of Sugar Industry

Indians Demand Nationalisation of Sugar Industry But Hands Off Transportation!

/I T the December session of the Fiji Legislative Council, the five Indian members supported a move to nationalise the Fiji sugar industry.

All official, European non-official,

and Fijian members voted against the proposal.

In the issue of the “Indian Times’' of January 30, the case for nation alisation is naively, if one-sidedly, presented. It should be remembered that the Indians, who are so enthus

iastically supporting “His Majesty’s

Government” control of the Euro pean-owned sugar interests, are com pletely opposed to Government control of transport services in Fiji, as suggested at the February session of the Legislative Council. (See else where this issue.) Could this be because the bus and taxi services in the Colony are wholly in the hands of the local Indians?

Communism is an ideal arranae ment—up to the point where the State begins to control your pos sessions instead of your neighbours’.

Extracts from the “Indian Times” article are : THE first part of the motion moved by the Indian members referred to the nationalisation policy of the Labour Government in England and supported their action in nationalising some of the powerful concerns in the United Kingdom.

By voting against the motion the offi cial, European unofficial and Fijian un official members have declared that they do not support His Majesty’s Government taking over the Bank of England, coal mines, Cable and Wireless, Ltd., and so many other concerns, in the public in terest.

This explains why they would not lend their support to the proposed action of advising His Majesty’s Government in Great Britain to take over the sugar industry from private monopoly even for the future good, not only of the in dustry but also of this Colony. This Colony depends very largely on the sugar industry which is the main industry here . . .

There is no doubt that the sugar mono poly exercises a very large influence on the economy and the administration of this Colony. Fiji sugar has assured mar ket in Canada and England. His Majesty’s Government subsidises the colonial sugar industry, and therefore, His Majesty’s Government ought to have more say as to whether the sugar industry in Fiji should remain in private hands or change to public ownership.

Moreover, the CSR Company, which is the sugar monopoly referred to above, is a non-Fijian company and its profits go overseas.

Owing to the policy of this company, the wages of workers and price to the pri mary producers of cane are kept low and so all attempts to improve the standard of living fail . . .

In the matter of price for sugar cane grown in Fiji. Dr. C. Y. Shephard’s re port says that the company’s books show 0.77 per cent, was available, on an average for 13 years, for distribution to shareholders as annual dividend . . . and so it could not pay more for the

sugar cane. Dr. Shepherd disagreed.

The nationalisation would help to im prove standard of living of all in Fiji, including the Fijian owners of land . . .

It would be in the interest of the company to see that the sugar industry in Fiji was nationalised too. Under public ownership the company would gain.

It was proposed that the mills and other assets of the company in Fiji be valued and the price so determined be paid to the company after 20 years and that for 20 years the company should receive a guaranteed rate of interest at 1 per cent, per annum—since this rate would be more than the low profit shown by the company for the past 13 years.