I write on behalf of the thousands of working men and women of Trinidad and Tobago who spent their entire productive lives contributing to the National Insurance Scheme, only to retire on a minimum pension of TT$3,000 per month.

Three thousand dollars. That is what a lifetime of work is worth in this country.

Now, let us look at what a lifetime in politics is worth.

A Member of Parliament who serves a single five-year term walks away with a monthly pension of approximately TT$20,515. A long-serving MP or minister — someone who may have served 18 years or more — retires on TT$60,050 per month, a figure that increases automatically every time the Salaries Review Commission grants a raise to sitting parliamentarians. They do not even have to be present in the legislature for their pension to grow. It grows while they sleep.

And at the very top of this pyramid sits the former Prime Minister, entitled under the Prime Minister’s Pension Act to a monthly pension equal to the full salary of the sitting Prime Minister — currently in the region of TT$88,000 per month. That pension, too, rises automatically with every SRC review. It is, in effect, a lifetime guarantee of wealth, funded entirely by the taxpayer.

Let us be precise about what these numbers mean. A retired Prime Minister collects approximately 29 times the pension of the ordinary NIS contributor. A one-term MP — someone who served just five years — collects nearly seven times what the factory worker, the nurse’s aide, the market vendor receives after a lifetime of mandatory contributions.

And lest we forget: an MP who runs for re-election and is rejected by the very electorate they served is entitled to a gratuity of six months’ emoluments ‘to adjust to their new life.’ The ordinary worker receives no such cushion. They receive $3,000 and are expected to survive on it.

It is worth noting that Parliament did recently act on the Prime Minister’s Pension Act — but only to prevent a former PM who served a mere 45 days from qualifying. When the shoe pinched a colleague, reform came swiftly. It has never come with such urgency for the pensioner collecting $3,000 a month.

This is not a partisan observation. Governments of every stripe — PNM and UNC alike — have presided over and benefited from this arrangement. The laws governing parliamentary pensions were not written by accident. They were written by parliamentarians, for parliamentarians, with little regard for the citizens who fund them.

We are a nation that speaks loudly about equality, hard work, and dignity. But our pension system tells a very different story — one in which those who make the laws exempt themselves from the indignities those laws visit upon everyone else.

The Finance Minister has rightly warned that the NIS fund faces collapse within a decade and has announced painful reforms: higher contribution rates, a rising retirement age. Working people are being asked to contribute more and wait longer. That may well be necessary. But it is unconscionable to demand sacrifice from the many while the few continue to draw pensions that would be considered extraordinary in any developed country in the world.

I call on the Government to urgently review the Parliamentary Pension Act and the Prime Minister’s Pension Act; to cap all political pensions at a reasonable and transparent multiple of the NIS minimum; and to index NIS pensions to inflation so that our retirees can live with dignity — not merely exist.

The measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable. Right now, we are failing that test — and every pensioner collecting $3,000 a month feels that failure every single day.

Property Matters – Procuring State Housing – Part 2

Too many of us are witnessing lawsuits used not only as instruments of justice, but as instruments of pressure and silence. There is an increasing effort to silence our citizens. I have come across a global term that more people need to know — SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). SLAPP suits are growing as more citizens stand up, speak out, and demand accountability. This is a conversation we can no longer avoid here in our beautiful country.

I am currently involved in a legal matter scheduled to be heard in 2027. More recently, I have been informed that I am being sued again. While I will engage the legal process as required, there is a broader issue here that goes far beyond any one case.

In a small society like ours, speaking publicly already carries risk. When legal action is used in ways that discourage participation, the effect is entirely predictable. People step back. They say less. Silence begins to replace scrutiny. And that is not a healthy direction for any country that claims to value democracy and free expression.

A SLAPP is not always about winning on merit. It is about burden — legal costs, time, stress — and the quiet message that speaking up may come at too high a price. Whether any particular matter meets that definition is for the courts to determine, but the emerging pattern should concern every one of us.

This is not about one individual or one dispute. It is about the kind of society we are choosing to become.

Do we engage disagreement, or do we suppress it? Do we strengthen our systems, or do we use them selectively?

We often speak about governance, accountability, and national development. Those are not slogans. They require space — space for discussion, for critique, and yes, for discomfort. If our legal processes begin to feel like tools to manage or mute that space, then we must pause and honestly ask ourselves what we are doing and why.

Our systems were designed to protect participation, not discourage it.

The call to action is simple and practical. Let us begin the process of introducing clear anti-SLAPP protections in Trinidad and Tobago — through public consultation, legal review, and legislative reform. Our Law Association, civil society organisations, and policymakers must take this issue seriously and bring forward concrete recommendations. A good first step would be a national public forum where citizens, legal minds, and policymakers can sit together and begin this conversation in earnest.

Let us, as citizens, insist on protecting the space for public participation — especially when the conversations are uncomfortable.

If we want a stronger country, we must be willing to protect the voices that help shape it.

Silence is not peace. It is the beginning of decline.

Sometimes the conversation is neither loud nor dramatic. It is just there, and you are talking, but not really connecting. Such relationships are creating a particular kind of distance that can have a negative impact. Conversations feel tense, repetitive, or carefully managed. You may find yourselves having the same argument again and again or avoiding it altogether. And somewhere along the way, a quiet question begins to surface: “How did we get here?”

Many couples believe they are struggling because of communication. But often, the issue isn’t just what is being said—it is what is happening deep down. An argument about small daily frustrations can carry deeper feelings about being unheard, misunderstood, or unimportant. Over time, these moments build. Reactions become stronger. Patience becomes thinner. Or silence replaces conversation altogether.

What’s happening isn’t simply disagreement. It’s disconnection. And disconnection can be difficult to name, especially when everything on the surface looks “fine.”

That’s why many couples wait. They wait until things feel worse before seeking support. They tell themselves it will pass or that they should be able to fix it on their own. But support is not only for when things are falling apart. It can be a way to understand the patterns you’re caught in—and to begin shifting them before they become more entrenched.

In my work, grounded in Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT), I work with couples to slow down and explore what is beneath the surface of their interactions. The data shows that when you understand what is really happening, something important begins to change.

Interested in learning more or working together? Reach out to Dennise directly:

📧 dennisedemming@gmail.com 💬 WhatsApp: +1 (868) 761 9426 📅 Book Online: https://calendar.app.google/smCTsbWPAEPKs2ck7

This article was originally published on Valentía and Grit: https://valentiandgrit.com/blog/sometimes-it-s-not-the-argument-it-s-what-is-underneath-it

ResetLife Solutions is a safe, supportive space dedicated to helping individuals and couples navigate life’s challenges with clarity and confidence. Founded by Dennise Demming — a licensed therapist based in Trinidad and Tobago and a Walden University graduate with a Master’s in Couples Therapy — ResetLife Solutions offers professional, compassionate therapy tailored to where you are in life.

Our Services

💑 Couples Therapy — Rebuild trust, improve communication, and strengthen your relationship in a safe, guided environment

🙋 Individual Therapy — Personal one-on-one sessions to help you grow, heal, and reset

📞 Discovery Consultation — Not sure where to start? Book a free introductory call to explore how we can work together

Book an Appointment

Ready to take the first step? Choose how you’d like to connect:

📅 Book Online — https://calendar.app.google/smCTsbWPAEPKs2ck7

💬 WhatsApp Us — +1 (868) 761 9426

📧 Email Us — dennisedemming@gmail.com

A recent comment from a visiting sailor has stayed with me in a way that is both embarrassing and deeply concerning. He shared that as he approached Trinidad by sea, he did not need a map to know where he was. The number of plastic bottles floating in our waters told him clearly that he was nearing our shores. That statement should give all of us pause.

Trinidad and Tobago is a beautiful country, but our approach to garbage management undermines that reality. In some communities, garbage is collected three times per week. In others, collection is inconsistent—biweekly or even monthly. This uneven system contributes directly to the buildup of waste in public spaces, drains, and waterways.

What is even more troubling is the absence of a structured, national approach to waste separation. In many other countries I have visited, garbage collection is organized and predictable: one day for general waste, another for plastics, and another for bottles or recyclables. This consistency not only improves efficiency but also encourages citizens to adopt cleaner, more responsible habits.

Here at home, the lack of such systems fosters a culture of indifference. When people see garbage piling up or floating in rivers, it gradually becomes normalized. I have personally observed dirty plastics lining our waterways—clear evidence of a system that is not working.

This is not simply a matter of aesthetics; it is a public health and environmental issue. Poor waste management affects drainage, contributes to flooding, harms marine life, and diminishes national pride.

The current government must take a more deliberate and structured approach. A standardized, island-wide waste collection schedule, combined with public education and enforcement, could significantly improve conditions. Citizens will respond when systems are clear, consistent, and fair.

We cannot continue as we are. If a visitor can identify our country by the garbage in our waters, then it is time for serious reflection—and decisive action. This issue of garbage management is not one that has been seriously implemented by either of the political parties that talk about improving our country.  We must do better.

The recent call for the resignation of the Board of the Children’s Authority raises a bigger issue.

In a country of only 1.3 million people, we can’t keep changing boards every time something goes wrong, or there’s a change of government, and expect different results. While concerns like financial mismanagement must be taken seriously, simply replacing people does not fix the system.

From my experience, board members often know that their time depends on how well they align with the Minister’s expectations. The problem is that those expectations can sometimes be more about party priorities than national ones. That makes it harder for board members to speak up or challenge decisions when necessary.

We need to move away from that. Board appointments should be based on competence, integrity, and a genuine focus on national outcomes—not party interests.

At the same time, we should be demanding better performance, clearer accountability, and real follow-through when things go wrong. Where there are serious failures, boards must be held properly accountable for their decisions, including, where necessary, legal consequences—not simply allowed to walk away.

In a small country like ours, we need continuity, courage, and systems that support good decision-making—not constant starting over.