Wired868 Wired868 for smart sport news and opinion
Since her return from Opposition to the office of prime minister, Kamla Persad-Bissessar (Kamla) has been putting great emphasis on her United National Congress (UNC) Government treating the battered population with empathy.
On the occasion of the ceremonial opening of the new Parliament, a little over a week ago, the Kamla grandly returned to that promised approach.
(Copyright Office of the Parliament 2023._
She was quoted as saying: “Our citizens have chosen healing over harm. They have chosen compassion over contempt. They have chosen inclusion over elitism, and they have chosen accountability over interference.
“A decade of arrogance, abuse, neglect and greed is over. Today we step into the sunlight of a new people-centred government”.
Kamla’s return to that theme, after its introduction at her swearing-in, was sadly preceded by a lack of self-restraint on the part of other members of her government.
Photo: Sunil Lalla/ UNC.
The tone of empathy, which is reflected in Kamla’s lofty general statements is noticeably missing when the government’s spokespersons readily descend into the blame game in dealing with specific longstanding problems.
That is a game which is characterised by the contempt and arrogance, which the Prime Minister would have us believe her hovernment has foresworn in favour of “healing”.
For example, immediately before her statement to the opening of Parliament, the Water and Sewerage Authority (WASA)—nobody’s favourite organization—continued to be the centre of the never-ending blame game about water distribution.
Copyright: Office of Parliament 2025.
The Minister of Public Utilities and, significantly, also Minister in the Office of the Prime Minister, Barry Padarath MP, condemned WASA for “geographic discrimination” in the distribution of water.
Minister Padarath and his predecessor as Minister of Public Utilities in the defeated People’s National Movement (PNM) Government, Marvin Gonzalez, then engaged in a war of words, laced with personal insult, over whether WASA has or will produce a report confirming the alleged geographic discrimination. See the Trinidad Guardian of 22 May 2025.
Where is the report? It is the report, if it exists, and not the trading of insults and blame that may lead to accountability and improvement in service delivery.
Copyright: Office of the Parliament 2025.
Both these public officials should know that “liar” is not a problem solving term.
Meanwhile, last week there were unfulfilled promises about the release of more information about this government’s intended variations of what the previous government put in place at WASA.
The traditional blame game also has a dark resonance with my decades of commentary asserting that political contest and gaining public office in our tiny island nation is not directed to the welfare and or improvement of living conditions of our citizens.
I wrote this as long ago as 2012: “Politicians or political parties have been unable to overcome the same khaki pants syndrome.
“Ten years have gone since I wrote that both Bim and Bam have had their turns to reign; but which average person on the East-West corridor or on the plains of Central respectively can truthfully say that, as a result of the reign of either Bim or Bam, they gained anything more than a temporary feeling of importance?”
We have an unchanging political arena of insulting contention and political vendetta, bare of rational policy prescriptions.
(via CNC3.)
Into this arena has stepped a group called the PNM Changemakers, whose well circulated social media output is also characterized by openly hating on others, but on others within their own fold. This is highly unusual for the PNM.
Is it that the Changemakers comprise the rump of the ill-fated Rowley/Young axis?
Are they unwilling to concede that command of the party must now pass to others whom they may not like, but who may be elected by the party membership whose vote was previously evaded when Rowley—with disastrous results—thrust Stuart Young on the PNM as his successor to the office of prime minister?
Photo: OPM.
When Shakespeare’s Hamlet was at his most depressed about the world around him he lamented: “How weary, stale, flat and unprofitable seemed to me all the uses of this world.”
He complained that this world resembled an un-weeded garden and that all that grew in it were things that were “rank and gross on nature”. These words seem to me apt to describe the uses of our political world.
It is usual for all attention to be put on Tubal Uriah Butler on Labour Day. This year, however, my Read more
“[…] The 10 years under the Dr Keith Rowley-led PNM saw a vicious attack on the trade union movement and Read more
“There are two things that are important in politics,” said Mark Hanna, a 19th-century businessman and political kingmaker in Cleveland, Read more
In the run-up to our General Elections, I indicated how the world’s events impact our country and how our method Read more
The level of divisiveness in our small island nation—about which I gave examples in my recent columns—will undoubtedly compound the Read more
Over the past few weeks, Kitchener’s 1961 calypso Take yuh meat out of meh rice kept ringing in my ears. Read more
Martin G Daly SC is a prominent attorney-at-law. He is a former Independent Senator and past president of the Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago.
He is chairman of the Pat Bishop Foundation and a steelpan music enthusiast.
If Martin Daly wishes to meaningfully contribute to public debate, he must stop using columns as poetic laments and start engaging with power, structure, and consequence. Until then, his writing will continue to sound like Hamlet—but without the will to act.
The column invites passive disillusionment. Daly’s habitual style is sentiment over substance, listing symptoms without diagnosis or prescription, and resignation in place of resistance. A wasted opportunity for serious public commentary.
As a hopeful citizen reflecting on Martin Daly’s incisive article, I find myself caught between the weight of political history and the fragile hope sparked by the recent election. Daly’s critique is rooted in the long-standing frustration that many of us share: a political culture dominated by blame, personal attacks, and recycled rhetoric. And yet, in April 2025, the people of Trinidad and Tobago sent a powerful message at the ballot box—they voted for real change.
The UNC’s sweeping victory, capturing 26 out of 41 seats, was not just a routine change in government. It was a clear rejection of the status quo and a demand for something different—governance grounded in empathy, accountability, and actual service to the people. Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s promise of a “people-centred government” resonated with voters, especially after years marked by what many saw as arrogance and neglect. But as Daly rightly points out, promises alone are not enough. Early signs—like the continuation of the blame game over WASA—suggest that old habits may be hard to break. The lofty words of healing and compassion must now be matched with disciplined leadership, transparency, and action.
At the same time, Daly offers a sharp observation about the state of the opposition, particularly the emergence of the PNM “Changemakers.” Instead of presenting a renewed vision or offering meaningful checks and balances, they seem consumed by internal conflict and personal grievance. This kind of infighting not only weakens the PNM but also undermines the essential role of the opposition in a healthy democracy. If these Changemakers truly want to reflect the will of the people, they must rise above party vendettas and help steer the national conversation toward solutions—not settle old scores or resist new leadership out of pride.
This moment in our political life offers both a warning and a window of opportunity. The people have voted clearly for change, and that mandate applies not just to the UNC but to the entire political class. The government must now deliver on its promise of a new approach, and the opposition must evolve into a constructive force that elevates the national interest over personal or party ambitions. We, the citizens, are watching—expecting more than just speeches. We are demanding results. The next few months will be critical in determining whether our leaders are truly capable of leaving the past behind and building something better