Dear Editor,
Sugar is a subject I know very little of. Over the years I have employed cane-cutters out of season, and found them to be hardworking people at whatever task they are given. Recently on Friday the 25th September, 2015, I was invited to a seminar on the sugar industry. As there has been a lot of publicity about the debt and possible bankruptcy of this industry, one that has played its part on maintaining both British Guiana and Guyana for centuries, I made it my duty to learn more about the industry.
The discussion began with a presentation by Dr Allyson Stoll, a historian who specialises in heritage and cultural resources conservation and management. From her presentation I was impressed to learn a fair amount of the sugar industry’s history and that Guyana was long recognised both in innovation and husbandry as a leading producer of sugar worldwide. It was a simple presentation which shared a lot of historical data.
There were two other presentations by professionals who have worked in the industry. The final presentation was done by a controversial entrepreneur who had a leading role in the sugar industry for approximately ten years. Points were raised which are not academic, but are labour-related and these should be recognised:-
- The sugar industry has been nationalised and belongs to the people of Guyana; the government of the state represents the people of Guyana, and the directors of the company are responsible for the efficient running of the people’s company. The politicians as such should have no say in the running of the company, as it would appear they have no knowledge of husbandry, machinery, or financing, and this has led to the current state of the industry. It is important to note that politicians are masters of the blame game and the destruction of the industry is due to various events over the last fifty years, so it’s best not to try and get involved in who is to blame, but find solutions to the crisis.
- One simple question that will help lay people to understand where the majority of problems in the industry lie, is: Where is sugar made? In the factory or in the field? Many of us believe that the factory makes the sugar, this seems obvious. But in fact, the factory only extracts sugar from the cane. So if correct husbandry (husbandry = preparation of the fields, selection of your type of cane, fertilisers, etc), is not done the amount of sugar that can be extracted at the factory is far smaller than it would be from a well-prepared crop. It is said that the difference in output can be as high as 30 to 35%. This would make all the difference to the cost of production and would in fact make us competitive on the world market. This was the most important point in my opinion, namely, that the sugar industry can redeem itself and become profitable again for the betterment of all Guyanese. (“The fields produce sugar, not the factory.”)
- It is suggested that recognising the importance of husbandry, we should go to the source and find incentives to encourage every canefield worker to do their task and ensure the directors of the company direct it in the interest of the company and not tolerate political interference. They represent the people of Guyana as directors of the company, and the politicians cannot supersede them for alleged political gain, or alleged personal profit.
- The allegations are that a pilot scheme was introduced some time in the 1990s, when directors gave three farmers 10 hectares of land for them to work privately. The result was a very favourable increase in the return of sugar from that achieved by the estate as a whole. When strikes were called, these farmers made it quite clear that they were not striking; they were working the land as their own. If the estate could have achieved the same production rate as these three areas of land in the scheme, then the sugar industry would return to profit. The system appears not to have been continued and quite frankly if these allegations are true, then it is the fault of the directors of the company for not looking after the interest of the company.
- An important allegation made after the seminar is that a certain senior politician once visited the research centre and ordered that a certain type of cane be planted. Allegedly the company man responsible for field production chose a different type of cane but called it by the name the politician wanted. This employee knew his work and allegedly did what was best for the company. That was his job. It is alleged that he was fired. I am not in a position to verify these allegations, but if there is any truth in it, it is quite obvious that a company run in this manner stands a good chance of going bankrupt.
- If this company which belongs to the Guyanese people is to be saved from the enormous debt of eighty something billion dollars, there must be a national campaign to get everybody involved, particularly the workers in the industry; the continuation of the scheme that yielded about 30% more sugar per tonne of cane must be a priority.
- It is suggested that the parliamentary political parties should name a person, or persons, create a team comprising some from each party, the private sector, and one or two persons from the sugar industry. These people will campaign throughout the country, visiting the various estates to talk to the workers. It is suggested that a scheme of preferential shares be introduced, first to the industry’s workers and second to the general public, guaranteed, by first claim, on assets of the company. It is suggested, that schemes in existence such as the medical centres, financed by the company be financed from Ministry of Health; community centres and other social services offered by the company should be taken over by the various social agencies of the government. The point is, if the estates close down, these social benefits will disappear.
- There is talk that about 15,000 families should not be made the responsibility of 65,000 families (this by taxation). That would be the effect of a government bailout. I have no idea of the figures given, but I would suggest that 80,000 families working together for the good of Guyana can save the company for the benefit of all Guyanese.
- It is suggested there is a labour-related problem that cannot be fixed by doctor this or doctor that; there has to be personal contact with the cane-workers, with representatives of the Guyanese people, all working in harmony, to explain to the workers what the crisis is and the possible solution that could save the industry.
- If a cooperative solution can be found to raise a fair amount of cash, and systems introduced to improve productivity of sugar in the field, then the government may consider in the future, when the Venezuela problem in resolved, negotiating an advance on oil royalties to vastly reduce the billions of dollar debt. Guyanese will by then have worked out an end to increasing any additional debt by putting sugar back into profitability, this by ensuring good husbandry is practised and the alleged interference by politicians has ceased. But we must work to get sugar profitable. It is suggested that it is better to have two industries, sugar and oil, for the betterment of all Guyanese.
- One sad reflection on the state of our country: Many prominent members of our society, politicians and members of the private sector were invited to the seminar, but only one man was recognised from the political elite. Some private sector personnel chose not to come as they were associated with the industry and feared repercussions. What a sad case when perhaps with discussion and the cooperation of all Guyanese a disaster could be avoided. Are we to have government do everything even when our country will suffer? Are we afraid of our government? I don’t mean this one but both over the last 50 years. Do we want to save the industry? Our politicians are only people, few have any idea of how to run a business, and they need you.
- On a personal note I am a type 2 diabetic, why should I care about sugar? But, if you please I’m Guyanese and I care about the betterment of all our people.
Yours faithfully,
John Willems
