Dear Editor,
The current APNU+AFC administration needs to seriously rethink its approach to economic development, especially as it relates to the contributions of sugar and rice. These two sectors combined still account for the majority of foreign exchange earnings to the country despite declining production levels and unstable prices on the world market. In addition, these two sectors constitute an important source of direct employment to thousands of Guyanese not to mention the thousands more who indirectly depend on these two industries for their livelihood.
It would appear that the administration still seems to operate out of a preconceived mindset in which these two vital sectors are seen through the prism of partisan politics rather than as an important pillar of the national economy, without which the entire structure of the economy will certainly collapse. The fact is that regardless of how we may wish to look at it, Guyana is still a predominantly agricultural economy. Sugar and rice continue to be the backbone of the economy and any policy measure that would result in a downsizing of these sectors is fraught with danger.
And while it is true that the size of their contribution to the Gross National Product, particularly in the case of sugar may have declined somewhat due primarily to an end of the lucrative European market, sugar is still king in so many ways, not least among which is its capacity to absorb labour and the concomitant multiplier effect that has on the wider economy. Wages and salaries are spent primarily on basic food and consumer items which create subsidiary income and employment for a countless number of Guyanese, the withdrawal of which would result in an inevitable economic downturn and depressed communities where the estates are located.
This is why the decision to close the Wales estate is shortsighted and certainly counterproductive. Apart from economic considerations, there are also sociological and emotional considerations which simply cannot be brushed aside. The loss of employment opportunities without putting in place any meaningful alternatives can result in social problems such as crime and prostitution. Generations of people who have grown accustomed to the culture of the estate would become socially disoriented and experience a sense of alienation since the estate was for many the hub of social life.
And to add insult to injury, the management of GuySuCo is now reneging on a decision taken to pay severance pay to sugar workers who have become redundant as a result of the closure of the estate. This incidentally is a requirement of the labour laws and the collective labour agreement signed between the workers and the estate management.
The government has to stop treating the sugar industry as a political football. It has to see sugar and rice as important economic constituents and not as political constituents. It was the same thinking that prevailed in the past under the PNC-UF coalition government when the government scrapped the lucrative Cuban market and removed all subsidies to the industry that had been given under the PPP government. In addition, representatives from the farmers’ organization, the Rice Producers’ Association were removed from the Rice Marketing Board and replaced by Rice Action Committees which were mere paper organizations and which did not enjoy the confidence of farmers. Instead of listening to the genuine concerns of the farmers, police dogs were unleashed on protesting farmers. The result was a systemic destruction of the industry as farmers abandoned the land and rice production suffered a precipitate decline.
The same was true of the sugar industry which was saddled with an unsustainable sugar levy at the expense of workers’ wages and recapitalization of the industry. The net result was a mass exodus of sugar workers away from the industry and a steep decline in sugar production. By the end of the 1980s sugar had to be imported from overseas to satisfy the local market and to preserve the overseas EU market quota. The lowest production was recorded in 1992. In fact under the Hoyte presidency the industry was prepared for privatization which was only averted after the PPP threatened to dishonour any agreement reached by potential investors. A management contract was subsequently entered with Booker Tate which saw some key interventions among which was a significant increase in wages for sugar workers. It did not take long before the industry was restored to profitability.
Sugar and rice must be given the necessary support and not be punished because they are perceived as opposition enclaves. This is a wrong and mistaken perception and will only hurt the economy if such thinking is allowed to take root and germinate.
Yours faithfully,
Hydar Ally
