Dear Editor,
In response to the WPA spokesperson who stated that he was not referring to Wales, which we all know the closure thereof was a GuySuCo board decision. Please note what the WPA leadership stated, as quoted in the Chronicle (the Government-controlled paper): “The proposed courses of action are to amalgamate [merge] Wales Estate with Uitvlugt Estate and reassign its cane to the Uitvlugt factory, since the estate is operating at 50 percent capacity. Sixty percent of its drainage and irrigation infrastructure is in a dilapidated condition. The corporation furthermore seeks to divest itself of the Skeldon Estate. The estates of Albion and Rose Hall are to be amalgamated, and the factory at Rose Hall is to be closed.”
It is clear that the restructuring of GuySuCo cannot be discussed without including the decision made on the closure of the Wales Estate.
Furthermore, the CoI into the future of GuySuCo, which is supposed to be the basis of the white paper submitted to the Cabinet and laid before Parliament, has to have the input of the GuySuCo Board. The Board was Chaired by WPA leadership, and the creation and presentation of the white paper was led under the guidance of WPA leadership.
Let’s speak to the facts, and not avoid the very serious discussion as to why such a biased (anti-Indian) and reckless decision was made under the leadership of the WPA. A number of pro-worker alternatives existed to make the industry profitable, many of which were not implemented under the WPA leadership. The recent biased commentary in the media and on social networks by WPA leadership has also shown clearly how anti-Indian their organisation has become.
During the last Administration, the WPA leadership implemented hefty wage increases for themselves while GuySuCo was struggling to pay their workers and cover their financial obligations. Such selfish acts preceded the closure of sugar estates in predominantly Indian communities. The WPA cannot, with a clear conscience, state that the workers in the fields and the factories were their top priority while the Board took home inflated wages during the making of these reckless pro-management decisions. One would think that these decisions, which have a significant impact on the political future of the WPA, would not have been unilaterally made.
For the record, this is not commentary on specific individuals. It is CRG’s perspective and impression of the actions taken by the WPA leadership during the last Administration. Many other Guyanese also share this perspective.
The WPA leadership neglected the workers and Rodney’s legacy to fill their own pockets, while implementing an anti-Indian agenda.
Best regards,
Jamil Changlee
