Mighty Sparrow Cause of Death | Calypso King | Wife, Family, Songs, Final Tribute, Bio & Net Worth!
By : Former Prime Minister Keith Christopher Rowley
WHEN POWER CORRUPTS.
The UNC Government is drunk with power! This unwarranted, sustained, vulgar attack on the Independent Senators is to be condemned in the strongest of terms, since it is the Government’s way of telling us that they are not prepared to be constrained or made to comply with the letter and spirit of our Constitution.
The oath of office that affords them the opportunity to exercise authority in this country expressly requires each and every one of them, especially the Prime Minister, to carry out all of their duties within the confines and strictures of the Constitution.
For them to be openly and freely tearing up such provisions of the written Constitution by attempting to neuter, frighten, and render ineffective the involvement of Independent Senators in the work of Parliament is the worst form of subliminal power grabbing, which must redound to the detriment of our society.
The absent Prime Minister’s irritation at being questioned or having her policies objected to is a copy from other jurisdictions.No right-thinking citizen will disagree with the Government making every reasonable and visionary effort to respond to the criminal elements that prey on the nation, but that assignment cannot justify the abuse of power, constitutional sidestepping, and governmental overreach.
What is even more alarming is that as the Government initiates this misbehavior against officers of state whose sacred duty is to stand guard against governmental excesses, the Prime Minister has also embarked on racial, ethnic, and geographical separations within the country.All right-thinking citizens should take note that the intended outcome of this incipient Indesh policy of governing and fighting crime by separating the country into “we and them” is the basis for this overreach, which should disturb all of us.
It is foolish to think that on these little islands we can barricade and demonize one group or area so as to bring safety and Nirvana to another. We either fight crime together and win, or the criminals will win by our actions of tearing ourselves apart.
We have been warned.
Unwind TT
DANGEROUS 'SATANIC HELPERS' FICTION ABOUT INDEPENDENT SENATORS
UNWIND TT (September 25, 2026): ATTEMPTS to portray Trinidad and Tobago's Independent Senators as "satanic helpers" and little more than People's National Movement (PNM) surrogates because they were appointed by the President expose either a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution or a deliberate effort to erode public confidence in one of Parliament's most important safeguards.
It is a dangerous narrative. It is dangerous disingenuity, if the latter is the case.
Our Constitution deliberately creates three distinct categories of Senators: 16 Government Senators, six Opposition Senators and nine Independent Senators.
The President of the Senate is elected from among the 31 appointed members.
Government Senators are appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister.
Opposition Senators are appointed on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition.
Both groups are political actors. They are expected to operate under the party whip, advancing their respective parties' legislative agendas and, in most instances, voting according to party instructions.
Independent Senators are something entirely different. They are appointed by the President, acting in her own deliberate judgment, from among distinguished citizens representing the broad spectrum of national life.
Their constitutional purpose is not to strengthen either the Government or the Opposition, but to provide Parliament with independent judgment, professional expertise and objective scrutiny.
They do not operate under a Government whip. They do not operate under an Opposition whip. Their allegiance is neither to Balisier House nor to UNC Headquarters.
Their duty is to the Constitution, the public interest and their own informed conscience.
Indeed, if Independent Senators were expected to vote with the Government or the Opposition as a matter of course, there would have been no constitutional purpose in creating a separate category of Independent Senators in the first place.
The framers of the Constitution could simply have allocated those nine seats to the Government or the Opposition. They deliberately chose not to do so because they intended those Senators to exercise independent judgment. Not partisan loyalty.
To dismiss every Independent Senator as a partisan operative simply because of the identity of the President who appointed them is to misunderstand the office of President itself.
The President is expected to act above party politics and, in appointing Independent Senators, performs a constitutional function designed to insulate the Upper House from precisely the kind of partisan capture now being alleged.
If every presidential appointment is automatically branded politically compromised, confidence in every constitutional office becomes collateral damage.
Equally troubling are public allegations that Independent Senators sought government favours in exchange for their votes.
If true, such allegations would raise profound questions about integrity in public life and could warrant investigation by the appropriate authorities.
If made without supporting evidence, however, they unfairly cast doubt on the integrity of individuals appointed to exercise independent constitutional judgment.
Allegations of attempted influence or improper inducement should be supported by evidence and pursued through the appropriate legal and constitutional processes - not left to linger as political insinuation.
The irony is that Independent Senators often disappoint both sides.
Governments accuse them of obstruction when they reject legislation. Oppositions accuse them of collaboration when they support it.
That is precisely how constitutional independence is supposed to work.
Their votes should never be predictable. They should rise or fall on the merits of each bill, not on partisan expectation.
Democracy depends not only on elections but also on institutions capable of resisting political pressure.
Independent Senators were created to be one of those institutions.
They are not constitutional ornaments. They are not political property. They are Parliament's independent conscience.
Political parties are free to criticise the reasoning of Independent Senators. They are equally entitled to disagree with their conclusions.
What they should resist, however, is the temptation to delegitimise constitutional offices whenever those offices refuse to deliver the political outcome they desire.
When every independent institution is dismissed as an enemy simply because it acts independently, the real casualty is not the Government or the Opposition.
It is public confidence in the Constitution itself.
The Constitution created Independent Senators to think independently. Not to vote predictably.
The day they become agents of political convenience is the day they cease to be what the Constitution intended them to be.
CLICK LINK BELOW FOR RELATED POST
T&T’S JEREEM RICHARDS CLOCKS 44.23 TO TAKE THIRD IN WORLD ATHLETICS ULTIMATE CHAMPIONSHIP 400M
Jereem Richards secured a third-place finish for Trinidad and Tobago in the men’s 400 metres at the inaugural World Athletics Ultimate Championship in Budapest, Hungary, on Saturday, September 12. His time of 44.23 seconds earned him a US$40,000 prize.
Botswana’s Collen Kebinatshipi won in a national-record 43.39 seconds, while American Rai Benjamin finished second in 44.15.
Richards was just eight hundredths of a second behind Benjamin in a close contest for the places behind the winner. He finished four hundredths ahead of American Chris Bailey, who clocked 44.27, and five hundredths ahead of Britain’s Matthew Hudson-Smith, fifth in 44.28.
The T&T sprinter improved on his semifinal performance, where he ran 44.44 to take fourth in his heat and qualify. He went 0.21 seconds faster in the final to secure his place among the top three.
The new championship brings elite athletes together for three days of competition, with a US$10 million prize pool and US$150,000 for individual event winners.
For Richards, the Budapest result combines a strong international placing in national colours with a significant financial reward.
Reports: Ava McCall not happy with the TPP.
Following her recent revelations concerning irregularities in the Tobago People's Party screening exercise, activist Ava McCall has widened her critique, accusing the party leadership of fostering a climate of intimidation and victimisation.
McCall revealed that numerous party members are gripped by fear, hesitant to voice dissent or demand constitutional transparency. 'People inside the party are living in absolute fear of speaking their minds,' McCall stated, contending that internal democracy has deteriorated significantly. 'Individuals are terrified of being victimised, losing their contracts, or losing their livelihoods if they dare to question what the leadership is doing.'
The activist reminded the executive and supporters of the foundational promises made when the Tobago People's Party was established to break away from past political abuses. 'We walked away from tyranny only to watch the very same autocratic behaviour take root in this organisation,' McCall warned. 'This party was supposed to belong to the people, but right now a small clique is making unilateral decisions and expecting total obedience.'
Directly challenging the direction taken under the leadership of Farley Augustine, McCall insisted that the party must be reclaimed by its grassroots. 'The Tobago People's Party belongs to the people of Tobago, not to any single individual or elite circle,' she declared. 'I will not sit quietly and pretend everything is fine while the hopes of our people are being betrayed. We must stand up and demand that power be returned to the grassroots.'
Who in the Penny lead executive leaked that report to the news media? Or was it a whistle blower?
Analyst challenges PNM’s assessment of Manning’s popularity
by Akash Samaroo | Sep 06 2026
Political analyst Dr Shane Mohammed is challenging the PNM to explain why Brian Manning’s narrow 2025 election victory is being used as evidence of “dwindling” popularity when three of the party’s other successful candidates won by similarly slim or even smaller margins.
Mohammed said Manning’s 673-vote victory must be considered alongside the performance of other successful PNM candidates.
He questioned whether the party conducted any scientific assessment to determine why Manning’s margin fell from 5,173 votes in 2020 to 673 in 2025, rather than simply attributing the decline to his personal popularity.
Mohammed pointed out that Opposition Leader Penelope Beckles retained Arima by 699 votes, while PNM chairman Marvin Gonzales won Arouca/Lopinot by 259 and Dominic Romain captured Malabar/Mausica by 254.
In fact, he said Manning ranked 11th among the PNM’s 13 successful candidates by margin of victory, ahead of Gonzales and Romain.
“If the party now wants to discuss popularity within its ranks, then the party ought to be led by the people who secured the widest ranges of victories and confidence of the voters, not so?” Mohammed asked.
Mohammed also challenged the suggestion that responsibility for the difficulties in San Fernando East could rest primarily with Manning, saying constituency executives and local government representatives are critical to a constituency’s political machinery.
He questioned whether the fractured relationship between Manning, former constituency chairman Patricia Alexis and executive members existed before the 2025 election. If it did, Mohammed argued, that would raise another question: whether Manning managed to retain the seat despite a dysfunctional constituency structure.
Mohammed also criticised the seven complaints now before the PNM’s Investigations Committee, particularly because they originated from members across several constituencies.
He said complaints originating outside San Fernando East could potentially be influenced by internal party interests and questioned whether they should carry the same weight as complaints arising directly from the constituency. - Akash Samaroo
Facebook Post
By: Dane S G Wilson
I read your response carefully. And honestly after reading it I kept asking myself one simple question:
Did you actually respond to what I wrote?
Because you wrote a lot. You made some good points. You agreed with me on some things. But the majority of what I raised, you simply did not deal with.
Instead you took me on an international tour of Mrs Penelope Beckles-Robinson’s career.
United Nations. CARICOM. COP29. UN Women. Ambassadors. International recognition.
All well and good.
But that was not the argument.
It is like I asked you about the foundation of the house and you started telling me about the view from the balcony.
And that is where I think you missed the point.
I never said Mrs Penelope Beckles-Robinson is weak.
I said that if PNM members, based on what they have seen and experienced believe she is weak, they are entitled to have and express that political opinion.
You can disagree with them. You can defend her. That is your right.
But if a PNM member says, I believe the Political Leader is weak because of X, Y and Z then deal with the X, Y and Z.
Don't just dismiss the person's political judgment as ego because you don't like the conclusion.
And you didn't deal with the X, Y and Z.
You didn't answer the question of the process by which Penelope became Opposition Leader including why six PNM parliamentarians were not part of that process.
You didn't answer the questions surrounding the General Council process that resulted in Dr. Nyan Gadsby-Dolly becoming Chairman.
You didn't answer the Mayor Balliram Maharaj matter.
You didn't answer the concerns about how decisions are being made inside the PNM.
Those are the issues I raised.
And you didn't answer them.
Instead you gave me Penelope Beckles-Robinson's international resume.
Again I am not disputing her international experience. But it is irrelevant to the particular domestic party questions I raised.
And I think I now understand why.
You still seem to be in campaign mode.
But there is no leadership election.
Nobody is presently asking PNM members to choose a Political Leader.
So what exactly are you campaigning for?
You are defending a candidate for an election that does not exist.
You are shadow boxing with yourself.
You have created a bogeyman put arguments into the bogeyman's mouth and then delivered a very passionate defence against arguments I never made.
The bogeyman does not exist.
And let me make something else clear.
I have worked with Penelope Beckles-Robinson on the National Executive of the PNM. So you don't have to come and explain Penny to me or perform the role of her personal defender when I have not attacked her personally.
I am talking about the PNM.
Now let me deal with something else you said, because I am not going to allow it to slip past.
You keep talking about -> loudness <- -> toughness <- -> noise <- and confusing toughness with loudness.
Come on.
I know what you are referring to.
You know what you are referring to.
And everybody who has been around the PNM knows what you are referring to.
You are talking about former Political Leader Dr. Keith Rowley.
Well let's deal with that to.
I have had my own issues with Dr. Rowley. I have had issues with his internal management of the PNM his contribution to the organisation and aspects of his leadership style over the last 10 to 15 years.
And I said so when it mattered.
I didn't wait until after the 2025 election to discover those things.
We are now dealing with some of the consequences of decisions and choices made over that period.
But I am not going to rewrite history because it is politically convenient.
Dr. Keith Rowley represented strength to many PNM members. He was somebody many of our members believed they could rely on.
He led the PNM back into government in 2015.
He kept us in government in 2020.
We have to acknowledge that.
You cannot selectively take the good parts of Dr. Rowley's record when it suits you and then suddenly pretend the rest of the story does not exist.
And some of the people who are now defending Mrs. Beckles-Robinson and her Executive were part of the political and organisational environment that brought the PNM to where it is today.
So you cannot now behave as though you just arrived.
If you were supportive of the leadership, the decision making, the political environment or the culture that preceded this moment, then you have to own your share of it.
You cannot claim the victories and disown the failures.
And I certainly will not sit quietly while somebody uses words like -> loudness <- -> noise <- -> insults <- and -> toughness <- as a veiled way of attacking Dr. Rowley without putting the whole record on the table.
Criticise Dr. Rowley.
I have.
Question his leadership style.
I have.
Question his internal management.
I have.
But don't rewrite PNM history.
Now here is something I did not mention in my original post.
Since you have questioned whether I understand what is happening on the ground let me put this into the conversation.
On 29th June 2026 I wrote to Chairman Marvin Gonzales asking for a three month postponement of the Constituency Executive Elections.
That submission was made for the benefit of Political Leader Penelope Beckles-Robinson and the entire leadership of the PNM.
I wasn't asking to stop democracy.
I was asking for three months to make the democracy stronger.
We had more than 100,000 members across 41 constituencies.
Membership records needed to be checked.
Members needed to be re-engaged.
Deceased members needed to be removed where appropriate.
Members who had moved needed to be updated.
Party groups needed to be reactivated.
New groups needed to be established.
Members needed to be brought back into the life of the institution.
I even used my own constituency as an example.
I have been a PNM member since 1996. I served as Vice Chairman of my Constituency Executive. Yet I had not been contacted for membership re-engagement or verification. The last constituency group meeting I could remember attending was around 2013.
That should tell us something.
And what happened after 29th June?
Constituency after constituency started having problems with party groups, elections, delays and disputes.
San Fernando East.
Tunapuna.
Tobago.
Trincity/Maloney.
St. Joseph.
And others.
There have also been questions about dues, verification and the legal and administrative issues surrounding these elections.
So if you want to talk about being on the ground let's talk about the ground.
Tell me about Sangre Grande.
Sangre Grande once had more than 30 party groups and is a marginal constituency with a regional corporation.
How is it doing?
How many active groups are there?
How many have been reactivated?
How many members have actually been reached?
What is being done to bring Sangre Grande back?
That is the conversation PNM members want to have.
Because being in the PNM is one thing.
Being in tune with the PNM membership is another.
And roughly 7,100 people participating in an internal election out of more than 102,000 eligible members should concern all of us.
That is not a small problem.
That is a warning.
It tells us we have a serious job to do in re-engaging, reconnecting and reigniting our membership.
You also told me I was right about the attack on Darian Marcel's health.
I know I am right.
But the question for you is different.
Do you know that you were wrong?
Because you were the one who made amusement out of Darian Marcel's physical health.
So don't simply tell me I am right.
If you now recognise that what you said was wrong then say it.
Say I was wrong. I should not have made his health the subject of political ridicule. I apologise.
That is accountability.
There is a difference between recognising that somebody else is right and having the character to admit that you were wrong.
As for Juliet Davy I will say this plainly.
She is a PNM member and a member of the PNM Women's League.
She needs to conform to the standards of the PNM and stop attacking PNM members with obscene language, vulgarity and references to their personal lives.
Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from accountability.
And Melba?
I have no idea what she said or who you are referring to so I won't pretend to have an opinion about something I don't know.
But here is the irony.
You say the PNM got here because we confused toughness with loudness, freedom of speech with freedom to abuse, and the loudest insult with the strongest argument.
On that principle we agree.
But then you spend most of your response doing something similar.
You don't deal with the arguments actually put before you.
You create another argument and then defeat that one.
That is shadow boxing.
And frankly it is intellectually barren of a substantive response.
The PNM does not need more people talking past each other.
We need people willing to ask difficult questions and answer them honestly.
We need to be able to disagree without becoming enemies.
We need to challenge leadership without turning everything into a personality fight.
We need to restore respect inside the PNM institution.
And we need to stop pretending that every member who raises a concern is somehow the enemy.
The campaign is over.
There is no leadership election to win.
The time now is for accountability and rebuilding.
Rebuild.
Reconnect.
Renew.
Reignite.
Rejuvenate.
Rebuild the constituencies.
Reconnect the membership.
Renew the institution.
Reignite the spirit.
Rejuvenate the People's National Movement.
That is where my head is.
Not in a campaign that doesn't exist.
Not in shadow boxing with a bogeyman.
Not in voops, vaps and vikey vie responses.
And not in rewriting the history of the PNM to suit today's argument.
The PNM is bigger than any faction.
Bigger than any cabal.
Bigger than any personality.
And certainly bigger than any one individual's interpretation of what is happening on the ground.
So let us stop talking past each other.
Let us stop fighting battles that do not exist.
And let us get back to the work that matters.
Come back to the PNM. I'm just asking
FB Post
By Dayne Francois
YOU ASKED FOR THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT, NOT THE LOUDEST INSULT. HERE IT IS. I WAS IN THE ROOM WITH CARL UNCLE BEDDOE’S SUPERMARKET AND ALL THE AMBASSADORS.
You are right about one thing.
There is a difference between political combat and political cruelty. Between picong and vulgar abuse. Between challenging ideas and mocking health.
On that, we agree. Mocking Darian's health is cruel. It is not PNM. Hurling equally insulting remarks at Juilet and Melba is called what? It must stop. Any PNM member who mocks a cancer survivor has lost the plot and should be condemned. You are right to call it out.
You are also right that being the first woman to lead the PNM does not make Penny immune from criticism. Indira Gandhi, Eugenia Charles, Margaret Thatcher, Mia Mottley, Kemi Badenoch were all criticised because they were leaders and therefore accountable.
So let's hold her accountable - but with data. Not gossip.
You said character is not gossip, it is data. I agree. So here is character data you didn't mention. Data I saw personally.
I saw Penelope Beckles-Robinson at the United Nations.
She was appointed Permanent Representative to the UN in August 2016 and presented her credentials to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. She didn't go there to sit in the corner.
She was elected President of the UN Women Executive Board. Speaking on behalf of the entire Board she said: “We are glad to be here to shine a light on the region and on the good work that UN Women is doing.”
She was selected to Chair the 30th meeting of the Caribbean Development and Cooperation Committee, at which ministers from over 20 Caribbean countries gathered.
When CARICOM had to face COP29, the fight for the survival of our islands, the region chose her as Ministerial Champion for Just Transition.
She stood in that room and declared that this is the moment for bold, decisive leadership and innovative solutions to build Caribbean economies and strengthen resilience.
When negotiations stalled, when small islands needed a voice the big powers would respect, Caribbean ambassadors did not look to the big countries. They looked to Penny. Jamaica looked to her. Barbados looked to her. Antigua, Grenada, Belize looked to her.
That is character. That is data. Not who she knows in Arima, not who attended what dinner. Data that 20 nations trusted a daughter from the dusty street of T& T who grew up without electricity, to lead them.
You asked how did the PNM get here? How did participation fall to 7,100 out of 102,000? How did high calibre people become disillusioned?
It got here because for eleven years we confused toughness with loud. We confused freedom of speech with freedom to abuse. We thought the loudest insult was the strongest argument. It never was. Try here is so much I x cc a say about who said what, but for this purpose am agreeing with you. I really want to see if it’s battle folks want or peace and party building. Either way I can bang out.
You said the PNM does not need the loudest insult. It needs the strongest argument. It needs rebuilding not vulgarity. It needs debate, not intimidation. It needs unity not personality cults.
You are right. And that strongest argument is Penny.
She does not need to shout about savagery and total war. She has led 20 countries without shouting. She does not need to call anyone weak men. She has sat with world leaders who tried to dismiss the Caribbean as weak and made them listen.
You said we can question her leadership, the process, the Mayor, the Chairman. Yes, we can. But answer this with the same honesty you demand:
If she was weak, why did 20 Caribbean nations choose her to carry their future?
If she was weak, why did the UN Women Board choose her as President?
If she was weak, why did those ambassadors, in a room where I was sitting, look to her when it mattered?
You said the campaign is over and accountability has begun. I agree.
So here is accountability: The PNM is multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-class and multi-everything. The PNM is for all. If we want a PNM for all, we need a leader the Caribbean already sees as for all.
I saw that leader. At the UN. Larger than life. Not because she was loud. Because she was respected.
That is why she is worthy of support. Not because she is a woman. Because she has already led more than Balisier House. She has led the Caribbean.
And the PNM is bigger than any faction. Bigger than any cabal. Bigger than you and me.
Let's rebuild it with the leader the world already respects.
Ambassadors across Caricom below supporting our own political leader. This is when it started to go down. They chose Penelope Beckles Robinson. I was there and as a man from the country, a grounds man… my soul made music. Regarding Trinidad, Liz Thompson Mia Motley’s ambassador said and I quote “Bring back Beckles and Build.”
i am going to quote that reply on social media
Facebook Post
By: Dane S G Wilson
You have spent a great deal of time answering a question I did not ask.
I asked a very simple question
How did the PNM get here?
I know the history of the PNM. I know Dr. Eric Williams could be brutal. I know the PNM has always had picong, polemic and hard political argument.
But there is a difference between political combat and political cruelty.
There is a difference between attacking someone's politics and attacking their personal life.
There is a difference between challenging someone's ideas and mocking their health.
And there is a difference between picong and obscene, vulgar abuse.
You say -> character is not gossip. It is data <-
If you cannot answer the substance of someone's argument and instead go searching through their personal life for ammunition you have not strengthened your argument.
You have demonstrated that you are intellectually barren of a substantive response.
When the facts cannot be answered the person becomes the target.
The private life becomes ammunition.
The insult becomes the argument.
That is not political analysis.
That is intellectual bankruptcy dressed up as -> data <-
And this constant attempt to turn legitimate criticism of Mrs Penelope Beckles-Robinson into misogyny needs to stop.
Yes she is the first woman to lead the PNM.
That is historic.
But it does not make her immune from criticism.
Indira Gandhi was criticised.
Eugenia Charles was criticised.
Margaret Thatcher was criticised.
Mia Mottley is criticised.
Kemi Badenoch is criticised.
They were political leaders and therefore they were accountable.
Being a woman in political leadership is not a handicap, and it should never mean being placed beyond political accountability.
You can question Mrs Penelope Beckles-Robinson leadership.
You can question the process by which she became Opposition Leader, including the fact that six PNM MPs were not part of that process.
You can question her handling of the Mayor Balliram Maharaj matter.
You can question her silence on the General Council election where Dr Nyan Gadsby-Dolly was elected party Chairman under dubious circumstances
You can say you believe she is weak.
Those are political arguments.
Answer them.
Defend her decisions. Defend her record. Show where her critics are wrong.
But don't hide behind misogyny and don't defend her by abusing PNM members who disagree with her.
That does not strengthen her leadership.
It weakens it.
And then there is your unkind attacks about Darian Marcel health.
Darian is a cancer survivor.
Any long standing PNM member should know that.
So when you mock or ridicule the physical consequences of a cancer survivor's health experience because you disagree with his politics, that is not toughness.
It is not picong.
It is not -> character is data <-
It is cruel.
If you disagree with Darian attack his arguments.
If you think he is wrong prove him wrong.
Leave his health out of it.
And don't tell me that calling this behaviour out means I am trying to silence -> the ground <-
The PNM is not one skin colour.
It is not one class.
It is not one religion.
It is not one community.
The PNM is multi ethnic, multi cultural, multi religious, multi class and multi everything.
The PNM is for all.
Freedom of speech means you have the right to speak.
It does not mean the rest of us have to accept vulgarity, obscenity, bullying and personal attacks as the standard of PNM political culture.
For roughly the last eleven years, we have seen a recalcitrant minority within the PNM practising what I would describe as cabal style politics controlling narratives, defending personalities, bullying members, intimidating members and attacking fellow PNM members.
And then you wonder why people are disengaged.
In 2025, only about 7,100 of more than 102,000 eligible members voted in the internal election roughly seven percent.
Now one year later, we are back at internal elections this time at constituency level.
If the PNM continues with this same downward political trajectory, why should we assume participation will increase?
The answer cannot be more bullying.
It cannot be more intimidation.
It cannot be more abuse.
That is not bringing the membership back. It is driving them further away.
And it is alarming to see high calibre PNM people becoming so disillusioned with the internal climate that they are leaving.
People are not necessarily leaving because they stopped loving the PNM.
Many are leaving because they no longer recognise the PNM institution.
So please don't tell me this is simply how the PNM has always been.
You are confusing toughness with vulgarity.
We can fight hard without being filthy.
We can disagree without destroying our own members/supporters.
We can challenge leadership without turning it into personal warfare.
And finally I don't need a lecture on the PNM from any just come PNM particularly one who is still being sanitised from the politics of the murky lagoon.
There is nothing wrong with joining the PNM. New members are welcome.
But joining the party does not make you an instant authority on its history, its culture or its standards.
Learn the party.
Understand the history.
Then perhaps lecture somebody.
And this leadership contest you seem so determined to fight?
Perhaps you are seeing the boogeyman.
Because he certainly isn't in the room.
The campaign is over.
Accountability has begun.
The PNM does not need the loudest insult.
It needs the strongest argument.
It needs rebuilding not vulgarity.
It needs debate, not intimidation.
It needs unity not personality cults.
And it needs to remember one simple thing
The cabal is not the PNM.
The PNM is bigger than any faction.
Bigger than any personality.
And certainly bigger than you.
If the politics you want is the politics of the murky lagoon then don't let the gates of Balisier House hit you on your way there.
But don't bring it into the PNM and call it -> the ground <-. I'm just asking
UPDATE: ST KITTS & NEVIS PRIME MINISTER Hon. Dr. Terrance Drew speaks to his people and gives update on medical condition from hospital in Florida.
Former Prime Minister Keith Christopher Rowley Calls On Kamla To Apologize
The nation of Trinidad and Tobago is one of the most diverse yet most stable of all the countries in the world. With all the challenges we have to face and hurdles to overcome, this undisputed fact may be our greatest strength and it affords us our best chance of success in everything we do.
Recently Prime Minister Kamla Persad Bissessar is demonstrating that she has returned to government, not to build on any foundation or to keep the promises made for a better life for all, but as a vile and angry old woman who is hell bent on extracting vengeance upon select portions of the population who she believes had kept her out of office for a decade.
Her poor leadership and ridiculous selection of persons to serve in Cabinet and elsewhere is one thing but when the Prime Minister prepares and publishes two dangerously disgusting racist speeches as her contribution to our celebration of Independence 2026, after she cancelled such event in 2025, the nation must take note and Kamla Persad- Bissessar needs to STOP!
This is no longer a matter of inept political picong.
Her attack on the Arab community that she assails with the label of "the 1%" is ethnic targeting, plain and simple.
Her foolish claim that the descendants of the enslaved Afro-Trinidadadians and Tobagonians should stop complaining and get on with their lives is insensitive racism and as Prime Minister it is a dereliction of duty as she fails to stand with that section of the population as we formally and officially hold the colonisers to account in our quest for reparation. She undermines the reparation effort at Caricom with her most recent foolish drivel that says that we were better off under British rule.
The worst is her recent racial appeal to the rural indian population that they can now feel separate and apart because she has brought them recognition so that they can now wage war and spew invectives at all those who she claims has looked down upon indian people who hitherto struggled in poverty. As though others did not have to struggle in poverty and deprivations too.This is naked racism and the worst form of divide and rule. She somehow believes that she is now in a position and entitled to call out one section of the population to utilise jingoism against the rest. This is dangerous politics in any multi-racial or multi -ethnic society. History is replete with examples of this experiment which has failed on every occasion but in many has taken peaceful societies down slippery slopes from which they never recovered.
None of the previous six Prime Ministers or Presidents and Governor General has ever sought to setup the social structure in this dangerous way. Kamla Persad Bissessar for reasons best known to her is on a path of fueling social and racial disharmony in this country and she needs to stop!
Harmony in our diversity is probably our greatest success,after decades of PNM and other leadership. This angry,spiteful woman has targeted that for destruction and we will not put up with anymore of it.
I AM CALLING ON HER TO APOLOGISE TO THE NATION FOR DEFILING OUR 64TH ANNIVERSARY OF INDEPENDENCE with the publication of her vile racist rubbish, which threatens the peace, prosperity and stability of the country.
K. C. Rowley,
There was a recent correspondence article in the New England Journal of Medicine by Henning Bundgaard et al, published on August 29, 2026, titled “Prevalence of Silent Atherosclerosis Across Adult Life. “ The article is attached in PDF format for your information and below is a summary for your convenience.
BACKGROUND
Atherosclerosis may begin in early adulthood and remain clinically silent for de cades before cardiovascular disease manifests. Although silent atherosclerosis is associated with cardiovascular events and death independent of traditional cardiovascular disease risk factors, its age- and sex-specific prevalence, vascular territory distribution, and plaque volume across adult life remain incompletely defined.
METHODS
We conducted a prospective cohort study in Denmark and Spain. Adults 18 to 70 years of age without known atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were enrolled in five prespecified age strata that included balanced numbers of women and men. Silent atherosclerosis was assessed at baseline with three-dimensional vascular ultrasonography of the carotid and femoral arteries and with coronary computed tomographic angiography.
RESULTS
A total of 16,808 adults were enrolled in the study. The mean (±SD) age of the participants was 45±12 years, and 51.4% were women. Silent atherosclerosis was present in 57.1% of the participants (95% confidence interval, 56.3 to 58.0). In the youngest age stratum (18 to 29 years), atherosclerosis was present in 8.7% of the men and 6.7% of the women; prevalence increased with age, with a later, steeper midlife rise among women. Among participants in the younger age strata, atherosclerosis was most often peripheral and confined to a single vascular territory; with increasing age, plaque volume increased exponentially and the prevalence of multiarterial involvement became more frequent. Isolated coronary-artery atherosclerosis was uncommon in every age stratum (≤9.3% of men and ≤5.0% of women).
CONCLUSIONS
This study of silent atherosclerosis showed that the disease was detectable in early adulthood, with age- and sex-associated increases in prevalence across arterial territories and marked increases in plaque volume.
DISCUSSION
Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of illness and death worldwide. Atherosclerosis is the principal pathologic process underlying coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, peripheral artery disease, sudden cardiac death, and other cardiovascular manifestations. Accordingly, prevention of the development and progression of atherosclerosis is central to efforts to reduce the global burden of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. However, contemporary primary prevention is guided largely by estimated event risk and risk-factor thresholds rather than by the presence, vascular distribution, or volume of established atherosclerosis. This distinction is important because atherosclerosis may be present for decades before clinical cardiovascular disease becomes manifest.
Imaging studies in asymptomatic adults have consistently shown that silent atherosclerosis is common, although the reported prevalence varies according to age, population characteristics, vascular territory, and imaging modality. In studies involving middle-aged and older adults, coronary-artery calcium scoring, coronary computed tomographic (CT) angiography, and carotid or femoral ultrasound imaging have detected silent atherosclerosis in approximately 40 to 80% of participants. Consistently, greater plaque burden has been associated with higher risks of subsequent atherosclerotic cardiovascular events and death. Longitudinal imaging studies have also shown that plaque burden may progress over time, with known modifiable risk factors particularly relevant to the progression of plaque burden at younger ages.
The results reported here have implications for detection strategies. Our findings suggest that imaging of the carotid arteries provided the highest diagnostic yield. In younger adults, coronary-artery plaque was frequently present despite the absence of calcification, indicating that calcium scoring alone does not exclude early coronary atherosclerosis.
This cross-sectional study provides a large-scale atlas of silent atherosclerosis across adult life in men and women. Silent atherosclerosis showed age- and sex-related increases in the cross-sectional prevalence and extent of systemic involvement. Most participants with silent coronary atherosclerosis had peripheral atherosclerosis. Conventional 10-year risk classification identified only a minority of participants with established silent atherosclerosis.
The PNM Is On Trial Politically And Constitutionally
I have been a member of the People's National Movement for 30 years.
I have served this institution on the Diego Martin North/East Executive on the National Executive as Youth Officer Male, as a member of the General Council and as a member of the Central Executive.
I say that not to claim any special authority but to establish where I am coming from.
I am not writing as an outsider looking into the PNM.
I am writing as a PNM member looking into the PNM.
And sometimes loyalty to an institution requires the courage to ask difficult questions.
This is one of those moments.
The issue is the 6th May 2025 election of Dr Nyan Gadsby-Dolly as Chairman of the People's National Movement.
This should not be reduced to personalities.
It should not be reduced to factions.
And it should not be reduced to who supports whom.
There is a more fundamental question
Was that election conducted in accordance with the Constitution of the PNM?
That question deserves an answer.
Not a political answer.
A constitutional one.
START WITH THE CONSTITUTION
Article 12 of the PNM Constitution establishes the General Council as the governing body of the PNM and gives it responsibility for the affairs and administration of the institution.
But Article 23 is even more important to this discussion.
It expressly gives the General Council authority to determine matters where the Constitution, Standing Orders, rules or regulations are silent or where ambiguity or difficulty of interpretation arises.
In other words, the Constitution itself anticipates that constitutional questions will arise.
And it identifies the institution that must deal with them.
The General Council.
So why should the General Council not pronounce on this question?
Why should an issue concerning the constitutional composition of the very body that elected the Chairman remain unresolved?
If the Constitution provides a mechanism for interpretation use it.
The Constitution sets the rules.
The General Council interprets them.
The institution must abide by the determination.
That is how a constitutional institution is supposed to function.
ARTICLE 14 IS THE STARTING POINT
Article 14 establishes the Legislative Group.
Its membership is constitutionally defined.
It comprises persons occupying specified representative positions in Parliament, the Tobago House of Assembly and local government together with the other categories expressly identified by the Constitution.
That distinction matters.
Because membership of the Legislative Group is not simply a reward for having once held public office.
It is a constitutional status.
You must satisfy the qualification.
You must occupy the relevant position.
And when that qualifying status ends the Constitution determines whether the membership continues.
Article 14(2)(b) is particularly important because it expressly provides that a person approved as a PNM candidate automatically ceases to be a member of the Legislative Group if defeated in an election.
The constitutional principle is therefore straightforward
Qualification comes first.
Representation comes second.
Voting comes third.
The representation flows from the qualification.
The qualification does not flow from the representation.
Dr Amery Browne
Consider Dr Amery Browne.
He was elected by the Legislative Group as its Upper House representative to the General Council.
But Parliament was dissolved on 28th April 2025.
The election for Chairman occurred on 6th May 2025.
Dr Browne was therefore no longer a Senator during the period between the dissolution of Parliament and his subsequent appointment to the Senate.
The question is not whether Dr Browne had previously been a Senator.
He had.
The question is
What was his constitutional status on 6th May 2025?
If he was no longer a parliamentarian, what constitutional provision allowed him to remain a member of the Legislative Group?
If he remained a member of the Legislative Group where does the Constitution say so?
And if he remained the Legislative Group's representative on the General Council what provision preserved that representation?
Show us the Article.
Not the convention.
Not the explanation.
Not what somebody believes has always happened.
Show us the constitutional provision.
And there is a hypothetical that demonstrates why this question cannot simply be dismissed.
Had Stuart Young SC when becoming Prime Minister chosen not to reappoint Dr Browne as Minister of Foreign Affairs and not to appoint him to the Senate would Dr Browne nevertheless have remained the Legislative Group's representative on the General Council?
If the answer is yes, what is the constitutional basis?
If the answer is no then what changed his status?
The Constitution should answer that question.
AND THEN THERE IS ROGER MONROE
The Roger Monroe issue is even more complicated because it presents two separate constitutional questions.
First
Was he properly elected to the General Council as the Lower House representative of the Legislative Group?
Second
Even if he was was he still constitutionally qualified to occupy that position after losing his parliamentary seat on 28th April 2025?
The first question must not be skipped.
The public record has identified the late Lisa Morris-Julian as the elected Legislative Group representative for the Lower House.
If that is correct her death created a vacancy.
So when did the Legislative Group elect Roger Monroe to replace her?
When was that election held?
Who called it?
Who participated?
What was the result?
Where are the minutes?
Where is the notice?
Where is the record?
If the PNM says Roger Monroe was properly elected to replace Lisa Morris-Julian then the evidence should be produced.
Show us the Article.
Show us the election.
Show us the record.
This is not an unreasonable demand.
It is the minimum one should expect from a 70 year old constitutional institution dealing with the legitimacy of its own governing body.
Because parliamentary membership and General Council representation are not automatically the same thing.
Being an MP is one thing.
Being elected as a General Council representative is another.
Being entitled to vote in the Chairman's election is another.
Each requires a constitutional basis.
THEN CAME 28th APRIL
Now consider the sequence.
Lisa Morris-Julian was the elected Lower House representative, according to the contemporaneous account.
She died.
A vacancy therefore arose.
If Roger Monroe was elected to fill that vacancy produce the record.
Then came 28th April 2025.
The PNM lost the general election.
Roger Monroe lost his parliamentary seat.
And Article 14(2)(b) expressly states that a person approved as a PNM candidate automatically ceases to be a member of the Legislative Group if defeated in an election.
Then came 6th May.
The General Council elected its Chairman.
And Roger Monroe participated.
So the questions become unavoidable
Was he qualified?
Was he elected?
Was he entitled to vote?
Three questions.
One constitutional framework.
And the PNM must answer all three.
ARTICLE 20 THE RIGHT TO VOTE
Article 20 establishes the voting arrangements within the PNM including the entitlement to vote and the requirement that elections at all levels be conducted by secret ballot.
But the secret ballot answers only one question
How is the vote conducted?
It does not answer
Who is entitled to vote?
A secret ballot protects the choice of an eligible voter.
It does not make an ineligible person eligible.
That distinction is central.
Because the question is not whom Dr Browne and Mr Monroe voted for.
Their votes could have gone to Dr Gadsby-Dolly.
They could have gone to Mayor Chinua Alleyne.
They could have been spoiled.
It does not matter.
The constitutional question comes first
Were they entitled to participate?
Eligibility comes before preference.
The right to participate comes before the choice made with that participation.
And when the reported result was 60 votes to 58 with four spoiled ballots, the presence of two persons whose constitutional eligibility is being questioned cannot simply be dismissed as a technicality.
Two votes separated the candidates.
That makes the question worthy of examination.
But more importantly even if the margin had been twenty votes the constitutional question would remain.
Because the integrity of an election is not determined solely by whether an allegedly ineligible participant's vote changed the arithmetic.
REPRESENTATION HAS CONSEQUENCES
There is another issue.
A General Council representative represents a particular constitutional body.
The Constituency Groups have representatives.
The Women's League has representation.
The Youth League has representation.
The Tobago Council has representation.
The Legislative Group has representation.
That representation carries responsibility.
A representative is expected to report through the structure from which the representative's authority derives.
So ask the simplest question
If you are no longer a member of the Legislative Group, how do you continue to represent the Legislative Group?
To whom do you report?
Who recognises you as a member?
What constitutional provision allows you to continue?
These are not personal questions.
They are institutional questions.
And they deserve institutional answers.
THOSE WHO PRESIDED MUST HELP BRING FINALITY
The 6th May election was presided over by then Lady Vice Chairman Camille Robinson-Regis alongside then General Secretary Foster Cummings.
I am not accusing either person of wrongdoing.
But they were senior officers presiding over one of the most consequential elections in the institution.
They are therefore uniquely positioned to assist in establishing what occurred.
What was the composition of the General Council that day?
On what basis were the participants recognised?
What was the status of Dr Browne?
What was the status of Mr Monroe?
Was Monroe elected to replace Lisa Morris-Julian?
If so, when?
Where is the record?
The responsibility now is not to defend personalities.
It is to establish facts.
Clarity.
Accountability.
Finality.
After fifteen months the membership should not still be asking questions that can be answered by the Constitution and the institution's own records.
If everything was proper demonstrate it.
If there was a misunderstanding, clarify it.
If there was an error acknowledge it.
The institution owes its membership an answer.
Not another silence.
An answer.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT DR. GADSBY-DOLLY
Let me be clear.
This is not an argument against Dr Nyan Gadsby-Dolly.
It is not an argument for Mayor Chinua Alleyne.
It is not an argument about personalities.
It is an argument about the integrity of the process.
If the General Council determines that everything was constitutionally proper then say so.
If it determines that there was an irregularity, then it must determine the appropriate constitutional remedy.
That is precisely why Article 23 exists.
The General Council has the constitutional authority to pronounce on matters requiring interpretation.
So let it pronounce.
THE POLITICAL MIRROR
There is an unavoidable irony.
PNM Chairman Marvin Gonzales has been publicly asking serious constitutional questions concerning the absence of Commissioner of Police Allister Guevarro and whether the constitutional procedure governing that absence was followed.
That is legitimate.
An Opposition party should ask questions when it believes constitutional procedure may not have been followed.
It should demand answers.
It should demand accountability.
But the same principle must apply internally.
If constitutional procedure matters to the Government it must matter to the PNM.
If accountability matters in public office, it must matter inside the PNM.
If the Constitution matters to Trinidad and Tobago it must matter inside the institution defending it.
We cannot demand constitutional accountability from the Government, constitutional discipline from public institutions and constitutional obedience from the country while refusing to demand those same standards from ourselves.
What we ask of the Government we must practise in the PNM.
What we demand from public institutions we must demand from our own institution.
What we expect of Trinidad and Tobago, we must first demonstrate ourselves.
Look outward.
Look inward.
Look in the mirror.
THE PNM IS ON TRIAL
This is where my 30 years in the PNM matter.
I have seen this political institution at its strongest.
I have seen it at its lowest.
I have seen it in Government.
I have seen it in Opposition.
I have seen people sacrifice for it.
And I have learned that an institution is only as strong as the principles it is prepared to defend when those principles become inconvenient.
That is why I believe the PNM is now on trial.
Politically.
Constitutionally.
Institutionally.
Not in a court of law.
But before its membership.
Before its own constitutional structures.
And ultimately, before the people of Trinidad and Tobago.
The PNM cannot credibly ask Trinidad and Tobago to trust it to defend constitutional government if its own members cannot trust it to enforce the Constitution governing the PNM.
This is not about reopening old wounds.
It is about closing an unanswered constitutional question.
Fifteen months have passed.
But time does not rewrite a Constitution.
LET THE GENERAL COUNCIL SPEAK
I am not asking the General Council to target anyone.
I am asking it to do its constitutional duty.
Examine the Constitution.
Examine the facts.
Make a determination.
If there was no error say so.
If there was an error admit it.
And if there was an error, have the courage to correct it.
That is not weakness.
That is strength.
That is not factionalism.
That is constitutionalism.
That is not disloyalty.
That is loyalty to the institution.
The PNM is demanding constitutional accountability from the Government.
It must now demonstrate constitutional accountability within itself.
Because credibility does not begin with what we demand from others.
It begins with what we are prepared to demand from ourselves.
The Constitution must prevail.
And if the PNM is serious about restoring its credibility with the people of Trinidad and Tobago, then that restoration must begin here.
With the Constitution.
With accountability.
With courage.
The question is not whether anyone should be protected.
The question is whether the Constitution should be protected.
There can only be one answer.
Yes.
Because the PNM is not merely asking Trinidad and Tobago to judge the Government.
The PNM is on trial politically and constitutionally.
And the first institution it must examine is itself. I'm just reminding
𝐌𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐇𝐞𝐫 𝐄𝐱𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐥𝐚 𝐊𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐨 𝐎𝐑𝐓𝐓, 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐨𝐟 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐠𝐨 𝐨𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐃𝐚𝐲 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔
Today, Trinidad and Tobago celebrates sixty-four years of Independence and, in this significant year, fifty years as a Republic.
Independence gave us the authority to determine our own course. Republican status placed responsibility for our constitutional life fully into our own hands. Sovereignty has therefore become stewardship: the duty to care wisely for the nation entrusted to us and to pass it on stronger than we received it.
We should be candid with ourselves. All is not as we would wish it to be. Too many families have known the grief caused by violence. Too many citizens face uncertainty about their future, and too many young people struggle to see a secure place for themselves in the country of their birth.
Independence does not require us to overlook these realities. It gives us the freedom, and imposes upon us the duty, to confront them.
The freedom we celebrate includes the freedom to live without fear. Every life lost to violence diminishes us, and every family left to mourn bears a sorrow that touches the nation as a whole. We are therefore right to insist upon safety and order.
But our Independence also entrusts to us laws, institutions and liberties which generations before us struggled to secure. A mature society does not regard security, liberty and the sanctity of life as competing aspirations. It works, patiently and responsibly, to protect all three.
That responsibility belongs to all of us. The deeper work of building a peaceful society begins wherever a child is taught the value of human life; wherever a family, teacher, coach, faith community or neighbour helps a young person to discover purpose; and wherever citizens choose responsibility over indifference and service over self-interest.
It also requires us to recognise one another as equal citizens.
Independence made us one people in law. Nationhood asks us to become one people in practice: not by surrendering the differences that enrich us, but by refusing to allow those differences to determine who belongs, whose contribution is valued, or whose dignity deserves protection.
The Republic belongs wholly and equally to every citizen. Its institutions are not the possessions of the persons who occupy them, nor instruments of the moment. They are held in trust for all the people. Their strength depends upon the integrity of those who serve within them, the vigilance of those whom they serve, and our willingness to remember that, after political disagreements have passed, we must still live together and build one future.
That future will be shaped by what we place in the hands of the next generation.
We must leave our young people institutions worthy of their confidence and an economy capable of rewarding enterprise, creativity and honest work. We must strengthen our ability to produce and innovate, and ensure that the opportunities of nationhood are not confined by birth or circumstance.
We must also pass on the full richness of our cultural inheritance: the faiths, traditions, festivals, music and stories through which generations of our people have fashioned unity out of difference. To cherish that inheritance is not merely to celebrate its symbols, but to respect and encourage the young hands in which it will live tomorrow.
The land and seas entrusted to us are also part of our Independence. Protecting them, preparing wisely for a changing climate and strengthening our capacity to feed ourselves are acts of stewardship required of us today.
Nor does sovereignty require us to stand apart from the world. Our Independence is strengthened when we bring to the Caribbean family, and to the wider community of nations, a spirit of mutual respect and a steadfast commitment to cooperation, security and peace.
The return of the Independence Day parade gives us an opportunity not only to celebrate our nationhood, but to affirm once more our responsibility for its future.
The true measure of our Independence is not simply that we are free to choose for ourselves. It is whether we choose wisely, whether we treat one another justly, and whether we leave those who come after us a country more peaceful, more productive and more united than the one entrusted to us.
Sixty-four years ago, we assumed responsibility for our own destiny. Fifty ye0ars ago, we affirmed that responsibility as a Republic. Today, that responsibility belongs to every one of us.
Let us meet it with honesty about where we have fallen short, confidence in what we can yet achieve, and faith in one another.
I wish every citizen of Trinidad and Tobago a safe, happy and blessed Independence Day.
My dear brothers and sisters, both at home and abroad, of this blessed nation of Trinidad and Tobago, I extend warm greetings and deep gratitude to you on this, the 64th anniversary of our Independence.
August 31, 1962, marked a defining moment in our history, when Trinidad and Tobago emerged as a free and sovereign nation and took its rightful place on the world stage. Sixty-four years later, we must continue to reflect on what Independence means and, more importantly, on the responsibility that comes with being masters of our own destiny.
Our first Prime Minister, the late Dr. Eric Williams, reminded us in his first Independence Day address: “Whatever the challenge that faces you, from whatever quarter, place always first that national interest and the national cause. The strength of the Nation depends on the strength of its citizens.” Those words are as important today as they were in 1962. At a time when our citizens are facing hardship, uncertainty and the loss of jobs, we must remember the strength that resides in our people and the national qualities upon which our country was built: Discipline, Production and Tolerance.
Discipline must be reflected in the governance of our nation. The reported 24 departures from State boards this year, including the resignation of the chairman of Heritage Petroleum, raise serious questions about the appointments made by this Government, the competence of those entrusted with our national institutions and whether these boards were equipped from the beginning to do the jobs they were appointed to perform. The people deserve accountability and clarity about the management of institutions that belong to them.
Tolerance is one of the defining strengths of our society, but it must never become an acceptance of circumstances that diminish the quality of life of our people. The shortages affecting some medicines under CDAP, including certain cancer drugs, remind us that behind every shortage is a citizen waiting for something essential to their wellbeing.
Production must be seen in the results delivered to our people. Thousands of parents have been waiting on book grants as the new school term approaches, with families having to meet expenses themselves while they await assistance. Government must have the capacity to plan, execute and deliver on time.
And as the world around us changes, we must ask where Trinidad and Tobago stands. The United States and Venezuela have announced a major oil agreement involving Venezuela’s vast energy reserves. As our neighbour enters a new energy reality, what deal is Trinidad and Tobago getting? What opportunities are being secured for our energy sector, our businesses and our workers? What is our strategy for investment, growth and jobs at a time when concerns about economic slowdown are emerging?
Yet, despite the hardships we face, I remain immensely proud of the people of Trinidad and Tobago. We have lost jobs, endured uncertainty and faced difficult times, but we remain the land of steelpan, calypso and chutney; a remarkable melting pot of cultures, traditions, faiths and peoples. As calypsonian Denyse Plummer so beautifully reminds us, “Nah Leaving” — for this is the land of our birth, the land that has shaped us and the land we continue to love.
At 64, let us therefore renew our commitment to the national interest and the national cause. Let us demand discipline in governance and in ourselves, production that creates opportunity and equity, and tolerance that strengthens the fabric of our society.
On behalf of the Opposition of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, I wish every citizen at home and abroad a blessed and reflective Independence Day 2026. May this day inspire us to stand together as one people under one flag, proud of who we are and confident in where we are going.
May God bless you all, and may God bless our beloved nation of Trinidad and Tobago.
--END--
Hon. Pennelope A. Beckles, MP
Leader of the Opposition
Dane G Wilson
Stop Telling Members to Trust the System. The PNM Must Tell the Truth!
Politics is not a game of blind faith and political parties are not religious cults.
The People’s National Movement is a 70 year old institution one of the pillars of Trinidad and Tobago. It is built on democratic principles, collective responsibility, and a constitution.
That constitution is not decorative. It is the foundation of the institution and it must be respected and protected by any member regardless of position or title.
An institution of this magnitude cannot survive on unearned reverence.
A system that demands loyalty from the rank and file while tolerating double standards, backroom fixes in Couva and selective silence, is an institution in decline.
If the PNM wants to recover from the catastrophe of the 2025 General Election it must stop treating members as if we don’t matter. And it must start with honesty and respect.
I have every right as a PNM member, to raise questions about governance, accountability and the integrity of the party’s processes. Whether General Secretary Foster Cummings considers me --> financial <-- or not does not determine whether my questions are legitimate.
I asked questions about the election of Dr. Nyan Gadsby-Dolly as Chairman of the PNM. In particular I raised concerns about whether Dr. Amery Browne and Roger Munroe were eligible to participate in that General Council.
I also asked questions about Mayor Balliram Maharaj attending a UNC fundraiser while serving as a PNM Mayor.
These are not personal attacks. They are legitimate questions about integrity and standards.
If leadership has answers it should provide them. If it does not, it should say so. But it should not attempt to disqualify the person asking the question.
Take Brian Manning. He raised concerns about the structure and administration of the PNM in San Fernando East. We were told that the General Council had appointed an inquiry, representations were heard and a report was submitted. That is all well and good.
But what are the findings of that report? What actions were recommended? Why were they taken?
The leadership refuses to say. Instead, the dispute dragged on until the executive resigned.
That is not administration. That is governance by obfuscation.
Take Hazel Manning.
A former Minister of Education and Local Government. A former coordinator in Princes Town. The widow of Prime Minister Patrick Manning. A woman who has given decades of service to this party and this country.
Yet when Juliet Davy a just come PNM member goes on social media and uses obscene language to attack and disrespect her, where is the outrage from the PNM leadership? Where is the PNM Women’s League?
Silence in the face of public disrespect is not neutrality. It is cowardice. It is a signal that such behaviour is acceptable.
Take Arima.
On December 13th 2025 Mayor Balliram Maharaj attended a UNC fundraiser and failed to attend his own PNM corporation’s Christmas function.
On December 16th Mrs Beckles-Robinson said nothing about disciplining Maharaj.
On March 16th 2026 former General Secretary Ashton Ford wrote to Foster Cummings demanding Maharaj’s removal.
On April 2nd 2026 Beckles-Robinson said Maharaj had agreed to resign and that it would be effective within the short time.
On April 5th or 6th Ford followed up asking exactly when a -> short time <- was.
Today 149 days later Maharaj is still embarrassingly the PNM Arima Mayor.
If leadership has a position it should state it clearly.
If it is too weak to enforce it it should admit that.
But it should not call this silence leadership.
Take the internal elections.
Dr. Nyan Gadsby-Dolly was declared Chairman after winning 60–58 with four spoiled ballots. Serious questions were raised about the eligibility of Dr. Amery Browne and Roger Munroe to participate.
That is not a minor issue. It goes to the heart of the integrity of the process.
A confident institution answers those questions. It does not sweep them under the rug.
The same opacity surrounds the selection of the Leader of the Opposition.
In January 2025 Dr. Keith Rowley explained clearly how the caucus had chosen Stuart Young SC as Prime Minister.
After the general election, a document showed that only seven of the thirteen PNM MPs had supported the nomination of Mrs Beckles-Robinson.
Six names were missing Young SC, Brian Manning, Hans Des Vignes, Dominic Romain, Camille Robinson-Regis and Christian Birchwood.
Were they invited to the meeting? If not, why not? If they were invited and did not attend why?
Why has leadership never provided a full and clear explanation of the sequence of events?
Those six MPs also owe the General Council answers.
When Ashton Ford speaks up Treasurer Robert Le Hunte dismisses it as --> just his opinion <--.
When members write to the General Secretary, Foster Cummings hides behind membership status.
That is how a cabal operates. It treats questions as disloyalty instead of duty.
I use the word cabal deliberately.
I have watched the UNC develop an entrenched cabal that now controls that party.
And I see the same culture developing in the PNM centralisation of control, bullying, intolerance of dissent, selective standards and the protection of the cabal architecture instead of the institution.
That is dangerous. We cannot defeat the UNC by copying them.
Nelson Mandela said it best anyone who changes principles depending on who he is dealing with cannot lead a nation.
The PNM deserves better than evasion.
Real leadership means facing hard truths. Upholding the constitution without fear or favour. Explaining the system to the members who sustain it.
The PNM does not need members who blindly trust.
It needs leadership that is worthy of trust.
If leadership cannot provide that then it is not managing a political institution.
It is managing a political cover up. I’m just saying
This Dane Wilson is no Joke
Respons to Steven Sam.
Steven Sam, You Missed The Point And You Missed It Badly.
First a small matter of basic courtesy.
You repeatedly refer to --> Dean Wilson <--. My name is Dane Wilson.
I will acknowledge that --> Dean Wilson <-- may well be another person entirely. I assume however that everyone reading your post understands that you are referring to me.
If you are going to write an entire Facebook post attacking me by name the least you can do is spell the name correctly.
Now to the substance or rather the lack of it.
Your lengthy sermon about -> double standards <- does not answer the point I made. It simply changes the subject and then proceeds to attack a position I never held.
I have never argued that someone previously associated with the UNC cannot become a member of the PNM.
That would be an absurd position.
Larry Lalla SC left the UNC and subsequently entered the PNM political space.
Andell Paramsook previously contested for the UNC and subsequently contested for the PNM.
And for the record I am publicly on record welcoming Larry Lalla SC and Anita Haynes-Alleyne into the PNM.
So your great gotcha falls apart rather quickly.
Because the issue was never where someone came from.
The issue is what standards apply to people once they enter the PNM, particularly when they occupy positions of influence or publicly represent the party.
That distinction shouldn't be difficult to understand.
But apparently it was easier to construct a straw man than to deal with the actual argument.
Then you move to Hazel Manning.
I criticised Juliet Davy for publicly referring to Mrs. Hazel Manning a woman who has given decades of service to the PNM as an --> old ass <-- .
I defended Mrs. Manning.
You somehow interpret that as meaning I must now produce a comprehensive list of every person who has ever said something offensive about a PNM woman.
No Steven.
That is not how standards work.
If a PNM man unjustly attacks a PNM woman I will condemn it.
If a PNM woman unjustly attacks another PNM woman I will condemn it.
If a PNM member attacks another PNM member simply because that person disagrees with the leadership, I will condemn that to.
The standard is the standard.
One wrong does not excuse another.
And while you are lecturing everyone about defending PNM women I notice you conveniently ignored another point I raised
Where was the PNM National Women's League when Camille Robinson-Regis was subjected to vile attacks from Anil Roberts?
You didn't address it.
Not a word.
I understand.
It doesn't fit very comfortably into the argument you were trying to construct.
And then you tell me to stop using Hazel Manning as a -> political football <-.
Steven, I didn't use Hazel Manning as a political football.
I defended her.
There is a difference.
Now let's deal with your favourite declaration
The PNM is bigger than Dean Wilson.
Yes.
It is.
But you appear to have forgotten something rather important.
The PNM is bigger than Steven Sam too.
It is bigger than Juliet Davy.
It is bigger than Political Leader Penelope Beckles-Robinson.
It is bigger than any Chairman.
Any officer.
Any MP.
Any councillor.
Any faction.
And any cabal.
The fact that the PNM is bigger than any individual is precisely why no individual should be above criticism.
Not me.
Not you.
Not Juliet.
Not the Chairman.
And not the Political Leader.
One Political Leader. One PNM. Never two.0pp
Fine.
But having one Political Leader does not mean having one permitted opinion.
It does not mean members surrender their judgment.
It does not mean criticism becomes disloyalty.
And it certainly does not mean that supporting the PNM requires blindly supporting whoever happens to be leading it at any particular moment.
Especially not from me.
I will think for myself.
I will speak for myself.
And where I believe the PNM is going in the wrong direction, I will say so.
You don't have to like that.
But you don't get to redefine disagreement as disloyalty simply because it is inconvenient.
That is not unity.
That is conformity.
And then we come to the most curious part of your post.
You wrote
-->;THE ONE THAT FEEDS YOU CONTROLS YOU <--
Really?
Then let's dispense with the cryptic Facebook insinuations.
Who is feeding me?
What exactly are you alleging?
From whom?
How much?
And where is your evidence?
If you have an allegation make it plainly and substantiate it.
If you don't then what you have written is simply an unsupported insinuation intended to smear me because you cannot deal with what I actually said.
And that brings us to the real irony of your post.
You began by preaching about
standards.
integrity.
loyalty.
respect.
Yet your response consisted largely of misrepresenting my position, changing the subject, invoking the Political Leader as though that ends legitimate debate and finally making a vague insinuation about my finances.
That isn't an argument Steven.
It is an attempt to discredit the messenger because you cannot adequately answer the message.
So spare me the lecture about -> ONE PNM <-
I believe in One PNM.
But One PNM does not mean one voice.
One PNM does not mean unquestioning obedience.
One PNM does not mean political silence.
One PNM does not mean protecting favourites.
And One PNM certainly does not mean surrendering your conscience at the door of Balisier House.
The PNM is an institution.
Its members have the right to question it.
To challenge it.
To defend it.
To criticise it.
And to demand better from it.
So yes Steven
The PNM is bigger than Dane Wilson.
But it is also bigger than Steven Sam.
And neither you nor I own it.
That isn't division.
That is democracy. I'm just responding
By : DANE G WILSON
WHERE IS THE PNM WOMEN’S LEAGUE?
The PNM has reached an all time low.
Juliet Davy a woman still being politically sanitised having only recently come into the PNM from the murky lagoon where the UNC is the dominant political party can go on social media and publicly refer to former PNM Minister of Education and Local Government and former PNM Princes Town Constituency Coordinator, Mrs. Hazel Manning a woman who has given decades of service to this party as --> an old ass <--.
And where is the outrage?
Where is the PNM National Women’s League press release condemning this vulgarity?
Where is Dr. Nyan Gadsby-Dolly the PNM’s Lady Vice Chairman and head of the National Women’s League?
Why has she not condemned Juliet Davy?
This is the same PNM that has publicly recognised and honoured Hazel Manning for her contribution to Trinidad and Tobago and to the party.
Yet today, when a just come PNM member publicly demeans a senior PNM woman the leadership suddenly goes silent.
Why?
Apparently in today’s PNM dominated by a cabal, vulgarity is permissible as long as you are vulgarising the right person.
That is not leadership.
That is cabalism.
And let me be clear this is not the first time a senior PNM woman has been publicly attacked while Dr. Gadsby-Dolly remained silent.
When former PNM Lady Vice Chairman Camille Robinson-Regis was subjected to vile and vulgar remarks by Minister Anil Roberts PNM members were crying out for a statement from the National Women’s League and Dr. Gadsby-Dolly.
There was silence. Absolute silence. Profound silence.
Now it is Hazel Manning.
Different PNM woman. Same silence.
At what point does the PNM Women’s League actually defend PNM women?
We have reached the point where vulgarity is tolerated, disrespect is ignored and senior members are thrown under the bus while those in leadership positions sit silently and watch with satisfaction.
Mrs. Hazel Manning deserves better.
The women of the PNM deserve better.
And the PNM membership deserves better.
If the National Women’s League will not defend the dignity of a senior PNM woman being publicly abused then what exactly is the purpose of the League?
And if the Lady Vice Chairman cannot find her voice when a senior PNM woman is publicly degraded what exactly is she a leader of?
The PNM I know would never have tolerated this.
The PNM standards have collapsed. The silence is shameful. And cabalism is destroying our political institution. I'm just disgusted.
China Just Lit Up Cuba. America Tried to Stop It.
20-hour blackouts. A 90% fuel blockade. And Beijing's answer wasn't sympathy — it was 20,000 solar panels, 49 new solar parks, and $80 million signed off personally by Xi Jinping.
While Washington tightens the siege, China is quietly rebuilding Cuba's entire energy grid — ninety miles from Florida. This is the story behind the story.
#Cuba #Geopolitics #WorldNews #china #usarmy
China helps Cuba
How you reason with the Dunce
Well she place that on her page. I assume that was directed at him , but I don't know for sure but what I know is that on her page the Brian Manning issue went silent after the rebuke.
Wait nah is this Akeliah response to Dane ?
Akeliah Glasgow FB Post
It is time for constituency executives to start requesting general reports from ALL three of their representatives who attend General Council meetings. Because clearly, the facts and information coming out of General Council are not being carried back to the constituencies.
That comment section made me wonder if I does be in a different General Council yes.
As an attendee of the General Coucil, I can say that everything said at that Press Conference was the truth.
Come on man. Have your tantrums, but don't tell lies about the process that was followed, even if it was not fast enough for you.
Dane S G Wilson
Respons to Mayor Akeliah Glasgow
Akeliah, before lecturing the PNM about its internal processes you might want to become familiar with them.
Your declaration that it is --> time for Constituency Executives to start requesting reports from the three General Council representatives <-- is rather amusing. You are presenting as some great revelation something that has been normal PNM practice for 70 years.
General Council representatives report to their Constituency Groups on what transpired at General Council the discussions, decisions and relevant developments. That is not a new idea. It is part of how the party's machinery is supposed to function.
I know this because I am not a spectator to the PNM's internal processes. I am a member of the PNM institution and I have served on General Council. So when you speak with such certainty about how General Council operates you should understand that there are people listening who actually know the machinery you are attempting to explain.
And attending General Council does not suddenly make you the supreme court of General Council truth.
You witnessed what you witnessed. You have your interpretation and your account of what occurred. Another representative may have witnessed the same proceedings and reached a completely different conclusion. That is called disagreement. It is called having a different assessment of events. It is not automatically a lie simply because it does not conform to your preferred narrative.
So when you dismiss Brian H. Manning concerns as a -> tantrum <- and declare that people are --> telling lies <-- you are doing something far more serious than disagreeing with him. You are attempting to delegitimise his concerns without actually addressing them.
That is not accountability.
That is not leadership.
And it certainly is not the PNM tradition of robust internal debate.
Perhaps the more appropriate question is not whether Brian Manning is having a -> tantrum <- but why some people become so uncomfortable when a member of the party asks difficult questions about the conduct of a party process.
The PNM did not decline because its members asked to many questions. It declined because far too often people became more interested in defending the cabal than examining whether the party machinery was functioning properly.
So Akeliah by all means defend the cabal process. You are entitled to your view.
But don't confuse attendance with expertise, disagreement with dishonesty or confidence with knowledge.
And please don't mistake every PNM member who refuses to applaud the cabal process for someone having a tantrum.
Some of us have simply been around long enough to know the difference between genuine PNM loyalty and cabal loyalty. I'm just saying
Facebook Post from MP Brian Manning page.
More has come…
Over the last few months, I have observed the escalating turmoil and overwhelming concerns by the people of San Fernando East, regarding the conduct, reputation and business of some who represent us.
San Fernando East is a symbolic seat, not just for the legacy of Patrick Manning and the Manning family, but for the People’s National
movement.
For decades I watched my husband, and now my son Brian Manning, walk every street, take note of every issue and make sacrifices to try to reach and represent every constituent.
Given the circumstances and following countless phone calls, in the interest of bringing peace to the constituency, tonight I formally agree to offer myself to serve in the position of chairman of the San Fernando East constituency.
I appreciate each of you. Let us work together to repair, recover and rebuild.
Hazel Manning
AN ALARM IS RAISED BY A FORMER EXECUTIVE GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE OPPOSITION, PEOPLES NATIONAL MOVEMENT.
ASHTON FORDE SAYS, THE PARTY HE DEDICATED MORE THAT FIFTY YEARS TO, IS HEADING DOWN THE WRONG ROAD UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF PENELOPE BECKLES.
MR. FORDE FEELS, WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE SAN FERNANDO EAST CONSTITUENCY OF THE PARTY, IS AN INDICATION THAT DISASTER LOOMS.
MP BRIAN MANNING HAS COMPLAINED, CONSTITUENCY MEMBERS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE MANY ROLES BEING PLAYED BY, CHAIRMAN PATRICIA ALEXIS.
MR. MANNING HAS WRITTEN TO THE PARTY, CALLING FOR AN INTERVENTION
YESTERDAY ON THE MORNING SHOW ON i95.5 ASHTON FORDE SAID, THERE ARE ATTEMPTS BEING MADE TO REMOVE MP MANNING.
MR. FORDE ALSO SAID, CERTAIN CONSTITUENCY ELECTIONS ARE BEING CANCELLED, AND POLITICAL LEADER PENELOPE BECKLES REMAINS SILENT.
PNM CHAIRMAN MARVIN GONZALES ASSURES THE SAN FERNANDO EAST, ISSUE IS BEING MANAGED BY THE LEADERSHIP OF THE PARTY AND SUPPORTED BY THE GENERAL COUNCIL.
HE SAYS, THE EXECUTIVE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH BOTH PARTIES TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE.
MP GONZALES WAS SPEAKING WITH NEWSCENTER FIVE YESTERDAY.
Click Click making sure to be focused on the business at hand. While everyone else was distracted.
They removed the MP from a WhatsApp constituency chat.
