Moving the Masses [1]
Thursday, May 30, 2002 - 11:00. Updated on Wednesday, February 10, 2016 - 13:54.
From Matangi Tonga Magazine Vol. 17, no. 1, May 2002.
Interview by Pesi Fonua
Lopeti Senituli, the full time Director of the Tonga Human Rights and Democracy Movement says that his organisation wants to change Tonga’s structure of government, first with a mass movement and then later by introducing political parties.
But in the months leading up to Tonga’s March General Election the Movement surprised its supporters by announcing that it would not be nominating candidates or campaigning for them. Then, in an abrupt turnaround following the election, the movement claimed victory for several “Democracy” candidates.
Senituli explains this apparent reversal of policy, saying that the Movement had to meet certain conditions in order to gain funding from foreign organisations and governments, and while they could not admit to campaigning, but indirectly their educational program in the village had influenced voters.
Having won at the polls, the Movement now faces a serious credibility problems after letters were seized in their offices by the police. The evidence in the letters will be used to support charges of forgery and sedition (see page 06) against three members of the movement.
Pesi Fonua - Following the March parliamentary election it was hailed that the Human Rights and Democracy Movement had won seven of the nine People’s Representative seats in Parliament. This is a confusing claim, considering that the Tonga Human Rights and Democracy Movement last June made a public announcement that it would neither endorse any candidates nor be involved in any campaigning during the 2002 parliamentary election?
Lopeti Senituli - The executive Committee of the Tonga Human Rights and Democracy Movement in June 2001 made a decision that it would not endorse candidates for the parliamentary election. There were a number of reasons for that decision.
Firstly, we send out funding proposals to funding agencies every three years, and what we tell these development agencies is that we are a people’s movement that wants change, political change. We do not sell ourselves as a political party. In those funding proposals there are no provisions for campaigning for a political office, and we want to make that very clear. We are not going to endorse any candidates. Any member or staff of the movement who wants to stand as candidate must resign, and no one is allow to use our machinery, our photocopier, our telephone and so forth for election campaigning. We wanted to make that very clear that there is no provision in our budget for campaigning for political office.
Secondly, there is a mixture of people with different motivations in the movement. Some of us are in the movement because we want political change. There are some who are in the movement because they want to get into a political office. There are also some who are in the movement because they have some genuine grievance against the government. Just before our Annual General Meeting in September last year the issue of whether the movement should establish a political party was brought up and it was agreed for the movement to go ahead and set up a political party but not before the 2002 Parliamentary Election.
The well-publicised notion that the Democracy Movement won seven seats of the nine People’s Representatives seats in parliament, is that correct?
What is important is that the election we have just had was an election of nine members to a 30-members parliament, so the people in the movement who have been pushing for the setting up of a political party, were trying to set up a political party as a campaigning tool to fight for nine [seats] out of 30.
In my view the way to change government, at this stage of the struggle, is to change the current structure of government. For example, to have all the 30 members of the House elected by the people can only come about through a movement, a movement that involves all the people, not only the commoners but also the nobles, the royalty, the church leaders, and our community leaders. You cannot achieve this change through a political party. Why? Because the political party is much more restrictive. The political party will set up its aims and goals, the moment you step out of line you are out. In political party too, you must pay up your membership fees, if you are not a paid up member then you do not at all have any right to speak in meetings or to take part in any party activities.
Last time we talked after you became the Director of the Tonga Human Rights and Democracy Movement you stressed the fact that the movement would focus its activities more on education, rather than campaigning for politicians to be elected into the House?
Yes, we are still very much involved in education, and I think to a certain extent our education work is reflected in the election, particularly our work with public education with the media, education through kava parties in the villages, and the dissemination of information through our little pamphlets. I think it assisted a lot with the campaigning of the candidates and we are continuing that way. Our problem is that government does not allow us to use the A3Z radio and the Television Tonga. The A3Z is very important to us because it is the only one with a national out-reach. The television and FM stations are only for Tongatapu, and therefore it is very important for us to have access to the national radio.
If you compare this election with the election in 1999, [when] we had two members in Tongatapu, one in Ha‘apai, one in ‘Eua and one in the Niuas. We had five out of nine [MPs]. When Pita Vi from Ha‘apai and William Harris from Vava‘u passed away then we won back two more seats with Teisina Fuko from Ha‘apai and Koli from Vava‘u. So in 1999 we won five out of the nine, but this time we won seven out of the nine. ‘Akilisi also won back more votes and he is back from 8,000 to 9,000. It is a major increase and it is a reflective of the work that we are doing.
With regards to party politics, there are two approaches to how political parties may be introduced, one is to set up a party and a platform to compete for the People’s nine seats in parliament, and the other, which is an idea that is still floating around is to have a party that can win elections and become the government of the day. What do you think is the most suitable approach for Tonga?
First, we change the structure, then we talk about setting up political parties to fight over who is going to govern. But at the moment people are talking about setting up political parties to fight for the nine seats out of 30, I think we are putting the cart before the horse. First, let’s change the structure, and the changing of the structure can only be done through a mass movement, if those in power are not willing to make the change peacefully then the people themselves must be the ones that push for the change. So the change of the structure can only be done through a mass movement, it can never be done through a political party, given the way things are at the moment. Once we can change the structure then, okay, we have our political platform. We can say our political platform is this, no taxes on imported goods, government revenue must come through indirect taxes, consumer taxes, nothing on tariff. Those are the different kind of platforms for different political parties, but that comes at the second stage. The first stage must be to change the structure, and what we are doing at the moment, and during the past ten years, we have been asking the King, please convene a constitutional review commission to review the Constitution, [to find out] whether it is still appropriate for this modern age. We have asked the parliament to conduct a referendum. I think Mahe ‘Uli‘uli [Tupouniua] and others have actually proposed the setting up of a parliamentary commission. So all those proposals for changes, changes to be initiated from the top, by His Majesty have not been made.
The expense and the aggressiveness of party politics are other things that we have to think seriously about when we are talking about political parties?
The psychology of the Tongan people, we are not made for political parties. Politics work in a very personalised way in Tonga, every thing is personalised. People would say, yes, we have heard so and so saying that before and so what is new? It is different from how political parties operate. The party is stronger and bigger than any individual, so anyone that violates the party’s laws, is out.
You look at the clash we have just had between me, Futa [Helu] and ‘Akilisi over my apology over what was found [by the police] here in the office. If that was a political party, we would have had an inquiry and some one’s head is going to roll, because we have a system. A political party has to have a system about how media statements are handled, and we have to follow that. Instead of a media statement coming from the office, then the deputy chairman says something else and the secretary some thing else. May be it will take another generation before we come to terms with that, where individuals have to toe the line and to realise that the party is bigger then anyone else.
It has been one of the problems I have to face since I took over the running of this office with ‘Akilisi and the others. ‘Akilisi is like that, rushing into things, and I have to keep reminding them that we have a work plan. Trying to co-ordinate a movement we have to have strict guidelines for people to follow, and it is one of my responsibilities to keep executive members in line.
Our executive board members who were elected last September included seven Members of Parliament, Sunia Fili from ‘Eua, ‘Aisea Ta‘ofi from Niua, ‘Uliti Uata, Koli Afuha‘amango and Feleti Sevele. ‘Akilisi was secretary, and Teisina was a representative from the central district of Tongatapu, so now we may have to replace ‘Aisea with Haukinima.
The finding of the letters in the Movement office, obviously has tarnished the name of your organisation?
For sure, and if the police found evidence that linked me directly to it they would have charged me as well. This thing appears to have been going on while ‘Isi [Pulu] and Po‘oi [Pohiva] were working here. During our weekly meetings, every Wednesday, we have a written form that has to be filled, outlining your working objective for that week, and what have you achieved, for example, check with the New Zealand Immigration on a visa for someone who is going away on a training course. There is also a space for other work, that was not in our weekly work plan, say someone turns up complaining about a bakery, so you have to drop everything and prepare a letter to be sent to the Ministry of Labour. So all those things are written and presented at our weekly meeting. These two have never written or said anything that they were involved in anything relating to these letters that were found here. I saw the letter that ‘Akilisi sent to the King, with his signature, then I said to him where is your evidence, then he pulled out the letter that was supposed to be the letter written by ‘Ofa Tui‘onetoa. I read the letter and I said to him it seemed okay, but ‘Akilisi never told me that he had received an unsigned letter first, had he told me that I would have told him not to do it, because definitely there was something wrong. He received the unsigned letter first, then three weeks later he received the signed letter, and also the two people involved died over 10 years ago.
So when the police came in and discovered the unsigned letter, that was the first time for me to know that there was an unsigned letter. I asked ‘Akilisi the following morning and he told me how he received that letter first and so on, and I told him that if I knew that in the first place I would have stopped him from doing what he was doing.
With regards to the Kele‘a, it has been a year now since we applied to the Labour Office for a licence for us to publish the Kele‘a, but they turned it down on the grounds that we have not been registered as an organisation. So Po‘oi Pohiva is the publisher and the editor of the Kele‘a. My involvement is that the preparation of the Kele‘a is carried out in this office because Po‘oi is a full-time employee here, so in that sense we are directly implicated,
But with regards to what Po‘oi publishes in his paper, I have nothing to do with it, but if the police turn around and say but Po‘oi is working in your office and you are responsible, there is nothing I can do about that.
The concept of political parties is accepted with the belief that a good government is the outcome of a competition between two opposing parties. Our system was not designed for a parliament by opposition but a parliament by consensus?
The way Siaosi Tupou I set up the Tongan parliament, made it one of the best designed parliaments in the world. He designed a three dimensional House, one for the King and his nominees, the second for the Nobles’ Representatives, and the third for the people. Even though His Majesty nominated his Cabinet ministers, at the same time he allowed the people to impeach the ministers. Where in the world would you have a monarchy where the commoners were given the right to impeach government ministers who were appointed by the King? It was a fair exchange of power between the King and the people. If it is allowed to work I think we have a beautiful system, but the King is not allowing it to work. Clauses 8 and 54 were the accountability mechanisms that Tupou I built into the Constitution. That was the window of opportunity that Tupou I gave the people, so that even though they don’t participate in the selection of ministers but he gave them Clause 8, the right to present petitions, and Clause 54, the right to impeach Cabinet Ministers. It is an amazing structure that Tupou I put into place, if it works, but the problem now is because it does not work, the way it was envisaged. When petitions are lodged there have not been any responses from government, and when Ministers are impeached there has always been a decision by the King not to make it possible.
When the former Attorney General Tevita Tupou was on the verge of being impeached for going to the Olympic Games. What did the King do, he directed for the House to close. If Tupou IV allows the system to function it will work perfectly. I still criticise the forced resignation of the two ministers, Tutoatasi Fakafanua and Tevita Tupou, I think the Princess Regent should have allowed them to be impeached, according to the Constitution. I think if the King utilised Clauses 8 and 45 of the Constitution, the right for petition and the right to impeach ministers, then there would not have been any disgruntled feeling among the people.
Some people question the logic of introducing political parties when our Constitutional Monarchy system of government has been running for so many years, and it is still working alright. Why waste time and money to change for the sake of change?
I am not supportive of the political party idea, I am not one of their supporters. If there is a role for political parties, it is further down the line after a change to the structure of government.
We are going to propose at the end of March or early April a structure for a new form of government. We have been discussing this during December and January. The movement is going to propose a new structure, we are going to make a proposal because we hope that by proposing a new structure of government we can generate public discussion, we can generate some response from government. We are proposing for parliament to have two houses, the Upper House will be called the House of Nobles, with the nine elected members of the Nobles, who will still be elected by the 33 nobles. The Lower House, is going to be made up of 21 members and those 21 are to be elected by all the people under universal suffrage. A noble or a member of the Royal family may stand for election to be a member of the Lower House. So the 21 members of the Lower House are elected by the people, the Upper House of nine members are elected by the Nobles. Then it is for His Majesty to choose his Cabinet Ministers from both Houses, that is one option, or we can still give the King the possibility of electing his Prime Minister from outside of the two Houses, but the rest of his Cabinet must be selected from the 30 that have been elected by the nobles and all the people of Tonga. All laws must be assented by His Majesty but must passed by both Houses. At the end we will end up with four engines, the Lower House, the House of Representatives, the House of Nobles, the Upper House, His Majesty, and the Cabinet. Now we have the Privy Council, but we will see how the Privy Council will fit into this new structure. The Privy Council at the moment remains to be the final Court of Appeal for land title cases, so we might have His Majesty in Privy Council, the Cabinet, the Upper House and the Lower House.
In fact there have been a number of proposals, there was one by Siupeli, and there was one by Futa, and there was one by ‘Akilisi on how to restructure government, but our last meeting at the end of January we decided that I put together something, and what I have given you are basic guide lines. But you know, if the King allowed the Constitution to work the way Tupou I envisaged, it would be an unique system in the world, the tripatite system of government. But the King does not allow it to work.
I wonder why?
I think it is a mixture of a lack of appreciation of what the system means, particularly among alarm raisers, there is a fear that the impeachment procedure will over-ride the authority of the King, but that is not the case. An impeachment procedure is a parliamentary hearing, and in the end they will make a decision. Whether His Majesty says yes or no that is a different matter, but we should let the system work, let the procedure run its full course.
With regards to your proposed two-House parliament, if the Upper House rejects a Bill that has been passed by the Lower House, how can this Bill be reprocessed?
If they refuse Bills that have been passed by the Lower House then we will have to build a mechanism on how it can be settled. In another word if a Bill has been passed by the Lower House three times then, the Upper House will no longer be able to block the Bill. We will have to work out a mechanism. Bills from the Cabinet, and Private Bills from representative members.
The advantage of this system is that we are giving everyone a role to play and we have a House that the majority of members were elected by the people, 21 our of 30, instead of nine out of 30 that we have at the moment.
The whole idea is to provoke public discussion because so many times now we have made proposals but nothing has happened.
Getting back to government, and the declining state of our economy, a public service that is inefficient and over-staffed, do you think that the new government that you propose will solve those problems?
The right to impeach ministers, you know it is not an easy task.
One off instance is acceptable, but if there is a consistency of abuse, then something must be terribly wrong. I am not saying that there any particular Minister at the moment. In fact, I think the Cabinet Ministers now are some of the best that we have ever had for a long time. We have a good minister of Finance, a good Attorney General, we have a good Minister of Land, and we have a Prime Minster who is reform minded. But going back to things that can change, had there been a change in the structure of government. For example, how Shoreline took over the Tonga Electric Power Board, it is total b.s. [to claim] that the [whole] service was advertised in 1997, no it was not advertised in 1997, they were only advertising the generating of electricity, that is the process that should have been followed when they moved in to take over the distribution of electricity.… They should have allowed for public tender and they should have allowed for a neutral body to decide who was going to be given the job of distribution. I think Tupouto‘a and Sefo Ramanlal are laughing all the way to the bank, no where else in the world is there a place where you can lease assets that are worth $10 million for $600,000 pa‘anga per annum, and they do not pay any lease up front, it is unheard of.
I know you put out a press release about it, but what has happened to that issue?
We were calling on his Majesty’s Cabinet to revoke that agreement, hopefully that Cabinet has power over statutory bodies, the decisions of statutory bodies. We were calling for for His Majesty’s Cabinet to revoke the agreement. But failing that, we are waiting for the new government to meet then we are going to ask the People’s Representatives to raise the issue to have the agreement revoked, and if possible to be re-advertised and to be renegotiated. Failing that, our attention has been taken away by what has happened here. Tupouto‘a has been saying that they have removed the $5 line charge, but they have introduced a new charge called the minimum charge, my power bill is about $55, and there is an additional $3.60 of minimum charge, so Tupouto‘a is giving you in one hand and he is taking it away with the other.
I honestly feel that the terms of mixing the assets of the board and the lease to Shoreline is very unfair, I mean it is very good for Shoreline but it is terrible for government, for us the owners, so we are going to focus on it again now that the election is over.
What is at the top of your working agenda, any proposed amendments to the Constitution?
There is nothing blatantly [wrong] in the Constitution that needs amendment. For us, our proposal for a new structure of government would be something that we would like to pay special attention to.