Dear Editor: T&T Coat of Arms should not be business of any one political party

“[…] It is my view therefore that a decision to alter the Coat of Arms should not have been made by the political directorate at its party convention taking into account the implications for such a change, which is not the responsibility of any political party, but a responsibility of the state.

“[..] Could one element or image be removed without altering the intent and meaning of the original design as was approved by the College of Arms? […]”

The following Letter to the Editor on Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley’s proposed change to the Trinidad and Tobago Coat of Arms was submitted to Wired868 by Bryan St Louis of Bassa Hill, La Brea:

The coat of arms is an official emblem, mark of identification, symbol of the authority of the government of a nation or state. In effect it is really the seal of state of the government and arguably the most important of the national emblems and it is located at the top of all government documents.

It is my view therefore that a decision to alter the Coat of Arms should not have been made by the political directorate at its party convention taking into account the implications for such a change, which is not the responsibility of any political party, but a responsibility of the state.

So, what is the history behind the design of the existing Coat of Arms?

The Coat of Arms of Trinidad and Tobago was designed by a committee formed in 1962 to select the symbols that would be representative of the people of Trinidad and Tobago. The committee included noted artist, the late Carlyle Chang and Carnival designer, the late George Bailey.

The Coat of Arms with the accompanying motifs—which represent indigenous features of Trinidad and Tobago—were selected and formally agreed to be used as the Coat of Arms of Trinidad and Tobago in 1962, in a design approved by the College of Arms.

So, could one element or image be removed without altering the intent and meaning of the original design as was approved by the College of Arms?

If after 62 years politicians now see the need to effect a change to one element because of the negative historical connection, then maybe we may have to consider if it is time for us to review the contents of every element or image on the Coat of Arms and come up with a new design going forward.

For instance, most Tobagonians see the Cocrico birds as noisy pests. Additionally, what were the other images intended to reflect?

A change in the design of the existing Coat of Arms should not only be about attempting to erase part of our history as it relates to the role played by Columbus and the colonisers.

It should be about creating and designing a new coat of arms which would reflect what we stand for as a cosmopolitan people of Trinidad and Tobago.

I may be wrong in my views but I suggest the need for a committee, as was done in 1962, to be formed to select the appropriate symbols. Those symbols would be a positive and progressive representation of the people of Trinidad and Tobago—keeping our history as Trinbagonians intact as well as reflecting our advances.

Nuff said! Let us begin a meaningful conversation on this development and other not so related issues.

More from Wired868

Daly Bread: Being the solution we seek—time for T&T to stand up

As I close off three weeks of analysis of pan manufacturing, I will refer to the inspiration to be taken Read more

Dear Editor: Should we reintroduce late president Hassanali’s no-alcohol policy at state functions?

“[…] The sight of public officials indulging in alcohol sends mixed messages, particularly to younger generations, who are often told Read more

Daly Bread: Reclaiming pan manufacturing; and Pan Trinbago’s controversial headquarters

“All those initiatives are undermined by the fact that in 2024, the Steelpan Manufacturing sector does not have a dedicated Read more

Dr Farrell: Dr Deyalsingh was wrong; let’s stop ramshackle cases for retaining Privy Council

“[…] The accusations of political or cultural bias against our judges are simply not warranted on the facts which I Read more

Dear Editor: The notorious Christopher Columbus must not be celebrated

“[…] Mr Rushton Paray opined that if we removed the ships from our coat of arms and removed the monuments Read more

Dear Editor: Disrespectful to remove street sign for cricket legend Jack Noreiga

“[…] The practice of naming streets in the La Horquetta Housing Development after the country’s leading personalities started under then Read more

Letters to the Editor

Want to share your thoughts with Wired868? Email us at editor@wired868.com.
Please keep your letter between 300 to 600 words and be sure to read it over first for typos and punctuation.
We don’t publish anonymously unless there is a good reason, such as an obvious threat of harassment or job loss.