PACIFIC ISLANDS REPORT

Pacific Islands Development Program/East-West Center
With Support From Center for Pacific Islands Studies/University of Hawai‘i

By ‘Akilisi Pohiva

In 1993, I put through to Parliament a motion for legislation to stop the Tongan 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 shareholder 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 the November 16, 2006 crises is a good example. The motion was tabled and discussed in Parliament when the Crown Prince was Minister of Foreign Affairs and Defence. All the Ministers and Nobles’ Representatives voted against the motion.

The crisis of November 16 was not a coup d’état 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.

[PIR editor’s note: Dr. 'Ana Taufe'ulungaki, a prominent scholar, reportedly accused the Tongan government of "a series of ill-timed and ill-conceived moves, which demonstrated their total inability to read the situation and which served to confirm in the minds of the pro-democracy movement that things will never change. According to a recent article in New Zealand’s Fairfax Media, Taufe’ulungaki said the events of November 16 "were allowed to happen."]

However, if, it was a planned coup d’état 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 harm the Prime Minister and other Ministers and/or even kill them. That was an unfounded allegation which requires solid evidence from Lopeti. The Peoples Committee for Political Reform will have a meeting to discuss Lopeti’s serious allegations and legal action will probably follow.

However, if there was such a plan, it could have come from a different group of people unknown to our committee.

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. What actually happened was that, 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.

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 all members of our executive. Lopeti should have known that, as he was a member of the executive before he left the organization; that all agreements require approval of the Committee.

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. He must also admit that, the only chance lay with people outside Parliament. It was proved true when the Prime Minister was forced by pressure from the angry mob outside the Prime Minister’s building to agree to our proposals. Despite that, why did they want the people, our power base, to leave Pangai si’i and allow them, as the majority to win the game inside Parliament by default? We appealed to the people to come to Pangai si’i to show their support to our proposals and to demonstrate that we are the majority outside. And we had the right to do that. And Ministers had nothing to worry about if they were willing to listen to the majority.

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 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.

Given all the above scenarios, the Tu’ipelehake’s proposed model is doomed thus putting all hope for peaceful transition under threat. It is the Prime Minister’s doing and Dr. Halapua, was right when he said the Prime Minister is fully responsible for the crisis of November 16, 2006.

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 proposals set out in the report be implemented.

To save the Prime Minister and his team, Lopeti had to go all the way and fight 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 noble representatives who are there, as usual, to serve the interest of His Majesty, but not the people.

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.

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

All along since the end of last year’s civil servant’s strike up to November 16, 2006, fifteen banners were hanging at Pangai Si’i for more than eight months. Writing in one of these banners read as follows: "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 loud and clear 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 IV 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.

On November 16, people had learned from experience that there is no guarantee that some concrete political reform will be accomplished at the end of the process irrespective of what Tu’ipelehake’s committee recommends. In that regard, Lopeti was right in his proposal action submitted to the executive committee of the people’s committee on November 2005 in his capacity as Deputy Chairman of Friendly Islands Human Rights and Democracy Movements. In his proposal action, Lopeti maintains that the People’s Committee should request the Prince Regent, HRH Crown Prince Tupouto’a to show his good faith in the Tu’ipelehake’s Committee’s work by declaring publicly, that in the next election, all the members of the Legislative Assembly will be elected by the people. If Tupouto’a refuses to do so within two weeks, then the series of actions of civil disobedience will kick in beginning with:

1) the public boycott of the Tu’ipelehake’s Committee

2) 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.