Tonga's political reform process overshadowed by a sense of injustice

Save Tonga's integrity - Cliff Johnston. Your Editorial today hit the nail on the head. You have stated the facts as correctly as anyone. Thank You. Here in the US we have had several political and government officials accused of crimes. In every case they are placed on paid leave until the matter is resolved. They have not been found guilty until their day in court but never the less they also are not permitted to be involved until the court rules. Police officers have shot someone in the line of duty, they must be placed on paid leave so as to keep the integrity of the department clear.

The PR’s have been charged, they must have their day in court. But for the integrity of Tonga and the outside world they should have been excused from their duties. Is there a law in your constitution regarding this matter? If not then there needs to be one written ASAP. If the PR’s truly feel they are not guilty then they should voluntarily step aside to show they have the people’s best interest until their day in court. That spells integrity. Example: A US Senator from Texas was accused. He stepped forward and resigned his office even before his trial. He wanted to protect the integrity of the office. After his trial he was found not guilty. Today he is the better man. Thank you for keeping us informed.- Cliff Johnston, Oregon, USA.

People's Democratic Party's view on justice - Samisoni Hingano ‘Anamanu: Let the dust settle. Your comment on tripartite committee targeting the accused PRs I wish you do it in here, in Sydney. In Tonga, since 16/11, Sevele Government have been struggling to find a way forward, trying to do their best, find the best venue to make things settle between people and his government, to rebuild Nuku’alofa and to re-instate to its former glory, but failed to capitalized. This tripartite committee is a good theory and I believe is a ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ hopefully not another train coming. The membership of the accused PRs in the committee is politically, but that’s a very clever move have been done so far by the Sevele Government and the House. The absent of ‘Akilisi, Clive and the PRs from involving in government rebuilding activities, the government distant itself from the people and create further tensions, which is important in the current situation to avoid. This is why the government failed in its bid for the hearts of the people. And every move set up by the government will not be successful, yeah they got green light for a loan of millions from ‘far far away’ lands but the people of the land will always stay red.

America in war, their election is coming; Australia in war too, their election is coming as well. Your comment will fit perfectly, squarely on these two great nations and their situation; your claim of political process overshadowed by a sense of injustice, is half valid (non-philosophical). This ‘idea of justice’, defined by Immanuel Kant in his work ‘Categorical Imperative’, is absurdly applicable in every situation. And another thing is compensation which is depend on liability, the parties involved and some guarantors to pay the damages for the accused if eventually acquitted, can we afford that?. The current situation of Tonga has to be judiciously analyses and architecturally born-again. A lot of us have hard feeling toward others and this ‘ongoing turf war’ seriously blows the process, and the Sevele Government cop the worse, leave them with no option but to involved the House in the procession, eventually pick the people (PRs) to participate.

For the PRs to step down before found guilty is not a clever ideas, is a legal procedure sometime or show integrity of a system or an organization, effectively use by many democratic country in several grave cases, in notion of avoidance of conflicts of interest, chiefly applied to those involved hold a position that lead into influential circumstances in the direction of their prefer cases. But, because of people psychological behavioral (used to) they sense is a ‘justice problematic’ when not applied to someone come across the same bridge. PRs, they all hold an influential position in Parliament, to step them down is doesn’t help us all, the validity of the claim is depend on the situation of the day.

The legal systems we use in Tonga, when the common law is use all over the place, the procedure contribute in defining our justices (injustices) in general, but that will not complete unless we add-on some philosophical explanation. For instance; the matangitonga.to have been accused of defamatory or libelous acts, defame few people including some PRs (regardless the fact of the claim, is just an example). The Editor should step down from his position, in accordance with your defining justices. The management should show the door to the Editor or whoever responsible, waiting to declare officially by Court of law that he/her is not guilty of a charge or accusation, before re-instate and compensate. Unfortunately the Big Boss is under the close watch of the Bigger Big Boss. Let us pray and hope that we may soon see the light at the end of the tunnel instead of ‘make a mountain out of a molehill’ to relegate the PRs and the Sevele Government. - Samisoni Hingano ‘Anamanu, Peoples Democratic Party-Tonga, Tongan-Australian Branch

People's Democratic Party please explain? - mauitekelangi: Is there a Tongan translation for Mr. Samisoni Hingano ‘Anamanu’s letter? I hope that what I have asked for will not be considered a boorish question. I honestly cannot understand about half of what he was trying to say. Perhaps a big part of the problem in Tonga with the many different parties created by some Tongans for other Tongans, is that they cannot effectively communicate exactly what they are trying to say. It happens so much I am quite tempted to believe that they do not know themselves what they are trying to say, and end up giving long-winded and enigmatic speeches/letters/articles. (I just could not use ‘loutish’) Just some honest thoughts from a concerned local islander here in Nuku’alofa. - Malo, mauitekelangi.

Editor’s note: We published Samisoni’s original letter.

USA Congress differs from the Tongan parliament - Siosaia Fatani: You touched on three issues that puzzled my mind. Firstly, is your quotation; ". . . People's Representatives, Clive Edwards, 'Akilisi Pohiva, and 'Uliti Uata to be members of a Tripartite Committee to vet political reform proposals for Tonga . . . "
Frankly, I don't quite understand the functions and the reasons for instituting this Tripartite Committee to examine the political reform proposals of the whole Parliament of the country. Isn't it weird that all the minds of all the members of Parliament end up in a small committee with a few of its representatives? This committee appears to unnecessarily complicate and confuse the efficiency of the functions between the three main branches of government: Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary. Such a committee appears to disrupt and compromise the fair representation of the people of Tonga in parliament. The right of the people to participate in legislating the laws that govern them is too precious and must not be meddled with in any shape or form. In addition, it may amount to nothing but more expenses to further burden the lives of the poor people of the country.

Secondly, is your quotation; "In addition to these criminal charges, the Tongan parliament also last month passed a resolution for a Contempt of Parliamentary Proceedings case against them to be heard after the sedition trial."
My question here is how can a resolution passed after the commission of the crime is retrospectively used against its perpetrators. I was under the impression that such a resolution could only be used legally against anyone who commits the crime after its passage. For instance, a law could not be applied retrospectively to crimes committed before its passage. Am I right by feeling that the resolution in question is to be used against previous contempts of proceedings committed by the People's Representatives in Parliament? Or the said resolution was passed before their proceeding contempts and it would be used agaist them after their sedition trial? What are the exact facts and circumstances surrounding your statement about the said resolution?

Thirdly, you stated that everybody is innocent until they are proven guilty in a court of law.You have just hit the nail on the head. Until the People's Representatives are found guilty in a court of law, I think they legally still have all their rights under the Constitution of Tonga to perform their parliamentary duties and responsibilities to all the people of Tonga.
I have read the American's letter on this issue but I am disagreeing with him.

I don't know of any law in America that punishes a person before he has a chance to be fairly heard by a judge and/or jury in a court of law. In America, politicians with pending civil and/or criminal cases are not forced to resign and/or refrain from holding an office. Normally, politicians with pending criminal cases do voluntarily resign to protect his/her party and the whole nation as well. A politician in the States is not ordered by a pending criminal case to resign or quit. This is not true. Sometimes, a Vote of Confidence by Congress may force a politician with a pending criminal case or investigation to resign, but this is not the case in Tonga because Parliament has all its confidence on the People's Representatives it elected to be members of the Tripartite Committee.

So let us give Justice and the Judicial System in Tonga a chance to work! The formation of the Tripartite Committee is, in my opinion, suspicious, unnecessary, and not economical. Although, I don't have all the facts and circumstances of the resolution issue to make a fair analysis, I seriously condemn its implications and appearance of injustice. Lastly, the idea of condemning people before they are found guilty in a court of law is unconstitutional under the due process. - Siosaia Fatani, San Francisco, USA.