Dear Editor,

IN your instance, it was not just a case of “Wonders never cease to perform”, as one could have ever since discerned your direction, as a result of the daily criticisms offered as “expert” advice, on government’s preparations for the coming of oil.

In fact, your criticisms of some measures taken in one of the Finance Minister’s past budgets, which he would have incorporated from the Tax Reform Committee’s (TRC) recommendations, of which you were an integral part, signaled your new political direction, and shocking contradiction that obviously reflected a vested interest position. It should have been obvious that at some time government would seek to implement some of those measures; thus, for you to subsequently repudiate those recommendations, brings into sharp focus your commitment for a better national taxation policy which you had so vociferously represented.

Your recent suggestion that the State Asset Recovery Unit (SARA) ought to be closed, has been a continuous refrain about an agency which status is indeed lawful and legitimate, as it is necessary for going after stolen state assets. Irrespective as to what procedural shortcomings there may be with regards the functioning of this organisation, for you to have again advocate its closure, informs as to motives that are sinister, highly questionable, but not surprising. They mirror, the same view of the discredited PPP/C party’s former government leaders, cronies, supporters and friends who undoubtedly have a lot to protect, and to hide from the merciless pillage that many of them undertook. This would have taken many criminal forms, inclusive of money laundering, legitimising the proceeds of state theft especially via hidden accounts, and transferals of such assets into the names of relatives, etcetera.

What a shame, and a grave contradiction that such an emphatic suggestion could be made by someone who had been among the leading political commentators, if not, the leading one, and national consciences who were vehemently critical about the levels of state corruption and other related acts, allied to the workings of a criminal state in Guyana. Are you now saying that such thieving on a vast, national scale, which your auditing firm had been a part of the unmasking process, did not occur? And therefore, by extension, that such a body as SARA is not needed to deal with the multitudinous cases of theft of state assets, which supported by your firm and other similar accounting houses findings, did occur over the 23 years of PPP/C government? Such a view leads to very serious questions concerning your commitment to combatting this most pivotal of national criminalities. But the answer is now quite obvious.

Your recent appearance over Freedom Radio, not surprising, had been expected. It became a question of not when, but how soon. And again, your particular statement reflects among many other aspects, the putrid PPP/C cesspool of political spin, of horrible distortions; pandering to ethnic insecurities; and ugly misinformation, coined with the express intention of portraying the coalition government as racist, uncaring, and not taking into account the social consequences of its decision to close three of the collapsed sugar estates.

Such has been the orchestrated strategy of a former PPP/C government which twisted sense of dishonest functional responsibility, that has inscribed itself as a self-constructed mental barrier in its continuous dark mind-set towards accepting full responsibility for the tragedy of a once giant of the local economy; but which also is disrespectful of the sugar workers. It is quite unfortunate that you now identify fully with such a band of heartless political users, for what they would have finally done to the sugar workers, after using them as cannon fodder and as a political battering ram for so many decades.

For you to have suggested that the government should have implemented a phased, shut down of the sugar estates is as the same demand that the PPP/C made, of keeping the estates functioning at all costs; even though they were in dire deficit, profitless, and hopelessly mired in debt. Any idea, from where the money to continuously keep those factories alive would have come? And this suggestion of yours should have occurred, even after $30B of tax payer’s money would already been injected into the industry? By the way, Mr. Ram, I do not ever recall you urging the PPP/C government to come up with any such plan, to bring relief to Linden when its town people were crying out for help. Not as far as I am aware. Is that how you express care and concern for your fellow Guyanese – only one category, but not the other?

To suggest that “… they need support and it seems that they are almost forgotten and its cynical, it callous, and it’s cruel…”, is a most sad commentary for a political commentator, who has aligned himself with shameless propaganda.

Mr. Ram, your statement is at best akin to mouthing the slavish contents from the emptying of the filthy political stomach of the PPP/C. And it does no good to the environment of untruths which you are now helping the PPP/C to further create. Is this what political opportunism does to those souls, these days, no doubt frantically vying for an early space on the opposition party’s bandwagon for 2020? What a frantically mad rush: Oil! Oil! Oil! The salivating becomes even greater, with a heightening crescendo, with every announcement of a further oil find in the Stabroek bloc. It is within this context that the Christopher Rams of this country are now categorised – aligning with a criminal cabal, which succeeded in degutting this country! How shameful! How shocking! And how immoral! Is this the new national morality, which you now support?

Do you need to be reminded that apart from finding a solution to the re-structuring of GuySuCo, without any input from the PPP/C whose former administration had been criminally responsible for its collapse, that the government’s social amelioration programme for post-sugar life is indeed commendable, for the deep thought that influenced its conception?

Rather than simply pay severance, and leave the sugar workers high and dry, the post– sugar initiative, in fact, has been preparing workers for a life after sugar; and already, they have been seeking those opportunities, with many graduations already taking place that offer skills training, in addition to support for sugar-dependent communities. No one is “taking away their lifeline’’, as you are attempting to portray. Instead, there is continuity, as not only a reported 10,000 workers have been re-employed within the sugar industry; but also, hundreds have been offered alternatives within the private sector; new opportunities at self-employment, as a result of newly acquired skills, and loans assistance. There has even been training for employment within the oil and gas industry for some off-springs of sugar workers, with many offered trainings overseas.

I am certain that the government did not for one moment, believe that its post-sugar mechanisms contained all the answers for the social challenges that would possibly arise after termination of sugar workers. However, you will agree, that that particular region has always had its share of social ills of which you are well aware; are nationally known; and are well documented. Therefore, they need not be repeated here. Except to say that there have been no reported, unusual occurrences that reflect untoward social trends, which like the PPP/C you are attempting to portray. Hooray, for becoming a good propagandist; except that it is not truth.

Your observation that there have been “single industry communities” that have supported the sustenance of sugar workers for “decades and decades’’, are accurate. To be precise, it has been responsible for ALL of those hard-working sugar workers and their families.

However, you must agree, that it is because of this reality that your friends within the PPP/C, its former government, should have been economically prudent in the manner in which it had managed this industrial giant. Rather than seeing the workers as a conduit for its hold on political power; allowing them to constantly strike even when there were no good causes; better wisdom ought to have advised that such industrial stoppages would have also accrued to be part of the gradual detriment of the industry. It did not help matters any further, when there was deliberate failure to implement the European Unio (EU) advised measures.

What in effect has occurred has been the gross mismanagement of an industry by a political party, that perceived the industry only as being the symbol and conveyor of its continuous political dominance – a political vehicle for the most important segment of its industrial political support. You must also agree that there are very, very good grounds for criminal proceedings, beginning at the level of the GuySuCo Board.

For all of the hand prints of the former PPP/C, as being comprehensively responsible for this national debacle, I have never read any opinion of yours, holding this heartless bunch accountable for what their selfish actions would have brought upon the lives of sugar workers. Instead, the coalition government continues to be blamed, for an industry that suffered 23 years of PPP/C abuse. Your recent input solidifies this crime.
But there is another dimension, of the “single industry community’’, conveyed in your statement, which needs some further thoughts.

Again, for all of the talk of “transformation” that had been bandied about by the past administration, and with all the multi-billions reportedly spent on this and that project, purported to be part of this newness, it is contradictory that such a potentially rich region as Region Six has still not realised that rich potential of which it is capable. This has come about because of a visionless socio-economic policy, which highlighted the deadweight and un-enlightenment of the PPP/C centralised political control, that resulted in the blunting of innovative economic programmes which has caused such a potentially productive region to still contain “single industry’’ communities. This is what you should be explaining to the citizens of those locales, during your so-called observatory visits. This is also apart from letting those good citizens also be aware that they must begin to ask questions of their political party leaders, and that of their union leaders, as to their roles in the fall of an industry that meant so much to their lives.
Regards,
Earl Hamilton