Sam Hinds replies to David Hinds

Oct 06, 2016 Letters

---

Dear Editor;
I, Samuel A. A. Hinds have been differing with many of the views, opinions, interpretations and advocated world view and attitudes of Dr. David Hinds. Each person has a right to his/her view but views should not fly in the face of facts. Allow me once more to state facts which should cause Dr. David Hinds and every Guyanese to think again about the paragraph from HINDS’SIGHT in the Sunday Chronicle of October 2nd, 2016 which I quote: The continued subsidising of the sugar industry in the form of massive bailouts has directly benefitted the mainly Indian Guyanese community. The PPP never did the same for sectors heavily populated by African Guyanese. In fact it sought to remove the electricity subsidy from Linden”. (unquote)
Quite to the contrary, in the particular case of our bauxite sector and communities, Linden and most of region 10, heavily populated by African Guyanese, it can be argued that even if it were only because of circumstances at the time, that area received proportionately larger attention, subsidies and support. We, the PPP/C, were even handed in what we did even if for no other reason than that we were being watched continuously from all sides, but I would proffer our commitment to all round development of all Guyanese and Guyana, with an equitable sharing of whatever our nation has, good and bad.
As I have noted before, we, the PPP/C in 1992 inherited an agreement entered into between the departed PNC administration and the multilateral financial institutions (MFIs) which funded and placed an international mining manager (IMM), MINPROC, in Linmine. The IMM was to determine and demonstrate whether Linmine could be made profitable or not: if profitable it was to be privatised, if not it was to be closed. Government was to extend no further subsidy. When in 1994 Minproc declared that it could see no way to make the operations profitable, we PPP/C would have been expected to close the operations but we didn’t. Our oath of office required us to treat everyone without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. We knew the trauma which an abrupt closure, although not unanticipated, would have brought to our fellow citizens in Linden/Region10.
After the Minproc declaration, of no sight of profitability, we pursued a third MFI intervention – one to develop alternatives for Linden after the failure of the two earlier interventions to restore the bauxite operations to profitability. Early in our term, the young Bharat Jagdeo himself had led a team to learn of the socioeconomic situation and future possibilities in Linden. This study provided the basis for this third approach (SYSMINS) which eventually materialised in LEAP including LEAF. The PPP/C had to argue strongly against concerns that the people of Linden were not yet ready to be converted from being employees in a 100% company town to entrepreneurs in an open town.
Whilst continuing to subsidise the company, improvements were pushed along and all non-core activities completely removed – health, education, electricity, water – and taken up by appropriate Ministries and Agencies of the Government. We began the reconciling and clearing arrears of a number of accounts – the worker’s saving scheme, PAYE to GRA, GBPP(Guyana Bauxite Pension Plan), NIS, and setting aside termination payments at the eventual privatization, altogether about G$2.5billion. We advertised twice without success for credible interest in taking an equity position in the company. It may also be recalled that about ten years ago we redeemed the bonds issued to ALCAN at the time of nationalisation.
All the while we were additionally and separately subsidising electricity at increasing amounts approaching G$ 3billion per year. In 1992, we received the steam power station and other electricity facilities very run down as there had been little if any money for maintenance during the preceding years. We advertised and sought a core investor to restore a good supply of electricity in Linden. As it happened the selected bidder brought little improvement: we terminated the agreement and regained some losses in an arbitration hearing.
After a number of successful contract arrangements, we and OMAI/CAMBIOR entered into an agreement by which OMAI/CAMBIOR gained a 70% equity position in the core bauxite operations renamed OBMI. All went well until sales fell precipitously and OBMI announced a two month shut-down. We, the PPP/C stepped in and provided basic pay to all workers requiring only that everyone from sweeper to manager spend some hours each week attending or providing an appropriate level course on the operations and use of computers. One of my political commentator friends was moved to lament in a letter (somewhat tongue in cheek I thought) that we, PPP/C were pointing Afro-Guyanese to the IT future whilst working to keep Indo-Guyanese in the past, cutting cane – the hewers of wood and draughters of water.
Samuel Hinds
Former Prime Minister
Editor’s note; because of its length, we will have to conclude Mr. Hinds’s rebutaal in tomorrow’s edition

---

---