Dear Editor,
In reading Tony Morgan’s letter titled “GuySuCo new Board, fresh ideas and decades of experience”, which was published in Guyana Times’ March 16, 2018 edition, I could only conclude that before he penned this letter, the gentleman did not read the article in the March 15 edition of Guyana Times captioned “Nothing wrong with ‘inexperienced’ GuySuCo Board – Junior Finance Minister”, and in another section of the media, “Cabinet member annoyed at NICIL ad on new GuySuCo board – says final decision still to be taken”, respectively.
Had Morgan read the article in Guyana Times, he would have recognised that it was no other than the Junior Minister of Finance who acknowledged that nothing is wrong with inexperienced people being appointed on GuySuCo board; so his conclusion from reviewing the information as shown in the full-page ad — “that one can gather that this new board is filled with years of experience in the sugar industry” — is plainly wrong.
Had he read the article in the other section of the media, he would have known that Cabinet is yet to approve the appointment of the new board; as such, his insert that “Cabinet did well in the selection of this new Board” is again erroneous.
Morgan, in his letter, further extolled that the board is “well balanced in age”. What does age have to do with the performance of this board, when the key success factors depend on the quality of contribution by each member, and such contribution is highly dependent on the knowledge and experience of the sugar industry? He further stated that the new board has three former directors, and these “veteran, in retrospection, should be able to show the new blood where things have gone bad and where the Board was able to have success in the past”.
What “success in the past” can these three “veterans” show the “new blood,” when sugar production for the three years that they served on the previous board declined from 231,000 tonnes in 2015 to 137,000 in 2017? When the sugar industry was miniaturized? And when over 7,000 workers were displaced? Why, when these veterans were on the previous board, could they not have seen “where things have gone bad”, but they could now show the “new blood” where “things have gone bad” when they were there?
It is obvious that Tony Morgan wrote the letter based on sentiments, but not on facts.
Yours faithfully,
Selwyn Narinedatt
