The Daily Gleaner – The Sunday Gleaner – The Star


The Editor thanks you for your contribution, but regrets that he will not be able to use it.

You will understand, we trust, that this is not necessarily any reflection on the material submitted. Large numbers of contributions, many of them excellent, reach us daily, nut we are never able to use more than a small proportion.

We hope you will not hesitate in future to offer us material which you think suits our requirements.


The spread of the idea mat mechanism is either the only or the best cure for Jamaica’s predicament as it concerns the sugar industry may need at this stage some critical balance. The government and Mr. Lightbourne in particular have maintained for their own reasons a correct degree of scepticism, which is now showing signs of weakening. The Union leadership apparently has been so beaten down by seemingly objective economics that, despite their primary interests, they cannot pronounce too loudly against the idea; nor can they openly support it. The Sugar Manufacturers Association have always regarded Jamaica as part of the sugar industry so one cannot expect certain kinds of analysis from them. The press columnists’ writings on sugar are neither theoretically nor practically interesting.

The Essential Point

The essential point really is that the problem will never be satisfactorily dealt with until all concerned realize that, though the society now pivots on sugar, sugar ought to be made a part of Jamaica, not the other way round. It has to be realized, in the situation as it is, that you cannot set up a Commission to deal with the sugar industry per se (you probably can do this for the textile industry); you cannot study mechanization, or investment or diversification as it concerns the sugar industry per se; and you cannot set up economic research units for the problems of the sugar industry per se.

The following are a few critical points on the subject of mechanizing the industry: They should not be taken to mean that mechanization as such is always anti-economic.