The same principle that is embraced for sugar must also be embraced for bauxite

Sep 12, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I refer to the Guyana Agriculture and General Workers’ Union letter “The sugar industry remains an intrinsic component of our economy” in Kaieteur News (September 10, 2009).
It is unclear if Mr. Komal Chand, GAWU’s president, authorised the release of this letter. Or, our society is so poisoned that old comrades can no longer be honest.
This opportunity is taken to set the record straight. Mr. Aslim Singh, of GAWU’s Research Department and signatory to the letter accused me of having an “anti-sugar workers agenda, (that) is well known and is becoming more pronounced.”
Let me say during the 1980s to 1992 as a bauxite union leader I also walked with the leaders of the sugar unions on various issues, spoke at rallies on the sugar belt and shared platform with Albert Boodhoo, Komal Chand, Cheddi Jagan, Donald Ramotar, N.K. Gopaul and others.
For GAWU to now say that I am anti-sugar workers as its defence of charges I made against the government indicates that I clearly misread our collaboration which I thought was built on struggles for justice and fair play for all Guyanese and not one designed to get the PPP in power that would result in the rights of some Guyanese being trampled on.
A couple of things need to be further said. It was the bauxite workers who fought and received from the PNC administration tax free pay for work performed on Saturdays and Sundays.
This benefit was given to the sugar workers, in as much as they did not struggle for it. It was a position I embraced in the spirit of brotherhood, solidarity and improving the working conditions for all workers.
When the PPP came to power this benefit was taken away from the bauxite workers and left only with the sugar workers. GAWU is aware of this but never once raised its voice in solidarity with the bauxite workers who protested against the violation.
My contention has always been the treatment of the bauxite industry vis a vis the sugar industry by the PPP administration. In the Hoyte Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) provisions were made for the privatization of both bauxite and sugar.
The PPP on coming to office embraced the privatization of bauxite but refused to put safety net in place to deal with the resulting social and economic consequences, while at the same time it ignored the recommendation of SAP to deal with sugar.
The government is on record saying that they will not accept the recommendation to close the Demerara Estates and more so privatizing of GuySuCo. In 1992 the record will show, in the bauxite industry, Linmine and Bermine produced 483,000 tonnes of bauxite and all was sold.
When the PPP took office bauxite never had a problem with marketing. It was the PPP who colluded with Minproc to reduce Linmine’s production by half.
The bauxite unions and the Guyana Trades Union Congress advised the government that such an act would hamper the industry’s reliability with its existing international market since it will be deemed an unreliable supplier.
With the imposed reduction of production the industry could not supply their exiting markets so buyers went elsewhere which caused the industry to lose its market shares and performance declined.
GAWU should go back and check GuySuCo Annual Statement, come clean and say to the society the year and the amount of extra money GuySuCo injected to save the Sugar Trading Enterprise Pension Fund.
The extra money given to the pension fund had to be a political decision since GuySuCo is a state-owned entity. It is important that note be taken of GAWU’s argument that the current sugar modernization is viable and that allows the government to secure funding, but at the same time argue and that “the socio-economic reality is that the sugar industry is still the nation’s lifeblood.
To cut if off, to engender its failure, is to endanger the very economy of Guyana at this time.”
The figures will show that in 2008 GuySuCo Annual Report recorded losses of $4.08 billion, the second highest in the last decade, following on 2003, which recorded a loss of $4.3 billion; and a projected loss of $9 billion from October 1. I acknowledge GAWU’s argument that closing the industry will create serious socio-economic consequences but the same argument must be applied by the government to the bauxite industry and communities.
The modernization of the sugar industry cost millions of US dollars, with Skeldon costing US$110 million.
The largest sum of money that the state bauxite industry has requested for modernization was less than US$20 million and this government rather than work in collaboration with management to realise the set objectives, chose to put workers on the breadline, give away Linmine for US$1.00, which the new owners sold within three years for US $46 million.
These are serious issues and everyone ought to be concerned when a proud people, through no fault of theirs, have been made political football and reduced to beggars in as much as they have the technical skills to do better.
My argument has never been against modernization that will create jobs. It has always been that the same principle that is embraced for sugar must also be embraced for bauxite.
What we have not seen is the acquisition of funds to modernize a state bauxite industry, dominated by an African workforce that would have created and maintained jobs for the communities, and moreso protect a Pension Fund for those workers who have spent their lives in that industry.
Similar discriminatory treatment has been executed on other institutions and communities in the African economy by this government.
There has been no recognition, respect or concerns for the socio-economic consequences for this section of society, in as much as there continues to be public outcries and proposals made to the government to create jobs, engage in retraining and protect pension plan.
This deliberate and continuous policy to destroy the African economy has caused me to say the government is engaged in economic genocide.
My concerns find support in the UN Convention which defines Genocide as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
According to this Convention and given the preponderance of evidence the government would be guilty of, “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”
The trade union strength lies in its solidarity (unity) around principles outlined by the International Trade Union Community, the International Labour Organisation Conventions and shared belief in the brotherhood as we pursue the creation of a just society.
It is most unfortunate GAWU has chosen to attack the current struggle for the honouring trade union and human rights principles which was the thrust of my letter to Rickey Singh.
Lincoln Lewis

---

---