The first year of any Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice is of­ten marked by good­will, high ex­pec­ta­tions and the ben­e­fit of the doubt. The sec­ond year is dif­fer­ent: the pub­lic be­gins to judge not promis­es, but re­sults.

Yes­ter­day’s im­ages from Cara­cas were noth­ing short of cat­a­stroph­ic—col­lapsed build­ings, res­i­dents dig­ging through rub­ble in search of loved ones and am­bu­lances car­ry­ing the in­jured to over­whelmed hos­pi­tals and morgues.

If the pro­posed ini­tia­tive in To­ba­go to trans­form ca­su­al labour un­der the Com­mu­ni­ty-Based En­vi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion and En­hance­ment Pro­gramme (CEPEP) in­to or­gan­ised food pro­duc­tion is pur­sued with se­ri­ous­ness, the na­tion could take an im­por­tant step to­ward food self-suf­fi­cien­cy.

The ul­ti­mate tragedy of the Trinidad and To­ba­go Elec­tric­i­ty Com­mis­sion’s (T&TEC) “pro­tect­ed list” ex­pose is that it makes the com­mis­sion look like it has been act­ing un­der po­lit­i­cal di­rec­tives to do some­thing in­ap­pro­pri­ate. It re­vealed the po­lit­i­cal di­rec­torate was us­ing pow­er and in­flu­ence to shield cer­tain po­lit­i­cal and cor­po­rate en­ti­ties from pay­ment of elec­tric­i­ty bills at tax­pay­ers’ ex­pense. And third and most im­por­tant, it re­in­forces the view in the pub­lic mind that or­di­nary cit­i­zens are pres­sured to pay and ha­rassed with pow­er cuts, while the priv­i­leged are giv­en a free rein by un­writ­ten rules that put them in a cat­e­go­ry of un­touch­ables above oth­er cit­i­zens.

The Unit­ed King­dom’s re­cent­ly pub­lished Coun­try Pol­i­cy and In­for­ma­tion Note on gangs in Trinidad and To­ba­go should make for un­com­fort­able read­ing for every cit­i­zen, re­gard­less of po­lit­i­cal af­fil­i­a­tion.

It is un­for­tu­nate that not many of us who have fol­lowed in­te­gra­tion mat­ters over the years have been re­mind­ing re­gion­al lead­ers and pol­i­cy­mak­ers about the hol­low PR that ac­com­pa­nied the adop­tion of the Cari­com Char­ter of Civ­il So­ci­ety (CCS) al­most 30 years ago.

The To­ba­go House of As­sem­bly’s 2027 Bud­get stands as one of the most am­bi­tious fis­cal pack­ages in re­cent years. Framed un­der the theme “Re­sults-Based Gov­er­nance: A Path­way to Pros­per­i­ty,” it seeks to move be­yond tra­di­tion­al spend­ing pat­terns and place mea­sur­able out­comes at the cen­tre of pub­lic pol­i­cy. The key ques­tion is whether this bold vi­sion can be trans­lat­ed in­to tan­gi­ble re­sults.

Can Unit­ed States Pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump re­strain not on­ly his own ad­min­is­tra­tion, but al­so Amer­i­ca’s clos­est al­ly, Is­rael, and its Prime Min­is­ter Ben­jamin Ne­tanyahu, from un­der­min­ing the Mem­o­ran­dum of Un­der­stand­ing (MOU) signed with Iran? This ques­tion now lies at the cen­tre of whether the re­gion can fi­nal­ly move away from pro­longed con­flict in­volv­ing the Unit­ed States, Is­rael, Iran and Hezbol­lah in Lebanon.

The Hin­du pop­u­la­tion is ap­prox­i­mate­ly 1.1 bil­lion, ac­count­ing for 80 per cent or four in every five per­sons.

Every new ad­min­is­tra­tion as­sumes of­fice with a man­date to con­front the un­re­solved chal­lenges of its pre­de­ces­sor, or at the very least, to make a cred­i­ble ef­fort to ad­dress the most press­ing is­sues it in­her­its. No gov­ern­ment can solve every prob­lem overnight. Yet it must demon­strate both in­tent and di­rec­tion. In pre­sent­ing the Sup­ple­men­tary Ap­pro­pri­a­tion last Mon­day, the Min­is­ter of Fi­nance ac­knowl­edged that the cur­rent ad­min­is­tra­tion was elect­ed on the promise of change—af­ter cit­i­zens grew weary of as­sur­ances of im­prove­ment while their cir­cum­stances de­te­ri­o­rat­ed. The cen­tral ques­tion, then, is what tan­gi­ble changes will now fol­low.

The 50-year-old friend­ship be­tween Dr Kei­th Row­ley and Dr Tim Gopeesingh sur­vived their clash­es in par­lia­ment when Row­ley was Op­po­si­tion Leader and Gopeesingh was Min­is­ter of Ed­u­ca­tion. Dr Gopeesingh, an ob­ste­tri­cian, helped to de­liv­er the Row­leys el­dest daugh­ter close to 40 years ago.

The Hous­ing De­vel­op­ment Cor­po­ra­tion’s (HDC) de­ci­sion to can­cel its con­tro­ver­sial $3.4 bil­lion De­sign-Build-Fi­nance hous­ing pro­cure­ment ex­er­cise was the cor­rect one. While the move has sparked po­lit­i­cal de­bate and re­newed scruti­ny of the hous­ing sec­tor, the over­rid­ing prin­ci­ple must re­main the pro­tec­tion of the pub­lic in­ter­est and the in­tegri­ty of the coun­try’s pro­cure­ment sys­tem.