That's not being steadfast, resolute

THE EDITOR: I note the theme of the 2025 budget, Steadfast and Resolute – Forging Pathways to Prosperity, but I remain concerned as to the proposals set forth relative to tackling crime, optimising safety and security.

My attention was captured when Finance Minister Colm Imbert stated, “By focusing on both prevention and enforcement, the Ministry of National Security aims to create a more secure environment, safeguarding the nation’s borders and ensuring the safety of its personnel and citizens.”

This focus, however, was short-lived when I heard the proposals below. In the 2025-2027 period, the following are planned for execution:

* Purchase of four patrol boats and eight high-speed interceptors to aid in border security and safety of life at sea.

* Purchase of two search and rescue/surveillance fixed-wing aircraft.

* Purchase of unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) to assist with surveillance and search and rescue.

* Continued upgrade and maintenance of our Damen and Austal vessels.

I am therefore left to question if this is the Government’s strategy to optimise the Defence Force or to deal with crime? No wonder the Prime Minister advised the nation to “hold the fort” as the period between now and 2027 will be “one of difficulty.”

In the gravity of these circumstances that we face as a nation, it leaves one to question why is the Government once again suggesting purchasing “surveillance devices” and “drones” as a solution to crime when we had one of these items before, “the blimp” (airship), which we sold when we realised it was illegal.

What is the difference between the multimillion-dollar blimp which was being used in the fight against crime by the Special Anti-crime Unit of TT (SAUTT) and drones? Wasn’t the blimp a surveillance device?

UNC leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar claimed that her phone was tapped by SAUTT and the blimp was sold. It was only after this incident that the then government realised that wire-tapping and interception (of calls) is in fact illegal and there is no legislative support for such activity.

Anand Ramlogan at that point stated that only if it became necessary, legislation would be brought to substantiate the presence of a surveillance device. Has this matter been discussed by the Cabinet since and, if so, what was the outcome?

My question to the Government is: Are we going to once more purchase a surveillance device that our legislation does not support? Please do not waste our taxpayers' money on hollow initiatives and baseless agendas. It is not in keeping with the theme of being steadfast and resolute.

DARIUS E JAIMUNGAL

Vistabella