Freddie’s Commentaries lack Credibility

Jan 29, 2014 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
This letter  is in response to Freddie Kissoon’s missive (KN Jan 26) in which he describes me in unflattering terms. I was both amused and puzzled to read Freddie accusing people of misquoting him and of describing others as fraud, fake, etc.
I will show how Freddie lacks credibility and is the real fraudster. First, a note on objective commentary! I hold no briefs for Adam Harris whose columns I read regularly and which I recommend to Freddie on how to write a commentary because there is so much to learn from them.  I don’t recall ever reading a column in which Adam engages in name calling; he does not endorse personality attacks. Ditto Ron Sanders and even the Peepers. But I can’t say the same for Freddie and some letter writers like Maxwell, Sasenarine Singh, Asquith Rose and now I see Mike Persaud has joined that bandwagon.
Before they express their point, they go on the attack calling people racist, supremacist, Indian triumphalist, propagandist, etc. without any evidence; I doubt they even understand the meaning of these terms.
Can these chaps give a scientific definition of racist and propagandist and provide examples to buttress their claims against those so labeled? And can they test those examples against themselves?
They employ name calling as a deliberate strategy to throw off any response and to ingratiate themselves with readers – like I am not a racist; he is a racist; he does not like Obama, etc. They define their combatants for gullible readers making it difficult to pen a riposte because space is taken to debunk their charge (like that of racism) which bears no relationship to the main point of their commentary.
They seem to suffer from an inferiority complex over their own academic standing and seem to lack confidence in their own arguments, hence the need to adopt an attacking mode and a labeling to gain sympathetic readership.
On Freddie’s credibility, his writings are replete with lies, misunderstandings and deliberate inaccuaracies. Devanand Bhagwan exposed him for misstating Dr. Dennis Leblanc’s views about Guyana giving a one-sided story and was not fair in Leblanc’s description and characterization of Guyanese. That is fraud! According to Bhagwan, Leblanc focused on the mental health institute at Canje, with which Freddie is very familiar. But Freddie restated the doctor’s description to mean all of Guyana .
In another piece of  inaccuracy, Freddie claims that Mike Persaud “recently exposed me for claiming whether a distinguished Prof. knows me”. But that is not what Persaud wrote. Persaud said he asked the Prof. if he knows Vishnu Bisram and the Professor said no. But Persaud also mentioned that “the Prof’s memory failed him” (I don’t endorse that unflattering description) because the Prof. also stated, in a communication with me (in the editor’s possession) that he never communicated with Persaud.
The Prof. was a member of my doctoral examination committee and I was his student in several seminars; he was the most learned educator I ever had. The Prof. affirmed that I was his student and recalled our accidental encounter at the Univ of Hawaii Manoa campus around early 2002.
Persaud claims that his memos from the Prof were dated Dec 26, 27. The Prof’s memo to me was dated Jan 3 (KN Jan 6).  Since the memo confirming that the Prof knows me came after Persaud’s memos, out of decency shouldn’t Freddie have made note of it? Isn’t that fraud?
Which decent academic would so deliberately and maliciously mislead readers to malign a person’s reputation? Who now is the real fraudster?
Freddie claims that I penned in response to him that I met with leaders of countries that he wrote about and I claimed I was trained by Profs he quoted. I never made such claims in any responses to Freddie who never quoted from the writings of any of my Professors. It is true I wrote about meeting the PMs and Presidents of India in NY and in India lobbying on behalf of Guyana but not in response to anything Freddie penned; GOPIO President Ashook Ramsaran can attest that I met with leaders of India because we collaborated on a number of projects that benefited Guyana and the Guyanese diaspora.
I was in Delhi early December and Ramsaran was there just two weeks ago, all in a private capacity. I did meet Sonia Gandhi and Ministers Vyalar Ravi, Shashi Tharoor, and Chief Ministers (Sheila Dixit, Narendra Modi-ji), etc on several occasions.
Freddie claimed that I mentioned “I studied at more than six universities”.  That is not factual. It was Freddie who insisted I stated where I studied and my educational achievemnts. For the record, I studied at CCNY, CUNY Doctoral Center, NYU, Indira Gandhi University. I did attend mandated job related seminars and career training sessions, that I never wrote about, at Columbia University, New School for Social Research, Lehman College, Hunter College, Queens College, Baruch College, St. John’s, Brooklyn College but not in any degree granting programs.
One normally receives  certificates for attending these career training workshops and seminars.  I was a guest lecturer and presenter at several universities including UWI, St. Augustine, St. John, Baruch, Brooklyn, Hunter, Indira Gandhi, Fiji National, Univ. of South Pacific, Mahatma Gandhi Institute (Mauritius), JUNU (Delhi). I interacted with students at Delhi University and Benaras Hindu Univ during visits.
In his reply to Freddie (KN Jan 25), Prof. Jeffrey deliberately quoted the American scholar Thomas Sowell on the importance of engaging in academic integrity as well as to learn to tell the truth. It was a seminal lesson given to Freddie who missed Jeffrey’s instructive  message because Freddie still lied on Jan 26 in his letter.
It is understandable because Freddie has shown serious difficulty in the past in comprehending what he reads.
Many credible writers and the publisher as well as the editor chastised Freddie about his inaccuracies and lectured him on the propriety of professionalism when it comes to journalism. But he ignored them all.
Freddie’s commentaries are that of a person with a chip on his shoulder that reflects his shallow thinking and intellect. He is suffering from a serious inferiority complex that no one seems able to heal in spite of repeated efforts from his friends like Mark Benschop and Malcolm Harripaul!
He is irredeemable. And no amount of advice can save him. In reading Freddie, readers please exercise “caveat emptor”, or let the buyer beware!
Nevertheless, I direct Freddie to Adam’s writing style so he can hone his skills.  There is no need to engage in name calling. Write views and offer evidence to support them! Make a value free point. People will respect scholarship (if there is any) even if they disagree with the viewpoint. But they disrespect those who engage in attack labels that are not credible.
Vishnu Bisram

---

---