For many citizens, news that the Government intends to borrow up to US $1 billion on the international market may barely register. It sounds technical and distant. The sort of thing discussed by bankers, economists, and politicians, far removed from everyday life. But public borrowing is never abstract. It eventually finds its way into people’s pockets, their public services, and their future opportunities.
At current exchange rates, US$ 1 billion represents approximately TT$ 7 billion. That money must be repaid, with interest, in foreign currency. And while investors will be paid first and on time, the real burden of repayment will fall on citizens who already feel under pressure from rising living costs, constrained public services, and persistent economic uncertainty.
The borrowing has been authorised through a legal order that exempts the proposed bonds from taxes and foreign exchange controls, making them more attractive to international investors. The bonds are to be marketed primarily to large institutional buyers, with major global banks acting as lead arrangers. These are all standard mechanisms of sovereign borrowing. What is not standard, and what should concern the public, is the lack of clarity regarding how the money will actually be used.
We are told the funds may be applied to “national development projects” and debt repayment. That phrase appears often in official statements, yet it tells citizens very little. Development for whom? Which projects? Over what timeline? With what measurable benefits? In the absence of answers, people are left to assume that borrowing has become a way to keep the lights on rather than to change the direction of the economy.
This matters because ordinary families are already making hard choices. Parents are stretching household budgets to cover food, transport, school expenses, and utilities. Small business owners continue to struggle with foreign exchange constraints that disrupt supply chains and planning. Young people, even those with qualifications, increasingly wonder whether meaningful opportunity exists at home.
Against that reality, the decision to take on billions in new foreign debt without a clearly articulated public plan feels disconnected from lived experience.
Trinidad and Tobago has accessed international capital markets before. In recent years, the State issued substantial external bonds, including a US-dollar-denominated bond that attracted strong investor interest. Investor appetite, however, is not the same thing as economic success. Investors care about returns and repayment, citizens care about jobs, security, healthcare, and a future they can believe in.
Our public debt has been rising, and while international institutions have described it as manageable, they have also cautioned that risks remain. External debt carries particular vulnerabilities for a small, import-dependent economy. Government earns most of its revenue in TT dollars but must service foreign debt in US dollars. Any sustained pressure on foreign exchange availability, something businesses and consumers already experience, increases the cost and difficulty of repayment.
When that happens, governments do not cut bond payments. They cut elsewhere. That is when borrowing becomes personal, when hospitals remain under-resourced, schools deteriorate, infrastructure projects stall, and citizens are told to tighten their belts because “there is no money”.
There is also an issue of fairness across generations. Borrowing allows today’s leaders to postpone difficult decisions, but it shifts the cost onto future taxpayers, many of whom had no voice in the decision. Debt, in that sense, is not just a financial instrument; it is a moral one. It reflects how much responsibility we are willing to pass on to those who come after us.
This borrowing decision also sits within a broader economic pattern that should concern us. Our economy remains heavily dependent on the energy sector, even as production fluctuates and global markets evolve. Diversification has been discussed for decades, yet progress remains slow. Non-energy exports are limited, and new growth sectors struggle to gain traction.
In that context, borrowing without a clearly stated growth strategy risks becoming a substitute for reform. Loans can fill budget gaps, refinance old obligations, and ease short-term pressures, but they do not, by themselves, build resilience. Without structural change, borrowing simply buys time.
What citizens deserve is transparency and inclusion. Major financial decisions should not feel imposed or quietly executed. They should be explained plainly, debated openly, and justified honestly.
A people-centred approach to public finance would link any borrowing directly to outcomes citizens can see and feel, improved healthcare delivery, targeted job creation, support for local production, and real investment in communities that have long been overlooked. It would include clear benchmarks, independent oversight, and regular public reporting on results, not just announcements.
This is not an argument against borrowing at all costs. It is an argument against borrowing without purpose, without transparency, and without regard for the people who ultimately pay the price.
In this light, the Government must answer some simple but essential questions, such as, will this US $1 billion change the daily lives of citizens? How will it strengthen our economy’s ability to earn foreign exchange? How will risks be managed if global or domestic conditions worsen?
Until those answers are clearly given, citizens are right to be uneasy. Because when governments borrow, it is not institutions or investors who carry the weight in the end.
It is the people.
Mickela Panday
Political Leader of the Patriotic Front and Attorney at Law
Email-patriotic.front.tt@gmail.com
