Pan Trinbago, the world governing body for the steelpan, has expressed deep disappointment at the government’s decision to extend the use of Trinidad and Tobago’s former coat of arms until January 2, 2031. The move effectively delays the full implementation of the newly approved national emblem featuring the steelpan by an additional five years.
The decision was formalized through Legal Notice No. 468 and has drawn sharp criticism from opposition figures, who describe it as unnecessary, opaque, and politically driven.
- Advertisement -
In a statement issued on December 23, Pan Trinbago president Beverley Ramsey Moore said the extension contradicts the spirit of unity displayed earlier this year when both government and opposition unanimously supported the constitutional amendment to replace the colonial-era imagery of Christopher Columbus’ ships with the steelpan.
She said the announcement came as a shock to the organization and the wider cultural community.
Both sides of Parliament stood shoulder to shoulder in full support of the amendment. It was debated, scrutinized, passed, assented to, and proclaimed. To now defer implementation until 2031 sends an unfortunate message, not only to the steelpan fraternity but to every citizen who celebrated this historic moment of national pride, Ramsey Moore said.
She emphasized that Pan Trinbago had championed the inclusion of the steelpan as a critical step in the country’s post-colonial transformation, noting that the instrument symbolizes the ingenuity, resilience, and creativity of the people.
Ramsey Moore stressed that the organization’s position is not adversarial, but rooted in its responsibility to safeguard the legacy of the national instrument.
Despite political differences, stepping back at this stage risks undermining the cultural progress we have made and diminishing the significance of the steelpan to our national identity, she said.
She added that the steelpan is not merely a national symbol but a global cultural industry and an important bridge between Trinidad and Tobago and the wider world. Delaying the transition, she said, is inconsistent with the unity and progress demonstrated when the legislation was unanimously approved.
The extension is authorized under Section 5 subsection 2 of the National Emblems of Trinidad and Tobago Regulation Amendment Act 2025, which allows the minister to prescribe a later date for continued use of the former emblem. The government has stated that the delay was deemed expedient, though it has not provided a detailed public explanation.
Finance Minister Davendranath Tancoo, responding to questions from the Newsday media team via WhatsApp, denied that the move constituted a postponement.
There is no postponement. Both coats of arms have been in use since the new emblem was approved. What was done was to set a definite deadline by which the transition must be completed. This is simply common sense, he said.
However, the minister declined to answer questions regarding the projected cost of updating national currency and official materials to reflect the new design.
During parliamentary debate in January, former prime minister Dr Keith Rowley said the financial impact of the transition would be minimal. He explained that items such as passports would be replaced only upon renewal, while digital updates could be done at relatively low cost.
Historical data, however, has fueled skepticism. When Trinidad and Tobago transitioned to polymer banknotes in 2019, the Central Bank reported a 58 percent increase in printing costs the following year, totaling nearly 79 million dollars.
Opposition Chief Whip Marvin Gonzales strongly criticized the timing and secrecy of the extension in a social media post on December 23.
Why has the new coat of arms disturbed the sensitivity of the government so deeply that, in the midst of Christmas preparations, a legal notice was quietly published delaying its use, he asked.
Gonzales also questioned when Cabinet approved the decision and why it was not announced through a formal press briefing. He linked the delay to broader concerns about declining state support for the steelpan movement, including the withdrawal of sponsorship from major steelbands.
Former prime minister and energy minister Stuart Young echoed those concerns, describing the extension as another blow to national culture. He accused the government of acting without transparency and argued that the decision reflected a broader pattern of hostility toward the steelpan since May 2025.
He cited the cancellation of steelband sponsorships, reduced funding for Panorama, confusion surrounding Schools Panorama, and the absence of state support for World Steelpan Day celebrations as evidence of what he described as a calculated policy against pan culture.
Concerns intensified in September when state-owned National Gas Company withdrew sponsorship from several steelbands and Pan Trinbago itself, citing contractual provisions that allowed termination for convenience.
Former culture minister Randall Mitchell also condemned the extension, saying it contradicted Parliament’s unanimous decision earlier this year to remove colonial symbols from the national emblem.
Now in government, the UNC has quietly issued a legal order allowing the old coat of arms to remain in use for another five years without public consultation or explanation, Mitchell said.
He argued that when viewed alongside reduced funding, sponsorship withdrawals, and organizational confusion within the steelpan movement, the delay reinforces fears that the national instrument is under sustained attack.
Taken together, these actions raise serious questions about the government’s commitment to honoring the steelpan and the cultural legacy it represents, Mitchell said.
