By: Paul Sarran
August 15, 2025
Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s address at the United National Congress Monday Night Report was more than a fiery warning; it was a clear signal that the days of ignoring corruption and inefficiency are over. As an aspiring political scientist, I view this as both necessary and commendable, not for optics, but for the long-term stability and credibility of the state. Her blunt words, “I will buss their heads,” may have been provocative, but they reflect a no-nonsense approach to ensuring that those entrusted with public office uphold the highest standards of transparency and accountability. In a political climate where promises often outweigh performance, her directness is refreshing.
Corruption erodes public trust and diverts resources away from the people. The Prime Minister’s demand that ministers and MPs submit 100-day performance reports is a tangible step towards institutionalising accountability. Leadership is not about winning elections alone, it is about measurable, transparent delivery. When leaders require their own team to account directly to the people, it creates a culture of responsiveness and service rather than self-interest. This is especially important in a country where political transitions have often failed to dismantle entrenched systems of patronage and waste.
Her warning to state enterprises like Caribbean Airlines Ltd (CAL) is equally important. Years of unaudited statements and questionable financial practices reflect a broader problem of state-owned entities operating without consequence. By giving CAL a two-year ultimatum to sort out its operations, Persad-Bissessar is promoting results-based governance. Deadlines in governance are not just time markers; they communicate seriousness and a refusal to accept mediocrity. Public service is a privilege, and continued employment should be tied to performance.
Her willingness to challenge financial institutions and the so-called “one percenter” also demonstrates a broader understanding of where corruption thrives. The examples she cited, where private interests profited from opaque deals at public expense, expose the deep connections between political power and economic elites. Addressing these practices is crucial to ensuring that economic growth benefits the broader public, not just the privileged few. By targeting both governmental and corporate malpractice, she acknowledges that corruption is systemic and must be tackled on all fronts.
Equally telling was her focus on local governance. Issues such as ghost workers, poor productivity, and negligence in regional corporations directly affect daily life from road safety to community maintenance. The tragic death of Kalisa Danclair illustrates that corruption and inefficiency are not abstract problems; they can have fatal consequences. Linking funding to performance in these corporations is a practical measure to force long-overdue reform.
As an aspiring political scientist, I see her approach aligning with the principles of good governance recognised by institutions like the United Nations and the World Bank transparency, accountability, responsiveness, and effectiveness. What distinguishes her stance is that it comes with clear warnings, deadlines, and a willingness to remove those who fail. Combating corruption rarely succeeds through quiet measures; it requires decisive, public action that leaves no doubt about where the government stands.
Critics may question her language or worry that such public statements could create divisions within her administration. But history shows that unity without integrity often enables corruption to grow unchecked. Her position recognises that a team divided over ethics is better than one united in wrongdoing. Political will is the most critical factor in anti-corruption efforts, and she has shown she possesses both the will and the courage to act.
Her insistence on avoiding the mistakes of the 2010 to 2015 term reflects political maturity and an ability to learn from history. Too often, leaders repeat past errors because they refuse to confront their own missteps. By openly stating that such mistakes will not be repeated, she is working to build an institutional memory that prevents regression.
Her warning against “cavorting with crooked contractors and lawyers” is also a reminder that corruption often starts small with a meeting, a favour, or a handshake before growing into larger abuses. Highlighting these early warning signs sends a strong message to public officials about vigilance and integrity.
In the broader governance context of Trinidad and Tobago, this speech should be seen as a reset. Changing political parties alone is not enough; the culture of governance must evolve. This requires leaders prepared to confront both external pressures and internal temptations, and to act decisively when the public interest is at stake, even at personal or political cost.
Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s words were sharp, but they were matched with the resolve too often absent in politics. As an aspiring political scientist, I believe that if her warnings are followed by consistent action, they could mark a turning point in how public service is defined and practised in our country. Transparency and accountability are not abstract ideals; they are the pillars upon which sustainable development and democratic legitimacy rest. By standing firm for these principles, even in unvarnished language, she is doing exactly what the nation needs setting standards, drawing clear lines, and making it clear that corruption, inefficiency, and betrayal will find no safe harbour under her leadership.
(The author successfully completed a Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science at the University of the West Indies.)
Email your opinions, letters and commentaries to: letters@caribmagplus.com