I am in support of rescuing GuySuCo through land leases

Jun 29, 2021 Letters

---

Dear Editor

This is my response to question posed by Shawn Simmons in retort, “Bisram/Dev plan (2016/17)” to protect the jobs of Guysuco workers and save the sugar industry (Jun 27). Yes, I am willing (and I am sure so also is Ravi Dev) to work with the PPP administration and GuySuCo, as well as others, to re-employ the 8,000 terminated workers. We believed then (in 2016) and believe now that the sugar industry can be rescued. I am of the view that if theft and corruption is eliminated and if the workers get incentive to cultivate and harvest cane, efficiency would be maximised and with it production.
Our plan was presented to the Coalition, which showed no interest in rescuing the industry. It was clear that their intention was to shut down the estates and maybe the entire industry; the Coalition doled out land to friends and supporters. We have not met with PPP administrators, and thus, we cannot give an evaluation of whether the government is seriously interested in saving the industry. But it speaks the language of rescuing GuySuCo.
In brief, our plan involved: distributing the land of the closed estates to the sugar workers (government divest itself land); private investors manage the factories and market the sugar; and government assists with maintenance of canals and irrigation (since drainage and irrigation benefit the entire country). Government investment in the close estates would be minimal – saving billions of dollars. Our proposal was conveyed to the Coalition administration. The foreign companies from India and Trinidad had bought into the proposal and were willing to invest in modernising the factories and research to plant the best cane to maximise yields. Even local investors liked the plan and were willing to be investors. The Indian companies operate a similar cooperative plan in Africa to much success. African workers benefited enormously owning land and cultivating cane. Proposals were sent in to the government but no reply was received.
I should note that a similar plan was proposed for Trinidad with Caroni estates when the then Basdeo Panday-led administration attempted to sell off the sugar industry in 2001. Caroni faced similar problems as Guyana – theft, inefficient productivity, and corruption. Advocates of the workers had suggested parceling the land to workers and letting them cultivate cane and the government would be in charge of manufacturing and marketing sugar. Panday opted to sell Caroni for a few million dollars to his friend, Lawrence Duprey (Clico fame) who was interested in producing molasses for a liquor business and acquiring the land that was worth tens of billions of dollars. The sale was approved for a few million dollars, but the Attorney General, Ramesh Maharaj, opposed the sale and blocked it. Maharaj’s signature was required for finality of sale and transference of the estate to Duprey. Maharaj proposed giving Caroni (80K acres plus equipment, vehicles, etc. and the factories) to the sugar workers. Maharaj refused to sign on to the sale, and he was fired as AG. Kamla Persad-Bissessar replaced Maharaj as AG and lauded the sale of Caroni to Duprey. Ironically, the sugar workers were the base of Panday who was not keen in giving them the land.

But the transfer could not be affected as Panday had lost his majority in parliament when Maharaj and two other MPs announced their opposition to the sale. Panday called snap elections to get rid of the trio but lost his majority in elections December 2002. Patrick Manning became PM and proceeded to close down Caroni in 2003; land was doled out to friends and supporters. The sugar workers (supporters of Panday) were offered a small severance settlement and plot of land, but took years to be implemented. Had Panday listened, the workers would have gotten the land, and he would have remained in office perhaps till now. The very sugar workers turned against him. Maharaj took Manning to court to enforce the union agreement. Even the court of appeal ruled that the workers must be fairly compensated. Manning largely defied the court, and regrettably even Kamla who subsequently became PM (2010-15) did not give all the Caroni workers their fair compensation; some are still waiting for land. Private cane farmers pleaded on Kamla to reopen the factory or to purchase it so they could grind their cane; a few operate very small hand factories that were obtained from India. Private cane cultivation was very profitable in Trinidad; private production was efficient and landowners did not steal from themselves. Similarly, if the workers were to be given leases of land (say 15 acres) in Guyana to grow cane, they would not steal manure, labour time, and vehicles, and they would maximise production as they do in rice farming. Private cane cultivation and harvesting would be efficient and profitable as was demonstrated by cane farmers for decades. Government should learn from the Trinidad example and consider distributing the land to sugar workers to grow cane or some other suitable crops. GuySuCo can manage the factories and do the marketing. Alternatively, private investors can manage the factories and do the marketing.
In my last conversations with the sugar investors in India and Trinidad earlier this year, they are not very enthused in sugar production as they were in 2016-19. But with incentives, I think they can come around. I cannot say whether government would be willing to lease land to or turn over the estates to workers. The PPP is a working class party that was tied to sugar workers since the 1950s. Perhaps the Panday experience in Trinidad may influence the party to lease the land to the workers to turn around and save GuySuCo.
Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram

---

---