The re­gion­al cor­po­ra­tions con­trolled by the Op­po­si­tion Peo­ple’s Na­tion­al Move­ment re­ceived a de­crease in fund­ing for their 2026 op­er­a­tions com­pared to 2025, while cor­po­ra­tions con­trolled by the Unit­ed Na­tion­al Con­gress Gov­ern­ment re­ceived in­creased al­lo­ca­tions.

This was ob­served in the list of al­lo­ca­tions for cor­po­ra­tions in the Draft Es­ti­mates of Ex­pen­di­ture for 2026. The doc­u­ment was among the Bud­get doc­u­ments laid in Par­lia­ment on Mon­day by Fi­nance Min­is­ter Dav­en­dranath Tan­coo.

Al­ready, a PNM coun­cil­lor has la­belled the de­creased fund­ing “spite and hate” and feared that work­ers in op­po­si­tion-con­trolled cor­po­ra­tions may have to be let go.

The PNM-con­trolled cor­po­ra­tions all ob­tained few­er al­lo­ca­tions than they had re­ceived in 2025 when the par­ty was in gov­ern­ment. They re­ceived de­creas­es rang­ing from a min­i­mum of $756,000 to a max­i­mum of just over $9 mil­lion. The list of de­creas­es be­gan with the Port-of-Spain City Cor­po­ra­tion, which re­ceived $714,000 less than its 2025 al­lo­ca­tion of $210,714,000, re­ceiv­ing $210,000,000 for 2026.

San Fer­nan­do City Cor­po­ra­tion re­ceived a $4,423,000 de­crease from its 2025 al­lo­ca­tion, re­ceiv­ing $136,000,000 for 2026.

Ari­ma Bor­ough Cor­po­ra­tion re­ceived $80,000,000 for 2026, down from $89,996,950 in 2025.

Point Fortin Cor­po­ra­tion ob­tained $69,000,000, com­pared with $72,455,700 in 2025.

Diego Mar­tin, San Juan/Laven­tille, and Tu­na­puna cor­po­ra­tions al­so re­ceived low­er al­lo­ca­tions than they did in 2025 un­der the pre­vi­ous PNM gov­ern­ment.

Mean­while, UNC-con­trolled cor­po­ra­tions in Ch­agua­nas, San­gre Grande, Tabaquite/Cou­va/Tal­paro, Ma­yaro/Rio Claro, Pe­nal/Debe, and Princes Town all re­ceived in­creas­es. These ranged from a min­i­mum of $6 mil­lion (Siparia Bor­ough Cor­po­ra­tion) to a max­i­mum of $14 mil­lion (Ch­agua­nas Bor­ough Cor­po­ra­tion), more than the al­lo­ca­tions they re­ceived in 2025 un­der the Dr Kei­th Row­ley-led ad­min­is­tra­tion.

Rur­al De­vel­op­ment and Lo­cal Gov­ern­ment Min­is­ter Kadi­jah Ameen did not im­me­di­ate­ly re­ply to Guardian Me­dia’s ques­tions about the al­lo­ca­tions or how the fund­ing de­ci­sions were made.

One PNM coun­cil­lor, who did not want to be named, said all PNM cor­po­ra­tions re­ceived de­creas­es, in­clud­ing in re­cur­rent fund­ing and ar­eas of work such as scav­eng­ing and oth­er pro­grammes, while all UNC cor­po­ra­tions ob­tained “bla­tant” in­creas­es.

The coun­cil­lor al­so said that re­duced fig­ures for short-term con­tracts in places like the Ari­ma Bor­ough Cor­po­ra­tion would have a neg­a­tive ef­fect on some short-term work­ers who may have to be let go.

“This is a very ob­vi­ous im­bal­ance in al­lo­ca­tions be­tween PNM and UNC cor­po­ra­tions, so clear­ly there is spite and hate here, or they’re gear­ing up ear­ly for the 2027 Lo­cal Gov­ern­ment elec­tions and try­ing to put their com­peti­tors out of the game. But we go see,” the coun­cil­lor said.

A source from the UNC, how­ev­er, said, “See how it feels? We were out in the wilder­ness for two decades, with PNM giv­ing us lit­tle and noth­ing. We make do. PNM should get up and work, try that now.”