Ed Forbes

Turks and Caicos, September 3, 2026 – The Turks and Caicos Islands Regiment may be one of the most underutilized national assets in our fight against some of the social problems facing the Territory.

Established in 2020 with the support of then-Governor Nigel Dakin and the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, the Regiment was created to strengthen national security while providing capabilities in disaster relief, humanitarian assistance and border protection.

But its role could potentially extend beyond traditional military responsibilities.

The qualities required of Regiment members—discipline, responsibility, teamwork, resilience and a sense of purpose—are also qualities that many troubled young people and individuals preparing to return to society after incarceration desperately need.

So perhaps it is time to ask: Could the TCI Regiment become part of our strategy for rehabilitation and reintegration?

We cannot arrest our way out of rising concerns about youth delinquency, gang recruitment and violent crime. Young people without employment, structure, opportunity or a sense of belonging can become vulnerable to gangs offering money, identity and acceptance.

For a young person who commits a relatively minor, non-violent offence, should incarceration always be the answer? Where legally appropriate and following proper risk assessment, could accountability sometimes be combined with an opportunity to change direction

That is where the Regiment could potentially play a role.

This should not mean turning the Regiment into a prison or creating a military “boot camp for bad kids.” Military-style boot camps alone have not been shown to reliably reduce reoffending. Discipline works best when combined with education, counselling, vocational training, mentoring and employment opportunities.

Rehabilitation Before Release:

The TCI already has the beginnings of a framework that could support such an initiative.

In February 2026, the Government announced the completion of its Parole Board Modernisation Project, designed to strengthen parole decision-making while supporting rehabilitation and successful reintegration into the community.

Rather than creating another standalone programme, Government could explore incorporating a Regiment-supported service component into the existing parole and rehabilitation system.

Imagine an inmate approaching the end of a sentence who has demonstrated good behaviour and is assessed as suitable for supervised reintegration.

Instead of simply opening the prison gate and expecting that person to succeed, preparation could begin months before release.

A structured programme could include physical training, discipline, leadership development, community service, vocational training and mentoring. Participants could assist with approved community projects, environmental restoration and disaster-preparedness activities while developing practical skills and a responsible daily routine.

The programme could continue for six to twelve months after release, with regular check-ins, employment assistance and clearly defined responsibilities.

The Regiment would not replace corrections, probation, counselling or other professionals. It would add another ingredient: service and accountability.

A Second Chance—With Responsibility

This is not about being soft on crime. It is about being smarter about rehabilitation.

Participants would have to show up, follow rules, complete training and demonstrate that they are prepared to accept responsibility for their future. Successful completion could become part of demonstrating readiness for full reintegration.

Employment would also be critical. Local businesses could provide apprenticeships, internships and second-chance employment.

Because rehabilitation without employment is incomplete.

The same philosophy could potentially apply to troubled youth. The Government is preparing to open a Juvenile Rehabilitation Facility for Boys later this year, with a focus on accountability, education, personal growth, family engagement and reintegration.

The Regiment should not replace the professionals responsible for juvenile rehabilitation, but its expertise in discipline, leadership, teamwork and service could become one component of a broader model.

Protecting the Future:

The objective should be simple: Stop creating tomorrow’s prisoners today.

If we can reach a teenager before gang recruitment becomes a way of life, we should.

If we can hold a young offender accountable without placing them in an environment that increases the likelihood of further offending, we should consider it.

And if someone has served their sentence, we should give them more than a release date and some cash. We should give them a plan, which could help reduce recidivism.

That plan could include housing, employment, education, counseling, family support, mentoring—and, where appropriate, structured service supported by the TCI Regiment.

The Turks and Caicos Islands is small enough that government agencies, the Regiment, schools, employers, courts, probation services and community organizations can work together.

The Regiment was created to protect the Turks and Caicos Islands. Protecting these islands should mean more than protecting our borders.

It should also mean protecting our communities, protecting vulnerable young people from gang recruitment and helping former offenders become productive members of society.

A prison sentence should not be our only answer to youthful mistakes, and the prison gate should not mark the end of rehabilitation. We must think much bigger.

The TCI Regiment has truly demonstrated its value in national defence, border protection and disaster response.
Perhaps it is time to explore whether its greatest contribution could extend even further:

Keep the service, but expand the mission, while helping to defend the future of the people it was created to serve.

PHOTO: FILE PHOTO

Independent Writer

Turks and Caicos, April 23, 2023 

I would like to raise several concerns that many members of the public have noticed regarding activities within the Immigration and Labour Departments. These issues continue to surface, yet no one seems willing or able to address them openly.

There are important questions that deserve clear answers:

1. Are there rules and guidelines that govern employees of the Immigration and Labour Departments regarding conflicts of interest?
   The public needs to know what policies exist to prevent employees from using their positions for personal or financial gain.

2. Can an Immigration or Labour Department employee legally own or operate a company that processes work permits?
   If so, what safeguards are in place to ensure fairness and prevent abuse?

3. What happens when paperwork from an employee’s private company appears on their own desk for review or approval?
   This is a direct conflict of interest. How is this handled, and who ensures the process remains transparent?

4. Who is responsible for policing these conflicts of interest?
   When government workers operate private businesses that submit documents to the same department they work in, who is monitoring this behaviour?

5. Should the Integrity Commission or compliance units be vetting not only Heads of Department but all staff members in sensitive areas?
   Oversight should not stop at the top. Every employee with access to sensitive information or decision‑making authority should be held to the same standard.

6. Is it okay for former Immigration employees allowed to walk into the department as if they still have authority—processing work permits, demanding special treatment, and behaving as though they still hold the keys?
   Once someone leaves government employment, the privileges of that office should end.

These concerns represent only a small portion of what the public is seeing. We are expected to follow the rules, yet some individuals continue to bend or break them for personal benefit. Without accountability, there can be no order in our government departments.

Our island is small. People see what is happening, but too many remain silent. It is time to bring these issues to light so that real change can take place.

April 7, 2026 – For nearly a decade, one figure has loomed large over politics in the Western Hemisphere: Donald Trump. Whether admired by supporters or criticized by opponents, his unapologetic political style has reshaped political conversations not only in the United States but across much of the world.

His return to the Oval Office on January 20, 2025, after defeating incumbent Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election signaled more than a domestic political shift. It marked the beginning of a renewed U.S. focus on the Western Hemisphere. Recent developments, including a high-profile raid carried out by U.S. special forces that reportedly led to the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, suggest that the Caribbean and Latin America may once again play a more prominent role in American foreign policy.

Another sign of this renewed regional focus was the recent gathering in Florida known as the Shield of the Americas Summit. The meeting brought together leaders from across the hemisphere to discuss security cooperation, migration, and organized crime. However, the absence of prominent figures such as Claudia Sheinbaum and Mia Mottley raised questions about a growing ideological divide in the region.

In many ways, the summit reflected a broader shift. Across parts of the Americas, governments that favor stronger borders, tougher crime policies, and a more assertive national posture appear to be gaining influence. In other words, the language of right-wing populism is becoming increasingly visible in regional politics.

At first glance, many people in the Turks and Caicos Islands might assume these developments have little to do with us. It is easy to view such political changes as issues for the region’s larger powers. But history suggests that would be a mistake.

When the United States shifts its foreign policy priorities, the effects are often felt throughout the Caribbean. The region has seen this before, whether through economic measures, security initiatives, or diplomatic pressure applied to neighboring states such as Cuba.

The reality is that small island territories like ours do not exist in isolation. Our economy depends heavily on tourism, international investment, and regional stability. Migration policy and border management are also closely connected to broader Caribbean and American systems. When political winds shift in Washington, they eventually reach our shores.

The growing influence of right-wing populist politics across the hemisphere also raises an important question: could similar political themes begin to shape public debate here at home?

Populism often gains traction in contexts where there is a demand for policies that support people who feel they lack a strong voice in national decision-making. Across the Caribbean, these conversations are becoming more common. Issues such as immigration, the cost of living, and government accountability are increasingly central to political discussions.

This does not necessarily mean that the Turks and Caicos Islands are on the verge of a dramatic political shift. Our political culture has traditionally been more pragmatic than ideological. However, global political trends have a way of influencing local politics over time. Campaign strategies, policy debates, and even leadership styles often reflect what voters see unfolding internationally.

Perhaps the more important point is that the Caribbean may be entering a period of increased geopolitical attention. Security cooperation, migration enforcement, and economic partnerships are likely to become more prominent in the years ahead. The discussions at the Shield of the Americas meeting suggest that Washington is once again looking south—and the Caribbean sits squarely within that strategic space.

For the Turks and Caicos Islands, this could bring both opportunities and challenges. Stronger regional cooperation could help address crime and strengthen economic ties. At the same time, it may also bring new political pressures and expectations.

Ultimately, the rise of right-wing populism in the Americas is not just about ideology. It reflects a broader shift in how leaders talk about power, security, and national interest. Whether one supports or opposes these ideas, they are increasingly shaping political conversations across the hemisphere.

And if history offers any lesson for small countries and territories, it is this: global political trends rarely remain distant for long.