Editor,

In my previous letter, I was hoping to highlight that action not political rhetoric will spur the democratic process. Daniel K. Fale may have been right regarding my interpretation of the Constitution. Mr. Fale pointed out, "the law applies to all "chiefs and commoners." There shall be but one law in Tonga for chiefs and commoners for non-Tongans and Tongans. My problem with this phrase is: Tupou V is neither a chief nor a commoner; he is the King.

The Constitution is not a living document where the interpretation changes with time. A chief is a chief and the king will always be the king. Those two cannot be mistaken, especially in Tonga. The Constitution is clear on that. There is never a time in the Constitution where the king was referred to as "chief". The king is always referred to as "the king".

For example, Articles 38, 56, 68, 104, 109 of the Constitution, and Article 3 of the Land Act support my argument. In addition, Article 49 states "It shall not be lawful to sue the King in any court for a debt without the consent of the Cabinet." Article 51 explains what the king can do for his Cabinet members. It says, "It is the King's prerogative to appoint the ministers and they shall hold office during the King's pleasure...…." Do we really think the king will keep a Minister whom he is not happy with? So, if the king is not above the law, why do we have to ask permission to sue him? The constitution should have already identified the criteria where the king can be sued if the claim is bona fide. The Constitution did not set the criteria, therefore, the king still decide what is law.

When the constitution is collectively understood, no law becomes effective without the consent of the king. As a subject in the kingdom, the king is the king. I wish Tonga will maintain the monarchy forever to come. Mr. Fale may be right, and it is possible I am barking up the wrong tree.

My reference to the Constitution was about the change critics called for that resulted in the burning of Nuku'alofa. If we want real change, change should start with the rewriting of the constitution, and clearly identify everyone's role in how the kingdom should be governed. The king had graciously offered to cede governing of the kingdom to the people. Unfortunately, those who are pushing for change want to change the system without defining the rules of change. Rhetoric and the threat to use violence are still their primary weapons of choice when they are challenged to walk the walk as they talk the talk.

It is my humble belief, if we do not understand where we are going, why we are going there and how we are going to get there, our problems are only beginning.

Then again, who is listening?

Tama Foa

tevita [dot] u [dot] langi [at] us [dot] army [dot] mil