Lopeti Senituli tells why he resigned from Tonga's democracy movement

Tonga HRDM wish Lopeti would stay in the job - Rev Simote M Vea, Chairman and Acting Director HRDMT:
We refer to the above article quote by Mr. Lopeti Senituli saying, “…… I could say that I was effectively kicked out of the job.” We wish to state that the Movement had never intended to kick out its former Director and had always wished Lopeti would continue to work for the Movement. Unfortunately, Lopeti decided to resign.

Initially, Lopeti was invited to come back to Tonga and work for the Movement as Director in June 2000. Upon mutual understanding between himself and ‘Akilisi Pohiva (Secretary of the Movement) he accepted the invitation with a salary commencing at $15,000 per annum on a three-year contract. His salary would come up to $19,000 on the third year.

The Movement’s source of funds depended, to a very large extent, on financial assistance from three major international organizations. In the last 18 months, the Movement was advised from two of its major funding agencies that their financial commitments would have to come to an end. This was basically due to internal financial constraints within those two organizations. Consequently, the Movement had to review its activities in relation to its financial status.

The assessment revealed that more than 75% of its annual budget had gone to salaries and office operational costs whilst less than 25% went to its programmes. This was a major concern to the Committee because it believed a larger portion of the budget should have gone to the Movement…’s activities rather than just salaries and office costs. It also found that the salaries of its employees were comparatively higher than other non-government organizations. Thus, a pay cut had to be made until the Office can secure a long-term funding source.

In the course of the revision exercise the Committee decided that the Director’s salary be cut down to the initial starting scale. That was to come down to a fixed salary of $15,000 if he was to continue for another three-year contract.

Differences

The claim that there is difference in perspectives and vision amongst the members of the Movement is true. It should be remembered that members in any organization could not always come to a compromise when differences arise. But it is considerably important to respect the differences of opinion and to give in to the majority.

To say that the Movement’s approach is confrontational all the time rather than trying to work through the nobles, the churches and other sectors in the community is erroneous. That has been always the wish of the Movement right from the beginning to cooperate with government leaders, members of the nobility, the churches and other community leaders and organizations. In the first Convention in 1992 on the …“Tongan Constitution and Democracy…”, organized by the HRDM, almost all prominent Tongan scholars, academics, Church leaders and senior people from various non-government organizations attended with the exception of government and representatives of the nobility who refused the invitation to attend. In the second Convention in 1999 (a follow up of the 1992 Convention resolutions) Sir Paul Reeves, former Governor General of New Zealand came to Tonga as Guest Speaker. Both government and representatives of the nobles turned downed invitations to attend. Government’s consistent refusal to participate in any peaceful dialogue on a need for constitutional change is not at all unusual.

By saying that, we wish to quote from the former Deputy Prime Minister, Dr. Hu’akavameiliku’’s statement regarding his proposal for constitutional change submitted to Privy Council in 1975.

“As long ago as 1975, I put up specific proposals to His Majesty for constitutional change designed to give the people a greater voice in determining the course of their affairs while retaining and reinforcing the Monarchy. It was debated in Cabinet at 12 separate meetings, deferred time after time and then dropped. The essence of my proposal is that, government must become more efficient and caring and develop and maintain an image of responsibility and integrity; be more open and explain to public what it is doing and why; aim to change to a fully elected system over a period of time no less than nine nor more than 15 years in a three-phase development program…… Now in 1991, 16 years later, time may be running out. It is vital in my opinion that the government takes the initiative and announced a Constitutional Review. It should just accept the principles of examining these matters and starts the process publicly.” (Bain, K. 1992, New Friendly Islander, p. 153)

It is 28 years now since 1975 and still no action has been taken by Government to start the process recommended by Hu’akavameiliku.
Over the past 17 years, People’s Representatives have put up parliamentary motions at different parliamentary sessions seeking the support of government to set up a Constitutional Review Commission to start the same process as recommended by the former Deputy Prime Minister, Hu’akavameiliku, but no support on the part of government has ever been given.

The said proposal of Hu’akavameiliku is significant as far as any struggle for change in any monarchical regime is concerned. Such a situation indicates a repetition of historical reality. Never in history had the power vested in any monarchical regime in the past been voluntarily surrendered. Human Rights activists in Tonga should be well versed with this historical reality. It should be more appropriate for one to say that it is not the approaches adopted by the Movement that are confrontational. Rather, it is the stubbornness and arrogance of government leaders and the nobility that is confrontational.

Nevertheless, sooner or later change will come. The effort made by the Movement is part of a powerful universal democratisation process leading to the achievement of the desired constitutional changes at the end.

Respectfully - Rev Simote M Vea