Without prejudice, you will appreciate that, as one who is inordinately endowed with such grandeur as you possess, and as a former executive and board member of a 100% state-owned enterprise (GUYSUCO), you bear an unequivocal, non-negotiable, and unquestionable fiduciary responsibility to the public—subjecting yourself to the highest degree of public scrutiny, in the spirit of accountability for the portfolio you were entrusted with over a good number of years. Chiefly, this obligation arises against the backdrop of your recent public commentaries and revelations, and more so as a member of a political party—one embroiled in controversy, inter alia, a party founded by an OFAC-sanctioned individual for money laundering, gold smuggling, tax evasion, corruption, and other forms of criminality.
You will also appreciate that, as a leader of your pedestal-like stature—one who has even likened himself, in a stylized fashion, to “Godliness”—such a leader must hold himself accountable to his subjects: taxpayers, sugar workers, shareholders, and other stakeholders. Moreover, a true leader, not merely a good one, accepts responsibility for both failures and successes alike.
Yet, in spite of this principle, you have registered on public record that the failures of the entity in which you held senior management and executive portfolios for more than two decades—albeit intermittently—were attributed to the shareholders alone, as opposed to the executive management of which you were a part. You have thereby effectively absolved yourself of any responsibility whatsoever. More interestingly, as deduced from your own responses—evidenced in the images appended hereunder—it would appear that you have been consummated by that infamous human flaw: narcissistic proclivities. For how could you blame everyone else for these failures while, at the same time, claiming a glowing performance for yourself? This self-inflicted contradiction is glaring and ludicrous, to say the least.
With that foregoing in mind, permit me to return to your so-called resignation in 2010 from GUYSUCO. A senior Board member who presided over that matter had this to say:
“After his dismissal letter was given to him, he appealed for his pension since he was eligible for it. We were sympathetic but couldn’t give him his pension because of the dismissal letter. Hence we suggested to him to tender his resignation for us to pay him his pension. This was done on humane considerations, but the blots on his employment performance remain.”
Furthermore, in respect of your role in the Skeldon Modernization Project, emphasis must be placed on the fact that, as the General Manager for Skeldon, you ought to have had oversight over the construction of the factory, the field layout, and bed conversion to ensure sufficient supply of cane to the factory. Consequently, like the Booker Tate consultants, you failed miserably in that regard.
Noteworthily, between 2020 and early 2025 you were the Director of Field Operations and were entrusted with billions of dollars for field rehabilitation. What have you done to show that the money was utilized in advancing sugar production? You also sat simultaneously on the board influencing decisions.
In light of your observed inconsistencies and contradictions, as noted earlier, you cannot forever hide behind the pretextual, politically convenient notion of political interference and micromanagement. In view of your paradoxical contradictions, such a claim would not hold up in Court. And if it does, then you will go down in history as the first person on planet earth—possessive of an ego the size of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans combined—who has subjected himself to political micromanagement while simultaneously claiming the most perfectly glowing individualized performance, while the organization as a whole failed. Yet, your direct portfolios—namely the Skeldon Project and the Enmore Estate—were both dismal failures. In the case of the Enmore Estate, that estate underwent closure under your stewardship. You will therefore be remembered as the first of your kind, with such a self-contradictory performance track record.
Suffice it to state, it has not gone unnoticed that you are evidently attempting to escape your moral dilemma, shielded behind a wall of self-denial. To this end, I note with interest your own acknowledgment that you are an “Ambassador of sorts” for some form of “religion.” Yet, I am not sure which religion you refer to, for Hinduism is not a religion. And if you do not know this, then I pity your disciples. The term “Hinduism” is a westernized, engineered terminology that bears absolutely no relevance to—or equivalence with—“Sanatan Vedic Dharma.” The simple English translation is “a way of life.”
Driven by your egotistical reflex, you sought to dismiss me by referring to me as a boy, suggesting that you could somehow embarrass me. These assertions—an expression of your emotional state of mind and your natural persona—stand contrary to the life lessons rooted in the Ramayana: a scripture you may have narrated all your life, yet seemingly failed to absorb in its profound teachings—more importantly, their practical application to real life, not merely reserved for “story telling” at a Yagna. The Ramayana goes far beyond storytelling.
You have sought to trivialize the Ramayana katha as “philosophy.” The Ramayana is not merely a book of philosophy. While its lessons are often conveyed by the author in metaphoric and philosophical formats, it is far more than that. The Ramayana is a user’s manual for life. Its teachings apply to every facet of human existence: politics, governance, national leadership, public accountability, social and family life, corporate and public life—indeed, every conceivable challenge, pain, misery, and difficulty humankind experiences. In all these, the Ramayana provides guidance.
And might I add, your attempt to dismiss me as a “boy” betrays your inclination to look down on others, and thus, your lack of humility. Might I remind you of the Katha in the Ramayana involving Shabari: how society treated her versus how Lord Ram treated her. The character that Lord Ram embodied is the eternal model for all humankind to emulate in navigating this mundane world—yet it would seem you have forgotten the intended lesson from Shabari’s story. She was a woman whom society despised and marginalized. In other words, she was looked down upon. Yet, when Lord Ram visited her hermitage, he lovingly ate the fruits she offered—even those she had first tasted to ensure their sweetness. In that act, he affirmed that devotion, humility, and sincerity transcend status, ritual, and pride. And the lesson goes on.
—
𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐡𝐮𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡. 𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬, 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐮𝐬, 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐠𝐨𝐝𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬; 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐠𝐨.