Editor,

PR 'Akilisi Pohiva was asking the wrong question (Ashika passengers and cargo insured...15 Sep., 2009) in the September 10 Legislative Assembly's inquiries into the ship's sinking.

I suggest PR Pohiva should have done a little study on the insurance industry before start asking questions about a complex field of business.

Insurance premium payment is not a sure sign of a policy being "in effect." An insurance carrier may holdup a policy's effective date for several reasons. Even with a premium being paid, a policy can still be rejected under certain circumstances.

Questions should have appropriately been directed at the Ports Authority which is under the Judicial Branch of Government.

The checks-and-balance mechanism for the three branches of government gave the Ports Authority power to approve or deny "seaworthiness" certification of any vessel disregard of any pressure from the House, or member of the Cabinet. Even the King himself could not override the Ports Authority's certification decisions.

MPs should be asking: Was the certification of "seaworthiness" for the Princess Ashika issued by the Ports Authority before the ship's first voyage? Insurance coverage should have been included in the requirements for seaworthiness.

Like the Airports Authority which certifies "airworthiness" of aircrafts, the Ports Authority inspects and certifies vessels before embarking on their first voyages.

Sione A. Mokofisi, MBA