Editor,

I hope that this letter be seen as a respectful alternative to Taulea's views. Taulea posited that the Expenditure and Review Committee ERC ". . . is a leap forward for Tonga in terms of good governance, accountability and transparency."

I suggest that the ERC does little for Tonga's guest for good governance, accountability and transparency. Cutting edge research on governance suggests that nominating committees, remuneration committees, audit committees and other sub-committees for that matter do not necessarily provide for better governance, accountability and transparency. Suggested instead from governance literature is that these committees serve a "window dressing" purpose. Further, the same literature does not attribute improved performance to good governance. With that theoretical background I am confident ke fokotu'u atu 'oku 'ikai ke 'iai ha kakunga'a e ERC ki hono improving governance, accountability and transparency in the public sector.

The following is an attempt to justify the above statement. Focusing on the objective, the composition of the ERC is to be considered. We have the PM, DPM, MoF, MoPE and the PSC Commissioner. This committee was set up to ". . . to appraise, evaluate, assess, analyze, and determine the allocation and usage of public funds . . . " The emphasis should be on "public"; first question, "Koe fe'ia e fakafofonga e public in this initial stage of public fund allocation?" Further, it is evident that all these members are non-independent committee members. They are not independent of the PM. This is akin to having the CFO and GM in the board of directors; malo pe e luku fakakaukau ka ko e fakakaukau pe 'a e GM te tau lele'aki. This emphasises the notion of "window dressing". The ERC looks good on the surface.

I am not familiar with the exact procedure regarding the process of approving ministerial budget. I am not sure whether the work of the ERC gets passed on to Cabinet, to Parliament or to Parliament via Cabinet. What I am confident off is that wherever the ERC's allocation of public fund is approved from, four of the members of the ERC will be there to vote for its approval (Is this good governance?). Further, I again bring your attention to the word "public"; 'oku 'ife'ia e fakafofonga e "public" in this expenditure allocation approval stage? If they are present, do they have the capacity to modify expenditure allocation? The answer is "yes", they are present but "no" they do not have the voting numbers to modify expenditure allocation. I reiterate that the ERC looks so good on the surface.

Before ERC we had one person, mei he tafa'aki e pule'anga (according to Taulea) allocating public funds. With ERC we have four people, mei he tafa'aki tatau aipe allocating public funds. Ko e fehu'i leva, kuo liliu nai ha me'a? Te u fokotu'u atu 'oku te'eki ke liliu ha me'a ia 'e taha. Kuo to'o pe e mafai mei he nima kae tui e kofu nima matamata lelei pea toe'oange pe ki he nima tatau. I again reiterate that ERC looks so so good on the surface.

The above discussion highlights the absence of public representation at the initial stage (ERC) and its ineffectiveness at the final stage (approval) of public fund allocation. This was the case pre ERC, it is that same case post ERC. As such I propose that the ERC has done nothing to improve governance, accountability and transparency. Koe ngali lelei pe koe toe hu 'a e kofu nima.

I propose instead that a Public Accounts Committee would have been a better alternative for the government to consider . . . ka koe fo'i malanga ia 'e taha.

Malo e ma'u faingamalie.



Faka'apa'apa Atu,

A. Funaki

antinof [at] gmail [dot] com