Govt. interventions through the MMA have seen minimal losses to the rice crop in Mahaica River

Mar 23, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Once again we are left to ponder the unethical behaviour of SN.
I refer to their lead article (Saturday March 20) captioned, “El Nino bakes Mahaica Creek – farmers losing crops”, by Shabna Ullah.
Is this not the type of story that would do well with a response from the Government agency involved? How much would it have taken for the reporter or even the editor to check with us? Ms. Ullah lives next door to MMA, she knows all of us very well, and the newspaper is in constant contact with MMA about other matters like advertising etc.
Although we thought that we had gone past such previous behaviour by SN, we continue to have these articles, full of half truths and distortions, created and edited with such a slant and bias, that it leaves us without any doubt of an agenda not so hidden against us and the Government. We dare them to deny it.
Against us, two recent cases quickly come to mind. One was when SN published that a farmer named Mansoor Khan had gotten an injunction against MMA about the payment of D&I rates when nothing of the sort ever happened, and the other was when they carried letters saying that we had land-planes rotting at MMA when in fact the equipment was actually sold to GuySuCo years prior.
In the first instance, they never corrected the story and in the second case, they belatedly carried our response. As a result of the first story too, many farmers stopped paying their rates.
As for Government, we couldn’t help but notice the newspaper’s recent APA/LCDS/GHRA publications and their evident ‘choking’ with their responses to the reports they had carried.
Who then can tell us that there is no agenda? Again we ask; Why?
SN must explain this situation, and it ought to stop.
While the foregoing is really the purpose of this letter, please allow me the opportunity to say the following in relation to the latest article, as I do not intend to engage further and separately on it.
• Because of the interventions of Government through the MMA Authority, there have been minimal loses to the rice crop in Mahaica river. We have spent over $30 million in this area alone, the major work being the construction of a new canal to source water from the upper reaches of the Mahaica River at Kuliserabo. This was non-stop day and night work in very difficult conditions which we did. Everyone, including the President, the Minister of Agriculture and most importantly, many of the farmers were involved.
• No cash crop farmer was denied access to water supplies, limited though these supplies were. On the contrary MMA treated these farmers preferentially, even pumping supplies for them. It is no accident that the prices are low; that is because there is an abundant supply of greens in the area which had to get water to grow. The situation is even better now with the completion of the work described above.
• There are hundreds of farmers who are appreciative and thankful to the Government and MMA for our work. Over the last three months, we have been with them every single day and night, working together to avoid them losing their crops. In order to ensure some equity in the distribution we had to put some regulations in place. The farmers in the different areas worked as a group to manage their areas in keeping with the regulations. If we had not done so, the big farmers would have ‘hogged’ all the supplies and the small farmers would have been decimated.
• As regards the two persons pictured in the story, it is clear that Ramroop (aka Payo) was able to get water and save hundreds of acres. He pumped water for the 35 acres he is claiming as lost. This is in spite of the fact that he never one day joined with the other farmers in lending any assistance whatsoever during the time when we were most hard pressed by the situation. In contrast, and unfortunately so, a few farmers at the front lost everything, and some were even unable to cultivate.
• Further, it is because of the infrastructural work done by MMA, that Hussein (Manoel) is now able to rent for next crop, his lease lands abandoned for years to the same Ramroop, who, as has been the practice with many of the big farmers, wants to do as he likes with the infrastructure. He hired a machine and proceeded to cut the main canal embankment, and then lied about being given permission to do so. He may yet face prosecution for his actions, even though he is using Hussein as a front, claiming that he was doing work for him. In that case both of them may be cited for damages. Finally, the claim by Hussein regarding access is a non issue, since the main canal dam must be in place and at the required height. Access to the field therefore must be through the many alternative available points, or the field ‘run-way’ from the main canal dam has to be built up, rather than the dam lowered.
Rudolph Gajraj
Chairman, MMA/ADA

---

---