Our Union was taken aback by what we saw as an unsubstantiated attack on our organization. The Eyewitness column which appeared in the November 25, Guyana Times took what we consider as an unnecessary and clearly despicable swipe at the GAWU apparently for our disclosure of a meeting we had with the GuySuCo on November 20, 2019. We at the outset must tell the Eyewitness, whomever he, she or they are, that as a responsible organization we are duty-bound to inform our members, through appropriate means, of our engagements with employers. It would be an indictment on us should we have important information and hold it close to our chest. Moreover, we believe too, the public should be aware of the plans of the GuySuCo, recognizing that it is owned by the people of Guyana.
Certainly, the GAWU, the sugar workers and many Guyanese are interested in seeing the sugar industry coming out of the troubled times it has found itself in. Apparently in the Eyewitness’ mind, we should remain deaf and mute. We wish to assure, nevertheless, that such attributes are not in our character and we have expressed, without fear or favour, our views on many matters in recent times. Some of those sentiments were published in the Eyewitness’ media outlet. In fact on the same day of the column, our Union’s statement on the state of sugar production received prominence in the newspaper.
We are at a loss to see where we, using the columnists phrase, ‘big up GuySuCo’. Our statement provided an account of the deliberations between our Union and the sugar company. At no time did we praise the company. The Eyewitness, if he, she or they, were following our public statements would recognize that we have been seeking for quite a long time to engage the GuySuCo regarding its plans. In fact in the opening sentences of our statement we made that very point. Also if the columnist had carefully read our statement, he, she or they, would have noticed that we asked GuySuCo for a copy of its plan to fully assess what it proposes to do. We did not swallow, hook, line and sinker all the sugar company disclosed but rather we seek to independently consider what the Corporation has in mind. We should add some of the initiatives identified by GuySuCo were also put forward by our Union to safeguard the industry during our engagements with the Government. We cannot endorse those suggestions conveniently.
Our Union is criticized for apparently not shutting down the streets in Georgetown to protest the closure of estates, though the columnist acknowledges that our organization organized protest and public activities throughout the sugar belt. We are at a loss to see how this would have made a meaningful difference. The Government was adamant in the closure of the estates and refused to listen to the genuine concerns of many persons and organizations. That aside, since then we have seen many protests, on different matters, taking place in the city, none of which we recalled led to a shut down. Additionally, the issues championed by those protestors hardly impacted on the Administration’s posture or decision-making. We wonder why we are being singled out by the Eyewitness.
We are criticized for apparently not saying anything regarding assistance of the State to the displaced sugar workers. This for us is most funny. We have consistently championed this issue through several means. Ultimately, we are not in the decision-making seat but that has not daunted our calls. We have come to learn that time will ultimately be the final arbiter. People tend not to forget though who perpetuate and initiate injustices against them. We are sure that those in the sugar belt, like many Guyanese, will decisively make their views known when they have the opportunity. Regarding the transfer of SILWFC potable water responsibilities to GWI, it appears, that the Eyewitness wasn’t aware that this responsibility has been transferred for more than a decade now. While our Union opposed the transfer, we represented to SILWFC the provision of a water subsidy for sugar workers. That subsidy is granted once a worker submits the relevant information. Over the years, we should add, we have represented that the subsidy be increased to offset the costs incurred by the workers.
The Eyewitness, it seems read our statement with an unhinged mindset. A careful examination would see that our Union did not mention Plantation White Sugar, we said explicitly White Sugar. We said so against the background that GuySuCo told us that it would be producing white and not plantation white sugar. We understand, the former is of a higher quality than the latter. Of course this would be cleared up if GuySuCo shares with us the requested information.
The columnist also questions whether CARICOM would be able to defend their decision to implement the CET on extra-regional refined sugar imports. We again are confused why the Eyewitness would also not be supportive of the decision to protect indigenous industries. Moreover, all the studies on white sugar in Guyana going back to the late 1990s and early 2000s had always predicated a refinery’s success on CET protection. It is not something that is amiss but rather is a practice regularly embraced by countries and groupings globally.
The unhinged mannerisms of the Eyewitness are further exposed when the columnist wrongly contends that the sugar bond monies cannot be used for operational expenditure. Some amount of the disbursements released so far was used to support the sugar company’s operational expenditure and the halt put in place by the banks were removed months ago. A cursory glance of news on the matter would confirm this. Regarding the issue of funding, more holistically, our Union did not ignore this obvious elephant in the room. On this the GuySuCo, said that the bond proceeds were also borrowed to finance the white sugar plant and the co-generations plants as well. The sugar corporation said it was optimistic that the funding would soon be released. On this matter, we did wish them luck.
We want to tell the Eyewitness that the venom, he, she or they, apparently has for our Union will not cause us to change our stance. We are committed to a successful sugar industry; a feat we do not believe is out of reach. We will continue to express without hesitation our viewpoints on matters, as we have been doing all the time. Our membership and for those who know us, know of how much and how hard we work in the interest of not only GAWU members but all workers of Guyana. We genuinely believe that the workers of our country, contrary to statements by the ruling party, have been left back and very far back for that matter. The GAWU is committed, within its means and ability, to continue to uphold and champion the calls of the working-class who are a decisive and significant bloc in our country, as in all countries.
