Dennis Chung, Contributor
OVER the past few weeks I have followed the many commentaries and news items re the sugar debacle. The Financial Gleaner of June 17, 2005 included an article in which Livingstone Morrison warns Jamaican consumers that if the preferential price for sugar is removed we could face hiked sugar prices. I am a bit confused as to where this increased price will come from, as he mentions that world sugar prices are expected to increase, and we also know that we produce sugar at almost three times world prices. If there is even an increase on the world market then it should not be enough to erase the discrepancy between our prices and the world market.
If on the other hand he is saying that the price of locally produced sugar will be increased to the Jamaican consumer, to make up the shortfall, then I would be opposed to this. If this were to be suggested then it would be no different from the way in which the cost of Air Jamaica has been transferred to the Jamaican people. All of this will have resulted from the failure of our leaders since independence to enhance the well-being of the Jamaican masses. On the other hand, the consumption of sugar is not healthy, and so maybe we could all stop using as much as we do today.
ON GOING SUGAR PROBLEM
Hartley Neita's biography of Hugh Shearer refers on page 12 to a meeting of private sector leaders to discuss the effect of a Canadian "tariff reduction on raw and refined sugar", which was to have a negative impact on the protection to British West Indian sugar. This was on Friday May 18, 1923. Therefore, we have known for a very long time of the threat to sugar's future. The only difference is that the problem has been transferred from the private sector to the government, or more correctly, the people of Jamaica.
It is obvious that the problem with sugar today has much to do with a failure of leadership to act in the best interest of the Jamaican people. Our leaders have led us to a place where we have developed an industry, which has always been uncompetitive internationally, but now consumes thousands of acres of agricultural land and to quote from the Gleaner headline story of Thursday June 23, 2005, employs "40,000 direct jobs ? and [provides indirect income to] approximately 250,000 persons".
ECONOMIC DEPENDENCY
This is nothing short of shameful for all our governments since independence. While we celebrated political independence in 1962, we still have not managed to rid ourselves of economic dependency on Europe. Our political leaders have given us the freedom to choose our governments but not the ability to feed ourselves without handouts.
There have been many reports on the viability of the sugar industry (even as early as in the 1960s) and much talk about converting sugar production to other uses, such as ethanol. What progress have we made since then? On Tuesday August 3, 2004, there were reports of protest action against the announced intention to reduce the preferential prices. What has been done since even last year to plan the transitioning out of sugar to more productive activities?
My heart goes out to the thousands of Jamaicans who have been led down this road by our leaders, as short term political benefits have always taken priority to a better future for Jamaicans. I do understand that if we lose the preferential prices then there will be serious dislocation to the Jamaican economy. What do we do with the thousands of acres and sugar industry workers? It is going to be a mammoth task to convert the skills of the sugar industry workers into more productive activities. It is therefore a sad reality that we have to fight to maintain our "economic dependence" on the Europeans, just as it is a reality today that because of fiscal irresponsibility over the decades we are faced with dire social consequences as we strive to achieve a balanced budget.
SELF DEPENDENCY
Hartley Neita's book also includes an excerpt from an address by Hugh Shearer in the 1967/68 budget debate as follows, "I have three alternatives from which to select running the country. The first is to allow Jamaica's development to stagnate. The second is to go on bended knees to some foreign country and beg for economic assistance. The third is to call on my nation of people to accept our challenges and tackle our problems with self-respect and self-discipline. I do not propose to resort to the first alternative and preside over stagnation of development - I cannot and could not be Prime Minister under those circumstances. I do not propose to go hat in hand with the problems of Jamaica to some other country begging for grants and handouts. I will never be Prime Minister under those circumstances - somebody else, not me! I propose, instead, to succeed or fail on the third alternative."
What a different country we would have been if we had kept on that path, or even continued on the self dependency programmes implemented by former Prime Minister Michael Manley. Instead we chose the first two alternatives.
I do not believe that it can ever be too late for a country, because it cannot die. While we are clamouring to maintain "economic dependency" on Europe, we should also pursue a path of transitioning from the sugar industry as we know it today. It is time for us to stop talking and start acting, and if it has already begun.
We must put together a proper plan with target dates for the Jamaican people to understand where we are heading. In other words make some real commitments to Jamaica and meet them.
A true leader does not necessarily act out of the need to be popular but rather does things that are best for the people he or she leads, even if criticised while doing so. One such recent leader was Erskine Sandiford of Barbados. In the end, history will not be kind to those who have led us astray.
I have had discussions with current leaders on both sides of the politics, and they seem to have good intentions and know what is to be done for the good of the country. What then causes the promotion of political objectives over Jamaica's good, I don't know.
In closing, I would like to refer to a Chinese saying. One can tell the progress of a family (country) by whether the father (past leaders) is known by the son (present leaders) or vice versa. If the father is known by the son then the family has made progress, but if the son is known by the father then no progress has been made.
E-mail: dra_chung@hotmail.com
