Tweet
EDITORIAL - Reminder and advice for Minister Clarke
Published: Monday | February 20, 2012 1 Comment
Roger Clarke has, he says, taken "great exception" to the fact that Aubyn Hill, lately chairman of Sugar Company of Jamaica (SCJ) Holdings, may have questioned the minister's assertion that the Government has had to embrace $35 billion of the SCJ's debt after divesting the sugar industry.
Mr Hill may have been wrong to have said that the figure given by Minister Clarke to Parliament last week "may have come from anywhere".
But that he did forced Mr Clarke to provide a bit of context to the numbers he offered after a bit of obfuscation which, we conclude, was designed to embarrass rather than elucidate.
When the minister made his statement in the House last Tuesday, he pointedly declared that his intent was "not to embarrass anybody or to look back, but in the interest of transparency".
But then he went on to crow about how the sugar entities, under the former administration, had either failed to make, or barely made, delivery requirements under forward-sale agreements in the two years just ahead of privatisation, and how the production costs in both years were double projections.
The upshot was that the Government pumped J$2.5 billion into the industry.
"And let us not forget the J$35.034-billion debt that SCJ and the Government of Jamaica will have to deal with," Mr Clarke warbled.
What Mr Clarke did not clarify then, but acknowledged in the face of Mr Hill's scepticism about the minister's information, was that all the debt was related neither directly to the privatisation nor run up only over the four years of the previous administration.
He confirmed that figure represented accumulated losses and other debts "since 2000".
For a significant part of the period between 2000 and 2007, the year the People's National Party lost the government, one Roger Clarke was, as he has been again since January, Jamaica's agriculture minister. Therefore, a substantial part of the sugar industry's debt was wracked up on his watch.
Of course, it is not the intention of this newspaper "to embarrass anybody, or to look back". Rather, we have raised this matter "in the interest of transparency and to set the record straight".
Any Vision For Agriculture?
The upside of Mr Clarke's statement was his concession that the divested sugar companies and estate were performing better than under government ownership. But he took credit for the divestment, reminding that the process started during his tenure, although nothing was sold during that period.
What Mr Clarke didn't do last week was to offer a vision of agriculture going forward, enunciate any policy, or declare a strategy or tactics for the sector. In the circumstance, we have a suggestion for Minister Clarke.
He could design and articulate a school-feeding programme based entirely on domestic agricultural output or as close to that as is possible - fruits, vegetables, tubers, milk, meat, etc. The mere announcement of such a plan, we assure the minister, would unleash investment in domestic agriculture, driving output to levels not seen in many years.
The minister may be disinclined to proceed with the idea because it was proffered from these columns. Our advice is that he look at the larger picture: the prospects for jobs, economic growth, and the rejuvenation of rural Jamaica.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be
Published: Monday | February 20, 2012 1 Comment
Roger Clarke has, he says, taken "great exception" to the fact that Aubyn Hill, lately chairman of Sugar Company of Jamaica (SCJ) Holdings, may have questioned the minister's assertion that the Government has had to embrace $35 billion of the SCJ's debt after divesting the sugar industry.
Mr Hill may have been wrong to have said that the figure given by Minister Clarke to Parliament last week "may have come from anywhere".
But that he did forced Mr Clarke to provide a bit of context to the numbers he offered after a bit of obfuscation which, we conclude, was designed to embarrass rather than elucidate.
When the minister made his statement in the House last Tuesday, he pointedly declared that his intent was "not to embarrass anybody or to look back, but in the interest of transparency".
But then he went on to crow about how the sugar entities, under the former administration, had either failed to make, or barely made, delivery requirements under forward-sale agreements in the two years just ahead of privatisation, and how the production costs in both years were double projections.
The upshot was that the Government pumped J$2.5 billion into the industry.
"And let us not forget the J$35.034-billion debt that SCJ and the Government of Jamaica will have to deal with," Mr Clarke warbled.
What Mr Clarke did not clarify then, but acknowledged in the face of Mr Hill's scepticism about the minister's information, was that all the debt was related neither directly to the privatisation nor run up only over the four years of the previous administration.
He confirmed that figure represented accumulated losses and other debts "since 2000".
For a significant part of the period between 2000 and 2007, the year the People's National Party lost the government, one Roger Clarke was, as he has been again since January, Jamaica's agriculture minister. Therefore, a substantial part of the sugar industry's debt was wracked up on his watch.
Of course, it is not the intention of this newspaper "to embarrass anybody, or to look back". Rather, we have raised this matter "in the interest of transparency and to set the record straight".
Any Vision For Agriculture?
The upside of Mr Clarke's statement was his concession that the divested sugar companies and estate were performing better than under government ownership. But he took credit for the divestment, reminding that the process started during his tenure, although nothing was sold during that period.
What Mr Clarke didn't do last week was to offer a vision of agriculture going forward, enunciate any policy, or declare a strategy or tactics for the sector. In the circumstance, we have a suggestion for Minister Clarke.
He could design and articulate a school-feeding programme based entirely on domestic agricultural output or as close to that as is possible - fruits, vegetables, tubers, milk, meat, etc. The mere announcement of such a plan, we assure the minister, would unleash investment in domestic agriculture, driving output to levels not seen in many years.
The minister may be disinclined to proceed with the idea because it was proffered from these columns. Our advice is that he look at the larger picture: the prospects for jobs, economic growth, and the rejuvenation of rural Jamaica.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be
Comment