Dear Editor,

Measure the depth of empathetic sincerity or otherwise, for anyone to boldly advocate: “At this point of time [the beginning of 2014], I am now more than ever convinced that the crisis in the sugar industry has passed its tipping-point or point of no return. This means that all hopes for a rational, considered and ordered reform and reconstruction of the [sugar] industry are lost…  As presently configured the country’s sugar business can no longer go forward as a viable commercial endeavour.”  Such advocacy in the Sunday Stabroek column ‘Guyana and the wider world’ of January 5, 2014 can be no clearer for the WPA’s socialist Dr Clive Thomas’s future empowerment in APNU.  Where is the wiggle room or attempt to close the gaps, even from the WPA which divides Guyanese, unlike Dr Walter Rodney and Madiba’s legacies? If the sugar industry is not worthy of rescue according to a renowned textbook theoretician with absolutely no practical management or business experience, how much more is anyone qualified to decide or pronounce on it to “go forward as a viable commercial endeavour”?

In fact shouldn’t the undeniable reminder that Dr Thomas is factually naked without business experience or the relevant acumen easily dismiss him totally without inclusivity to decide the fate of sugar?

Even selling fried plantains at the street corner is enough proof positive of some business skills. Lack thereof does no dishonour for anyone to recuse himself, especially when seeking to terminate an entire industry. But understanding why it prompted Mr Eusi Kwayana to sanctify Dr Thomas’s empowerment as relevant can only be instructionally revealing. “Did President Donald Ramotar sell sugar cakes for him to sit on GuySuCo’s board of directors” when it began its decline, was his shoot back; not bad by proxy but equally fair. No offence meant, none taken.

However, neither Mr Ramotar’s association with the PPP’s trading arm Gimpex, his presence on the GuySuCo board, nor any lack of skills in unknown sugar cake sales, can be likewise exonerating for sure, especially after the electorate’s very decisive response in the 2011 elections. That “Change can only come from us,” by Mr Craig Sylvester’s headlined letter in the SN of January 22, can only be a good slapping  awakening after the 2011 elections.  How much clearer can Mr Sylvester  become when he himself  says: “I imagine the difference between Dr Thomas and the rest of Guyana’s politicians is that while they all know that many things are wrong about how our country is run, only he knows the sure path [!] to economic prosperity.”  That a future PNC/APNU government will shut down the sugar industry is not imaginary but a crystal clear certainty with Dr Thomas as their skilful swordsman.

Mr Sylvester is both realistic and candidly concerned to acknowledge that “The supporters of the PPP will not forget the mess made of GuySuCo, and the economic chaos inflicted upon their families, dependent upon the existence of that corporation.  One can hardly imagine the distress and suffering of the children of these families. GuySuCo could be wound up as a result of the PPP’s failure to grasp, among other things, the tide of change which would have resulted from the EU’s adjustments to its preferential arrangements, and this, if it happens, would be among the most unremarkable events during its tenure in government.  What will happen to these families still remains to be answered.” After the 2011 elections causing parliamentary gridlock compromises from all sides become necessary. Which party can fill the gap?

It still does not make Dr Thomas’s academic evisceration of GuySuCo more justifiably superior or conclusively acceptable.

Hoisting and saluting a shiny banner can only be designed to speed its ship to the port of government. Mr Sylvester endorses the PNC/WPA within APNU as the vanguard of private enterprise, but it only adds to the confusion. Consider his claims that, “The PNC promotes democratic values and is capitalist-oriented in economic policy, meaning that the private sector [business, not excessive government spending] is the engine of economic growth and prosperity.”

Is Mr Sylvester launching another trial weather balloon when he says: “I wish to acknowledge the, at times empathetic, distilled thoughts of Dr Clive Thomas, in particular, and also the contributions made by Mr David Granger, the Leader of the Opposition”? Who is to be taken

seriously with so many engaged in Alice in Wonderland imagination?

That APNU is capitalist oriented with Dr Thomas as their theoretician according to Mr Sylvester, impressed that “he knows the sure path to economic prosperity….” is no small irony.

The changes which have resolved Guyana’s major problems have always come from outside, as usual, when Lilliputians tie themselves up actually believing they are more than imaginary giants.

Yours faithfully, 
Sultan Mohamed