Latest update March 28th, 2024 12:59 AM
Jul 05, 2021 Letters
Dear Editor,
I write to correct D. C. Daly’s response in which he states that “Bisram presented contrasting visions of future of sugar industry” (Jul 1) and to clarify and expound on some issues raised. I am driven to save the estates and GuySuco for reasons different from those of Daly and CEO Sase Singh (whose name he mentions as having the right formula to downsize the industry). I don’t know why Sase’s name is this argument.
Let me state emphatically I am not looking for employment in the sugar industry. I traveled to Fiji, Mauritius, Durban, India, Trinidad, and St. Kitts years ago on my own expenses to study sugar production because of altruistic reasons and because my heart was (and still is) with keeping sugar workers employed. I felt where the state owned the land, working class should be awarded the land for cultivation rather than close down unprofitable factories.
In the case of Guyana, my navel string and those of my ancestors and of slaves were buried in the plantations. They should be the inheritors of the land, not some people who had nothing to do with cane. The slaves and indentured labourers and their descendants worked the land; they deserve it as a source of income rather than closure of the estates. In Trinidad, the bulk of the cane land find their way into “Middle Eastern” ownership that had nothing to do with cane. Cane farms and the train line in St. Kitts are now tourist related encouraged by the state. Mauritius converted cane fields into potato, onion, and corn farms supported by the state.
I have only one vision for closed sugar estates — save and re-start them in order to re-hire the 7,800 who were directly employed at and terminated by the coalition regime. Thousands more, employed as a result of secondary activities around the estates, lost their jobs when the estates were closed. Hundreds of private cane farmers also lost their income with no alternative factories to grind their harvest; they became impoverished. GuySuco refused to sell the Wales factory to private farmers in Wales. So it is critical for the three of the four closed estates be re-started for job creation and as a main source of income for over 20,000 workers and over 80,000 persons to feed.
There may be varied ways of saving or re-starting the estates. The Bisram/Dev model included a tri-sector involvement of ownership by workers, private investors, and the state. The workers would be allocated land to cultivate and harvest cane. The private investors would modernize and upkeep the factories, manage the estates, and engage in R&D to provide the best variety of cane for cultivation, and marketing. The state would provide infrastructure assistance like drainage and irrigation, soft loans, etc. And the state would be compensated. The model worked in Africa. It is possible that private investors may have lost interest to pursue their proposals made in 2017. The state would have to replace their role. One can tailor the model to fit each estate. The key for me is working class ownership of the land because it would rapidly increase yield.
The problem in Guysuco is not the factory; it is cane cultivation. The state gets three ratoons; private farmers get up to 30 ratoons. Private farmers always grow cane more efficiently, getting up to four times the yield. The yield per acre in India is up to seven times that of Guyana.
State cane cultivation is not economical for a variety of reasons – including theft and poor productivity. The state claims it has been losing money. While the state was losing money from cultivation and harvesting, private farmers were at a minimum breaking even and making profits with the state responsible as the factory operator and marketing agent. Does it not make economic sense to give (lease) the workers the land to cultivate cane and sell to the state (or private investors if they manage the factors)?
Daly quotes the CEO Sase Singh as saying that GuySuco would only concentrate on producing between 100-150 metric tons of sugar. He said the downsized company was similar to the business model inherited from the PNC led coalition. I do not know if he quotes Sase correctly. If I understand this model right, the state is not interested in the welfare of the workers. It is only interested in producing 100 MT of sugar. He quotes Sase as railing against a bigger Guysuco which he quotes Sase as stating “is inefficient”. Perhaps Sase is right that ‘bigger” is not the right model for Guysuco. Bigger was better’ during colonial rule and right up to the end of the 20th century. Sugar production was profitable. The concept of economy of scale (bigness) kicked in. The company made huge profits in spite of an ‘over-bloated management bureaucracy’. Burnham imposed the tax levy on the sugar profits that was plowed into the national budget to subsidize the money losing bauxite industry, and other sectors of the economy. The sugar workers were deprived of their hard-earned profits that could have been invested in their own future rather than allowing the state to do that.
According to Daly, GuySuco’s success is defined by financial viability as he praises Sase’s leadership to downsize. Well so far, Guysuco has not been a success as it has not made a profit for several years. Going by this reasoning, GuySuco should close down. Also, government has not been a successful business; it only consumes money, over US$2B a year. Since it is not successful, it should be closed down.
GuySuco’s success, similar to government’s operations, cannot be measured by cost/benefit analysis alone; Guysuco rightly provides for the welfare of the communities where it operates – health benefits, community centers, play grounds, drainage and irrigation, security, water resources, electrification, etc.
GuySuco is a socio-economic enterprise similar to the bauxite industry. Each employ (ed) thousands of workers. GuySuco historically has been the largest business in Guyana – employing at one time some 30,000 workers which was over 25% of the labour force of the country at the time. At one time, people used to refer to British Guiana as ‘Bookers Guiana’ because sugar dominated the economic sector. And several businesses were linked to GuySuco that employed another 10% of workers.
So one-third of the country’s labour force was connected to GuySuco at its peak production. And in terms of a proportion of the population, half was tied to Guysuco at one time. That proportion would have dropped today to less than a fifth. And a tenth would have been without a source of income since the closure of the four estates by the coalition in 2017. Workers contribute enormous amount of taxes; at one time over a third of the national budget. And economic activities around the estates contribute more to the treasury. The sugar workers and the estates contribute far more to the economy than the subsidies they receive.
It can’t be that GuySuco CEO would endorse ‘smaller is better’ model keeping all those workers on the breadline, against an election manifesto commitment to re-open the estates and re-hire them. I remind the CEO and Daly that Kamla Persad Bissessar in neighbouring Trinidad made a manifesto commitment in 2010 to re-open the shuttered Caroni and re-hire thousands of terminated workers. She failed to deliver, saying it was not profitable and the voters fired her in 2015.
Daly’s information on India sugar production on subsidies is not correct; there are accounting gimmicks in India because much of the land is owned by politicians who seek government assistance. And subsidies on exports are not allowed; WTO won’t allow it.
Daly missed a few fundamental points on sugar production. Sugar production in every country (developed and underdeveloped) is heavily subsidized because it creates enormous employment. Sugar is also a source of foreign exchange. Trinidad began experiencing serious foreign exchange shortages after the closure of Caroni and recently the oil refinery. By products of sugar production such as molasses and co-generation of electricity sustain other industries and economic activities.
Sugar production in Guyana is a net asset to the economy; it is not a burden to the treasury. Peasant or small-scale farming worked in Trinidad, Guyana, and other countries. It will work at GuySuco. Where practical, co-operatives can be formed. Cane co-operatives worked well in Guyana until Burnham made them un-profitable or sucked the cream of the profit, a dis-incentive to produce sugar. Distribute the land to workers to incentivize them to produce! And if Daly is right that Sase is not interested to re-start the closed estates, then please give the works the land to earn a living or else they would end up like impoverished former sugar workers in Trinidad.
Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram
THIS IDIOT TELLING GUYANA WE HAVE NO SAY IN THE 50% PROFIT SHARING AGREEMENT WE HAVE WITH EXXON.
Mar 28, 2024
Minister Ramson challenge athletes to better last year’s performance By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – Guyana’s 23-member contingent for the CARIFTA Games in Grenada is set to depart the...B.V. Police Station Kaieteur News – The Beterverwagting Police Station, East Coast Demerara (ECD) will be reconstructed... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – In the face of escalating global environmental challenges, water scarcity and... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]