You are here


Hu Lou ifi, Part 4



The controversial ‘Hu Loiifi’ we recently witness is only a direct product of the current political force that swallows up the Kingdom. We were contributing directly or not to the circumstances that made that ancient ritual to pop up in our contemporary way of life, belief and time. Most of us obviously have different in ideas and of course entitle to a point of view on the issue, but I like to draw our attention to the very factors of intention that made the recent so-called ‘Hu Louifi’ happen.

The thug/s, if you like “is still at large and he is the one (or those) that should shoulder the full force of law if found responsible. Anyway he still in the society as mentioned, and most of the previous ‘letters to the editor’ in relation to this case suggested that a portion of the population of the former capital have (at least) knowledge of the whereabouts and detail accounts of those involved. What I do not understand, why the ‘kainga ‘o Tungi and Kalaniuvalu’ are so protective in this case but at the ‘Hu Louifi’ ceremony I heard they turned up in good number. We can say they are supporting the culprits, they agreed with the damages is the other way of compensate their cause.

Mafi ‘Amelika had a good shot on the issue especially when he tried to explain the weakness of the ‘Hu Lou ifi’ itself. This primitive sacrament must have essential condition or basic sub-components which are combining together to brought up an outcome that we call ‘Hu Lou ifi. According to Mafi the perpetrators, the spirit (repent, remorseful, regret), and so on, are an essential conditions should involved; the validity of that statement will depend on anthropological analysis, or as long as the anthropologists record concern. Logically, Mafi is right in the notion that the culprits should be found and brought forward before the Tu’i in the event of a Hu Lou ifi. How can He (Tu’i) offer an act of pardon (if that is the primary objective of the Hu Lou ifi), if the chiefs turn up with his fellow villagers without the perpetrator. The King’s wrath getting worse and obviously no chance of pardon and He might order the ‘faka’afu ha ngoto umu (‘umuloloto)’.

The chiefs, I think that they were the law enforcement and settlement agencies of the ancient Tongan society. They must have to find the wrongdoers by directly fofolaloa ‘a e fala’ at the ‘nofo ‘a kainga’ and talk to the ‘ulumotu’a or kau matu’a (elders) of each clans in the village and advised them the Kings displease, and the consequences must seriously severe to everyone in the village if they don’t brought the thugs forward. That is the first phase; the seconds’ the chief must make sure that he and the elders brought to his court the ‘right person of interest’ and must be found guilty. The guilty of a one to the subjects of the Tu’i (probably is an equivalent of the mortal sins that in the Roman Catholic catechism) must be rare but the precedent has being set from previous occasions, by that the chief and the whole village will talk out a way out of how to balance up the sentences (how many are going to strangle, how much sanction will impose on them. etc) depend on the gravity of the infraction. If it seems to them they can’t match the Kings wrath they have to seek the Hu Lou ifi (forgiveness) venue together with all the ‘ha’amo’ they have is the last resort to seek pardon or mitigation to preserve their existence.

One of the short falls of Mafi ‘Amelika’s beautiful assessment is the lack of touch on the role of the Hou’eiki (Pilolevu, Nopele, Fuifuilupe, and elders). The hou’eiki didn’t perform the modern way of encouraging the elders and villagers to reveal those involved by working hand in hand with the authorities instead or ‘fono’ convincing (demanding) apology (Hu Lou ifi) from the villagers. That ancient method cannot fully applied but can be modernized, and will helpful in some stage to assist police.

The Biblical approach by Moimoiangaha is virtually effective but it…’s pretty much an appeal to authority (influential persona) for opinion recognition and must be rejecting. The Ha’a Moheofo should not come down and affront the spirit of Hu Lou ifi (as Mafi: is a mockery…) they should show their support by supporting the King from His side; giving him advice and calmness. This is not a governmental event; it is a socio-cultural atonement, involving the Ha’a sitting arrangement for Hu Lou ifi to correctly executed and avoid mistaken identity. The coming down of Jesus and die in the cross should people avoid of misusing that divine act in comparative opinion expression, which lead sometime to abuse and irrelevant example. I conclude that the recent ‘Hu Lou ifi is a political stun’ and hope that it might have a good impact in the mind of those involved to come forward, our King (for my King, I respect you, King George V if you still upset you are dead right to feel that way) deserve justice from your mind, not your blood!

Happy Easter

Kris Halatokoua

hhkatenisilaw [at] yahoo [dot] com