Dear Editor,
To one who knows about the sugar industry, and who, along with other experts, has been monitoring its (under) performance for several years, it makes absolutely no sense to get ‘involved’ except after obtaining full comprehension of the nature of the involvement.
Such clarity can only be achieved through the conduct of a full inquiry into the oversight, management and operations of a sugar industry which has achieved an image of a defective employer of the relevant human resources.
Those of us who have frequently enquired of the utilisation of the remittances by the European Union, will need to be convinced by audited proof, of the reported presentation in the National Assembly, that “The $1 billion GuySuCo subvention in the 2013 budget was once again used to pay workers” (‘Get the people who know about sugar involved,’ SN, June 3).
Surely the reporter got it wrong. How can a budgeted provision be for payment already made?
In any case, whether already paid or forecast to be paid, hopefully, the National Assembly was advised about the make-up of the payments (again!) to workers, with particular distinction from management (executive and board).
It certainly would be hilarious to learn whether or not the annual production incentive was paid out, despite the perpetually increasing non-achievement of targets – one ‘needling’ reason why the whole hay/cane-stack needs to be thoroughly investigated.
The opposition must be at one on this logical requirement for a commission of enquiry.
Yours faithfully,
E B John
