Dear Editor,
From a distance, but not too distant, I have noted what purports to be a contretemps surrounding one of my areas of special interest – cane farming – amongst the membership of what is styled the National Cane Farming Committee.
As the pioneer in organising the development of the ‘small’ cane farming sector in the sugar industry, beginning in the participation of the framing of the relevant Act, the Regulations; and more specifically overseeing the legal contract to be executed between manufacturer (estate) and farmer. I can claim to have more institutional memory of its operations than any of the current farmers, whether or not they are members of the extant concocted committee.
The following Table tells of those farmers, mostly Cooperative Societies which were established with my active help and direction.
The relevance of the above is to confirm whether or not cane-farming activity is diminishing. So far the evidence suggests that Uitvlugt is the one estate where actual progress has been recorded.
Therefore such simple factual verifiable data need not be accompanied by the vitriol expounded by one combatant, to wit the Chairman, who would appear to have lost balance in his presentation, and consequently in his status.
It is not the normal expectation in groups established to work towards consensual decision-making to publicly expose even private animosities. It not only reflects a malfunctional organisation, but often insights into the quality of management they are designed to effectuate.
At this distance one wonders too as to whether the extant rules governing membership of the NCFC are being complied with, to the extent that its membership is supposed to comprise of representatives of Cane Farmers’ District Associations (if these exist). So that a query about the preponderance of officials would have been justified even in the time when once I was Vice-Chairman of the committee, as a representative of Bookers Sugar Estates.
The debate, or rather the argumentation surrounding the efficacy of the NCFC would appear to be resolved, rather than be confounded, if there were a genuine attempt by the Guyana Sugar Corporation to have the NCFC Act and related legislation comprehensively reviewed, so that amendments can be enacted to address current issues affecting both parties, particularly those the manufacturer hopes to engage in the future.
From this distance there appears to be a substantive organisational lacuna which critically needs to be addressed with the attributes of professionalism.
Yours faithfully,
E B John
