Siosiua Lafitani Tofua’ipangai Lo’au Research Society (LRS) Canberra AUSTRALIA
With the riot on 16/11/06, there are concepts of great importance that we must not take for granted nor simplify them intentionally to suit our ‘personal ambitions’ and ‘political egoism’, with conclusions such as, ‘everyone should forget about the past life of Nuku’alofa and just concentrate on its new material re-construction.’What those concepts would be in content? ‘Mob mentality’, ‘anarchy’ and ‘political fanaticism’ are the foremost three I would like to suggest not to turn a blind eye from their socio-political significance and characters since 16/11,
1). For the reason that this was our:
a. first experience of mob mentality since 1900 b. first experience of anarchy since 1900 c. first experience of political fanaticism since 1900
2). For the reason that it’s possible for:
a. mob mentality to repeat itself b. anarchy to repeat itself c. political fanaticism to flourish
The claim, that, ‘everyone should forget about the past life of Nuku’alofa and just concentrate on its material re-construction’ is ‘very simplistic’ and self-centred in reference to the complexity of the entire matter. Not only that but it is a ‘form of escaping’ from the real problem(s), and its legal and constitutional consequences, with a kind of predominant futurist short-sighted action that can divert attention away from the real issue at stake into something else.
Additionally, this is another type of ignoring the ‘moral energy’ and ‘untiring soul’ of about 3 generations who have built its CBD for over a century. But what is the real issue at stake right now? Is it the destruction-reconstruction of Nuku’alofa or political reform programs? I’m inclined to believe that the former is the real issue at the moment, basically because the destruction is appeared to be just a tactic used with the intention to ’settle political differences’ and make ‘immediate political changes’ for a more democratic system within a day.
This was the short-sighted action that has shaped the course of the pro-democracy movement, and it’s an overlook of the fact that we cannot sort out a conclusion for any political reform program within one day, be it peaceful or violent in nature.
The statement: ‘everyone should forget about the past life of Nuku’alofa and just concentrate on its new material re-construction’ implies the followings:
- a justification of illegal actions on 16/11 - ignoring the moral energy and untiring soul of the past - rule of law is nothing - repetition of 16/11 will be morally an ok act - present-future is more important than the past - lost of 7 lives is seen as nothing - violence is seen as an accepted act - solution for political problems is to ‘destroy and rebuild’ - materialistic and commercial drives undermine others
What would have happened then if we continued in building Nuku’alofa out of the established social and business life before 16/11. Some say it’s ok to destroy and rebuild from ’square one’, but what about if we continue in building the present and the future on the top of the hard and phenomenal contributions of the past dedicated business people with their moral energy and untiring soul of ‘Western-Eastern business ethics’.
In other words, this is a way of forgetting about the past, but hold tightly to our present personal ambitions and political egoism, together with an ok view for the mob mentality and anarchy to repeat their follies in the future, and for political fanaticism to flourish and reproduce its images.
The past life of Nuku’alofa, and its memories as some call it, was characterized by the virtues of wisdom, courage, temperance and hard-work, persisting for over a century since King George Tupou I, and undoubtedly our future generations, and scholars, will look back to learn and search for its lost historical characters.
To ignore the past is to ignore our history, and to ignore our history is to ignore ourselves, and to ignore ourselves is to ignore our existence, and to ignore our existence is to ignore our future, and to ignore our future is to ignore our present, and to ignore our present is to ignore the wisdom of our civilisation.
So we are therefore ‘thick headed people’ as the expression flows, with no sense of ‘cultural appreciation’ and ‘moral integrity’ if we still uphold such a simplistic and dangerous opinion; and this reminds me of another argument after the riot, that, “the riot is a cost to be paid in order for democracy to materialise itself.”
On the other hand, war, riot or any of its other kinds is a result of our ‘failure to think logically and wisely with some enlightened lenses’, and none of them is good enough to be on bar in the same calibre with the soul of human civilisation, which is based on the ‘openness of dialogue’ in its different forms. How then we have to re-construct a better Nuku’alofa if we totally neglect the past soul of former Nuku’alofa and its civilisation, which was built on cultural appreciation and moral integrity with dialogue as its soul.
Such a claim is also extremely ‘materialistic and immoral’ in content with the opinion to destroy and then rebuild, and if the mob mentality will re-emerge, then let political fanaticism flourishes with a welcome of anarchy wholeheartedly. We can build hundred CBDs in Nuku’alofa but we can’t recreate and re-capture the same soul in the past with its ongoing struggle. If we just concentrate on the materialistic re-construction without identifying the untiring soul and moral struggle of the past Nuku’alofa then its pieces of timber may be blazed over and over again by future political fanatics.
That’s why it’s very fundamental to bring into justice whoever was responsible for this crime against humanity, and also to help those who have suffered severely as an aftermath, before rebuilding the new CBD (which government has been active on this matter since November last year). Also the government should resume the dialogue on political reform programs but with some New Pro-democracy Movement Leaders (NPML) who are not extremely fanatic or militant.
Throughout history, the so-called Dark Age is always characterised by war and bloodshed, but dialogue with wisdom, courage temperance and hard-work builds the foundation of civilisation. In our case, the soul of civilisation is based on the past of Nuku’alofa, the fundamental roots of our culture and Christianity, fundamental rights and justice in our Constitution, and the ancient Tongan traditions of Kings, Chiefs and People
Heraclitus says that ‘war is the father of all’, and for Croce, ‘history is a story of liberty’. But civilisation is not the product of war, rather it is a pure product of dialogue with wisdom, courage, temperance and hard-work through the accumulation and testing of countless bodies of knowledge. War and violence alway destroy civilisation but the openness of dialogue in its different forms always produces and reproduces the best and permanence in human thoughts and letters, as in Arnold’s and Said’s definitions. We can’t build a civilisation out of repetition of civil war or riot, characterizing by mob mentality; and no anarchy with minds of political fanaticism can perpetuate the soul of civilisation.
To demand a civil society with the rule of constitutional laws and democratic principles in a civilised manner, we must first have to implant peace in people’s inner persons and minds, and if we won’t be able to mastermind how to achieve this fundamental principle of civilisation, then our visions and hopes for a better political system of justice, rights and freedom, and a new infrastructure Nuku’alofa will turn into a mere nightmare and illusion. With no doubt, we’ll end up soon or later by experiencing an increase in rate of mob mentality, anarchy and political fanaticism.
We’ve never seen mob mentality, anarchy and political fanaticism since the dawn of our modern history, until the 16/11. But what is mob mentality? All the derogative words and illegitimate actions of the Former Pro-democracy Movement Leaders (FPML) and their followers were a good demonstration of mob mentality. With their highly personal ambitions and political egoism, the FPML talked as if there were no authorities with law and order at all. For their followers, they destroyed, looted and burned things as if it was the last day of judgement, without taking any notice the rights of the victims and other innocent people in Tonga and abroad.
Only personal ambitions and political egoism can trigger mob mentality to erupt in such a situation with the predominance of ‘anger’ and ‘hatred’, the two foremost immoral and destructive acts in human nature. Anger and hatred were distilled in the minds of followers by the FPML, and the mass destruction of most foreign businesses is a good illustration of ‘racism’, which is historically and globally featured by human anger and hatred.
Anarchy is a by-product of mob mentality, and vice-versa, and on 16/11 it was a point of expression of all tendencies of anger and hatred, which were built on two main grounds:
1. failure of the government to handle wisely the concerns of the Pangaisi’i mob 2. failure of the FPML to enlighten rather than indoctrinate their Panagais’i mob
Anarchy is a situation whereby a mob, or people, perceive society to be in a state of lawlessness, and they additionally see themselves as above the rule of law and can do whatever they want, irrespective of whether others are victimised or not. Apparently, we witnessed on the 16/11 this anarchist mood within the FPML and their followers. The actions of seditions and slanders were two of the highest manifestations of anarchist mood, but let us see how the police investigation will deal with such two unlawful actions that were aired by people openly at Pangaisi’i and TV OBN. We hope the police won’t take side in this investigation but to arrest and charge all law-breakers in accordance to justice with no sense of discrimination.
Political fanaticism is a belief that is structured on ‘revenge’ with extreme vices of anger and hatred, and it has no respect to the rule of law, moral behaviours, properties of people and civilisation as a whole, except in serving and satisfying first the actors’ personal ambitions and political egoism. Political fanaticism often embodies its true colour in the inhumane and extreme destruction of lives and properties of others, hurting and killing people in revenge basically to achieve particular mission statements or ideological beliefs. The actors and followers of political fanaticism are often known as ‘political fanatics, militants or extremists’, and in their motto they can do whatever it takes, even death, to achieve their mission statements.
Prior to the 16/11, the behavours of political fanaticism were first appeared among a few Tongans living in NZ with a strong support from some professional and academic indivduals. Normally, political fanaticism gives birth to further political and religious fanaticism, and I’m afraid that political fanaticism within the FPML and their followers can effectively produce other new political and religious fanaticism on the sides of pro-monarchist followers and pro-monarchist churches/religious leaders.
Tonga may face more mob mentality, anarchy and fanaticism with similar kinds on 16/11, soon or later, depending on the leadership of King George Tupou V, Prime Minister Dr Feleti Sevele and the government, as well as, if there will be resumed in the dialogue for a more democratic system but with some NPML rather than the FPML.
Most, if not all, FPML are currently struggling like hell to isolate themselves from any involvement with the anarchy on 16/11, and this is a real sign of ‘bad leadership’, basically because they are at the same token denying any direct link with their poor followers who were arrested and are still kept under custody. Analogously, this brings into mind the story of forest wolfs attacking a flock of sheep, and instead of protecting such a flock the shepherd left them behind and ran for his life.
Many shepherds led the mob at Pangasi’i on the 16/11, but now they all disappear and distance themselves from their poor followers, some stay aloof in their homes, work-places encompassing certain Faifekaus in several churches. The spirit of ‘good leadership’ is totally absent from the circle of the FPML, and all we can see nowadays with the lenses of logical and critical thinking are personal ambitions and political egoism, and fanaticism, covering with anger and hatred.
There should be a reshuffle in leadership because there are already too many fanatics or extremists in the old pro-democracy movement, and frankly it is very unhealthy and dangerous for the political reform programs; and we have witnessed these fanatics on the 16/11 and throughout their writings and voices on the media. Some NZ MPs like Keith Locke and Matt Robson are in the forefront of encouraging the increase in volume of political fanaticism in Tonga since the 16/11, and this act of interfering has influenced in a negative manner the current nature of the existing political reforms.
Last but not least, some sociologists who are specialised in studying mob mentality and characters in a situation of riot or anarchy have concluded that fanatic or extremist political leaders will produce fanatic followers, and vice-versa, and I’m afraid to say, but this has proven right in the case of Tonga since the 16/11, with the back-up of Keith Locke, Matt Robson and others from NZ. So the product of this act can be a continuing sequence of riot throughout in the future, and furthermore this may produce a ‘riot culture’ or ‘anarchy habit’ with mob mentality and characters within Tongan society of the 21st Century.
dear sir, after reading your veiled but extremely prejudiced & pro goverment (status quo) epistle, in fairness to equality of dialogue exchange & in challenge to such blatant bias, it is found necessary to counter your comments as follows. your heading alone speaks volumes. there are of course many types of mentality including royal mentality & one sided mentality. anarchy itself is an original polynesian tribal concept as explained in wikipedia. interestingly, ancient polynesian kings where almost undistinguishable from their people and did not stand out, or work any differently, or possess items other than those of the common people. somewhat surprised that a person of your stature would not readily reference such matters. than we have political fanaticism. as much could be written on the word fanaticism as you wrote in intirety. lets just say if your not a fanatic christian, you probably will never be with God. its not a bad thing to be fanatical about ones beliefs. please do not make it sound like it has a negative connotation. you have used a lot of impressive vebiage. unfortunately, these long diatribes no longer satisfy those that are already sufficiently impressed (forced) by the absolute dictatorship that currently exists. do you really know anything about fairness, justice & christian principles. you use so many words and personal opinions. when you refer to “materialistic & immoral”, now were getting somewhere. this cannot apply to those that want change. but you cleverly (actually, maybe your not as clever as you think) tie these words to apply conversely. the bottom line is, you are espousing the most severe punishments be meted out all current pro democracy leaders be replaced (with tamer ones that you and your kind can more easily handle your way). shame on you, you royalist idea manipulator.
I am writing this with gratefulness to Sosiua for the enlightenment and good and balance view of the Tonga situation since 16/11.I do support the whole idea you have contributed and hope our leaders will open their eyes and ears to the reality of our situation. If e all turn a blind eye on what happened on 16/11, the whole re-constructions of Nuku’alofa will not solve our problems. We want a house that is built on a rotten and unstable foundation. It we want to move forward, its not about re-building the city and buildings but trying to unite and reconcile the tow parties. We want to clean our backyards with reconciliation and dialoque in a Tongan way. We are a civilized, educated and moral people base on our faith as Christians. Lets be true to ourselves and the language of love and forgiveness we love to voice when we pray. I still believe that we can move forward as a stronger and more united country. May God bless Tonga.
‘ofa atu
Tala-pea-ngali tangata ho’o lea mo fakamatala he ‘oku tala ‘e ho’o memipa he Sosaieti Fekumi Lo’au ko e tangata ako mo’oni koe.
And I could not agree more with the points and the arguments: well written, well researhed and well taken. We need more Tongans of this calibre to enlighten the mentality of our nationals he ‘oku ‘auha hotau fonua ko e masiva ‘ilo hotau kakai.
I would suggest that the writer forwarded the article to other websites such as the matangi tonga and tnews for their benefits too.
You have identified vital areas from abroad and I agree with repetitions violence in the future. There great teams efforts to resolve current statuses. Perhaps, it is easier become the law when you gain some public support!
Cheers, Kisione
It is a very good essay with good point. Let see the mob psychology, to cut it short Siua- Mob mentality created by mob behaviour, does not matter which side hold the upper hand at space and time. If you mob-fathered your family there is a possibility your wife or kid/s will confront you. At school if mob-mastered there is a possibility students will strike or in some form of opposition against the school Master.
Take this extract from the article:
Both (1) and (2) had the same objective, Pangai si’i ‘people’ (legal reason: not mob). The (2) subjective (FPML) is one of the constituents of Pangai si’i people but fail to enlighten themselves but indoctrinate (perhaps: a mob mentality)
The (1) subjective (government) is not a part of Pangai si’i people but they have power in their hand to keep a weather eye on Pangai si’i. In the end they fail to handle wisely (perhaps: mob behaviour) the Pangai si’i concerns.
Sosiua Lafitani Tofua’iPangai, I appreciate your intellectual ability, but I do not want to know you as another Sosaia Moimoiangahala. You are much better person academically.
Kris
As a student of the U S government, I would like to chip in my two cents to this dialogue. My problem with these articles including Sosiua’s is the natural biased they expressed. Obviously I am very biased as well because I have problems with your point of view. The challenges are, we do not know all the facts.
The word mob that you used implies lawlessness. Do we know that these people were there with lawlessness mentallity? or Were they induced to such mentality due to the action/inaction of the parliament? The other words you used in your headings was well addressed by kris and walter. Those who do not want to forget the past including you I think are using this excuse to hold on to the past, maybe due to some kind incidences that came your way from the royal or noble families. Loyalty is valuable in any society. However, we must move on for intergrity’s sake. We must be honest. There is a time to be loyal to one’s family but if there is abuse in the family it must be exposed to the law. We may be related, and even benefited from this monarchy but we know deep down that the system in not very fair, equal, therefore immoral.
Thanks for all the comments and I would like to respond to:
- Walter, 1) the analysis of Tonga will always be based on its social structure, political system and economic infrastructure which are generally based on Ha’a-Christian beliefs, Constitutional Monarchy and Capitalist-Kainga principles with their own distinctive characters in contrast to other democratic Western liberal demoractic societies; 2) indeed there’re many dimensions of human mentality but mob mentality is a kind with its riot character of speaking and acting outside the context of public law and order, and countless seditions, slanders, burning and lootings at Pangaisi’i and in the CBD are its clear-cut examples; 3) socio-historical and philosophical sense of anarchy regarding the breakdown of law and order I used in my article was clearly seen on the 16/11, including its meaning in economics as a transformation of existing systems of thought and behaviours; 4)Polynesian cultures from around 2 BC to 17 AD were highly stratified, and others like in Melanesian islands were highly egalitarian in character, but none of them was anarchic until in certain periods of civil wars or breakdown of cutomary law and order; 5) fanaticism as I defined is another way of saying that we do not want to accept the ‘reality’ of things as ‘they really are’, and in return we end up in postulating and idealising extreme and militant beliefs that are out of touch in the normal scheme of things as seen on the 16/11 demands by FPML; 6) the anarchist and fanatic actions on the 16/11 by the FPML and their poor followers were un-Christian with no Christian ethics at all, and it’s a total violation of human rights of onwers of lands in the CBD and rights of business people and their workers; 7)we have to ask first whether the words I used are alluded to ‘actual occurrences’ or not and it’s not a matter whether I used too many manuplating and biased words; Tonga is not a dictatorship cos we have laws, constitution with jurisdiction that are based on fundamental declarations of rights and justice, although we still need some other democratic reforms to be implemented (our system of justice is still one of the best in the Islands); 8)most of our laws are not applied in practice for whatever reasons they may be, for instance, neither the FPML and the Government Leaders used laws to handle problems on the 16/11 before and during the anarchy, but rather they were both too emotional and just tried to sort out differences in their own personal terms and emotions (’Akilisi use the mob at Pangaisi’i for his own personal egoism while Feleti used his signature to sort out problems regardless they both knew their actions were not lawful); 9) immoral acts at Pangaisi’i and at the CBD including among Chinese properties were not fairness and just but ‘immoral’, ‘unconstitutional’ and ‘unlawful’ and it’s therefore a crime against humanity that should be punished; 10)law breakers in the form of thiefs, looters and arsonists in any civilized country must be brought into justice and punish accordly, if not, Tonga will experience anarchy repeatedly and this may become a normal behaviour in the future as I stated in my article; 11) arsonists, thiefs and looters are law breakers and nothing else, and there is no good excuse at all not to bring whoever mastermined these anarchist actions on the 16/11 into justice; 12) the main issue here is not whether I’m a royalist or democrat but who is managed to account ‘the real happenings’ on the 16/11, and last 13), in liberal democratic nations everyone is free to chose his/her own political belief or party - pro-monarchy, pro-democratic, pro-labour, pro-socialism, etc., and nothing is wrong with it unless it breaks the rule of law.
malo,
Lo’au Pouvalu
Thanks for all your constructive comments, I do really appreciate them. I would like respond to:
- Walter, 1)the issue is not pro-government or pro-democracy nor fair and unbiased discussion to please people like you, but an independent examination of ‘the rule of law in Tonga’ and ‘what was really the case’ on the 16/11, whether it suits your political beliefs and mind too it doesn’t matter (i.e. valid/true question, which means truth and validy speak for no one’s please but for their own sake); 2)my heading alone speaks volumes if you look at it in its own independent terms of merits; 3)indeed their are countless kinds of human mentality, and mob mentality is one of them which was well observed by everyone in Tonga and abroad among the FPML and their supporters on the 16/11, highlighting by swearing and derogative words of seditions and slanders spilled out from them with unlawful actions of burning and looting (barbaric acts under the Tongan laws and constitution and those of the civilized worlds and liberal democratic nations); 4) the term ‘anarchy’ was not originated in Polynesian cultures but in Greek literature (’an’ being in Greek a negative prefix and ‘archein’ means ‘to rule’), originally in the works of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and later on was well discussed by Hobbes, Locke, Laws, Nozick, etc., with the common view that it’s about the ‘absence’ of law and order in society; 3)Polynesian cultures from around 2BC to 17AD were highly stratified and not egalitarian (another form of ruling system found in most Melanesian Islands),with ‘only anarchy when there was a breakdown in cutomary laws and order or a civil war; 4) Polynesian Kings, Chiefs and commoners were normally working and behaving in accordance to the customary laws and order of their stratified political structures with well defined divisions of labour; 5)political fanaticism in other words is the failure to accept the ‘reality’ of the Tongan political situation which is based on Constitutional Monarchy with its fundamental declarations of rights and system of justice (one of the best system in the Islands),with a move to a more democratic system in terms of universal rights for general election, and consequently the FPML and their supporters forced themselves to act on the 16/11 outside the context of the rule of law (out of context in any system of idea/rule is fanatic and militant anyway); 6)fanatic Christians always behave out of context of real Christian principles (puritanism for example), and it’s very hard to be in touch with them because their lives do not accept the reality of Christian teachings and life as a whole; 7)a fanatic mind can’t make logic and reasonable decisions on any matter of concern, as it was seen on the 16/11, because it is based on mere emotions and subjective interests; 8)the issue here is not whether I’ve used many long diatribes but ‘whether the FPML and their followers were law-breakers in the names of arsonists, thieves, looters, etc.,’ and ‘whether their actions were barbaric and uncivilized’; Tonga is not a dictatorship cos we do have laws and constitution with the ‘fundamental declarations of rights’ and ‘independent system of justice’ though we are working for some reforms to a more democratic system especially on the univeral rights for general election; 9) fairness, justice & christian principles are the opposites of the behaviours of thieves, arsonists and looters with their ‘immoral’ and ‘anarchist moods’ (why FPML and their supporters be given special privilege when breaking civil liberties of others); 10)the FPML should be punished in accordance to the rule of law and our existing system of justice and this is not an expression of hatred and anger but this is how law-breakers are dealt with in any civilized society including liberal democratic systems, otherwise anarchy and disorder will overtake normal life of a civil society; 11) the issue here is not whether I’m a royalist or democrat but a person someone who can spell out what was really the case on the 16/11; 12) demanding for political changes doesn’t mean we are free to destroy the civili liberties of others in order to have a more democratic system; 13) who were the victims on the 16/11? - the government political leaders (their lives and properties were threatned by the supporters of the FPML), and land owners, business people and their workers in the CBD of Nuku’alofa were the victims beside the side-effects on the rest of Tongan society.
‘ofa atu,
Thanks for all the constructive comments. My response first to Walter Loughery and other will be followed later:
- 1) one main issue in my article is not whether I’m or you’re pro-government, or speak in a biased manner, but to rather ask ,whether I or you actually explained the unlawful actions of the FPML and their supporters on the 16/11, and also, whether these actions were true or false’. Did such actions happen on the 16/11 regardless of whether you and I like it or not?. For instance, did they swear with loud voices of seditions and slanders? Did they damage first the government properties in and around Pangaisi’i before the burning and looting of the Nuku’alofa’s CBD? Clear answer, YES (this action was anarchist and a kind of mob mentality); 2)Did the unlawful actions of mob mentality, anarchy and political fanaticism, in the senses I defined, occurr on the 16/11 at Pangaisi’i before the burning and looting of the CBD? Clear answer, YES (all these actions began at Pangaisi’i); 3)the term anarchy was originated in Classical Greece and not Polynesian societies as u claimed (’an’ in Greek refers to a ‘negative prefix’ and ‘archein’ means ‘to rule’)as seen in the works of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, and later on in those of Hobbes, Locke, Laws and Nozick with the common view on it as the ‘absence’ of the ‘rule of law’; 4) Polynesian societies in about 1BC to 17AD were highly stratified beginning from the Tu’i Pulotu in Fiji to the Tu’i Manu’a in Samoa and to Tu’i Tonga in Tonga, and not egalitarian (as happened in most Melanesian and Micronesian Islands), with anarchy only emerged when customary rules of laws were in a situation of breakdown or civil war; 5)Polynesian Kings, chiefs and commoners normally behaved in accordance to the customary rules of laws in their highy stratified socio-political structure; 6)indeed there are countless kinds of human mentality, and ‘mob mentality’ is one of them which was observable among the followers of the FPML at Pangaisi’i in their unlawful actions before they raced to destroy the CBD and the Chinese shops; 6)it’s always hard to communicate with fanatic Christians or political fanatics mainly cos of their out-of-touch with the reality of things or real worlds, and not accepting things in their own terms, for instance the unlawful actions on 16/11 were due also to the unrealistic opinion that Tonga could be changed to a more democratic systems within ‘one day’ (very idealistic); 7)I know about fairness, justice and christian principles, they are the opposite of the unlawful actions of the law-breakers of arsonists, thieves and looters at Pangaisi’i before and during the destruction of the CBD; on what grounds under Tongan laws and Constitution or in any civilized nation with liberal democratic principles that we can justify the barbarically immoral actions of these law-breakers esp in their violation of the civil liberties of others (i.e. direct victims like Land Owners of the CBD, its business people and their workers, etc.); 9) Tonga is not a dictatorship form of government cos we have fundamental declarations of rights and Wesminister system of justice (one of the best system in the Islands)although we’re moving towards a more democratic government esp on the universal rights for general election; 10)in Tongan laws and other civilized legal systems throughout human civilisation, all law-breakers must face punishment if to be found guilty in the presence of justice, and there is no reason to give special privileges to the FPML and their supporters who commited this ‘crime against humanity’ on the 16/11; 11)one of the main issues here is the examination and acccounting of ‘what was unlawful or lawful’ and ‘what were really happening or not happening’ on the 16/11, and to the contrary, the question of ‘whether I’m a royalist or democrat’ was not fundamentally important; and 12)a royalist or democrat can still be a member of one of the political parties or factions in the future democratic system of Tonga, and there is nothing morally and politically wrong with it.
Malo,
Siua
Siua, again is very long but still the same ingredients. The main point of your original article;
‘With the riot on 16/11/06, there are concepts of great importance that we must not take for granted nor simplify them intentionally to suit our ‘personal ambitions’ and ‘political egoism’, with conclusions such as, ‘everyone should forget about the past life of Nuku’alofa and just concentrate on its new material re-construction.’What those concepts would be in content? ‘Mob mentality’, ‘anarchy’ and ‘political fanaticism’ are the foremost three I would like to suggest not to turn a blind eye from their socio-political significance and characters since 16/11,………..’ .
Your response is more like a ‘renew of exhortation’ but I like to remind you, your article is good for a general academic references. The weakness of your article generally, even your response articles to Walter have too many points of the same significance and support each other and clashes with each other considerably, provide anecdotal contexts.
‘Tonga is not a dictatorship cos we have laws, constitution with jurisdiction that are based on fundamental declarations of rights and justice, although we still need some other democratic reforms to be implemented (our system of justice is still one of the best in the Islands);
now have a look;
‘…Political fanaticism in other words is the failure to accept the ‘reality’ of the Tongan political situation which is based on Constitutional Monarchy with its fundamental declarations of rights and system of justice (one of the best system in the Islands), with a move to a more democratic system in terms of universal rights for general election, and consequently the FPML and their supporters forced themselves to act on the 16/11 outside the context of the rule of law (out of context in any system of idea/rule is fanatic and militant anyway)……………..’
Malie e! Moreover, please, please do not turn around and tell me is not an inconsistency. I do not want to clarify that point is so obvious! I will be a ki’i leka if I do so.
And another thing;
Dictatorship (modern or ancient definition is not mentioned) is co-existing with written laws, with a democratic institution, with a parliament or congressional legislature. I do not need to name such country; for sure, you know most of those countries. Those countries, some are successful and some in the other extreme.
‘………….Most of our laws are not applied in practice for whatever reasons they may be, for instance,………….’
‘………whatever reasons they may be… but whose fault is that, who enforce laws in Tonga?
You talk about ‘Anarchy’ is the absence of rule of law and you go on and on and on, we don’t need to be brainy like Einstein to know things
‘………………… neither the FPML and the Government Leaders used laws to handle problems on the 16/11 before and during the anarchy,……………….’
Ouuuh! the FPML (I state FPML here for u not to think I am argue partially) and GOVERNMENT still have power in their hands (and laws are still in the Government’s hands) before, during, and even after the 16/11,where is ‘anarchy’ at that space and time, as you constantly argue in notion of ‘absence of laws’.
The anarchy in subject to your statement, therefore happen every single day. Every person-committed offence ‘acquires’ anarchy, the ‘absence of laws’ exists, this is the basic of your argument, and one thing we have to realise the law enforcement agency. It does not make sense ‘if laws’ without enforcement, however they are two different entities.
By that we turn up the argument that, ‘all lawbreakers are political criminals’. Now we can see what the ‘essential element’ that we may put down to discriminate Mr Anarchy from others. The Anarchy must be essential to include the collapse of law enforcement agency in its definition. The ‘absence of laws’ argument will not support Mr Anarchy in 16/11, whatever the extent (and kind) of the scene. Keep in mind I do not deny the absence of laws in term of ‘definition’.
There is an argument that the world is an Anarchic Spaceship because we have not have a single government to rule. No way, ‘who rule’ is not essential; the law is there and enforceable is fundamental.
That 16/11 full fill the condition of Mr Anarchy if no, then Siua should withdraw his argument in relevant to anarchy and toefakatoka in the Lo’au Research Centre require more saupulu. AND if yes, then we ask the Government for their failure, not using the power during the 16/11 as Siua mentioned they have before, during 16/11, and obviously after; the political system untouched and the rule of law was still there when the military and police (law enforcement agency of the current system is still there not yet collapse) arrived at the scene. It is like when you steal some one properties and take off, disappears and law enforcement arrived ½ hour late.
Sosiua Tofua’iPangai Lafitani I CAN’T AFFORD TO KNOW YOU as another Sosaia Moimoiangahala. You, a better man academically.
‘Oku ou ‘Ofaatu
I had a problem with my first comment cos I had to post it three times and it took about two weeks before they are displayed here.
With this post this is the second time I send it. I first sent it last nite and still it doen’t show up, so this is my second post of the same response from last nite with a hope that it’ll be displayed straightaway without any delay…Malo
Again thanks for the comments, and I’m glad to extend my response to Kris’ comments. Your comments fall into three main logical and philosophical problems:
1. Problem of Exemplification (PE) 2. Problem of Comparison (PC) 3. Problem of Relativism (PR)
PE refers to problems/issues/statements in which we try to verify them by giving examples rather than first providing clear definitions and explanations about their meanings/characteristics. In Kris’ first comment he gave examples about the ambiguous term ‘mob-fathered mentality’ without first unveiling its explanations and definitions, and this problem is seen throughout in his writings.
PC refers to problems/issues/statements in which we try to compare them on surface value without first providing clear definitions and explanations about their meanings/characteristics. Kris compares the word ‘mob mentality’ I provided with a clear-cut explanation and definition with his ambiguous term of ‘mob-fathered mentality’ that has no definition and explanation, and this problem is seen throughout in his writings.
PR is about the amalgamation of two or more problems/issues/statements. In his first comment he argued against my definition and explanation of ‘mob mentality’ by amalgamating it with ‘mob-fathered mentality’, and this is observable throughout in his writings. The term ‘mob’ is generally defined by scholars and journalists as, “a constitution of individuals who behave in lawless manners (or riot) within a public gathering/event”. So how we can define and explain Kris’ ‘mob-fathered mentality’ or ‘mob-mastered mentality’, and also his amalgamation of two totally different concepts of ‘mob-fathered mentality’ and ‘mob mentality’, or ‘mob mentality’ and ‘mob-mastered mentality’.
It’s hard to define the two term together because the term ‘mob’ contradicts the word ‘father’, for the reason that mob means ‘many individuals’ and father is about an ‘individual self (single)’. THEREFORE, it will be logically and mathematically inferred when drawing out the conclusion and its form that ‘mob-father mentality’ is identical to ‘many-single kind of mentality’, which is very futile. Mob is many and father is single whilst ‘mob mentality’ is identical to ‘many kinds of mentality’.
Further, as a liberal democratic nation does not imply that all laws can be reinforced, as it’s happening in the case of Tonga - in my response to Walter. In Tonga the Sedition Act has never been applied or reinforced by government since the rise of the democratic movement until in the post-riot period. There have been several seditions before the riot but was never taken into consideration by the Tongan government. Another example, the USA has not reinforced countless Acts on her Declarations of Rights and that of the UNO within and outside although she is the leading democratic figure world-wide. The CIA also never reinforces or respects countless rights in the Declarations of Rights of the USA and UNO locally and globally.
Likewise, Tonga has some fundamental rights in her Constitution and Laws and still some of the government’s actions still reflect the neglecting or violation of such rights. I still uphold the point I addressed in my first comment that Tonga’s system of justice is one of the best among the Pacific Islands though she is not a democratic nation. The Tongan political system is largely based on the British Westminster System whereby the modern liberal democracy in its forms of Westminster and Federalism has been largely derived from (including its Greco-Roman classical characters).
There is no contradiction at all when I argued that Tongan Constitution has some fundamental rights in itself and its system of justice is perhaps the best in the Pacific Islands, though there is still a need to democratise the system towards a more democratic nature particularly on the laws for universal rights to vote MPs into the Parliament. These two statements are valid and true, and are logically read as follows:
- Tonga has some fundamental rights and system of Westminster justice in Appendix I, 2 & 3 of her Constitution (Statement One – valid and/or true claim) - Tonga is still a non-democratic nation but with a Westminster Constitution (Statement Two – valid and/or true claim) - NOW/THEREFORE, Tonga is changing towards a more democratic nation specifically in terms on the laws for universal rights to vote MPs into the Parliament (Conclusion with valid/or true claim).
I may rest my case here, and I won’t come back to dialogue with you unless you will prove to me and the readers that you can overcome and sort out the Problem of Exemplification (PE), Problem of Comparison (PC) and Problem of Relativism (PR). About 99% of your responses are full of PE, PC & PR and it’s very hard for me to response to them all.
Please prove to me and the readers that you we can be able to dialogue again by explaining and defining the meanings of problems/issues/statements I unfolded in my article without throwing in your basket full of PE, PC & PR. Kris the ‘process of reasoning’ must be explainable and definable before providing examples and comparisons, but not vice-versa. The best analogy to conclude this response is the phrase: “ ‘OKU MU’OMU’A E HOOSI HE SALIOTE, KA ‘OKU ‘IKAI KO E SALIOTE HE HOOSI.”
Faka’apa’apa atu,
How are you, Siua, kuo ‘osi ho ‘ita?
Son, relax, I acknowledge you asked Maui’atalanga and Zeus to help you in setting out a standard for our argument but I subsequently heard that Tangaloa and Aphrodite not happy with the way the saupulu carry on at the LRCentre.
Tangaloa, told me Tofua’iPangai , god of know everything, that he was so hurt that one of his man cut down by a Povai man from maama. Tofua’iPangai called for revenge, unfortunately his warriors realised that Tofua’iPangai had set up a conspiracy to kill their comrade in order to conceal a matavaivai in his regime.
Let see why Tofua’iPangai was trying to conceal;
He is trying to appeal to the authority of Maui’atalanga and Zeus when the battle get tough and the heat of argument seem to logically brought him down. The povai man from maama crush the middle earth with simple weapons but with state of art strategies. Tofua’iPangai’s men fled and declare at the other side of the Muifonua victory with this pre Ps;
-PE, PC, PR
I would like to continued this so called standard PE,PC,PR he set out by himself;
Tofua’iPangai PE peel the skin of the statement, but the statement itself clearly point out the point of the argument. He is trying to twist the fact of the case by argue that providing a clear definition. It seems to me that he is a good essay writing scholar but not a critic. The good critical scholar read the writing and can pick up the definitions, differentiate statement from statement, issues from issues, and discriminate facts from problems, out clean and straight away, and not passing around like a bing-bong game.
Tofua’iPangai,PC, again he spend his time on ‘mob-father’ etc, if he is a competence scholar he don’t waste his time there, he can take the argument to another level, but because he turn a blind eye on the issue- a thing he knows but pretend to conceal the fact for the sake of his reputation, he don’t want to look defeated. It is not important. I admits that my writing is poor in term of a proper essay, but the point against the ‘god ‘ is clear, even if I don’t explain, the point in his statement clearly doesn’t reflect in reality.(look at all his article above) The compare he talking about is a kidding way of analysis , a father, a mob, a is, a mother, a school, a a, a the, he!he! It is important in philosophy, but that is not the point, all of this comparative is there as a clarification, to beam out the big picture.
Tofua’ipangai, PR, now he appeal to a scholar and a journalistic (what journalism!!!)definition to help him to make the audience believe in him. But again he very stubborn led him to define ‘mob’ in term of my clarification to prove it wrong. That is not the point again. And please, don’t heading with ‘relativism’ but explain different things which doesn’t support the idea of relativism.
Tangaloa told me that Tofua’iPangai, was focus on how my statement framed distorted his analysis, but if he objectively see the issue, he have no problem with the Povai people. The whole issue here is his argument from his Original Article he persistently trying to defend from fall apart.
We don’t have to go all the way to US or Europe to find things, take a walk to Parliament House there is a lot of laws there is not enforce but those laws is not the pillar to defend the reason deter of a state. In the case of Tonga, why they enforce sedition law now, 16/11? This is a Government short fall of not enforce the laws before hand to bind the psychological behavioural of the Tongan society.
And again he worry about the skin of my analysis ‘contradictory’ of the statement no! the inconsistence of the statement and what happen in real life in the current political system. Yes I agree that Constitution has some fundamental rights there, yes, ok! have a look at the problem in Tonga and why we need democratic reform. The so call Rights collide with form of government set out within the constitution, that is the inconsistence I was talking about, and that is the fundamental problem that brought the 16/11 into existence.
That 16/11 implied the ‘BESTIBILITY’ of the system, system is not competence to protect and serve the rights declared within. You ‘god’ don’t need to fakafifisi and lea mamafa to gain attention of the readers, a technique emphasis by the court room advocate lawyers, to divert attention from the facts of the case. They scrutinize the grammatical problem and attack it furiously when their prefer case seems to break into pieces, Tofua’iPangai destroy his comrade that way, now he trying the same old thing on me.
Have a look here;
This is the reflection of the skin he still trying to saupulu, he looking away from the weaknesses of his argument. He stuck with the statement and the facts of the statement, as I stated above. I don’t want to explain the problem of the connection of the premises and the concluded premises of his ABC form of statements above when he using THEREFORE, because that is not the point of the whole saga, here.
I am not here to comply with your own standard, so called PE, PC, PR. I suggest you to withdraw, fakatoka and saupulu finely, is not bad. And another thing don’t claim the readers they’re on your side, this is a sign of unsettle by appeal to numbers, he!he! Yes, you right! explainable and definable, but please ‘god’ not wordy and dodgy. The Tongan slogan you quoted sum up the physical appeal of all your views in regard to issues arose from you. Apparently you ‘god’ don’t want to be wrong as traditional ‘godlike’. However your ’saliote’ comment fall squarely on you mentally and above all physically.
Sosiua Lafitani Tofua’iPangai, I appreciate your academic achievement but I will kill myself if YOU BECOME AS ANOTHER Sosaia Moimoiangahala. You are better man academically.
‘Oku ou ‘ofaatu pea ke tauhi lelei.
Kris.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Subscribe to PT site content via RSS
Ben Tameifuna