If I were the Prime Minister of T&T I would…………

FIX THE PUBLIC SERVICE

BY JACK AUSTIN WARNER PhD

If I were the Prime Minis­ter of T&T, I would make pub­lic service reform my first and most urgent priority; not as a slogan, not as a commis­sion of inquiry, but as a practical national rescue ef­fort.

No country can function, let alone develop, when the machinery of the State is slow, confusing, unaccount­able, and indifferent to the people it is meant to serve.
In Trinidad and Tobago, public frustration is not root­ed only in policy choices; it is rooted in daily encoun­ters with a system that feels unresponsive and, at times, hostile.
For too many citizens, the public service is being expe­rienced as a wall of forms, delays, contradictions, and silence. Simple tasks take months. Answers vary de­pending on who you ask. Files disappear. Phone calls go unanswered.
Responsibility is diffused so widely that no one is ac­countable when things go wrong. This is not merely inefficient; it is corrosive. It teaches people that effort is pointless and that compli­ance is unrewarded. Over time, it erodes respect for the State itself.
If I were the Prime Minis­ter, I would start by chang­ing one thing immediately: accountability at the top. Public service reform cannot begin with junior staff who often work under impossible conditions.
It must begin with perma­nent secretaries, heads of divisions, and senior man­agers. Clear performance expectations, timelines, and consequences should be es­tablished and published. If a ministry consistently fails to deliver basic services, lead­ership must change. Reform without consequences is the­atre.
Second, I would simplify procedures aggressively. Many public service delays are not caused by laziness but by outdated processes designed for a different era.
Citizens should not need to visit multiple offices, submit the same documents repeat­edly, or navigate conflicting requirements between agen­cies.
If I were the Prime Minis­ter, every major public-fac­ing process, such as licens­ing, permits, approvals, and social services, just to name a few, would be mapped end-to-end, with redundant steps eliminated. The guiding question would be simple: Does this step add value, or does it exist because it always has?
Digitization would be a tool, not a buzzword. Too of­ten, “digital transformation” has meant putting old ineffi­ciencies online.
That is not reform; it is inconvenience at a higher speed. Proper digitization re­quires rethinking workflows, training staff, and ensuring systems actually talk to each other.
If citizens can track appli­cations, receive clear time­lines, and know who is re­sponsible at each stage, trust begins to return.
If I were the Prime Min­ister, I would also protect public servants who want to do the right thing. Many ca­pable officers are trapped in systems that punish initiative and reward caution.
Whistleblowers are ex­posed. Innovators are side­lined. Reform must include safe channels for reporting inefficiency and corruption, coupled with incentives for problem-solving.
A public service that fears punishment more than fail­ure will never improv.
Training must be modern­ized. The public service can­not operate with yesterday’s skills in today’s world. Cus­tomer service, data manage­ment, project management, and ethics must be core competencies, not optional extras. Promotion should reflect capability and perfor­mance, not tenure alone. Ex­perience matters, but compe­tence matters more.
Importantly, reform must be felt by the public quickly. People will not believe in long-term transformation unless they see early wins. Fixing appointment systems at hospitals and licensing offices, reducing response times for basic queries, and enforcing service standards would send a powerful sig­nal. These are not glamor­ous achievements, but they change lives.
If I were the Prime Min­ister, I would also be hon­est about resistance. Reform threatens comfort zones. There will be pushback from those who benefit from opacity, from those who fear change, and from those who mistake reform for disre­spect.
Leadership requires firm­ness here. The public service exists to serve the public, not itself. That principle must be non-negotiable.
Public service reform is also a fairness issue. When systems are slow and opaque, the well-connected find ways around them while ordinary citizens wait.
This deepens inequality and resentment. A function­ing public service is one of the most powerful equaliz­ers in society. It ensures that rights are not privileges and that access does not depend on who you know.
Finally, I would commu­nicate relentlessly. Reform fails when people do not un­derstand what is changing or why. Citizens deserve regular updates, clear benchmarks, and honest reporting of set­backs. Transparency builds patience. Silence breeds sus­picion.
If I were the Prime Min­ister, I would measure my success not by how many speeches I gave, but by whether citizens could say, six months and one year lat­er, that dealing with the State felt easier, fairer, and more predictable.
Public service reform is not a technical exercise; it is a moral one. When the State works, people feel respected. When it does not, no policy, regardless of how well inten­tioned, can succeed.
Fix the public service, and you would fix the founda­tion. Everything else de­pends on it.