Editor,

Tevita U. Langi's agruments in his previous letter have a number of common argument fallacies that need to be given attention. However, I would like to just pick one for the sake of time and simplicity.

I would like to address the 'strawman argument fallacy' that exists in Tevita U. Langi's suggestion that currently in Tonga there is a person or perhaps a class of people above the law. He then uses as evidence Article II, Section 41 of the Tongan Constitution which reads, "The King is the Sovereign of all the Chiefs and all the people."

The issue mentioned in his letter is whether the current constitution and laws of Tonga are the same for everyone or not. The Constitution of Tonga states at the very beginning Part 1 - Declaration of Rights, section 4 (headline) Same law for all classes, "There shall be but one law in Tonga for chiefs and commoners for non-Tongans and Tongans. No laws shall be enacted for one class and not for another class but the law shall be the same for all the people of this land." From this, it can be concluded that the position of the current Constutition and laws of Tonga is that the law is the same for all classes, in other words, no one is above the law.

Tevita U. Langi misrepresents the true position of the Constitution of Tonga on the matter of the law being the same for everyone by quoting and taking out of context one sentence of section 41 of the Constitution. Section 41 has a headline that reads, "King's Power - Signature to Acts" and then the section reads, "The King is the Sovereign of all the Chiefs and all the people. The person of the King is sacred. He governs the country but ministers are responsible. All Acts that have passed the Legislative Assembly must bear the King's signature before they become law."

All laws and also the constitution are written in sections to cover one subject which subject is expressed in its title (see Section 81). So the part that Mr. Langi quoted "The King is Sovereign of all the Chiefs and all the people" is not expressing a separation of classes or differentiating anyone in the eyes of the law, but it is simply language expressing the King as the head of the nation and is thereby also given the executive power to attach His name to Acts before becoming law (hence the title of the section "Kings power- Signature to Acts). This principle of the executive power signing legislation into law is common in most governments in existance today. I believe that if Tevita U. Langi wants to strengthen his argument that there is a person or people above the law, he will have to find other evidence which maybe more sound. I believe that his evidence as it stands right now is a total misrepresentation of the intent of the language he quoted in section 41.

Ka 'oku hange ko e lea tuku 'a TamaFoa 'i he'ene tohi, malo e lava mai 'alu aa as if anyone is listening.

Malo e kei ma'u faingamalie,

Daniel K. Fale

mauitekelangi [at] gmail [dot] com