Dear Editor,
 Much has been written recently about the Queens Atlantic Investment/Sanata Complex divestment, most of it seeking to paint the government in an unflattering light. It is not our intention to comment on the merits, or not, of the commentaries, save and except to endorse the need for public scrutiny of the public’s business.

As residents of the Ruimvedlt Industrial Estate for the past 25 years, however, we would like to give our perspective on this issue. Since the demise of the original Sanata Textile operations there have been several subsequent attempts at resuscitating manufacturing activity in this complex. One of these was a Chinese government-supported private investment which
rehabilitated and modernized the textile plant and engaged in textile production for a number of years. As neighbours, we had close contact with the managers of this complex for years and learnt from them that millions of US dollars were lost in this operation prior to their packing it in some 3 years ago. It all stems from a fundamental point which we should not try to evade, and that is, that Guyana is an expensive manufacturing destination. Creating manufacturing jobs therefore is not going to be easy in this environment and survival will only be possible where high productivity, innovation, responsive management and superior business practices, among other factors, exist.

We are firm believers and strong supporters, however, of the necessity for creating jobs, particularly ones in manufacturing. Despite the mantra of free trade and calls for non-state intervention in the economy, we have always subscribed to the view that it is the state that has to act as the catalyst to create investments and spur economic activity, particularly as already said, in the productive sector.

In the above regard President Jagdeo, at the recent GBTI sponsored Business Forum 2008, made some timely observations. Com-menting on the EU/ACP’s Economic Partnership Agree-ment he remarked that he would not have signed on had it not been for the threat of tariffs on our exports to the EU implying that the ‘agreement’ was not favourable to us. He went on to say it was an example of bad faith (on the part of the EU) and that it did not follow the spirit or letter of the preceding Cotonou Agreement. More to the point, however, he conceded that we (small countries such as ours) will not shape the things to come and that soon we will not be producing anything unless we change. We took this to be tacit acceptance by the President of the great odds that local producers face for survival, let alone to grow and expand.

The President was in fact more explicit and mentioned the cost (high) of credit and the need for cheaper energy as pre-requisites for achieving international competitiveness, which he clearly said is the only route to survival. In his words the President said that it boils down to our ability to use the market, which can only result from building capacity. It is about specifics, he told the business persons present, not anecdotes.

Quite clearly the President does not have the luxury of theorizing; his is the responsibility of seeing that jobs are created, that investments are made, that the economy grows, that living standards increase, etc. Which brings us to our new neighbours, Queens Atlantic. It is true that the compound in which they are located was abandoned over the past 4 years and it now is in productive use and responsible for new manufacturing jobs – the rationale for the Ruimveldt Industrial Estate. We have to get back into manufacturing. There is too much non-manufacturing here. Imagine after being here for 25 years many people are referring to us as being next to the Bowling Alley!
If we are to be exporting products instead of our people then the government has to be pro-active.
Yours faithfully,
R. Bulkan