Dear Editor,
The recent public disclosures by the union GAWU as to the authenticity of data pertaining to sugar workers’ earnings, as contained in the released findings of the GuySuCo Commission of Inquiry (CoI), raises many doubts about the credibility and objectivity of the CoI.
While I personally have no reason to doubt the general outcome and recommendations of the inquiry, we may want to review the content of the report before proceeding, putting to rest any niggling doubts that the public may have.
To begin with, the stated earnings for sugar workers indeed look supernormal. That brings me to question how such dubious information made it into the CoI report, and went all the way to parliament, without anyone raising an eyebrow during a process that lasted six months. I, like many others, have some serious questions for the stakeholders and individuals who were procedurally involved in the CoI, and these are as follows:
- Why did GAWU wait until after the CoI report had reached parliament to make its claim of inflated/false information? Now, all will recall that from the moment the CoI team was assembled, the union was involved. An inquiry as important as this was to GAWU, and knowing that the outcome will have an impact on its membership, should have demanded the utmost objective participation by the union.
At each stage of the inquiry GAWU should have reviewed the information collected and made its objections within the process of participatory consultation. Even after the report was given to the government, and up to the time it went to parliament, some ten weeks had elapsed, enough time to detect and address such errors. In the final analysis of GAWU’s involvement in the CoI, one has to question exactly what role did the union’s representative(s) play in this process, and whose interest was it representing throughout and after the process?
- Given claims of commissioners having different views on the findings, and in arriving at the team’s recommendations, this raises questions as to the objectivity and functionality of the team itself. We need to know exactly how they approached the task, the difficulties experienced, how internal disputes /conflicts were resolved, and how the materiality and validity of the data collected were assessed.
- What/who were the sources of the data collected? How credible were these sources? Did the union and the commissioners use different data sources? Now, if the source of the data for workers’ earnings in both the union’s case and the CoI process was the same, that is, GuySuCo’s management, one now has to question whether or not the company’s management cooperated fully and in an objectively neutral manner.
- How thorough was the CoI’s processes of data collection and analysis? I have heard that in many cases instructions were given to put together ‘tons’ of information for the CoI, that ultimately never reached the commission. Outside of that, the formal hearings at which members of the public appeared, and others who made written submissions, would also have offered up another, and probably even larger cache of information. What exactly did the commissioners ask for, what were they given and what did they consider for inclusion?
Against the backdrop of incredible information being included in the COI’s report, I cannot help but reflect back on Mr Christopher Ram’s assertion that the CoI was unlikely to address the sugar industry’s real problems (KN, July 29, 2015). At the time, few knew what the terms of reference were for the CoI – what really was it supposed to examine and deliver recommendations on? Now, Mr Ram may want to review the outcome of the CoI against his original assertions. As an astute accountant, he may also want to comment on the integrity of the whole process, including the possible overreliance on data, the credibility and reliability of which now comes into question.
I would lastly like to suggest that the commissioners seek approval, and an opportunity to engage the public in frank discussions on the work of the CoI. Their silence in the face of claims by GAWU, and outpourings of public dissatisfaction, is deafening. Many of the persons who participated as commissioners, are former high-ranking officials of GuySuCo, who would have served the company and country with distinction. The least they may want to do at this time is to lay to rest any doubts about the CoI, and if indeed errors were made, or unverified or even invalid information was used, they can point to the sources of such errors or providers of wrong information.
Similarly, many would not like to know that such persons who were held in high regard by both the government and the public, were actually the victims of a distasteful game played out on them.
Yours faithfully,
Khemraj Tulsie
