Criticism Of Tongan Government’S Policy.

[To the Editor.]

Sir, —If your valuable paper can give space to a little more healthy criticism of Government policy, I would be greatly obliged. Believe me, I am not like the Irishman who, when he landed in New York, asked if there was a Gov ernment and, on being told there most certainly was, replied, “Then I’m agin it.”

The perfect Government has yet to be found, and the following remarks are made with the idea of helping the Government of Tonga to attain this ideal. A further hope is that during the process of attainment, the people of Tonga and others domiciled here will receive a little more encouragement from the Government and a few less kicks.

First of all, bananas.

Since the alarming drop in copra values, a wild scramble has been in dulged in by the Government to find a satisfactory secondary industry. (In passing, it is extremely interesting to note that for something like 20 years the Government has been satisfied to risk the welfare of the country on the export of copra and copra only.) It was at length decided that bananas would fill the bill admirably, and early last year the country began what one might call ‘a banana drive.” Suckers were begged, borrowed, purchased and possibly stolen, so great was the en thusiasm to produce. “Produce” was the order of the day. In the meantime, the Government made arrangements for the shipping and sale of the ban anas and undertook to pay its people and others, i.e., planters, etc., 4/- per case delivered Government wharf. The following is an extract from the Gazette in which this under taking was pub lished: —

Tongan Government Gazette, No. 18,

November 27, 1931. (2) That for the next twelve months from this date the price for bananas exported through the agency of the Government and delivered at the Government wharf at Nukualofa or Neiafu shall be four shillings per case.

Shipments- were finally made and the first two taken as a whole were moder ately successful from a financial view point. On the other hand, technicali ties were raised in connection with the picking and packing of the fruit. The third shipment resulted in a loss to the Government of approximately £1,500, owing, in the first place, to the fruit being cut long before the arrival of the fruit steamer; secondly, to extremely bad storage awaiting shipment; thirdly, the very poor price offering on the New Zealand market; and, fourthly, the jet tisoning of that fruit which became over-ripe.

One result of this distressing loss and blunder on the part of some person or persons was the discovery that the agreement with the Auckland buyers of the fruit was unsigned. This agree ment, it is believed, has been com pletely abandoned and presumably the Government will in the future ship to an open market. The Gazette issued a few days ago prompts one to suggest that this is another result of the blunder. The Gazette reads as follows:

Tongan Government Gazette, No. 6.

March 15, 1932. (1) That the price fixed for bananas in no tice published in Gazette No. 18 of 1931, is hereby cancelled.

(2) That until further notice the price for bananas exported through the agency of the Government, and delivered at the Government wharf at Nukualofa. Neiafu or Lifuka shall be as follows: Nukua lofa 2/6 per case, Neiaful 2/- per case, Lifuka 2/- per case.

It is obvious the Government intend to make the people meet the cost of the blunder, and, as a result of the Gazette just quoted, a collapse of the industry would be easy to predict only for the fact that the Tongan is so desperately hard up. The Government are, of course, aware of this, otherwise it is doubtful if they would have dared to so flagrantly ignore their moral obliga tion to pay 4/- per case as so definitely stated in their November Gazette There is little doubt, but that the Gov ernment have destroyed any national pride the Tongan might have had in the industry, and, as suggested, they are also within an ace of destroying the industry itself. Let us hope that

before such a calamity overtakes the Kingdom, the Government will have taken to heart the following remarks made by a great American legislator; “You can fool some of the people all the time, And all the people some of the time, But you can’t fool all the people all the time.”

The Police Force.

Secondly, a few remarks in connec tion with our amazing Police Force. At time of writing, two policemen are lodged in the local lock-up awaiting trial for the embezzlement of Govern ment funds. To date, it has been as certained that one has helped himself to £60 and the other to £50. No doubt, both these amounts will be augmented before the day of the trial. Possibly, these two policemen consider they have a Police Force reputation to uphold, as during the last two to three years about eight of their fraternity have assisted to keep the roads in order for similar crimes. Recently, a European resident referred to the sordidness of our Police Court. Naturally, our well-respected European magistrate was indignant, but surely on the evidence our resident was justified in his statement?

Such is the type of policeman, who is called to give evidence against both Tongans and Europeans. They delight in pestering Europeans with petty charges for absence of tail-lights, so called speeding, etc., but their over zealousness in this respect often causes their own discomfiture, as the majority of these cases are thrown out for lack of evidence or because of contradictory evidence.

For instance, some little time back, a European was before the court ac cused of speeding and the three police men who swore they saw the incident suggested the speed as being 10, 20 and 40 miles per hour. So, while it is ob vious the car could not have been travelling at any terrific speed, it is also evident that the police have little or no conception of speed whatsoever.

The case was, of course, dismissed, but no compensation was made the accused for loss of time. Of course, one does not expect compensation, but then I raise the point because neither does one expected to be foolishly inconveni enced. If the police really conducted their duties in the interests of the pub lic then the recent theft of 40 odd gal lons of benzine from a Bowser pump (Bowser pump, please particularly ob serve) would surely have been pre vented. The culprit is still at large and will probably remain a menace to the public.

Broadly speaking then, one would sum up our guardians of the peace, protectors of life and property, etc., as men with a tendency to embezzle, faithful disciples of the petty com plaints policy, hopeless as regards speed sense (a very important matter) and utterly futile when it comes to preventing or detecting real crime.

Surely then, we are justified in our feelings of high indignation that such men are allowed to detain and testify against us? And yet the Government actually gives these men lawful pro tection should they be sued for the re covery of debt as the following extract from the Tongan Police Act reveals.

It reads; “No amount shall be recovered in any Court from any person on account of anything bought by him upon credit at any store or shop whilst he was employed in the Force and every Court shall take notice of this section whether or not raised by the defend ant.” '

A merchant, therefore, finds he can not compel a member of the Police Force to meet his obligations, but, should this member help himself to Government property he is promptly gaoled. As pointed out, the police re cord is not one to be proud of—is it that the Act and section referred to has given the force a subconscious feel ing of security? If so, then it is evi dent the State financially and the Ton gan morally would be infinitely better off by its immediate repeal.

In any case, it will be seen from the foregoing that it is high time the Force and Regulations were overhauled.

I am, etc.,

Observer.

Nukualofa, Tonga.

March 19, 1932.