Security Needs Answers, Not Drama

National security is being reduced to political drama.  Many of us followed the recent parliamentary debate on the proposed United States–linked radar installation in Tobago, simply hoping for a clearer explanation. What exactly is being built? Why Tobago? And how will this affect us? Unfortunately, those basic questions were never properly answered, leaving many citizens more uncertain than informed.

It has been widely stated that Trinidad and Tobago has, for many years, participated in Caribbean and hemispheric security cooperation under different governments. It is also worth asking whether our country already operates coastal surveillance radar systems in both Trinidad and Tobago as part of wider regional information-sharing arrangements aimed at tracking illegal drugs, weapons, and human trafficking. Similar systems reportedly exist across the Caribbean and are supported through long-standing regional agreements and partnerships with international allies.

This broader context was missing from the parliamentary debate. Instead of helping citizens understand how this installation fits into existing arrangements, the discussion focused narrowly on secrecy.

What many citizens really want answered are practical questions. Who will control the data collected in Tobago? Will local agencies have full access? Which authority will provide oversight and ensure compliance with our laws? And do we actually have the boats, trained personnel, and resources to act when threats are detected?

These questions go to the heart of sovereignty and public trust. Citizens of Trinidad and Tobago deserve calm explanation, honest engagement, and clear accountability. National security is too important to be reduced to political drama.

Take Your Hands Off our Banks!

Citizens are concerned about the recent case of First Citizens Bank CEO Karen Darbasie. Reports indicate that on August 20, 2025, Minister Kennedy Swaratsingh instructed her to begin paid vacation leave immediately. This was earlier than the September 1 date previously discussed with the bank’s board. What should have been a board matter appeared instead to be directed from above.

A second troubling concern is the claim by former Central Bank Governor, Dr Alvin Hilaire. In a pre-action protocol letter, his attorneys state that on June 24, 2025, Minister Swaratsingh visited him. The minister pressed for his immediate resignation, offering full payment for the rest of his term. It is also alleged that threatened dismissal later that day was part of the discussion. Interestingly, hours later, his appointment was revoked by the President.

Whether taken together or separately, these incidents blur the line between political authority and institutional independence. If allowed to continue, they threaten public trust in both our financial and constitutional systems.

Governments worldwide must act through proper governance structures—not through direct ministerial pressure. Once these boundaries are breached, the costs are felt by the entire society through instability, bailouts, and weak economic growth.

What Trinidad and Tobago needs now is a clear recommitment to strong governance. Boards must act without fear. Regulators must defend the system. Politicians must respect limits. This is not about one CEO or one administration. This is about protecting confidence in our financial system. The system is the backbone of our economy and future.

For the protection of depositors, investors, and the public, the government must not interfere in the day-to-day management of banks. They must be allowed to function independently. Without trust, there is no confidence, and without confidence, there is no stability.

In the lead-up to the general elections, I interpreted this government’s promises and invitation for support as transformational. They suggested structural reform and fairness to all citizens. I also saw calls for honesty and integrity. The government promised to operate in the best interest of all. So far, I am concerned that these interpretations are not being validated. #wemustdobetter.

#integrity, #honesty #freedom

Fariness necessary in Sandals deal …

The return of Sandals to the headlines, through the recent statement by Minister Stuart Young SC, is a reminder that we’ve learned little from the mistakes of the past. As someone who once served as Chairman of the Tourism Development Company (TDC), I speak from personal experience. I was asked to resign from that post—not because I had done anything wrong, but because I stood by a simple, fair principle: that whatever incentives and benefits were offered to Sandals should also be made available to local hoteliers and guesthouse owners.

When I refused to resign on principle, I was advised by the then Minister of Finance to cite “family matters” as my reason, or as he put it, to “take one for the boys.” I rejected both suggestions. I had done nothing wrong.

What I had done was advocate for fairness and transparency in tourism development. Unfortunately, that advocacy was inconvenient to the powers pushing the Sandals deal. The now-infamous Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), exposed thanks to Afra Raymond’s successful legal challenge, showed a lopsided agreement. The state was to fund and build the resort on public land, while Sandals would enjoy sweeping concessions—tax holidays, duty-free status, unlimited work permits for foreigners, and no obligations to local employment. All risk, all cost, all burden—carried by the public.

Is that development, or is it a handover?

The rejection of the project by Tobagonians was not arbitrary. As THA Chief Secretary Farley Augustine noted, it was undemocratic, economically unsound, and environmentally questionable. The proposed site—No Man’s Land—is a Ramsar-listed wetland. Yet, to date, there has been no public disclosure about environmental safeguards or updated assessments.

Development cannot happen in darkness. It cannot bypass stakeholders or sideline local businesses. If we are to believe that lessons have been learned, then this new approach must:

  1. Ensure full transparency, including the release of all agreements before they are finalized.
  2. Require rigorous environmental scrutiny.
  3. Treat local hoteliers and guesthouses with the same regard as international chains.
  4. Involve real public and stakeholder consultation—not after the fact, but from the start.

Tourism is critical to Tobago’s future, but not on any terms and certainly not at any cost. Fairness and public accountability should not be punished—they should be the minimum standard. The core elements that shape a successful and sustainable tourism experience are Culture, Conversation and Community.  Are these 3 C’s included in the Sandals meeting of April 7?

Public figures must expect scrutiny, welcome debate

Our country continues to fail in terms of accountability, and citizens are continuously discouraged from expressing their views on any matter. Those who comment are often accused of being politically motivated.

In any democratic society, media freedom and public discourse are essential pillars of accountability. The recent statement by Prime Minister Dr. Keith Rowley, in which he dismissed criticisms from Mr. Paul as “talking foolishness” and implied that a $2.5 million payment could have influenced Paul’s stance, raises serious concerns about the government’s relationship with the media and critics. Mr. Anthony Paul has over 40 years of experience as an energy, policy, and strategy advisor and has worked with the government under every Political party.

Dismissing criticism outright, rather than engaging with the substance of concerns, sets a troubling precedent. Public figures must expect scrutiny and welcome debate to signify a healthy democracy. When political leaders resort to attacking critics personally instead of addressing their claims, it can create a culture of fear and discourage individuals from speaking out against government actions, while simultaneously increasing distrust of the government. Without regular, quality investigative journalism, the role of the media as a watchdog for the people is significantly undermined. This, in turn, weakens transparency, which is important because the government must at all times remember that they are employed by the citizenry, and must answer to them for all actions taken on behalf of the country, just as in any employer-employee relationship.

The Prime Minister’s remark also suggests that financial incentives may influence public opinion. Here is a quote: “Let me tell you something, if we had paid Mr. Paul the $2.5 million he had requested for a little job that we had asked him to do way up in the early part of the last administration which I led, he might not have been on television now talking foolishness and trying to cast aspersions on the people who are doing decent, effective work on behalf of the people of Trinidad and Tobago. And I take a serious umbrage at people like that, with their personal grouse, going on television and misrepresenting the facts of the governance of this country because you wouldn’t know when he’s talking there, that he was in fact very early in our tenure in the last government, one of the geologists who could have done something for this country but his price was too high…”

This raises ethical concerns about the relationship between financial dealings and political discourse. Should contractors or professionals fear that their work—or lack of government funding—could dictate whether they have a right to criticize public officials?

Further, the reference to a “little job” costing $2.5 million raises questions about transparency in government contracts. How was this amount determined? Why was the payment not made? Was the decision based on merit, financial constraints, or political considerations? The public deserves clear answers to ensure that procurement processes are fair and that public funds are managed responsibly.

Politically, the Prime Minister’s statement may have mixed effects. His supporters may view it as a strong defense against baseless criticism, while his detractors may see it as an inappropriate response that exposes deeper governance issues. Regardless of perspective, such statements contribute to a growing perception that political discourse in Trinidad and Tobago is becoming more combative rather than constructive.

A government committed to transparency should address criticisms with facts, not insults. If leaders want to foster a culture of respect and accountability, they must rise above personal attacks and instead welcome scrutiny as an essential part of governance. The Prime Minister’s words have sparked a conversation, and how he chooses to respond going forward will determine whether this moment is one of division or an opportunity for greater openness.

3–4 minutes

Time for Pension Reform

In our democracy, politicians are public servants employed by citizens. Their salaries, benefits, and pensions are paid through taxes, which are subtracted from citizens’ income every month. 

These leaders are entrusted with acting in the best interests of the people by crafting policies that ensure fairness and address societal needs. However, in Trinidad and Tobago, the stark disparity in pensions highlights a troubling breach of this trust and raises questions about accountability.

As of 2025, taxpayers are responsible for funding Prime Minister Dr. Keith Rowley’s pension, which is nearly one million dollars annually for the rest of his life. This amount is over 24 times what the average pensioner receives. The Prime Minister’s monthly pension alone could sustain an average retiree for more than two years. In contrast, the majority of senior citizens rely on the National Insurance System (NIS) for a modest TT$3,000 per month to cover basic needs like food, utilities, and medical expenses.

The Prime Minister’s Pension Act ensures that this retirement benefit is tied to the highest salary earned during their tenure, even if the salary adjustment occurred late in their career. This allows high-ranking public servants to secure pensions at the peak of their earnings – an advantage unavailable to the average citizen, whose pensions are typically calculated on lower salary scales and subject to strict caps. This is a system that has been kept out of the control of the public servants’ employers – the citizens – leaving the servants with the lion’s share of taxes raised, while many employer-citizens are left nearly destitute, and in some cases, literally destitute. 

The Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago has acknowledged the challenges of such systemic imbalances. In May 2023, it published the paper “National Pension Reform: Initial Considerations for Trinidad and Tobago”, emphasizing the urgent need for reform. The report concluded with a warning: “Delays in restructuring will result in the need for more drastic corrective actions in the future. All reforms should be driven from the top; pension system reform requires a firm political commitment, while consistent monitoring and evaluation will be the cornerstone of any successful restructuring.”

This warning remains particularly relevant today. The glaring disparities in pension allocations not only worsen income inequality but also represent a callous misallocation of public resources. Leadership should embody shared sacrifice and solidarity, yet a system that allows one individual’s pension to dwarf the incomes of thousands of retirees undermines the principles of fairness and equity.

True leadership is not just about policymaking but about setting an example. Politicians must recognize their duty to act in the public’s best interest, rather than prioritizing their own. Reforming the pension system provides an opportunity for leaders to demonstrate their commitment to fairness and accountability.

The Central Bank’s call for firm political action must not go unheeded. The current pension system is both unjust and unsustainable. Reform is no longer optional—it is a moral and economic imperative. By addressing these disparities, leaders can restore trust, bridge the gap between privilege and struggle, and create a society that values fairness for all.

The realization that just one month of the Prime Minister’s pension could sustain an average retiree for two years is demoralizing, especially for those struggling to cover basic needs. Despite this frustration, calls for reform have been limited. Activists and concerned citizens have proposed measures such as capping pensions for high-ranking officials, redistributing benefits more equitably, and increasing the base pension for the most vulnerable.

Citizens have grown increasingly frustrated, but unfortunately not enough to change their voting habits. Is it that our citizens are happier with grumbling and complaints in our mouths than actual food? We need to acknowledge our part in our misfortune and act to correct it.

It’s time to do better.

A chance for fresh ideas …

‘Now that we’re in 2025, it’s worth asking: what will you quit? What projects, strategies, or habits are no longer serving your goals? Quitting doesn’t mean you lack perseverance. It means you have the courage and clarity to let go of what holds you back and focus on what truly matters.’

These insightful words from Dr Keita Demming resonate deeply as T& T comes to terms with Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley’s unexpected announcement of departure from office.

In a move that reshapes the political landscape, Dr Rowley declared his intention to step down before the end of the parliamentary term, marking the end of his leadership era. Speaking in Tobago, he confirmed he will not seek re-election and will retire ahead of the legal deadline, leaving his party and the nation to grapple with the timing and its broader implications.

This sudden declaration, reminiscent of his earlier decision to delegate the announcement of a state of emergency to Stuart Young, has again sparked questions about his leadership style and decision-making process.

There are unresolved national challenges that need his urgent attention as long as he is the Prime Minister. Under his tenure, T& T has struggled with rising crime, increasingly porous borders, escalating illegal arms and drug trafficking, an overburdened judicial system, and troubling allegations of gang infiltration in both the Police Service and the Defence Force. His inability to address these systemic issues after 38 years in public life casts a shadow over his legacy, leaving many to view his time in office as deeply disappointing. Will his successor be more successful?

This announcement places the People’s National Movement (PNM) and the nation in a precarious position. Should Dr Rowley step down before Parliament dissolves, the President will be tasked with appointing a new prime minister, adding to political uncertainty and raising concerns about the PNM’s readiness for a smooth leadership transition. Many fear this abrupt decision has created confusion and left citizens questioning what lies ahead.

Opposition Leader Kamla Persad- Bissessar may also need to consider stepping aside, offering her party a chance to redefine its leadership and direction. For both major political parties, this moment presents an opportunity to break cycles of stagnation, attract disengaged voters, and introduce fresh ideas to the electorate.

As Dr Demming wisely notes, quitting can signify courage and clarity. Dr Rowley’s decision challenges T& T to rethink our future politically, socially, and structurally. Hopefully, his departure from politics is final. It will offer a chance to seize this moment of transition to foster growth, unity, and progress for the nation. Let’s move upward together.

o

Watch Your Words, Mr Prime Minister

John Acton’s (1834-1902) famous quote, Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” serves as a stark reminder of the risks of unchecked authority.

In Trinidad and Tobago, Prime Minister Dr. Keith Rowley has drawn growing criticism for his increasingly harsh and at times, derogatory language—a significant shift from the more respectful tone he maintained as Leader of the Opposition from 2010 to 2015. His rhetoric as Prime Minister raises important questions about the role of language in leadership.

During his tenure as Leader of the Opposition, Dr. Rowley’s public comments were mostly respectful, allowing for civil discourse. However, since becoming Prime Minister, his language has at times taken a more troubling turn. In one notable exchange with businessman Inshan Ishmael, Dr. Rowley responded to criticism by saying, “kiss my ar**” and, “You GO TO HELL!!!” Many citizens, who expect dignity from their leaders, expressed disappointment, noting the lack of courtesy expected from a national figure.

This shift extends beyond isolated exchanges. In defending industrialist Navin Jindal against opposition critiques, Dr. Rowley dismissed opposition members as “louts” and “miscreants”—words that did not address their concerns but rather diminished their legitimacy. Such language contributes to an erosion of civil discourse, not only within Parliament but across the nation. As Prime Minister, Dr. Rowley sets a standard for the country, and his words shape public dialogue both domestically and internationally. When the discourse deteriorates, the chance for constructive conversation diminishes as well.

Young people, in particular, look to national leaders as role models. Disparaging language from such a high office undermines this influence and weakens the integrity expected of leadership. Leadership should come with a level of respect, especially given that authority is a privilege conferred by the people.

Dr. Rowley’s use of terms like “jammetry” and “dotishness” further exemplifies a dismissive approach that can alienate and dismiss the concerns of citizens. Such rhetoric—whether it involves “louts,” “miscreants,” or other insults—creates a climate where genuine issues are undermined by the power of negative language.

When respect for language fades, so does discipline in leadership. Words matter; they have the power to uplift or to divide. Prime Minister Dr. Rowley’s use of derogatory language erodes the respect for his office, underscoring the need for leaders who use language to build bridges rather than barriers. Citizens, political allies, and opponents alike must demand a higher standard, urging leaders to rise above petty insults and speak in ways that unite and inspire the nation.

I have been told a paraphrase of Acton’s quote: “Absolute power releases you to be the derrière you always were.” Ultimately, we must hold all of our civil servants accountable for their language, even if they are the Prime Minister.

What criteria was used to measure Erla’s performance?

When Erla Harewood-Christopher assumed the role of Acting Commissioner of Police in December 2022 following the vacation of her predecessor, McDonald Jacob I was optimistic that things would change and our approach to crime would improve.  Her official appointment in February 2023 as our country’s first female Commissioner of Police created an even more positive anticipation especially as she pledged to usher in meaningful changes to combat crime and ensure public safety.  Yet at the moment, I am saddened and bereft of hope regarding our ability to reduce crime and in particular, gun violence.

In February 2023, in the Joint Select Committee (JSC) she boldly stated that a reduction in the murder rate would be noticeable in the short term by June, and significantly improved in the long term by December. Fast forward 14 months, and the reality is starkly different. The murder rate continued to soar, leaving us citizens gripped with fear and insecurity, reluctant to venture out of our homes.

Despite this failure to deliver on her promises, Harewood-Christopher finds herself reappointed, raising questions about accountability and the criteria for leadership within the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service (TTPS).

As the months passed after her reappointment, it became evident that the promised changes were not materializing. So, what went wrong? What measurement were they using for her performance? The fact that she was breathing? That she didn’t fall asleep in meetings?

What criteria should have been used to measure her performance, and how do we tweak it so that she actually ends up effectively combating crime?

Firstly, there needs to be a reassessment of the strategies employed by the TTPS. Rather than solely focusing on reactive measures, such as increasing patrols and arrests, there must be a shift towards proactive, community-oriented policing. Building trust between law enforcement and communities is essential for gathering intelligence and preventing crime before it occurs.

Additionally, investment in technology and modern forensic techniques can enhance the investigative capabilities of the police force, leading to higher conviction rates and deterrence.

Furthermore, giving every citizen the mental and financial tools to function in society will help with addressing the root causes of crime, such as poverty and unemployment, is paramount. Implementing social programs and initiatives aimed at empowering marginalized communities can disrupt the cycle of crime and create a safer society for all.

To reassure citizens of a safe future, transparency and communication are key. The TTPS must be forthcoming about their strategies and progress in tackling crime, fostering trust and collaboration with the public.

While the reappointment of Erla Harewood-Christopher raises concerns about accountability, it also presents an opportunity for reflection and reform within the Trinidad and Tobago Police Service. 

By making clear to the public what benchmarks she must achieve at regular intervals, so we know if she’s actually justifying her salary; by studying various crime-generating situations to see how they can be defused so that strategies can be executed against crime; and by prioritizing community engagement, we can work towards a safer and more secure future for all citizens.  

As of now, I am scared and without hope!

Vote based on shared principles

VOTING has evolved into a commercial enterprise within our twin-island republic. Over the past six decades, it has shifted from a genuine act of civic engagement to a mere transactional activity.

My mother-in-law (the late Hannah Demming) and her contemporaries lobbied for universal adult suffrage and for women to be given the right to vote. They understood the true significance of participating in the democratic process. They were also proud champions of women’s rights.

Sadly, our society has transformed and, in today’s world, there are people who promote political parties because they are being paid; some for cash and a T-shirt, while others expect to get a house, or a contract, or a job. Our two race-based political parties are allegedly guilty of purchasing votes.

In 2010, the coalition of the People’s Partnership, made up of five political parties-the United National Congress, the Congress of the People, the Tobago Organisation of the People, the Movement for Social Justice and the National Joint Action Committee-won the general election.

An Express article of July 7, 2015, reported a statement by then-opposition leader Dr Keith Rowley that ‘government ministers are handing out hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to buy votes in the upcoming general election’.

Another disconcerting example of voter purchasing was highlighted in a television interview featuring a woman who openly admitted to attending a protest solely for financial gain.

In these instances, individuals were paid to lend their presence to political events, neither with genuine commitment to the party they support nor an understanding of the value systems to which they ascribe. The disconcerting truth is that our leaders and their close-support circle begin their journey with corruption and expect that when they get into office, they will somehow transform these supporters.

These payments from political parties extend beyond mere cash transactions. The phrase ‘who has more food feeds more fowl’ sadly captures the prevailing sentiment in our society, reflecting a transactional approach to civic engagement.

The deeply disheartening issue is that we do not understand this is an artificially created situation engineered over decades to benefit a few people, among whom are members of the government and opposition alike.

We have been artificially kept in a state of lack for decades. We should have been the most developed Caribbean country, but our income has frequently been diverted to places unknown.

Critical infrastructure has been ignored; major water lines, healthcare services, education systems, even traffic control have not been adequately maintained, even though we made billions of dollars of foreign currency reserves. Because this has happened, politicians now have a condition where they can buy votes to stay in power while delivering nearly nothing to their employers (the general public).

The true impact of voter buying is that it has diminished the fundamental democratic right for citizens to express their civic duty.

As a society, we stand at a crossroads, with an opportunity to redefine our values and practices. Initiating this change at the political level is where we need to begin. We must encourage citizens to vote for a party based on shared principles, rather than inducements. This shift in perspective can pave the way for more genuine and principled democratic participation, restoring the true spirit of voting as a powerful tool for civic expression.

We owe it to ourselves and our children to shift voting from a transactional activity to a genuine act of civic engagement. It is time to take back the power we surrendered (our votes) so that we can, for ourselves, decide how our country should grow.

Kudos to Dr Rowley, but now Persad-Bissessar should step aside for UNC to re-create itself …

Congratulations to the PNM on their victory at the polls under the leadership of Dr Keith Christopher Rowley. Congratulations also to the ongoing Leader of the Opposition Mrs Kamla Persad-Bissessar.

Unless the results in the marginal constituencies are in the single digits, it would be a foolhardy pursuit to seek any recounts. I hope that as the sting of the defeat recedes, this idea will also fade from the memory of Mrs Persad-Bissessar—therefore sparing the population of this aggravation.

Photo: UNC political leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar.
(via UNC)

Mrs Persad-Bissessar’s biggest obligation is to provide the UNC with an opportunity to re-imagine what the party can look like on Election Night 2025. The first step in this process is to provide a clear path by resigning as MP and anointing a suitable successor to run in the Siparia By-Election which will be triggered.

From the historical patterns, that person will be successful— so it is a relatively risk-free activity which also has the potential to help the party heal, re-create itself and signal a different role for the Opposition in Parliament.

It can happen that a loss may be a better teacher than a win, especially since the winner is not likely to change strategies. This loss provides the UNC with a tremendous opportunity to think deeply about our society and how future elections can be conducted.

Unfortunately, the 2020 campaigns continued the focus on an ‘us versus them’ strategy and not on messages which spoke to: ‘we, the people…’.

My subjective observation is that the electioneering and dirty tricks have reached a new low with attacks and counter-attacks. Some believe that it is entrenched and all we can expect is the continuation of gutter politics, but I am not convinced.

Photo: Then Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar (left) shakes hands with her successor, Dr Keith Rowley, en route to Nelson Mandela’s funeral in South Africa.
(Courtesy News.Gov.TT)

I still believe that there are citizens who want better and are interested in the social transformation that is required to make Trinidad and Tobago a place of excellence. If we can transform the political parties, there is hope for our country.

A re-imagined UNC has an opportunity to embrace a digital strategy as it rebuilds itself, using platforms which allow it to keep in touch with members in real time. The UNC might take the lead on targeting different segments of the voter population directly and not having to rely on third party platforms like Facebook and Twitter, which currently appear to have their own filters, biases and priorities.

A properly re-imagined UNC will be able to identify new areas of focus and therefore keep its membership continuously engaged around its plans and activities. If this is done, a permanent change in the election game might occur and this can steer the country in a new, beneficial direction.

The UNC has been given an opportunity to analyse, adapt, build and prepare for 2025. Unfortunately, the pattern is for parties to use that time in opposition to tear down and have a mad scamper to appeal to the electorate in the final months before the subsequent General Election.

For the love of your country, please Mrs Persad-Bissessar, go in peace!

Photo: UNC political leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar on the campaign trail in the build-up to the 2020 General Election.
(via UNC)