Stuart Young Record: Letter Claims Leadership Failure

ARIMA, Trinidad and Tobago — Curtis Anthony OBRADY, in a letter to the editor, argues that the Stuart Young Record reflects failed governance and weakens Young’s criticism of Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s foreign policy direction. OBRADY contends that Young lacks the credibility to question the government’s approach to Venezuela and regional diplomacy.

Full text of the open letter

Letter to the editor Subject: Stuart Young Has No Moral Authority, His Record Is Failure From Start To Finish

Dear Editor,

Stuart Young needs to understand something basic. You cannot fail in office, lose the confidence of the population, and then attempt to lecture the nation as if you still carry credibility. That time is over.

He is now questioning the foreign policy direction of Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, raising issues about Venezuela and Delcy Rodríguez. That is not statesmanship. That is a desperate attempt to stay politically relevant after presiding over one of the most ineffective periods of governance in recent history.

Let us deal with reality.

Stuart Young was not an ordinary minister. He was everywhere. Energy. National Security. Office of the Prime Minister. He sat at the center of power for years. Decisions passed through him. Authority rested with him. Influence surrounded him.

So every failure attached to that administration has his fingerprints on it.

Crime did not explode on its own. National security did not weaken by accident. Economic stagnation did not appear out of nowhere. These are the results of decisions made by people in power. Stuart Young was one of those people.

And now he wants answers.

The country has questions for him first.

Why did crime continue to rise under his watch while citizens lived in fear in their own communities?

Why did the energy sector fail to inspire confidence when he had direct responsibility for it?

Why did the population lose trust in the institutions that his administration controlled?

Why did the government he helped lead get removed from office by the people of Trinidad and Tobago?

Those are not minor issues. Those are core failures.

So when Stuart Young now tries to position himself as some authority on governance, it is not just ironic. It is insulting to the intelligence of the population.

Now let us address the Venezuela matter.

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has taken a firm and clear position in defense of Trinidad and Tobago’s sovereignty and national interest. That is what leadership demands. You do not bend under pressure. You do not operate based on noise from the sidelines. You act based on what protects your country.

Diplomacy is not confusion. Diplomacy is strategy.

Recognition of foreign officials is not determined by political grandstanding. It is determined by structured foreign policy decisions grounded in national security, regional stability, and international alignment.

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar understands that. She has the experience, the track record, and the mandate to make those decisions.

Stuart Young does not.

He had his chance to demonstrate leadership on the regional and international stage. He failed to leave any lasting or meaningful impact that improved the lives of citizens or strengthened the country’s global standing.

Now he wants to question those who are actually governing.

That is not leadership. That is opportunism.

Let us go further.

This sudden interest in Venezuela is not about national interest. It is about political survival. It is about creating headlines. It is about trying to insert himself into a national conversation after being rejected by the electorate.

But the facts are stubborn.

The people of Trinidad and Tobago removed the PNM from office. That was not accidental. That was a judgment. A clear and decisive rejection of poor performance, weak governance, and lack of results.

Stuart Young was part of that failure from beginning to end.

He cannot now rewrite history.

He cannot pretend he was not at the center of decision-making.

He cannot distance himself from the consequences of the administration he helped lead.

And he certainly cannot demand accountability from a government that is now tasked with fixing the damage left behind.

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar is doing exactly what leadership requires. She is making decisions. She is asserting Trinidad and Tobago’s position. She is restoring seriousness to governance.

That is why her leadership deserves respect, not manufactured controversy.

In fact, the wider Caribbean should take note. Strong leadership within CARICOM is essential in a time of global uncertainty. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar has demonstrated that she is willing to stand firm, protect national interests, and engage at the highest levels with clarity and purpose.

That is the standard.

What Stuart Young is offering is noise without responsibility.

He had responsibility before. He did not deliver.

Now he has no responsibility, and he is making the most noise.

That tells you everything.

The population is not interested in recycled voices from failed administrations attempting to regain attention. The population is interested in results, stability, and leadership that actually works.

And that is where the difference is clear.

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar is leading.

Stuart Young is reacting.

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar is making decisions.

Stuart Young is asking questions he had years to answer himself.

Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar is focused on the future of Trinidad and Tobago.

Stuart Young is trapped in the consequences of his past.

So when he speaks now, the country should listen carefully, not to what he is saying, but to what his record has already proven.

He had power. He failed.

He had authority. He did not deliver.

He had opportunity. He lost it.

That is the truth.