The government would not rule out the privatisation of sugar estates in the future, according to Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh.
At a recent press conference, he said that the government was considering a “number of possibilities” to facilitate the sugar sector’s continued relevancy.
Dr Singh noted that “we are committed to the long-term viable and profitable sugar industry,” which could possibly include privatisation in the future.
When asked directly by Stabroek News if sugar was in need of privatisation to properly rein-in the rogue elements of the current management structure, Dr Singh stated that “we have been exerting a lot of pressure on the board and the management to turn the industry around they have been struggling in this regard.”
He stated that “our party and our government have long maintained the position that the sugar industry is central to the economic life of our country and against this background we will take all necessary steps to ensure its long-term viability.”
Singh was heavily anecdotal as opposed to directly answering what the various “possibilities” were and when the general public would become privy to them.
The furthest the Finance Minister got to actually acknowledging privatisation was to say that the party has recently been considering the matter very closely. President Donald Ramotar just over a month ago admitted that the sugar industry was in crisis and even went so far as to suggest cooperatives as a means of transforming the industry. More recently, the Chairman of the Private Sector Commission Ronald Webster noted that the privatisation of a few estates could prove insightful.
He noted that the bauxite industry was able to adapt some of the successful practises used in the private sector. He had said that without leadership, GuySuCo’s incentive programmes were futile.
Stabroek News has made numerous attempts to speak with Webster in the hope of having him expand on how privatisation could ensure the sector’s viability.
Meanwhile, GAWU President Komal Chand stated that privatisation was not the answer because that was effectively just a change in ownership and did not guarantee that the industry would see a successful turnaround. Chand told Stabroek News that privatisation meant that profit would become the priority and as head of the union he was worried that profit would trump workers’ rights.
Chand said that “when Bookers owned it, was profit, profit, profit”. He added that it was the current management structure and not the issue of profitability that is the source of the company’s problems. “It is the management that is poor,” he said, adding that he could not support a move to privatise sugar without understanding what that meant for workers’ rights.
Chand did not argue, however, that GuySuCo was not successful under the four-prong corporate strategy by Booker Sugar Estates Limited in the 1950s up until the 1970s. He did note, however, that times were different now and changing hands and owners would not address the real issue of mismanagement. He noted that without privatisation, the board and the management of GuySuCo could be reorganised and he said that has to be the government’s initial response.