The key points are temporarily unavailable. You can still read the full Story below.
Main Points
𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝑢𝑛𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑖𝑔𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑓𝑎𝑣𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑃𝑁𝑀, 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦. 𝑁𝑜𝑤, 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝐹𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑚 𝐼𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡 𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛’𝑠 𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦. 𝐻𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑑𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑦 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑑, 𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑠? In October 2024, then Finance Minister Colm Imbert defended the Central Statistical Office (CSO), explaining why unemployment had risen to 5.4 per cent. “𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑖𝑠 𝑡𝑦𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑙𝑤𝑎𝑦𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡ℎ 𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑒𝑟.” Imbert attributed the subsequent decline in employment to seasonal hiring patterns following Christmas. Fast-forward to 2026. The CSO again reports 5.4 per cent unemployment, this time for the first quarter of 2026. But Imbert is no longer explaining the statistics. He is challenging them. The Diego Martin Northeast MP alleges that 22,000 displaced government programme workers are missing from the unemployment calculations: 11,000 CEPEP workers, 7,000 URP workers and 4,000 reforestation workers. His calculation produces unemployment of 8.7 per cent, subsequently adjusted to 8.3 per cent after accounting for employment under replacement programmes. More troublingly, Imbert has characterised the discrepancy as deliberate manipulation. 𝐈𝐬 𝐈𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞? These are three different accusations, with considerably different consequences. 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐃𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐒𝐚𝐲? The CSO’s published statistics reveal: Period Unemployed Persons unemployed Q1 2025 4.9% 28,900 Q3 2025 4.8% 28,600 Q4 2025 4.3% 25,700 Q1 2026 5.4% 31,900 In the first quarter of 2026, the CSO recorded a labour force of 595,900, comprising 564,000 employed and 31,900 unemployed people. Adding 22,000 people to both the unemployed population and labour force mathematically produces approximately 8.7 per cent. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. Were all 22,000 workers unemployed during the survey period? Were some re-employed, working informally, already counted or no longer actively participating in the labour market? Job losses cannot automatically be added to unemployment totals without establishing each person’s employment status. 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐀𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐋𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧? Contrary to some political assumptions, Trinidad and Tobago measures labour-force participation through the CSO’s Continuous Sample Survey of Population. Like the United States, it relies on household surveys rather than merely counting government programme beneficiaries. Trinidad and Tobago surveys people aged 15 and over; the American survey begins at 16 and uses different job-search criteria. The CSO recorded a 55.1 per cent participation rate in the first quarter of 2026, with approximately 485,300 people outside the labour force. Youth unemployment stood at 12.6 per cent. Those outside the labour force include students, retirees, people performing home duties and others not participating in employment. They cannot automatically be classified as unemployed. Nevertheless, the participation rate raises a larger question about economic opportunities and labour-market inactivity. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐝. 𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐌𝐅 𝐀𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐝, 𝐈𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭 𝐂𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 On June 6, 2024, Imbert’s Ministry of Finance welcomed the International Monetary Fund’s assessment showing unemployment declining to 3.2 per cent in 2023, following 7.2 per cent in 2020. The numbers supported the PNM’s economic recovery narrative. The IMF remains a user of CSO statistics. Its May 2026 report cited unemployment of 4.8 per cent for the third quarter of 2025, with a 2025 annual estimate of approximately 4.5 per cent. The Central Bank likewise uses CSO labour-market data. Meanwhile, the World Bank’s ILO-modelled unemployment estimate for 2025 is 3.3 per cent, a differently constructed series rather than independent validation of every CSO calculation. International institutions may differ in their estimates, but the IMF and Central Bank incorporate CSO statistics into their economic assessments. 𝐈𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐒𝐎 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐩𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐮𝐧𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭, 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐬𝐮𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐭𝐨𝐨? Such an allegation demands evidence, not merely political arithmetic. 𝐈𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭’𝐬 𝐂𝐒𝐎 𝐖𝐚𝐬 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐓𝐨𝐨 Perhaps the most inconvenient part of Imbert’s criticism is the institution’s own history. In 2016, the PNM Government approved plans to transform the CSO into an independent National Statistical Institute. In July 2019, the Inter-American Development Bank approved US$200,000 in technical cooperation to strengthen the CSO’s capacity to produce reliable statistics. The IDB also supported technical training associated with the Continuous Sample Survey of Population. In 2022, the United Nations supported a US$721,400 statistical modernisation initiative. The IMF’s Caribbean Regional Technical Assistance Centre also provided statistical technical assistance, particularly involving national accounts and price statistics. More significantly, the PNM administration’s 2023 Public Sector Investment Programme allocated TT$2 million for CSO restructuring and TT$37 million for continuing statistical activities. The CSO was administered through the Planning Ministry, not directly through Finance. Nevertheless, Imbert served as Finance Minister within the Cabinet responsible for national budgetary allocations. Funding does not establish that every modernization objective was accomplished. But it establishes a record of institutional support. 𝐈𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐒𝐎 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐞𝐝, 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐍𝐌’𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭? And if the figures are now manipulated, what specifically changed in the methodology, sampling, classification or reporting? 𝐆𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐆𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐍𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬? Reports indicated that approximately 10,500 CEPEP workers were affected by contract terminations in June 2025, while another 4,608 workers and contractors were affected by the reforestation programme’s closure. These represented genuine economic disruptions requiring scrutiny. But programme registers themselves have raised questions. In September 2025, URP manager Feeroz Khan alleged that approximately 8,000 registered daily-paid workers appeared on programme records, although only around 20 per cent reportedly attended work. Those allegations require independent verification and must not be treated as proof that every registered worker was fictitious. Nevertheless, they expose another problem with Imbert’s calculation. 𝐈𝐟 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐦𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐲𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞, 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐧𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧? Were payments made for work never performed? Were individuals registered twice? Were casual workers and contractors correctly classified? How many displaced workers subsequently found employment? Both the Government and Imbert should produce independently verifiable figures. 𝐆𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐍𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐌𝐞, 𝐁𝐚𝐝 𝐍𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐞? The CSO is not above scrutiny. Indeed, its own published methodology still refers to a sampling frame based on the 1990 census, raising legitimate questions about whether the documentation is outdated or the survey framework requires further modernization. The IMF has also recommended strengthening statistical capacity and institutional independence. But identifying weaknesses is fundamentally different from alleging deliberate manipulation. Imbert should publish his full calculation. The CSO should explain its treatment of displaced casual and seasonal workers. The Government should disclose verified employment and re-employment figures. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐮𝐧𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐲𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝟓.𝟒, 𝟖.𝟑 𝐨𝐫 𝟖.𝟕 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐓𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐠𝐨 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐨𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐲. In 2024, Imbert defended the CSO when its figures supported the Government’s narrative. In 2026, he questions its credibility. 𝐖𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐒𝐎 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐰? 𝐎𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭? You cannot celebrate an institution’s figures when they favour your administration, then condemn that same institution as compromised when political power changes. 𝐆𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐞, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐛𝐚𝐝 𝐧𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐞? 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.
In October 2024, then Finance Minister Colm Imbert defended the Central Statistical Office (CSO), explaining why unemployment had risen to 5.4 per cent.
Imbert attributed the subsequent decline in employment to seasonal hiring patterns following Christmas.
Fast-forward to 2026. The CSO again reports 5.4 per cent unemployment, this time for the first quarter of 2026. But Imbert is no longer explaining the statistics. He is challenging them.
The Diego Martin Northeast MP alleges that 22,000 displaced government programme workers are missing from the unemployment calculations: 11,000 CEPEP workers, 7,000 URP workers and 4,000 reforestation workers.
His calculation produces unemployment of 8.7 per cent, subsequently adjusted to 8.3 per cent after accounting for employment under replacement programmes.
More troublingly, Imbert has characterised the discrepancy as deliberate manipulation.
Were all 22,000 workers unemployed during the survey period? Were some re-employed, working informally, already counted or no longer actively participating in the labour market?
Job losses cannot automatically be added to unemployment totals without establishing each person’s employment status.
𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐀𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐋𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧?
Contrary to some political assumptions, Trinidad and Tobago measures labour-force participation through the CSO’s Continuous Sample Survey of Population.
Like the United States, it relies on household surveys rather than merely counting government programme beneficiaries. Trinidad and Tobago surveys people aged 15 and over; the American survey begins at 16 and uses different job-search criteria.
The CSO recorded a 55.1 per cent participation rate in the first quarter of 2026, with approximately 485,300 people outside the labour force.
Youth unemployment stood at 12.6 per cent.
Those outside the labour force include students, retirees, people performing home duties and others not participating in employment. They cannot automatically be classified as unemployed.
Nevertheless, the participation rate raises a larger question about economic opportunities and labour-market inactivity.
On June 6, 2024, Imbert’s Ministry of Finance welcomed the International Monetary Fund’s assessment showing unemployment declining to 3.2 per cent in 2023, following 7.2 per cent in 2020.
The numbers supported the PNM’s economic recovery narrative.
The IMF remains a user of CSO statistics. Its May 2026 report cited unemployment of 4.8 per cent for the third quarter of 2025, with a 2025 annual estimate of approximately 4.5 per cent.
The Central Bank likewise uses CSO labour-market data.
Meanwhile, the World Bank’s ILO-modelled unemployment estimate for 2025 is 3.3 per cent, a differently constructed series rather than independent validation of every CSO calculation.
International institutions may differ in their estimates, but the IMF and Central Bank incorporate CSO statistics into their economic assessments.
Such an allegation demands evidence, not merely political arithmetic.
𝐈𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐭’𝐬 𝐂𝐒𝐎 𝐖𝐚𝐬 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐓𝐨𝐨
Perhaps the most inconvenient part of Imbert’s criticism is the institution’s own history.
In 2016, the PNM Government approved plans to transform the CSO into an independent National Statistical Institute.
In July 2019, the Inter-American Development Bank approved US$200,000 in technical cooperation to strengthen the CSO’s capacity to produce reliable statistics.
The IDB also supported technical training associated with the Continuous Sample Survey of Population.
In 2022, the United Nations supported a US$721,400 statistical modernisation initiative.
The IMF’s Caribbean Regional Technical Assistance Centre also provided statistical technical assistance, particularly involving national accounts and price statistics.
More significantly, the PNM administration’s 2023 Public Sector Investment Programme allocated TT$2 million for CSO restructuring and TT$37 million for continuing statistical activities.
The CSO was administered through the Planning Ministry, not directly through Finance. Nevertheless, Imbert served as Finance Minister within the Cabinet responsible for national budgetary allocations.
Funding does not establish that every modernization objective was accomplished. But it establishes a record of institutional support.
And if the figures are now manipulated, what specifically changed in the methodology, sampling, classification or reporting?
𝐆𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐆𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐍𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬?
Reports indicated that approximately 10,500 CEPEP workers were affected by contract terminations in June 2025, while another 4,608 workers and contractors were affected by the reforestation programme’s closure.
These represented genuine economic disruptions requiring scrutiny.
But programme registers themselves have raised questions.
In September 2025, URP manager Feeroz Khan alleged that approximately 8,000 registered daily-paid workers appeared on programme records, although only around 20 per cent reportedly attended work.
Those allegations require independent verification and must not be treated as proof that every registered worker was fictitious.
Nevertheless, they expose another problem with Imbert’s calculation.
Were payments made for work never performed? Were individuals registered twice? Were casual workers and contractors correctly classified? How many displaced workers subsequently found employment?
Both the Government and Imbert should produce independently verifiable figures.
𝐆𝐨𝐨𝐝 𝐍𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐌𝐞, 𝐁𝐚𝐝 𝐍𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐞?
The CSO is not above scrutiny. Indeed, its own published methodology still refers to a sampling frame based on the 1990 census, raising legitimate questions about whether the documentation is outdated or the survey framework requires further modernization.
The IMF has also recommended strengthening statistical capacity and institutional independence.
But identifying weaknesses is fundamentally different from alleging deliberate manipulation.
Imbert should publish his full calculation. The CSO should explain its treatment of displaced casual and seasonal workers. The Government should disclose verified employment and re-employment figures.
You cannot celebrate an institution’s figures when they favour your administration, then condemn that same institution as compromised when political power changes.
News Desk is the editorial publishing account for Tringlobe Media News, covering breaking news, public affairs, entertainment, community developments and regional stories across Trinidad and Tobago, the Caribbean and internationally.
