I remain steadfast in my commitment, regardless of political season or leadership

Sep 06, 2019 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

Reference is being made to GAWU General Secretary Seepaul Narine’s letter “Correcting Lincoln Lewis’ facts on sugar” (KN 5th September, 2019). The facts show to the contrary and it is unfortunate my fellow trade unionist has sought to engage in this deceptive act. A sugar estate comprises factory and cane fields, among other services. Closing a factory is not closing the estate.
Whereas a factory can close separately, the field (sugar canes) can still be under cultivation, which means the estate is still functioning. That was the case of the Diamond estate, where while the factory was closed earlier, it was the cane fields (the vital production element) which stopped cultivation under President Bharrat Jagdeo’s leadership.
It was Mr. Jagdeo who put a death knell into the Diamond estate, GuySuCo’s highest yielding cane fields. Evidence will show Diamond was still producing acres of cane since 1985 but its production was ground to a halt in 2010.
Kaieteur News (KN), 31st March 2010 article ‘Diamond estate workers protest for severance pay’ noted, “GAWU contended that the decision to close the Diamond cultivation is injudicious.” Said article goes on to say, “The Union pointed out that in keeping with the Corporation’s goal of ultimately producing 80,000 tonnes of packaged sugar at Enmore Estate, the maintenance of the Diamond cultivation would ensure an adequate cane supply and would save the Corporation millions of dollars, having to develop new lands on the East Coast of Demerara which certainly would not be as high yielding as the Diamond cultivation.”
It was the Jagdeo government that initiated and put systems in place to realise the closure of the LBI estate, and according to GuySuCo, the GAWU was on board. KN, 3rd March 2011 article, “Sugar workers staged protest over LBI ‘closure’” stated that GuySuCo management said “…in recent times the company and union were in discussions as the company saw it feasible to close the LBI estate ….”
The article further stated the Chief Executive Office, Paul Bhim “added that the protest action came as a shock to the company since the union was actively involved in negotiations and some workers even agreed.”
The fact that finality was brought in 2016 does not negate the fact as to who initiated the process and put all measures in placed to bring closure. All evidence will show it was the Bharrat Jagdeo government.
Readers are invited to revisit my article “Mr. Jagdeo, go to work and stop buzing” (KN 1st September) where I spoke about the closure of Diamond and LBI estates. The result of those actions placed thousands of sugar workers on the breadline. That my brother, Seepaul, sought to give the impression the reference to workers losing jobs dealt with LBI alone is deceptive.
Further, it was sugar workers, utilising the legal service of Khemraj Ramjattan, who took the government to court for their severance pay. If the Guyana Agricultural and General Workers’ Union (GAWU) took GuySuCo to court, using the legal service of Ramjattan, then logic defines it was workers who took the government to court.
In an effort to debunk my statement that the workers had to resort to court action to receive their severance, my brother is now claiming that the workers did not do this, it was done by GAWU. How more ludicrous can this statement be when the workers’ representative is GAWU.
The question that he has made comparisons about what the David Granger/Moses Nagamootoo has done to the sugar industry, but failed to acknowledge that I have constantly condemned the government’s treatment of sugar workers, indicates that Seepaul’s writing is to serve another objective other than advancing the cause of the sugar workers. Public record would confirm I have stood with sugar workers on numerous occasions, across all administrations.
Accountability must not be selective. Mr. Jagdeo must account for what he has done in the same way the Granger/Nagamootoo government must account for what they have done. We cannot be having two truths in Guyana.
The fundamental difference manifesting here between the two of us is that I remain steadfast in my commitment, regardless of political season or leadership. Whereas he has demonstrated in his letter, a commitment to absolve political masters of their responsibility in the downfall of the sugar estates and the loss of jobs to workers.
I invite Seepaul to join me in a nonpartisan crusade to represent the workers of this country, without fear or favour for any political party.
My brother let us join hands in holding all politicians accountable to return to Parliament to enact progressive legislation to protect the workers who are daily being exploited by unscrupulous employers, to ensure the safeguard of our environment for present and future generations, and to ensure local labour benefit from oil and gas sector, not only to give meaning to Article 106(7) in the Guyana Constitution.
Lincoln Lewis

---

---