Wired868 Wired868 for smart sport news and opinion
“[…] While I have no issues with our national emblems being reconsidered and redesigned, because that kind of thinking is long overdue, my quibble lies with how the decision was announced and arrived at—though not in that order.
“[…] It also raises questions of oversight since it is usually the Office of the President that has responsibility for national emblems and symbols…”
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 Newsauce:
Photo: OPM
I wholeheartedly support the inclusion of the steelpan on our coat of arms and the removal of Columbus’ three ships from his first voyage.
The 1961 Committee that oversaw the creation of our national emblems did as best a job as they could have done for their era and now, as an evolving society, we have entered a new era of awareness.
While I have no issues with our national emblems being reconsidered and redesigned, because that kind of thinking is long overdue, my quibble lies with how the decision was announced and arrived at—though not in that order.
Photo: Office of the Parliament 2024
Because the announcement came as a surprise to the population, it suggests that the decision was made by a small group of persons.
In addition, the announcement was made in a political party forum and not a nationally neutral space like the Parliament. It leaves the Prime Minister and Government open to accusations of high-handed authoritarian behaviour.
It also raises questions of oversight since it is usually the Office of the President that has responsibility for national emblems and symbols.
Given that citizens have an opportunity to weigh in on statues and street names in an upcoming consultation, I think the decision to change the coat of arms could have been addressed via that channel.
The consultation space would have also allowed the Government to outline all of the very solid reasons it has for incorporating an instrument so symbolic of our economy and creativity and possibly diffused some of the charged (but expected) ethnocentric rhetoric on the issue.
Only the usual suspects would object to pan replacing vessels symbolic of colonization.
I also think one more indigenous/ First Peoples’ symbol should be on it, since it is their land we all now occupy.
(Courtesy Julie Guyadeen)
Daiz my 2 cents. And may God bless our nation.
“[…] Madam Prime Minister 2.0 I suggest the development of an Innovation/Creative fund to encourage our students to promote math, Read more
“[…] The Government’s position, as expounded by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Affairs Minister, is not neutrality by any Read more
“[…] Today the government is putting us on the wrong side of history and in support of a colonial and Read more
“[…] Dr Eric Williams was clear in his articulation—in a democracy, citizens have both rights and responsibilities. The government, too, Read more
“[…] The US operates with a policy of imperial hegemony—that it and it alone must be in charge. This is Read more
“[…] Independence Day is not merely a ritual—it is a vital reaffirmation of national unity, resilience, and cultural pride… Cancelling Read more
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.
If government insists on including Pan on the coat of arms, I suggest they replace the whole crest with a pan, on its pan stand and with its two sticks. The crest is rather meaningless. The palm tree is not indigenous to TT, the mantle and wreath symbolize nothing. Only the helmet and ship’s wheel have some meaning. The helmet represents British rule and the wheel represents Columbus discovery.
I therefore suggest replacing the three ships on the shield with the helmet and ship’s wheel. This way the pan will have pride of place, symbolizing the present while the helmet and wheel below represent important moments of our history.
Whether the change is a good or bad one, like everything else in this country, is subject to opinion. The prime issue in this is how the decision to effect this change was arrived at. The NATIONAL Coat of Arms is a NATIONAL symbol. No ONE PERSON, and certainly one who is not the HEAD OF STATE, should be able to issue a proclamation from on high changing it without Parliamentary or even nominal public consultation. Trinidad and Tobago is a democratic republic, not a kingdom. And those who have reservations should not be vilified.