industry is moving towards value added and packaged products, and in this regard the Enmore Packaging Plant… will play a major role”.

The editorial points to declining sugar production saying “[i]n 2013… production had fallen to 186,807 tons… ”. What the editorial fails to say, was that in subsequent years production was even poorer. Following a production improvement in 2015 when production reached 231,071 tonnes, as a result of hard-work in the preceding year, by 2016, sugar production fell to 183,614 tonnes; in 2017 it was 137,352 tonnes, and in 2018 it was 104,596 tonnes. At the same time, it ignores that sugar production between 1988 and 1990, averaged just over 156,000 tonnes per annum.

The Chronicle also said that the “…subsidy to

Guysuco under the PPP was grounded more in politics than economics…”. The support to the sugar industry, to the best of our knowledge, was premised on the industry’s contribution to the national well-being. Support to industries is not by any means unique to Guyana. The world is replete with examples of the State supporting economic activities in recognition of their value to society. It is interesting to note that the September 01, 2010 Chronicle editorial aptly summed this up when it said the sugar industry “…is our largest contributor to the national economy and is the largest employer with over 20,000 employees and creates indirect employment for thousands of others”. It was, undoubtedly, against that backdrop that support to the industry was provided. Moreover, support to the industry was never frowned upon and was supported wholly by all Members of the Parliament. Also, the CDB encouraged such a policy, pointing out in its assessment of the Sugar Industry Mechanisation Project, that it was “…economically viable for GOGY [Government of Guyana] to continue subsidizing and protecting the cultivation and harvesting of sugar cane and processing of sugar for export and local consumption.”

The editorial also was critical of the investment in Skeldon Estate arguing that the investment was not well thought-out. This criticism, however, goes against the grain of reality. Several reports have testified to the consideration, thought and examination that preceded the Skeldon investment. As is well-known at the time of Skeldon’s planning, Guyana was considered an HIPC country and the international financial institutions, obviously with a fine tooth comb, fully examined the project before they gave their blessing. To now come foolhardily and distort the reality is to be disingenuous in our view.

Our Union was also criticized for advocating for improvement of pay levels and conditions-of-work for sugar workers. Is it that the Chronicle is saying we should not advocate improvements to the well-being and welfare of the sugar workers and their families? This is clearly an anti-worker position that is being pursued by the socalled “Nation’s newspaper”. Maybe it is that the paper is taking a cue from its ‘handlers’ who have treated workers and workers’ issues with disdain and contempt. The newspaper should not forget that sugar workers, in the era of state-ownership, have always benefitted from improvements in pay, as workers in other areas of the State. There were only in two instances in the 1980’s when sugar workers, like their colleagues in all areas of the State, did not receive a pay rise.

However, since 2015, there has been naked discrimination as sugar workers have not gotten any improvement in pay whereas their colleagues in the State sector have had imposed increases. Certainly, the sugar workers do not begrudge their colleagues who, like them, are being bombarded by the high cost-of-living arising to a great extent from increased taxation. Undoubtedly, the sugar workers, who incidentally prior to May, 2015 were promised increases of 20 per cent, have now seen the nature of the beast they must deal with. While sugar workers are told no increase, they see the top echelon of the Administration awarding themselves exorbitant pay improvements, reportedly in excess of 50 per cent, apart from other significant enhancements of perks and privileges.

The paper contemptuously charged that monies were given to our Union regarding the training of sugar workers. The GAWU, sometime ago, had answered this fallacy when we pointed out that the sums quoted were paid to sugar workers who were released by GuySuCo to attend classes organized by the Union through its College. This practice continues onto now and is clearly spelt out in the Collective Labour Agreement between the GAWU and the GuySuCo. Regarding the subjects, it is well within the GAWU’s prerogative to identify the subject matters it wishes to address during its educational classes.

We hasten to add, too, that interestingly, and may be conveniently, the newspaper failed to allude to the GuySuCo participation in delivering certain presentations during our educational classes. Moreover, the paid-release of workers to attend union-sponsored educational courses is by no means a new feature or unique to GAWU and GuySuCo. It is a benefit extended to all other unions and is one of the many battles won by the workingclass.The paper contends that “this government… halted the rapid decline of the industry” and goes on to say that “…the industry was saved”. We wonder how that could be true. The reality is that 7,000 workers lost their jobs; tens of thousands of Guyanese have been plunged into misery, if not poverty; communities have had their breath sucked out; school-aged children have had to leave their educational pursuits; we have seen families broken-up, and how can we forget that it pushed some workers sadly to taking their lives. Today, while the Chronicle wants to engage in distortions and untruths, the naked reality is there to see. Many media reports have confirmed the hardship and suffering that face the now displaced sugar workers.

We see too the Chronicle charging that “…thousands of sugar workers still have their jobs is testimony to the foresight of the government”. But it was this Government which stood, apparently at the sidelines, as the workers and the Guyanese public, looked on horrified, at the very public battle between NICIL and GuySuCo. It is the Guyanese people who today stand to be exposed to a $30B indebtedness should the various actors not get the industry right. It is future generations of Guyanese which stand to suffer from the shortsighted and, seeming, blinded decisions of the present-day Administration. We remind the Chronicle that nine years ago it said “[w]e have the capacity and resources to restore the sugar industry to its former glory. What is needed now is efficient and effective management of the industry at levels and the will and determination to succeed”. We believe this is very much relevant in our times as well. So today while the Chronicle is used to do the bidding of its masters and has adopted, from all appearances, an antisugar and an anti-worker outlook, we need to be wary of the thousands who are hardpressed while cheap propaganda is pursued with taxpayers’ monies.

Yours faithfully, Seepaul Narine General Secretary GAWU

Letters continued on page 25