Helen Drayton
Another day in the land of Moko Jumbies, plenty of cacophony and nonsense, with rapid swings from one controversy to another, as political tribal rivalry has shifted from spiced-up witticisms and picong to a cancerous amoeba eating at the heart of our democracy.
In the Parliament session on Friday 2nd October 2026, the Speaker, who is entrusted with stewarding the process of Government accountability and representation of the people’s interest, decided that an omission by MP Marvin Gonzales of three words, “I beg to move”, was more important than a debate on the delivery of a life-sustaining resource—clean water. Hansard recorded the Speaker allowing one member to exceed their allotted time, then denying Member Gonzales mere seconds to utter three words of formality, before inexplicably declaring the motion defeated and barring further debate. Traditionally, past Speakers merely called upon the Member to say, “I beg to move.” Such glaring inconsistency transcends political partisanship and tribalism. It is a matter of judgement and character.
Disappointing were the Prime Minister’s inappropriate remarks that teenagers who choose to behave like adults cannot expect to fall back on their status as children when the law intervenes, in response to comments on a viral video concerning the disappearance of a child. Consider the unfortunate 13-year-old; she’d gone missing for 26 days and was found in the company of a 49-year-old man. Obviously, she isn’t attending school; a woman said she was her “legal guardian.” No information on a father or the man.
And, for a lagniappe in contradictions and tribalism. Business community members baulked at legislation that raised the legal drinking age. The Government claimed the legislation was necessary to protect our young people. Then they reduced alcohol duties, presumably to help local producers. The businesspeople are happy.
Now for the Local Government Budgets: The country’s progress depends largely on a mature Government and Opposition, capable of moral reasoning, objective decision-making, and navigating increasingly complex economic, technological, and social environments. One may assume that our governments use objective criteria to allocate financial resources for capital projects and ensure equitable distribution. Development funding for the PNM-controlled municipal corporations fell by about $49.55 million in 2027 compared with 2026, while funding for the UNC corporation fell by $3.06 million. The PNM corporations will receive $31.62 million in development funding, down from $81.17 million in 2026, and the UNC corporations will receive $187.4 million in 2027, down from $190.46 million in 2026. The figures show a significant redistribution of capital development allocations under Head 42, with UNC-controlled corporations receiving about 85.6 per cent of capital programme projects, compared with 14.4 per cent for PNM-controlled corporations.
The issue is whether, in allocating resources, governments respect the principle that public resources belong to the people, not to the party exercising power or to whichever political party corporations should benefit most. All citizens are entitled to proper sanitation, drainage, road maintenance, and a healthy environment. Those public services should not depend on who controls a municipality.
Transparency in allocation criteria is essential and should be clearly outlined in budget statements and parliamentary debate. Fairness does not require equal allocations, as each municipality’s needs vary by population, geography, infrastructure, public health, and environmental risks. Employment and service continuity must also be considered. Municipalities facing underinvestment, maintenance backlogs, or deteriorating infrastructure may warrant priority, as do those with potential for economic diversification. Inequitable allocations based on political expediency can undermine constitutional democracy when some communities receive poorer, fewer services because of their elected representatives’ political profiles. The practical value of electoral representation diminishes.
Citizens should be able to distinguish between fairness and political patronage—that’s good government—but they struggle to do so because of a lack of transparency. Consequently, accusations of discrimination, bias, revengefulness and punishment of opposition voters are bound to follow.
Notably, Prime Minister, the Honourable Kamla Persad-Bissessar, said her Government’s approach to national development is people-centred and that the budget will reflect that. But if the inequitable distribution of resources results in dreadful community conditions, garbage pileups, sewerage leaks, and a general lack of maintenance of public infrastructure, it creates health and other environmental hazards.
Justifiable Questions
The 2027 Budget figures raise justifiable questions, and one particularly revealing comparison is that Tunapuna/Piarco, with a population of approximately 215,119 (CSO 2011), receives $9.0 million for capital projects, while Penal/Debe, with a population of 89,392, receives $38.2 million. Such a difference requires an explanation based on identifiable needs and development goals. It may well be justified, but we don’t know. The aggregate budgets (recurrent costs plus capital development) show that PNM corporations received about $491.0 million more than UNC corporations. The PNM allocation is $1.29 billion, compared with UNC’s $799.0 million. However, the capital budget is what funds infrastructure development and maintenance, as well as public services such as sanitation.
A government’s obligation to provide essential public services should not depend on communities’ political preferences, and citizens should not lose their right to equitable treatment because their municipal representatives belong to another political party. Furthermore, when funds are insufficient to address critical needs such as garbage collection and blocked drains, the costs shift onto households, businesses, and the health system. Similarly, cuts to municipal employment undermine a corporation’s capacity to deliver the very services it exists to provide.
Local Government transformation has been touted for years, and in July 2022, the President of the Republic assented to the Miscellaneous Provisions (Local Government Reform) Act 2022. That Act aimed to operationalise a significant local government transformation by empowering local bodies and strengthening their decision-making powers. Recently, Parliament passed a Municipal Corporations Bill to create the City of Chaguanas and make Barataria, Couva, St Augustine, and Sangre Grande boroughs. That legislation has nothing to do with transforming local government to improve service-delivery efficiency.
Local government should transform constituencies into vibrant economies through strong leadership, vision, integrity, and enterprise. Yet, over the past two decades, more than $25 billion remains unaccounted for. Without proper accountability, it is unclear how much was spent on community needs, the extent of corruption, or whether additional funding is warranted. Regional corporations are required to submit annual financial statements for auditing by the Attorney General, but many—UNC and PNM alike—have failed to do so for years. When submitted, these often lack receipts and supporting documents.
In our current context, accountability systems have eroded, particularly in Parliament. The Opposition must be united and act strategically to hold the Government to account.
Cancerous tribal governance hinders progress.
