You are here


Why Shoreline, there are others

Suva, Fiji


I agree with Joe Smith on the issue of Shoreline's existence and its ability to supply power to the kingdom. Why need the $2 million from government when its directors are receiving hefty salaries. I trust that the money they need is to pay for fuel and not foot the salary of its directors. That would be the biggest crime against Tongan taxpayers. A writer to the editor in response to my last letter wrote that we elect representatives to speak on our behalf. This makes us all involved in the power crisis. I must refute this line of argument. Its true that we elect representatives to speak on our behalf, however these Reps are accountable to the people in the sense that they must fully disclose to the people their decisions, its ill effects in the long term and any other information that may be relevant. Quite often it seems that the cart has been put before the horse. Commoners are sometimes either ill-informed, or become the recipients of a distorted picture painted skillfully by their Reps. This is often done by our Reps either to avoid becoming unpopular in the decision making process or to adhere to the concept of band-wagoning. The other question I beg to ask is why continue to have Shoreline supply electricity when there are other well-abled companies who could supply power efficiently and at an affordable cost. People like Taasi Holiday who claim that Shoreline is doing a fine job may have taken a detour from reality. People like her may have the money to foot the hefty electricity bills, but can the same be said for income earners who get $100 or so a fortnight. Voicing your opinion on Shoreline's capability is no problem but please think of the poor and the unfortunate.


Freddy Kavaha'apai

frekava [at] gmail [dot] com