RAD­HI­CA DE SIL­VA

Se­nior Mul­ti­me­dia Re­porter

rad­hi­ca.sookraj@guardian.co.tt

Fi­nance Min­is­ter Dav­en­dranath Tan­coo has de­fend­ed the gov­ern­ment’s de­ci­sion to re­tain the old Coat of Arms dur­ing a tran­si­tion pe­ri­od, say­ing the move is dri­ven by prac­ti­cal­i­ty and cost con­sid­er­a­tions that will save the coun­try mil­lions of dol­lars.

Speak­ing on Tues­day, Tan­coo said a phased tran­si­tion is nec­es­sary, giv­en the scale of changes re­quired across the pub­lic ser­vice and abroad.

“There are com­mon-sense rea­sons for hav­ing a tran­si­tion pe­ri­od. There are mil­lions of dol­lars’ worth of sig­nage in every sin­gle gov­ern­ment of­fice in the coun­try and em­bassies abroad, mil­lions more in stock of let­ter­head, pass­es, stamps and seals,” he said.

He added that the re­place­ment process ex­tends be­yond print­ed ma­te­ri­als to na­tion­al cur­ren­cy.

“All cur­ren­cy has to be changed, in­clud­ing coins hav­ing to be mint­ed. Ob­vi­ous­ly, a tran­si­tion is prac­ti­cal so that the old is re­placed over time with the new. There is ab­solute­ly noth­ing clan­des­tine about it,” Tan­coo said.

Tan­coo not­ed that both the old and new Coats of Arms have been in use since Jan­u­ary 2025, point­ing out that the for­mer Peo­ple’s Na­tion­al Move­ment (PNM) ad­min­is­tra­tion ap­proved the new de­sign with­out es­tab­lish­ing a clear tran­si­tion plan.

“The PNM ap­proved a new coat of arms but made no guide­lines for tran­si­tion, no time frame for when the old coat of arms will be re­tired. In fact, the PNM did not even make pro­vi­sions to pay the de­sign­er for the new de­sign that they were us­ing,” he said.

He praised Prime Min­is­ter Kam­la Per­sad-Bisses­sar for in­tro­duc­ing a struc­tured ap­proach to the tran­si­tion, which has been ac­cept­ed by the Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress (UNC).

“I salute the Prime Min­is­ter for cor­rect­ing this PNM fail­ure. Our gov­ern­ment has act­ed re­spon­si­bly in set­ting a firm dead­line for the full con­ver­sion to the use of the new coat of arms. In fact, it is even more il­log­i­cal to ex­pect an im­me­di­ate re­place­ment of use of the new coat of arms,” Tan­coo said.

The fi­nance min­is­ter’s com­ments come amid crit­i­cism from for­mer UNC sen­a­tor Tahar­qa Obi­ka, who crossed the floor to the PNM and who has ac­cused the gov­ern­ment of racism for al­low­ing the tra­di­tion­al Coat of Arms to re­main in use un­til Jan­u­ary 2031.

Re­spond­ing to those claims, Tan­coo said the ac­cu­sa­tions were base­less and di­vi­sive.

“I am proud to say with­out fear of con­tra­dic­tion that the UNC is the most in­clu­sive par­ty in the coun­try. We are about build­ing the coun­try — all of it. I would ad­vise Obi­ka to speak for his PNM par­ty and keep his mouth out of UNC busi­ness,” he said.

He al­so ac­cused Obi­ka of hypocrisy, not­ing that the PNM con­tin­ued us­ing both ver­sions of the Coat of Arms while in of­fice.

“He can speak his mis­guid­ed mis­chief about the PNM all he wants, but it is hyp­o­crit­i­cal, un­eth­i­cal and dis­gust­ing to pre­tend to speak on be­half of the UNC. The PNM were in of­fice for months af­ter the new coat of arms was passed and con­tin­ued us­ing the old coat of arms as well as the new,” Tan­coo said.

He added that the pub­lic would see Obi­ka’s state­ments for what they are.

“I know that cit­i­zens will see Obi­ka's com­ments for what they are—a des­per­ate, im­ma­ture, un­pa­tri­ot­ic PNM at­tempt to cre­ate di­vi­sion and dis­cord,” he said.

Ad­dress­ing the cul­tur­al as­pect of the con­tro­ver­sy, Tan­coo firm­ly de­fend­ed the steel­pan as a na­tion­al sym­bol.

“Fi­nal­ly, in case Obi­ka is un­aware in his anx­i­ety to rewrite his­to­ry, the steel pan, like me, is proud­ly and ab­solute­ly Trin­bag­on­ian and al­ways has been,” he said.

Obi­ka, mean­while, main­tained that the UNC lead­er­ship does not re­gard the steel­pan as a na­tion­al in­no­va­tion cre­at­ed in Trinidad and To­ba­go.

“They clear­ly see the steel­pan as an African in­stru­ment and as a re­sult have no in­ten­tion of ho­n­our­ing the coat of arms. It is an un­for­tu­nate racist po­si­tion,” he said.

He ar­gued that the is­sue is not the de­pic­tion of Colum­bus’s ships on the Coat of Arms but the steel­pan it­self.

“The three ships is not the is­sue—it is the steel­pan. The gov­ern­ment is be­ing con­sis­tent. The state en­ti­ties that have steel­pan spon­sor­ships have been stopped un­der NGC and Her­itage; the coat of arms re­ver­sal, or ex­ten­sion, is a con­tin­u­a­tion of same,” Obi­ka said.

He added that at­tempts to frame the de­ci­sion as a cost-sav­ing mea­sure amount­ed to po­lit­i­cal spin, cit­ing his back­ground as a for­mer youth leader of the Na­tion­al Joint Ac­tion Com­mit­tee, for­mer pres­i­dent of the UWI African So­ci­ety and for­mer mem­ber of the Na­tion­al Repa­ra­tions Com­mit­tee.

The Na­tion­al Em­blems of Trinidad and To­ba­go (Reg­u­la­tion) (Amend­ment) Bill, 2025, which pro­vides for changes to the na­tion­al Coat of Arms, was passed in the Sen­ate on Jan­u­ary 21, 2025.