Latest update April 19th, 2024 12:59 AM
Jul 07, 2021 Letters
Dear Editor,
It is not my intention to get into a back and forth with Vishnu Bisram, but I wish to correct his egregious misrepresentations of my previous letter. There are too many misrepresentations to address, so some key ones are provided below so readers can be aware of the information quality employed in Bisram’s letters.
Bisram wrote private cane farming in India was seven times more productive than GuySuCo’s cane farming; such a dramatic comparison is intended to support giving land to the workers who would grow cane more efficiently according to Bisram. This comparison is incorrect and could have easily been researched. 71-80MT/hectare (depending on source) and 54 MT/hectare are the average cane yields for India and Guyana (seven estates) respectively. Guyana’s best estates, Albion and Blairmont have a reported history of achieving 63 MT/hectare and 74 MT/hectare of cane yield.
Reference was provided in my letter of GuySuCo’s CEO, Sasenarine Singh, in a YouTube video saying the new GuySuCo will produce 100,000-150,000 MT sugar per year. At no time did the GuySuCo CEO say the new production levels was based on a model developed by the previous coalition government, as stated by Bisram. An observation was made by me that this production level seemed similar to the target the coalition government had previously communicated.
My letter stated India made a profit selling sugar internally but exported sugar at a loss. Agricultural Reporter for Bloomberg News based in Delhi, Partik Parija, in an article titled “World Largest Consumer of Sugar Wants People to Eat More Sugar,” detailed the effort to persuade Indian citizens to consume more sugar. Partik wrote “…..If per capita consumption rises to global average, domestic demand will climb 5.2 million tons per year, according to Sudhanshu Pandey, the top bureaucrat at the food ministry. That would slash the surplus, cut overseas sales and save government money by reducing export subsidies.” Bisram wrote my analysis about India’s sugar industry was incorrect, providing a mind spinning reasoning linking accounting gimmicks to politicians seeking government assistance. I could hear a famous judge saying,” if it doesn’t make sense, it cannot be true.” Partik Parija’s article flanges up with the known desire of the Indian government to discontinue sugar subsidies.
Of course, there are the usual talking points. 1) The industry brings in foreign exchange. How about using net foreign exchange as a measure, doesn’t GuySuCo use foreign exchange, and is it worth obtaining the net foreign exchange at such a high cost? 2) GuySuCo does more than produce sugar; it provides services in health care, irrigation, etc. There is no reason why these services will not continue, the government not GuySuCo should be funding these government services anyhow. But how about the other Guyanese in remote parts of the country, who don’t have good roads, light, health centres, proper schools, etc. The funds to improve their lives are being put in a money losing endeavour with no end in sight unless there is change. Electricity reliability could have been improved and the road to Brazil completed to open more business opportunity. 3) Socioeconomic measures and not financial viability should be the measure used to assess the sugar industry. What are these socioeconomic measures; are they widely known measures. Is there a list/report of Guyanese industries with their socioeconomic rating, is the sugar Industry the only industry that qualifies for large government subsidises based on socioeconomic measures?
There is no discussion without the unproven claim that all countries developed and underdeveloped subsidise their sugar industries perpetually. There are around 15 countries in the world that produce sugar below the world market selling price. Why would such countries need to subsidise their sugar industry, interestingly about a third of these countries are underdeveloped countries and they do not export sugar. Then there is the model described in my previous letter, i.e., most sugar producing countries have industries that cannot produce sugar below the world market selling price but can sell sugar internally at higher prices, resulting in a viable industry, Consider if GuySuCo’s sugar production was equal to Guyana’s sugar demand, then the country would have a viable industry at the current local selling price for packaged sugar. Let’s hope the new strategy is successful and Guyana finds a niche in the Caribbean selling packaged sugar at positive margins without competition.
Yours faithfully,
Deryck C. Daly
Please share this to every Guyanese including your house cats.
Apr 19, 2024
SportsMax – West Indies Women’s captain Hayley Matthews delivered a stellar all-round performance to lead her team to a commanding 113-run victory over Pakistan Women in the first One Day...Kaieteur News – For years, the disciples of Bharrat Jagdeo have woven a narrative of economic success during his tenure... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... 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]