The Winning Speech

It is a matter for concern when High School students are taught and made to write and/or speak critically against their country's Constitutional laws. Besides the topic that won, - ‘Tonga should be more Democratic’ three others claimed that ‘There would be no loss if Tonga culture died’ or that ‘Tonga culture is a thing of the past’. If this is Education, to sow the seeds of Rebellion to Law and Order and to teach our youth to denouce their country's culture, then we should take heed. In actual truth it is the practice of nurturing revolutionary doctrines, so disguised in the name of Education, or in other words, ‘A wolf in lamb's clothing’.

Only in June of last year, two Auckland men, Mr Anthony Butler and Sefo Afeaki, did their utmost to slander Tonga and her monarch through the Press. Some of their articles which the NZ Truth published in bold headlines consisted of such headlines as ‘In an Island of Fear’, ‘An Iron King’, ‘Driven to Drink’, and so on and so forth to fill almost two pages that I did wonder what could have caused such hate and maticiousness.

It does appear strange but this so-called Winning Speech seems to have picked up where those two gentlemen left off. The same ideas, anyhow, have now been publicly advertised, camouflaged perhaps in a School's Speech Contest, but they are all there for the present ‘uneducated masses’-for the ‘educated’ Tongan and wherever the ‘Tonge Chronicle’ may go.

Tonga's leaders should give earnest consideration to its country's aims in the educations of its future generations. We cannot afford to continue letting teachers who mock at Tongan law and culture to so influence young and immature minds who ‘swallow’ but cannot ‘digest’ biased history and politics. The Apostle Paul symbolised such ‘feeding’ when he wrote: ‘Strong meat belongs to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.’

Tonga's Constitution specifies, as one of the foremost qualifications of an elector for people's representatives for Parliament that a Tongan must be 21 years of age, which means that our young politicia still needs another five years or more to ‘live and learn’ before she is privileged to air her views. As a famous poet wrote, ‘A little understanding is dangerous’, but the Prophet Hosea had cried out, ages before, ‘My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge’, for they had rejected God's excellent gift of which is written in the Book of Job, ‘Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to depart from evil is understanding.’

Tongan history tells us that no people's representative had any part when Tupou I gave us our Emancipation, now were we allowed to elect any when and after he handed our Constitution to our ancestors. Our representatives for Parliament then were our landlords, the nobles. I understand that Western Samoa's Constitution allows no chosen representatives of the people for Parliament, and in Fiji? Only the chiefs, of couse, represent for the people.

The last census for Tonga, in 1966, gave the number as 77,585. The next census is still three years ahead and so the 92,000, on which Lata has proportioned her one representative for 13,100 nations, is questionable. We must also bear in mind that about 66% of the total population are under 21 and are not electors so the number 92,000 drops to 30,000. It can still drop by a few thousands owing to sickness, in- page 29 ablity to attend at polling plces and disqualifications. But wait, can someone enlighten us as to the representation to Congress of America's 215 millions?

As for the world's many forms of government, today's students are most fortunate for they stand almost at the end of Time and look back and examine from the beginning of Time. The facts are all there and a true student or writer of history should not be biased or be influenced by hearsy. After all the propaganda and table-talk of the ‘rule of the majority’ and/or peasants in Russia and China, we might discover that both forms crumble down to the ‘rule of the few’.

Lastly and conclusively I wish to remind students that ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’ With all our grumbles and complaints against our government policies, of which there are legal ways of making, we must be aware that only a fine line can come between criticisms and sedition, a very serious criminal offence of which the first definition is to ‘excite disaffection against the King of Tonga or against the Parliament or Government of Tonga…’ It seems that some parts of this so-called Winning Speech could be interpreted as of a seditious nature.

Teachers may laugh and say ‘What utter nonsense! This was nothing else but a Speech Contest. If they had any education they would understand that students are taught to be critical - that is the chief element of democracy opposition - and students begin from criticising their own work.’ Right, and I think that criticism is safest and best directed against oneself.

To quote again from the conclusion of this Winning Speech - “My fellow students, this is my plea to you. Let us join together … and become members of that imposing force of educated Tongan people whose responsibility is to see that today's oligarchy is tomorrow;s democracy.”

The truth of what is conveyed here is that it was such an ‘imposing force of educated people’ who was responsible for the ultimate power seizure of Communism over Russia's and China's millions. It is this same force who are causing protest marches, rebellion and riots in many of the democratic nations of today.

For the Langafonua Womens Association,

SIU M. TU'UHETOKA.

Editorial, Tonga Chronicle, 30.8.73.

Once again, the EDitor and the Chronicle wavers under a barrage of tongue lashing in the Legislative ASsembly. Fortunately, there was only one really outspoken personal attack on the Editor and his discretion.

What started it all was the publication of Lata Soakai's winning speech, titled ‘Tonga Should Be More Democratic’. Tongatapu No. 1 People's Representative, Mr Tu'ilatai Mataele went on to make an uncalled for comparison between the present editor of the Chronicle and his predecessor.

As I see it, and interpret it, Mr Mataele has questioned the discretion, diligence and suitability of the editor, along with a tacit attack on the Government's wisdom in appointing such a person. Quite frankly, I'm utterly disappointed in my so-called representative in the Legislative ASsembly, and the No. 1 People's Representative at that. What has become of our representatives in the House today? Let us see what's irresponsible about the publication of Lata's speech.

page 30

Grammatically, this speech is faultless, and for a 15 year old sixth former, to whom English is a second language, I consider her speech a tremendous achievement. Subject-
wise, I'm amazed at how ‘au fait’ Lata is with Tonga's political situations and her awareness of recent developments. Lata is a potential crator with lots of promise and I admire
her courage. If the manifestations of this young lady's tremendous achievements is considered irresponsible on the part of the editor, then I am perhaps wallowing in deep water!

What then is the benefit of advocating better education, only to find that learning or knowing too much can be dangerous.