Dear Editor,
It is just possible that SN may have misunderstood the exposition of the Vice-President and company regarding ‘one off cash grants to private cane farmers’ in Region 3. At the end of the brief report there is reference to the President and others meeting shortly with ‘cane harvesters’ – two distinctly different groups of operators in the sugar industry. Unfortunately, in these publicity exercises there is no mention of the management of Uitvlugt Estate being represented – an important factor, particularly since the latter’s relationship falls immediately under the National Cane Farming Committee Act (1965), whereby a legal contract exists between Cane Farmer and Estate (the Manufacturer) as provided in the Cane Farmers Contract (General Conditions) Rules.
The operations and relationships between the parties are constitutionally monitored by the National Cane Farming Committee, at which price, payment schedule and other related conditions are monitored and must be agreed. It is critical to note therefore that cane farmers, individually or otherwise, must be legal entities. In West Demerara there would be Cooperative Cane Farming Societies at Canal No.2, Free and Easy, La Retraite/Stanleytown, Sisters/Good Intent, BelleVue – established since the 1960s who have since had to transfer their supply from closed Wales Estate to Uitvlugt, where individual cane farmers (not cane harvesters) function under the same Rules.
It is to be emphasised that the reason for the so-called ‘grants’ is directly as a result of the malfunctioning of the Uitvlugt factory at the specific crop periods, admittedly exceptional and unanticipated circumstances; but which should be appropriately addressed by a legal process – within the National Cane Farming Committee – that should be exemplified by any government, rather than an unaccountable ‘grant’. The latter constitutes a breach of the specific laws, thus setting an indefensible example for the future when, not inconceivably Cane Farmers may react in circumstances that may be inconvenient for political accommodation.
Commonsense would have suggested that this interaction should have been conducted between the contracted Cane Farmer and Manufacturer. The legal Cane Farmers should not be regarded as captives. Their dignity must be recognised, moreso formally.
E.B. John
Initial Coordinator
Cane Farming Development
Retired Human Resources Director
