Dear Editor,
I thank my friend and mentor Mr. E.B. John for bringing to my attention his rejoinder (SN, 29/3/13 which I had missed) to my letter on migrant workers (SN, 23/3/13). With all due respect, I cannot agree with the conceptualization and formulation of his submission.
Mr. John queries Guyana’s absorptive capacity for migrant workers in a way that seems to suggest that he is perhaps unaware of the fact that Guyana already has a significant proportion of migrant workers. This will most likely swell as we continue to lose our graduates and other trained citizens at the reportedly 80% per annum rate of late. In this context it is interesting, if not ironic, to see the lamentation of Mr. F. Hamley Case in the same 29/3/13 edition of SN about the irregular publication of unemployment statistics.
The thrust of my letter (of 23/3/13) was to highlight the fact that in the real world of globalization and increasingly easy cross-border human resource mobility, Guyanese will be further marginalized if they do not ‘smarten-up’ by improving their work ethic, their commitment and their skills (trades, technical, supervisory and managerial).
Currently, as project leader of a community effort to establish a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic crematorium within a garden-setting boasting state-of-the-art facilities in West Berbice, I am directly experiencing what I was merely aware of as a Director of Human Resources regarding the difficulties of finding suitable and willing Guyanese to work in any capacity. Yet, there are at any one time dozens of seemingly healthy, able-bodied persons ‘hanging about’ the bridges, shops and open spaces asking for ‘a raise’ or just ‘liming’. I have also recently spent about a week as an in-patient in a private hospital where I was able to observe at first hand the vast differences in competence, commitment and productivity between Guyanese and migrant workers.
I regret having to disagree with my guru Mr. John in public, but the Human Resource deficits in Guyana are too important to allow sentiments to stifle debate on what are the pressing needs for our human resource development. There are serious issues of incompetence, underperformance and lack of commitment amongst our compatriots. Development is more certain when external support is accompanied, preferably preceded by inner drives for self–development. The ‘ostrich’ approach will sink not only our heads but our totality. It is incongruous to advocate that “places” must be reserved for locals who are not demonstrating any hunger for self-development. And, to say that “Guyana’s employment profile does not reconcile with the model” on which I reported begs the question: ‘what is the Guyana profile’ and why is reconciliation necessary when the facts on the ground and their implications are so patently obvious?
Yours faithfully,
Nowrang Persaud
