Dear Editor,
In response to my letter in SN of June 30 ‘GuySyCo cannot be resurrected’, Robin Persaud in elucidating the achievements of Vibert Parvatan, appointed Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry (CoI) which will examine the affairs of GuySuCo and make recommendations to chart a new way forward to make it a viable industry, claimed that his experience amply qualified him for the assignment despite my reservations regarding his suitability, and that I should be encouraging and supporting members of the CoI team instead of personally attacking them in their difficult task (‘Parvatan’s experience covers more than forty years…’ SN, July1 ).
I wish to disclaim any such intention as the contents of my letter clearly bear this out, since my missive was to shed some light on the limitations and shortcomings of the ability of the elected Chairman to head this CoI.
The Terms of Reference of the CoI as laid down by the Minister of Agriculture indicate that there is only one way forward for the corporation and that is to develop a 15-year plan to return it to profitability. Therefore the commission has to come up with means and methods to achieve this objective, and whether or not it could indeed be accomplished given the intractable challenges facing the industry. It was never in dispute that Mr Parvatan worked as an Assistant Field Manager/Field Manager with GuySuCo, but during his period of employment he was not a member of its management board where development strategies and management policies were formulated by its Chairman Harold Davis Sr for execution. Mr Parvatan was at the periphery of the organization and knew little of its inner workings. During his tenure as Junior Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture under the PNC government, Mr Persaud claimed that Mr Parvatan had expanded and defined functions for agriculture, but sugar cane was not a crop he was involved with for major development, since that was the responsibility of GuySuCo which was then completely under the management of Harold Davis Sr, who reported directly to President Burnham and his successor for its operations and performance. Mr Parvatan was not only Executive Director with the Laparkan Group of Companies (LGC) but was also directly responsible for the Management of Fogarty’s Store Ltd, where his office was located until his retirement. LGC has been in decline over the years as is evident by the whittling down of its services and the closure of many of its offices in New York as well as at its facilities on Lombard Street.
Many of the CoI members appear to have had some experience with the sugar industry, and this will be a valuable asset to the commission. However, what appears to be lacking is a Chairman with the experience, knowledge and skills to elicit the answers necessary to bring GuySuCo back to profitability, if this is ever possible in the not too distant future, and to ensure its long-term environmental and economic sustainability. Mr Parvatan does have an impressive CV, but he lacks a deep insight into the complex problems facing the sugar industry, and his track-record in the diverse companies he served for the past 25 years after leaving GuySuCo suggests that he may not be the right person to provide solutions to resurrect a politically charged and failed industry.
Yours faithfully,
Charles Sohan
