Titled “The Attempted Coup of 16 November 2006″
(This is an updated version of the original response to Lopeti’s report)
(by Samuela ‘Akilisi Pohiva, People’s No.1 Representative to Parliament, Chair-People’s Committee for Political Reform and Secretary- Friendly Islands HumanRights & Democracy Movement Inc )
Lopeti Senituli’s report has raised an issue that has a long historical background of its own and, analysing from a proper historical perspective would render the true picture of why and how the November 16 uprising happened.
In a response to a letter of the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Tevita Tupou, to ‘Akilisi Pohiva requesting for his apology on the ground that his statement published in the Wall Street Journal defamed his Majesty, Taufa’ahau Tupou IV. ‘Akilisi says in his reply:
That part of ‘Akilisi’s response to the Minister’s letter was quoted in Justice Finnigan’s decision in Rex vs ‘Akilisi Pohiva in the Supreme Court of Tonga (p/17). Part of Justice Finnigan’s decision reads as follows:
In the end, ‘Akilisi, the accused was acquitted.
First call for Political Reform
The beginning of the struggle for political reform can be traced back to 1975, when Dr. Hu’akavameiliku, the former Minister of Education, put through to Privy Council a proposal requesting His Majesty to set up a political review commission to review the constitution.
Since then, people’s calling for political reform became an on-going struggle up to November 16.
The following paragraphs represent the views, opinions and comments of a wide range of professionals who occupied key positions in government and in non-government organizations and whose first-hand experience provide a true picture and specific examples of how our system of government functions. They also fairly represent the feelings and hopes of most Tongans longing for justice and the creation of a vision of a new society, which is secure, just, peaceful, caring and environment friendly.
“Most monarchies have trodden the path of revolution. It is the usual outcome of autocratic rule. It is always risky to have so much power concentrated in the hands of one human being who is not accountable to anyone. Hence the universal applicability of Lord’s adage that “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Editorial by Uili Fukofuka published in Kele’a Newpaper, 1988; currently serving in Ministry of Education as Senior Executive Officer)
“The socio-political and technological conditions of a given period often create an environment for change. When major economic and technological changes do occur social and political changes follow as a matter of circumstance. Our leaders have been conditioned to believe that Tonga can continue to remain an unaffected constitutional monarchial supremacy and at the same time successfully accommodate the existing economic policies of the free market and the need for a wide range of interdependence with the outside world. This is a misconception of reality and there is no room for a mistake. The only choice is to push for an open and accountable government. This will cost less for the country and guarantee a better future for our children. It must be understood that an open market economy can only function effectively and efficiently, with lesser cost, under an open and accountable government. This ensures a fair distribution of opportunities and wealth of the nation and guarantee a long-term national security and peace…”(Editorial by ‘Akilisi Pohiva, published in Kele’a, 1992; Former Editor and Publisher of Kele’a Newspaper; Secretary of Friendly Islands Human Rights and Democracy Movement, Chairman of People’s Committee for Political Reform, and is currently Representative of People to Parliament.)
“The Constitution was designed to safeguard the welfare of the country in perpetuity, but many of its provisions were concerned with the specific needs of their day. Some of these needs have changed over the years, as Tonga has become modernized. His Majesty has himself pointed out that land and parliament representation are two matters requiring reform…Those who love Tonga, however, and desire to see the Constitution in its essence preserved, should not shrink from facing them calmly and courageously while time is on our side” (Dr. Sione Latukefu; an Expert on Tongan History; a former Senior History Lecturer, University of Papua New Guinea and former Senior Lecturer in Pacific History, National University of Australia)
“Ultimately, a modified Constitution which gave greater voice to the people and made the executive responsible to the Legislative could provide some effective safeguards for the preservation of the legitimate interests of the Royal lineage” (Dr. Guy Powles, a Constitutional Expert on Tongan Constitution. His research for his thesis for his Doctorate was based on Tongan constitution)
“…As many of my contemporaries do, I have all these years cherished a belief in the integrity of government; that justice, fairness and truth, if not love were its guiding principles; that the loyalty, dedication and sacrifice of each officer were recognized and valued. I have continued to subscribe to these beliefs despite of the recent happenings in government, and story evidence to the contrary…We begin to question the reality we have dedicated our lives to; that in government we serve there is honor, truth, justice and love; that there is a real meaning behind the pledge that God and Tonga are Mine Heritage…The greatest tragedy for my colleagues and me will not be the chattering of our dreams but the knowledge that we have dedicated our best years of our lives to the living of a lie.” (This is part of ‘Ana Taufe’ulungaki’s response to Chief Secretary to Government expressing her concern regarding the appointment of a new Accountant-General-Ministry of Finance; Dr. ‘Ana Taufe’ulungaki, a former Deputy Director of Ministry of Education, now a Senior Lecturer at the University of the South Pacific.)
“…I see no need to refer the matter to the officer as there are dangers of doing so. However, I have made certain discreet enquiries here and it appears that what the officer is getting at is probably the employment of labourers paid from the government vote to do his own personal work. It is reported that this practice is widespread in the outer islands and in fact past sub-Treasurers in Niua Fo’ou are guilty of this practice…Why is that Hon. Cabinet Ministers and certain Senior Government Officers are so vindictive with the junior officers? Is there a tolerable limit in the misuse of government funds and also a distinction as who does the misuse? I see so much use of public funds, labourers and other assets in Nuku’alofa and Tongatapu. The government is corrupt but corruption can’t be stamped out only at the lower ranks without applying the same standards starting from the top…” ( This is part of Afu’alo’s letter, 1981, to the Chief Secretary to Cabinet; former Secretary, Ministry of Finance, later served as Managing Director, Tonga Development Bank) and is currently Minister for Public Enterprise”)
“Whatever my fate is going to be I will gladly take comfort in the fact that I have done what I think is right to avoid matters slipping away from known to the unknown due to wrongful exercise of power…The damage has been done and all I wish for is to die…should that reality eventuate with honour and dignity… (This is part of ‘Uhila Leava’a response to Former Minister of Finance, Cecil Cocker, after receiving an official notice informing him of his reprimand; ‘Uhila Liava’a, Former Government Accountant General, 1992, later served as Internal Auditor, Tonga Electric Power Board)
“Human Society should never leave things to work out their own course but should always guide them as to impact and direction. If they are left to their own course there may be long periods where there are only a few insignificant changes taking place, but when real change does come, it will do so, more often than not, with violent and explosive fury, and even if desired goals are achieved, it will certainly effect extensive destruction to property and lives and such social damage that would cost immense resources to redness. Both the French Revolution and the Bolsheviks Revolution are examples of the lack of foresight and the absence of the will to dialogue and plan socio-political change” (This is part of Professor Futa Helu’s paper presented in “the 1992 Convention on Tongan Constitution and Democracy” Futa is the Founder and Director of ‘Atenisi Institute)
“The Christian understanding of sin suggests that it is very difficult for even the finest of human being to resist the temptations of absolute power. Even the most just and fair Constitutions have not being able to completely guard against such abuse of power, but at least they try to provide a remedy, which in our case, does not seem to be present” (Part of Rev Siupeli Taliai’s papper presented in the 1992 Convention on Tongan Constitution and Democracy”, Siupeli, former Secretary of Free Wesleyan Church of Tonga and former Principal of Tupou College)
“To be a people of dignity, the democracy that we aspire to, should not be seen as something that conflict with our respect to our King and government. On the contrary it will enhance, respect by making them the King and government of a political adults rather than of political children. Fathers look forward to their children grown into their adulthood. They too bring honour to their children of which he is the Head” (Patelesio Finau-ki-Hihifo, former Bishop of the Catholic Church)
“Much has been written on the merits and demerits, the advantages and disadvantages of democracy. It really perhaps concerns us more to observe the fact that it is the inevitable outcome of the prevalent historical forces, that it has a great function in modern history, and it is the duty of the citizens and the statesmen to do their duty under it, and to adapt it to the material, intellectual and moral improvement of people” (A quotation from Chambers Encyclopedia, by Rev Dr ‘Amanaki Havea, Former President of Free Wesleyan Church of Tonga on: Convention on Tongan Constitution and Democracy, 1992)
Parliamentary motion predicted civil unrest and chaos
In 1993, I put through to Parliament a motion for a legislation to stop the Crown Prince involving himself in business as it might cause social unrest and bring chaos to the nation. The Crown Prince, at that time, was a share-holder and director in many companies and was very much involved in business and commercial deals. The motion warned that the Crown Prince’s involvement in business would leave him open to selfish people exploiting him for their own benefit at the expense of his own people. That was exactly the case since 1993 up to now. His partnership with the Ramanlals, among many others and one of the root causes of November 16 crises is a good example. The said motion was tabled and discussed in Parliament when the Crown Prince was Minister of Foreign Affairs and Defense. All the Ministers and Nobles’ Representatives voted against the motion.
Letter from People’s Representatives warned Council of Churches:
The letter to the Secretary General of the Council of Churches dated April 14, 2005 signed by seven representatives of the people namely, Samuela ‘Akilisi Pohiva, Dr. Feleti Sevele, ‘Isilelei Pulu, ‘Uliti Uata, Fineasi Funaki, Sunia Fili and Peauafi Haukinima, warned that people’s prolonged frustration and discontent could well lead to civil unrest and upheaval, if no collective effort of all responsible authorities be taken to address people’s grievances. Attached to the letter was a copy of a petition to His Majesty which highlighted the breach of Clause 17 of the Constitution by His Majesty and abuse and misuse of public properties by the Royalties. Lopeti took part in the march to present the said petition to His Majesty in April, 2005.
Kalafi Moala predicted the uprising!
“Tonga will not move forward in the 21st Century without full democratic system of Government, with the Monarch as a social force without political power, and the nobility abolished for good.”
These are direct quotations of Kalafi Moala, written on his book, Island Kingdom Strikes Back, pages 295-297, 2002. Nothing is being altered, deleted or added. This clearly demonstrates the bitter conflict between the Kalafi of yesterday and the Kalafi of today.
My prediction is that things in the island Kingdom will worsen until authorities relinquish their unbalanced hold on power. If they don’t, the people will rise up and take in their own hands the destiny of the island Kingdom.
A major right still denied Tongans is that to choose their own Government. The country should not belong to Tupou and his offspring. Tonga is not their personal property to do with what they will. It needs to and does belong to every Tongan.
The role of Monarch needs to be redefined. A full review and amendment of the Constitution should provide new definitions.
The nobility created by Tupou I at the outset of his reign in the late 1840s should be abolished. It is no longer relevant to today’s Tonga. The nobility is an obsolete, perfunctory aristocratic structure. Putting bluntly, nobles are useless and should join the ranks of everyone else.
…..Tonga will not move forward in the 21st Century without full democratic system of Government, with the Monarch as a social force without political power, and the nobility abolished for good. .
….Leadership selection must no longer be based on inherited birthright, as in the present failed system. Rather it should be the talented, educated and hard working individuals with moral integrity that should be given the opportunity to seek the country’s top political posts.
……I cannot comprehend on what these inherited, false assumptions are based other than lies embraced by our culture through the ages. The sooner such delusions are eliminated from our psyche – young Tongans are no longer beset with these lies – the sooner we can build a civilization we will be proud of.
……For our children to develop these talents, we must not only reform our governmental structure, but also our culture, our families, and our very lives so we can be relevant in this 21st Century. God help us
November Upheaval
The crisis of September 16 was not a coup detat as coined and labeled by Lopeti Senituli in his reply to ‘Ana Taufe’ulungaki’s confidential report to the University of the South Pacific. It was rather a people’s upheaval caused and consistently activated by suppressive and dictatorial measures and continuous refusal of government to listen and respond to people’s grievances over a long period of time. The exercise of suppressive methods and delay tactics to avoid the vote on the People Representatives’ proposals in the last session of Parliament for the year sparked people’s anger and discontent.
However, if, it was a planned coup dedat as unwittingly expressed in Lopeti’s report, we would all have witnessed a totally different picture of the situation- something that Lopeti never dreamed could happen.
Lopeti should have mentioned in his report that I was right in front of an angry mob that surrounded the Prime Minister’s Office to stop them from attacking him and from invading the Cabinet room where the Prime Minister, and a few others including the Speaker of the House, remained. They were guarded by a few police officers and one officer from Tonga Defense Force while people were stoning the Prime Minister’s building.
Lopeti also reported that there was a plan to physically assault the Prime Minister and other Ministers and/or even kill them. That was an unfounded allegation which requires solid evidence from Lopeti to support his allegation. If there was such a plan, it could have come from a different group of people unknown to our committee.
Ministers find a way to relieve pressure
Lopeti, in his report, made a misleading statement that there were threats from the people at Pangai Si’i which caused the adjournment of Parliament session to the afternoon. The Parliamentary Select Committee set up to deal with the situation at Pangai Si’i demanded that people should leave Pangai Si’i so that members feeling unsafe in coming to the afternoon session can come to the meeting. In fact, there was no threat and Cabinet Ministers used people’s meeting at Pangai Si’i as an excuse to adjourn the meeting of Parliament to relieve the pressure from Peoples’ Representatives who wanted Parliament to vote on their proposals before the closing of Parliament.
If, however, there was such a threat, some preventive measures could well be done to guarantee the safety of the members while the session was on. I insisted that Parliament should go ahead as there were a lot of important items on the agenda to be discussed and put down for vote before the closing of Parliament. So, I moved a motion in the meeting of the select committee that Parliament should call officers from the army to guard the Parliament House. The majority of the members voted against the motion.
The claim that ‘Uliti Uata and I failed to honor our agreement with the Prime Minister was not true as the agreement was subject to the approval of the members of our executive. Lopeti should have known, as he was a member of the executive before he left the organization; that all agreements require approval of the Committee. It was then the decision of the executive committee of People’s committee for Political Reform to have Parliament vote on the committee’s proposal before closing of Parliament.
Why we called people to come to Pangai Si’i
Lopeti presumed that it was our plan to push Parliament to vote on the proposal with full knowledge that there was no way we would win and that would give people excuse to force Parliament. Lopeti must admit the fact that people’s Representatives are always the minority in our Parliament. And as suggested, there was no way we could have won if we had voted on our proposal. Despite that, why did they want the people, our power base, to leave Pangai Si’i and allow them, as the majority inside Parliament to win the game by default? We appealed to the people to come to Pangai Si’i to show their support to our proposals. And we had the right to do that. And Ministers had nothing to worry about if they were willing to listen to the majority.
Prime Minister’s Political Adviser condemned Tu’i Pelehake’s recommendations
Towards the end of almost three weeks sessions with Dr Halapua, Deputy Chairman of the National Parliamentary Committee for Political Reform on the report, the Prime Minister, Dr Feleti Sevele put through to Parliament an alternative model. A week after, Lopeti Senituli, in a panel discussion on the Tu’ipelehake’s report, broadcast on Radio and Television Tonga, denounced and condemned Tu’ipelehake’s proposed model in the eyes of the public. He strongly criticized the methods employed in the conduct of the ‘Potalatalanoa’ and pointed to inconsistencies in the underlined principles being used as basis for the formulation of the recommendations.
Few days after, the Prime Minister, in a press conference with media, outlined in details the major components of government model and announced the full support of His Majesty. In Suva, during the Forum meeting, a broadcast officer of Radio & Television Tonga relayed from Suva through Radio Tonga a report that both New Zealand and Australian Prime Ministers supported the government model.
To further facilitate and solidify the process, Government submitted to Parliament on the last week sessions of Parliament an amended legislation to limit the chance of People’s Representatives from outer islands residing permanently in Tongatapu and provide a platform convenient for the return of the Prime Minister and some of his executive colleagues to Parliament in the next election.
In an informal meeting with Lopeti Senituli, he told me that Government would need extension of the time frame from 2008 election to 2011 election which is a departure from the model designed to facilitate peaceful transition. And His Majesty has probably endorsed this extension.
Hope for peaceful transition breaks down
Given all the above scenarios, the Tu’ipelehake’s proposed model is doomed thus putting all hope for peaceful transition under threat. It was the Prime Minister who did it and Dr. Halapua was right when he said the Prime Minister is fully responsible for the crisis of September 16.
Despite all the above, I made it clear in the same panel discussion with Lopeti that 60% of our proposal was in line with Tu’ipelehake’s recommendations. Hence People’s Representatives called for all members to honor the Tu’ipelehake’s proposal. But, there was strong opposition from Cabinet Ministers who insisted that there are quite a lot of other related issues to be dealt with which require further discussion and deliberation.
Lopeti should recall the appeal made by the Prime Minister in his letter to the Chairman of the People’s Committee for Political Reform, to remain calm and wait for the report of the Tu’ipelehake’s Committee. The general public felt and advised that there was a sense of sincerity and hope in the Prime Minister’s appeal, therefore our committee decided to set aside our proposal actions and wait. But, in essence, Tu’ipelehake’s report failed to meet the expectation of the Prime Minister and Cabinet whose future prospect for the next election shaken and uncertain, if the Tu’ipelehake proposals set out in the Report be implemented.
To save the Prime Minister and his team, Lopeti had to go all the way with Marshall Law in his hand to protect the glory of his master. Such acts are not only suppressive but arrogant and disrespectful. What will happen in the end, the game will be won by default because the seven Peoples’ Representatives lack the capacity to mount their rightful claim against the sixteen Cabinet Ministers and nine nobles representatives who are there, as usual, to serve the interest of His Majesty, but not the people.
Meetings with people in Villages
Six weeks before November 16, the seven Representatives of the People and People’s Committee for Political Reform conducted 35 meetings in Tongatapu. All people were invited to these open forums to discuss the committee’s proposal. Every meeting was broadcast on TV. There was no secret or hidden agenda. (Members of the People’s Committee for Political Reform included Friendly Islands Human Rights & Democracy Movement, Friendly Islands Teachers Association, Public Service Association, Tonga Business Association, Tonga Fionoa etc )
None of the Ministers or Representatives of Government attended in any of these meetings. Comments on incompetence of Government and corruption based on facts truly stated by people in those meetings came out to the public on TV loud and clear. Lopeti should have, at least, made the effort to attend and respond to comments and concerns of the people that came out in all the meetings
Messages on the Wall
All along since the end of last year’s civil servant’s strike up to November 16, fifteen banners were hanging at Pangai Si’i for more than eight months. Writing in one of these banners read as follow. “The rule of law is a fraud.” That banner alone is enough to explain the seriousness of the current situation. As, in the absence of the rule of law, where injustices prevail, people will have no choice but to revert to violence. The said banner together with thirteen other banners were interpreted by Government Legal Authorities as criminal offence against the state. But, the Magistrate Court ruled against each of the fourteen criminal proceedings filed against me and few others who occupied Pangai Si’i since September, 2005.
Messages behind all these banners had gone out to the public without any further response from the Government. People with good minds would take all the writings on those banners as signals to the general public and as warnings to government. Tongan version of writings in one of those banners quotes: “Tupou 1V mo Ho Fale kuo fua kimoutolu pea ‘ilo ‘oku mou ma’ama’a” which equates to “Minemina Tikeli Upasina” in the Bible. That banner was challenged separately in the Magistrate Court and the ruling was in favour of me, the accused.
The Pangai Si’i Committee submitted two separate complaints in February 2006 to the Police Department in Nuku’alofa with well documented evidence in support of the complaints. These two complaints, among others, had so much to do with the Shoreline Group Limited owned by the Crown Prince and the Ramanlals. Since then, no action has been done as to the legality and validity of the complaints.
Emergency meeting in Cabinet Room
When the expected afternoon session was again adjourned, People’s Representatives had to call an emergency meeting with Prime Minister and Speaker of the House. The meeting was held in Cabinet room. The Prime Minister and other five ministers, Speaker of the House and three other Noble Representatives attended the meeting. Part of Lopeti’s report reads as follow. “As soon as everyone was seated, ‘Akilisi Pohiva shouted that the people wanted an immediate answer to their demand for the assembly to be convened immediately and if the Prime Minister did not accede to their demands, the destruction could very well continue. He went on about having warned the government numerous times about what will happen if they kept delaying reform, and now there was no turning back. The government must do what the people wanted or else…”
That part of Lopeti’s report quoted above, is denied, as it was a misinterpretation and misrepresentation of what I actually said in the meeting. I did not shout nor did I said that, if the Prime Minister did not accede to our demands, the destruction could very well continue, nor did I said, the government must do what they wanted or else….. That part of his report is far from the truth. He told me later that it was from his note book taken out from memory, but it’s open to be disputed.
Thy Kingdom come as it is in Heaven
2) The public boycott of the Tu’ipelehake’s Committee
3) The public refusal to pay their electricity bills beginning with the bills of November, 2005.
If the Prince Regent accedes to the committee’s request within the two weeks period, then the people’s committee will actively support the Tu’ipelehake’s committee. But, at the end of Lopeti’s proposal action, he said: “Neither of these likely responses will be comforting to us. And History shows that the most likely response from government will be ‘no’.” Full- stop
The significant point in Lopeti’s action proposal is that his proposed series of actions of civil disobedience reveal his personal commitment and dedication to the cause pursued in our proposals. Unfortunately, he left our committee to serve the Prime Minister’s dreams which gave him no choice but to act accordingly. Let us pray for Thy Kingdom to work on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Ends
‘Oku ‘i ai ‘a e ngaahi fakakaukau mahu’inga ‘aupito mo mo’oni ‘oku to e fakamanatu mai ‘e he fakamatala ko’eni ‘a ‘Akilisi ‘i he ‘ene tali ki he fakamatala ‘a Lopeti Senituli ‘i he ‘aho 27/11/06. Pea kapau ko e fakakaukau e ‘o e liliu na’e ‘osi kamata ho no talanoa’i mei he 1975 ‘o hange ko e fakamatala ‘oku ha ‘i he tohi ‘a ‘Akilisi, “Dr Langi Kavaliku First call for Political Reform. The beginning of the struggle for political reform can be traced back to 1975, when Dr. Hu’akavameiliku, the former Minister of Education, put through to Privy Council a proposal requesting His Majesty to set up a political review commission to review the constitution”. ‘A ia ko e ta’u ‘eni ‘e 30 tupu ‘a e talatalanoa ‘o fekau’aki mo e liliu. Pea ‘i he vaha’a taimi ko’eni, mei he 1975 ki he 2006 na’e ‘ilo, pea mahino ‘aupito ki he kakai tokolahi ‘o e fonua ‘a e ngaahi mo’oni’i me’a ko’eni:
1) Ke monomono ‘a e fa’unga pule’anga (Konisitutone).
2) Ke fili ‘e he kakai ho nau kau taki.
3) Ne fu’u lahi ho no ngaue hala’aki ‘e he kau taki ‘a e pa’anga ‘a e fonua.
4} Na’e mahino ki he kakai ko e lao ‘o e fonua, ‘e tatau ia ki he tokotaha kotoa pe. Ka na’e, pea ‘oku ‘ikai ke pehee ia. Pea ‘oku toe lahi mo e ngaahi me’a te ne lava ke tala kuo maama ‘a e kakai ‘o lava ke fakafaikehekehe’i ‘a e kovi mei he lelei, ‘a e hikihiki holo mei he tu’u ma’u.
Pea mo e ngaahi me’a kehe pe ia kuo fuoloa ‘a e fetalanoa’aki ki ai ‘a e kakai ‘i he fu’u ta’u lahi ko’eni ‘e 30.
Ko ia ai ‘i he fakahoha’a ni, fakamalo lahi atu kiate koe ‘Akilisi mo ho kau poupou, ‘i he tu’u kalikali ‘oku mo u fai, pea ‘ikai ha to e hiki mei he kaveinga ngaue. Kiate au mahalo ko e taha ia ‘i ha fakamo’oni lelei mo mahu’inga ha taki ‘o ha fa’ahinga kulupu pe sosaieti ‘oku fakama’u ‘a e kaveinga ke ma’u mo pau pea toki fai ‘a e folau. He ‘oku ‘osi mahino pe ia ‘e fai ‘a e inu tahi mo e afaangia lolotonga ‘a e folau ‘oku fai. Ka ‘oku mo’oni ‘a e fa’a fakataukei ‘a kinautolu kuo nau fononga ‘i he hala tatau ‘i he kuohili. “‘E ‘ikai fai ai pe ‘a e fononga faingata’a'ia ni ‘o ta’engata”. ‘E ‘iai pe ‘a e ‘aho ‘e ngata ai. Pea ‘e toki fakamo’oni’i ‘ekinautolu ko ia ‘oku kataki lahi ‘a e mo’oni ‘o e lea faka’osi na’ake ngaue’aki, “Lets us pray for Thy Kingdom to work on Earth as it is in Heaven” Pea ta ‘oku ma’u pe ‘a e hevani ‘i mamani, ‘oka ‘oku fai ‘a e ngaue ‘i he ‘ofa pea mo e totonu.
‘Oku ‘ikai ‘aupito ha fakatonuhia’i ‘e taha ‘o e faingata’a lahi na’e hoko ‘i he ‘aho 16/11. Pea ‘oku tau faka’amu ke fakahoko totonu pe ‘e he lao ia ‘a ‘e ne ngaue. ‘Ikai ko ia pe, ka ‘oku to e mahu’inga pe ke fai mo ha tokanga makehe kiate kinautolu na’e uesia ‘enau koloa ‘i he ‘aho ko’eni.
Pea ko e faka’osi pe,
Dear ‘Akilisi, I am grateful with the historical flashback of the progress of democratication in Tonga and it is important to note that the above quotations highlighted the strength of a perfect democratic system itself and I think that your possession had misled you to use up the poor people of Tonga to complete your unfinish mission. Integration of democracy to the Tongan traditional system etc. is an ongoing process and I think you all need to answer why on earth didn’t you and your comrades accept the government proposition to let the PM to appoint 2/3 and 1/3 by HM …. for a big start. I do not believe that your economy was depressed or even close to stagnancy to justify the black November 16. The people were enjoying their freedom and now the people are imprisoned in their own home. All of these negative consequences are the outcome of the poor processing of democratisation since 1975 if Dr. Hu’akavameiliku was the founder of democratic movement. If you love the people, you would have reconsidered the methodology and avoid motivating the people to killing and burning …… I believe that the process should have given at least 10 or 100 years so that the government could preach out the new model and the new system to the people … this leaves a lot of answers from you (and the MPs) and if you were sick and dying of waiting, well too bad, the consequences of black November 16 is the worse ever results of your 30 years democratisation project …… worse than ever and I hope that God will bestow and open your heart to regret the worse of the worse ever projects in the last and the new millennium - you are the master leader? And the sad part is that you and your followers are already written as the founders of the black history of Tonga for our children to read in the next millennium.
‘Ofa atu,
David Tapiaka
Mangere
New Zealand.
Dear ‘Akilisi,
For your information, Dr. ‘Ana Taufe’ulungaki was never ever a Senior Lecturer, as stated in your article.
In fact, Dr. ‘Ana Taufe’ulungaki is now Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research and Graduate Affairs at the University of the South Pacific and her appointment is at professorship level.
‘I he’eku vakai pe ‘a’aku, neu ngaue he shoreline, etc
Koe me’a ne hoko ne pau pe ke hoko, pea koe me’a ‘oku hoko ‘oku hoko pe ia, pea koe me’a e hoko kuo pau ke hoko ia.
Koe me’a pe ‘oku ou faka’amu keu sio kiai ketau lotua pe ‘a Tonga, ke ta lava o tali lelei ‘a e me’a kotoa pe ne hoko, me’a ‘oku hoko pea moe me’a ‘e hoko mai.
Ko ‘etau faka’amu, ke ‘omi ‘e he ‘Otua - koia ‘oku poto taha, koia ‘oku ne ilo e tali totonu taha ki he me’a kotoa pe i Tonga.
E fakapiko e lau mai e hai mo hai a e ha moe ha, kotoa ia koe valengangau kotoa pe ia ki he ‘Otua.
Lotua a Tonga ke fakalele ‘aki e Faitotonu moe ‘Ofa he kaha’u vave mai.
‘ofa atu
dan foliaki
A Critical Response to ‘Akilisi’s “Updated” 16/11 Apologetic.
Dear ‘Akilisi,
Almost three millenia ago King Solomon of Jerusalem asserted: “The patient in spirit is better than the proud in spirit. Be not quick in your spirit to become angry, for anger lodges in the bosom of fools.” It seems to me that your (you and your “paty of four”) endorsing presence amongst the mob destroying Nuku’alofa on 16/11 not only makes a fool of yourself but that the “updated” version of your response to Lopeti Senituli in all likelihood appears to be a desperate attempt to justify the folly of your action. Speech-Act theory tells us that words are modes of accomplishing an action. Thus, it appears to me that your updated version accompanied with out-of-context comments from a list of celebrated Tongan experts is geared to “act” as an apology for your involvement in 16/11. Let me therefore put it to you as a question: Can the tragic events of 16/11 ever be justified?
Most, if not all, Tongans (except yourself apparently), have accepted the regrettably tragic and shameful sequence of events leading up to the destruction of Nuku’alofa on 16/11 as an utterly and totally unacceptable way of stating a political point. Let me put the case to you in the form of questions and answers arising from your updated version.
So, you were acquitted in your impeachment of the late King?
Can 16/11 be justified since you were consistently acquitted in your attempts to impeach the late king in Court? Now, please help me to understand what is going on here. You yourself have consistently maintained throughout your political career that the rule of law is a fraud in Tonga. Now, if the rule of law is truly fraudulent in Tonga and that it turns out to serve your political purposes by justifying your cause of action against the late king in Court, does it not indicate that your case can only be acquitted in a corrupted justice system? Either you need a “fraud” justice system to sustain the objections you mounted against the late King, or, on the other hand, the justice system in Tonga is perfectly sound but that your attribution of fraud to it is simply a pointless and illegitimate rhetorical assent that ought to be silently but immediately dropped from your political dictionary.
So, you were only repeating what the experts have been saying all along?
Can 16/11 be justified simply because most if not all Tongan academics and religious leaders (of both the past and the present) have unanimously called (even demanded?) for a reform in the Tongan political system? As good as it may seem, your “honor board” of those who have remarked in the past in support of a change in the political system appears extremely desperate that you are even citing people who, if were given the chance to respond to what happened on 16/11, will almost certainly disenfranchise themselves from your supporting power base. For instance, Dr. Fukofuka and Dr. Taufe’ulunaki seem to me to have been dragged along unwillingly in order to sustain 16/11. The bottom line is that, even if these experts and religious leaders were once upon a time stood behind the call for political reform in Tonga, I fail to see any of them walking alongside you and your “party of four” in the midst of the mob who destroyed the Nuku’alofa CBD on 16/11. Am I simply myopic, or have you overstated your case for rhetorical effect?
So, the Parliament could have voted by default against political reform?
Can 16/11 ever be justified simply because the Parliament would by default vote against the recommendations of the NCPR headed by the late Tu’ipelehake? In your defense, you admitted that you called upon the “people” as your “power base” presumably to give some form of assistance to you and your “party of four” in the voting of the motion for political reform that was meant to be taken place in Parliament on the afternoon of 16/11. One wonders what sort of assistance you were looking for from your “power base”. You stringently denied there was any hint of threat to Parliament from the Pangai Si’i “congregation”. But in all likelihood it appeared that to call on the people as your “power base” when you knew the ballot on the motion for political reform would happen in the afternoon of 16/11, and since you knew there was a certain possibility Parliament would vote against it, give the alarming indication that the mob gathered at Pangai Si’i on the afternoon of 16/11 was in order to threaten the Tongan Parliament into accepting the NCPR’s recommendations (whatever that may be) for political reform. Is it not the case then that you and your “party of four” called in the mob as a desperate attempt to force the Parliament to submit to your program for political reform? Put another way: Had you attempted to calm that Pangai Si’i mob and told them to disperse peacefully to their homes (farms?), would there ever have been a 16/11? I earnestly doubt it.
So, the PM presented a different program for political reform?
Can 16/11 be justified since the PM and Mr. Senituli presented a different version of political recommendations to that agreed upon the basis of the NCPR report? That you guys (i.e. you and the PM and Mr. Senituli), all vying for pro-democracy for so long, and who used to belong to the same party, flagging the same banner, fighting behind the same façade of democracy, can be divided upon the fundamental issue of democracy in our country is beyond comprehension. How can you be against each other when the mood for political change had already set in all around you? Even King Siaosi Tupou V admitted that he was in for it. Is it all a political power “game” as you said? Is it not really for the good of our country then that you guys are hoisting the pro-democracy flag but simply for individual (and perhaps for the Pangai Si’i congregation’s) gain? Don’t you think it would have been better had you guys (you and your “party of five”) relented for inciting the mob to violence and resume the dialogue with the PM about what is best, not particularly for those involved, or even for a minority “power base” as represented by the Pangai Si’i mob, but for the whole of Tonga? Apparently, there were a number of alternative ways for continuing dialogue in political reform, but you and your “party of four” seem to have become deeply impatient with the Tongan government. If that were the case (i.e. your impatience) does it not demonstrably shows the folly of 16/11?
So, you gave the government sufficient warnings?
Can 16/11 ever be justified because there were sufficient banners of “warnings” for government officials to see? It is rather amusing what you would regard as banners of warning to the late king and the Tongan government. We always see banners hoisted by demonstrators as a way of venting their dissatisfaction by indication to the public but as far as I am concern these are not normally taken as “warnings” of forthcoming violence as the case clearly was on 16/11. To be sure, the prophet Daniel forewarned the Babylonian King about the impending disaster from the Medo-Persian empire but the situation is not therefore true of 16/11. You guys were not foreigners invading Tonga but simply a congregation of opportunistic (dare I say it) mob destroying the livelihood mostly of Tongan people who were not directly involved in the political affairs of our country. (I refer of course to the destruction of the Indian-base and Chinese-base businesses in the CBD). If, on the other hand, you are only exacting the principle underlying Daniel’s warning as that being at work on 16/11 (i.e. kuo “ma’ama’a” e tu’i, ko ia ai kuo pau ke liua ia!), then it must mean that Mr. Senituli’s (and Dr. Taufe’ulungaki’s) suspicion of 16/11 being a failed attempted coup could be substantiated. Don’t you think? The Medes forcefully took over the Babylonian king and his government by military means. Is that what you guys had in mind on 16/11? You yourself roundly denied it. But I am so thankful that King Tupou V did not give in to your preposterous demand immediately after 16/11 that he dissolved the Cabinet and put in place another government (presumably you and you party of four’s government?). Had King Tupou V gave in to your ridiculous demand, the story of our political system would certainly become a fitting sequel to that of our neighboring Fiji. So in what sense can the warning Daniel gave the Babylonian king be the same as the declarations of your banners? What I’m saying is that even if those banners were intended to be warnings, they certainly could not be invested with the same prophetic status of Daniel’s interpretation of the Babylonian king’s dream. For one thing, the King of Babylon took Daniel’s word seriously, but no one in their right mind, I would have thought, could have readily taken the Pangai Si’i banner to which you refer, as a warning of the prophetic sort for upcoming violence.
So, the Tongan people have been oppressed for so long?
Can 16/11 ever be justified since it is the reaction of people being oppressed for so long under a dictatorial form of government? I am utterly and profoundly intrigued by this allegation. Nelson Mandela exspended most of his life in the South African prison because he was propagating views against the rule of the white population in South Africa. Only a couple of months ago, a former KGB was killed in London. It is suspected (though not confirmed) that he was murdered for declaring contradictory views to that of the current Russian government of President Putin. Millions of people in Zimbabwe are literally hungry under the corrupt government of Robert Mugabe. Undoubtedly similar circumstances can be reproduced ad absurdum but the point is that if the Tongan government was dictatorial and oppressive in the real sense of those terms, I do not think you could have been allowed for so long to propagate the kind of view you have upheld against the Tongan government and which eventually poisoned the minds of the 16/11 mob. If the justice system in our country is as systematically flawed as you alleged it to be, would it not have easily designed ways in which your cases against the late king could have been doctored to go against you in order to imprison you just for the sole reason of preventing you from furthering your political activism.
Given the terrible consequences we have suffered on 16/11, I often wonder whether an oppressive measure of that kind could have prevented the disastrous consequences we have to live with now as a result of 16/11. Not of course that I wish to baptize an oppressive modus operandi. I am only wondering, if the Tongan government was as oppressive and dictatorial as you alleged it to be, would they have led you continue on proclaiming the kind of views you hold? Is it not true that had the Tongan government be as dictatorial and oppressive a regime as the likeness of the white rule in South Africa or Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe they could have easily jailed you unconditionally for preaching against them? If therefore you have been let loose for so long, and that the fraudulent justice system (as you claimed) has worked wonders for your political course of action, does it not mean that Tonga is already sufficiently democratic as a civilized country? I must hasty admit that I do not cherish a blind spot regarding the many failures of the Tongan government, but, on the basis of fairness and common sense, won’t you at least admit that the fact you have been allowed to make a stand against the government in Tonga (without being unconditionally jailed for doing so) testifies to a democratic component already inherent in our current Constitution in some important way? I am sure there are aspects that need to be amended in the way the Tongan government is conducted but there is much in which we ought to be thankful that we live in a country in which freedom reigns.
Not until 16/11 has this freedom been seen to be extremely endangered and compromised both in theory and in practice. I mean, if the Tongan government was strongly oppressive, as you have maintained, in comparison to what you and your “party of four” led on 16/11, their oppressive tendency almost qualify for the status of ‘sainthood’; won’t you admit? When have we seen the Tongan government (let alone the king) destroying private properties in order to make a political point as we saw on 16/11? When have we seen the Tongan government endorsing theft, looting and even the killing of its own people as we saw happening on 16/11? When have we seen the Tongan government commit such ruthless, heartless and merciless destruction of private properties and private enterprise as on 16/11? Either the government is really good in obscuring what you alleged they are doing (i.e. oppression and dictatorship) or that you are really bad in concealing the oppressive tendency and militant suppositions undergirding your program of political reform. In any case, oppression can never be justified. However, if we were to compare what you and your “party of four” endorsed with your towering supporting presence amidst the angry mob of 16/11, and those that the Tongan government has done so far, it seems that the oppression potential unleashed and in particular the unfettered reign of terror we witnessed on 16/11 is woefully of the worst kind.
So, it is just the fulfillment of “your Kingdom come”?
Can 16/11 be justified simply because it is simply a way in which we are assisting the establishment of God’s kingdom? If you would understand what we are praying for in the petition, “Your Kingdom come”, you would probably exercise discretion every time you are obliged to say the Lord’s Prayer. For indeed what we are requesting God to do is to come down and establish his justice upon all the earth. Now, it seems to me that you only want God to administer partial justice. You only want him to bring his justice upon the king and the Tongan government. God will certainly do that and more. For, he will also administer his justice upon you and your “party of four” as well as upon me and the rest of the world. That is, God will not be satisfied with a partial demonstration of justice as you wish. He will certainly come, and he will bring justice upon all of us. The fact that you only want God to do justice with the king and the Tongan government implies you have unwittingly adopted by default the Pharisaic mentality: “I am not like them” or worst still “I am better than them”. Recall the story of the Pharisees and the Publican praying in the temple and you may immediately recognize that precisely that kind of mindset is ultimately repulsive before God. The Publican who did not feel himself adequate to offer God prayer went home justified for he prayed: “God, have mercy on me, a sinner”. In technical theological terms, the Publican repented and so he was justified. This I think is where you are meant to start in your post-16/11 existence – with heart-rending repentance. The kind of self justification I can sense from your updated apologetic against Mr. Senituli will undoubtedly only do you harm if God were to answer your prayer for his Kingdom to come, subsequent to 16/11. The bad new is that God will answer our prayer. His Kingdom will certainly come but not through violence such as 16/11 but rather like a thief in the night. Will you be prepared for it? Will I? Let me say, the best preparation for you as it is for the king and the Tongan government and for all people including myself is repentance and trusting in the death of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins. Political reform in Tonga post-16/11 must begin with radical repentance on the deeply personal and also on the national level.
Conclusion of the Matter
Finally, you may realize that I have stopped short of charging you with the responsibility for 16/11. (That, I believe, is the responsibility of our Justice system). The most of what I can gather from the reports of 16/11 is that you called in the mob to Pangai Si’i. You were moreover endorsingly present amongst the mob that destroyed Nuku’alofa with no apparent effort to thwart them from their lawless sentiments. If deep down in your heart of hearts you (and God) know that you have committed sedition by inciting the Pangai Si’i mob to violence on 16/11 then I urge you on my capacity as a minister of the Lord Jesus to confess it to the proper authority and to happily take up your lot in accordance with justice administered by our justice system, even if it means a prolonged jail term. For if you are really responsible for what happened then the blood of those victims who died in the Tonfön building is upon your head. In that case, it would be more dignified for you to bite the bullet and go to jail for the crime you had committed against the Tongan government and the Tongan people even if it was all in the name of political reform. We have seen more political prisoners becoming responsible and trustworthy rulers of their own country that those who have struggled by the skin of their teeth to justify an action their conscience is constantly hammering upon their consciousness of its wickedness. If it really was only a political game, then play the man, and go to jail. Perhaps you may thereby once again win the support that you have destroyed with your towering presence in the midst of the mob that wrought disaster to our beloved Nuku’alofa on 16/11.
Faka’apa’apa atu,
Rev. Dr. Ma’afu’otu’itonga Palu
Dear Dr Ma’afu Palu,
Just want to enlighten your summary of Akilisi. That you said you fall short of charging him with the 16/11. It is quite obvious that you are stating the opposite of your conclusion. You are not only blaming Akilisi for the 16/11, but you are also forcing him to admit for the 16/11.
In addition, you should as a minister for Christ should refrain from using harsh tone in your writing, remain neutral in your observation and not take sides. Enlightenment should be your strength if you consider yourself as God’s messenger.
Regards,
JT
Sydney.