The Editor's Mailbag

Tonga's King Did Right!

In spite of the emotion that the annulment of Princess Siuilikutapu’s marriage in New Zealand to Siosiua Liava’a must have created in New Zealand and other places, and which prompted some busybodies to write and telephone Tonga, making this wedding their business, I feel that what has been published is only one side of the issue.

Semisi Fa’aui, my cousin, who was a witness at the wedding and was later beaten up by a party of Tongans in NZ (PIM, Jan., p. 33) should as an educated man have realised that, while Tongans in New Zealand have the benefit of seeing and experiencing how New Zealanders do things, they are people of a totally different race and culture, who were brought up in that particular culture, which became a part of their lives before they went to New Zealand.

When Semisi helped to witness this wedding he at the same time helped to uproot the very founda tion stone of a traditional culture upon which depend the harmonious interactions of Tonga’s social struc tures and a way of life for over 20 centuries.

I for one, in Tonga, simply get fed up with all the advice given to us every so often by the world’s “authorities,” where they like to think that commoners are treated like dogs by the royalty and the nobles.

Some of us true Tongans are aware of the fact that it is through our own Tongan social system that Tonga still exists today with so much re maining intact, because of our way of life and our social structures being perpetuated from generation to generation, and from which has accrued so much benefit to the people of Tonga.

It was due to the king that Tongans have now the opportunity to pursue further academic studies overseas which are paid by the Tonga Government, since most families cannot afford such a venture.

It now appears, as an established fact, that these students after a short while overseas feel they can very well do what they darn well please, regardless of what will happen or who will be injured in the process.

Siosiua admitted that he believed his royal bride was intended for another—some wealthy chief—and that is why the King of Tonga had annulled his Auckland Registry Office

wedding. This just shows that Siosiua knew very well that the princess was not for him to marry because of a number of important family, political and cultural reasons; yet he went on with determination, arranging things to achieve his set goal, because if things turned up as he hoped, then he’d be sure to ride on the gravy train for the rest of his life.

Princess Siuilikutapu, in spite of her social status, had no experience whatsoever in worldly affairs, living a secluded way of life for over 21 years.

Siosiua said that when he finally met the father of the princess, Prince Tu’ipelehake, he was cool and calm.

The prince gave them good wishes and hoped they would go on to have a happy life together. It was decided that the princess would go home to Tonga to tell the king.

When the news came that the king had annulled the marriage. Siosiua blamed the king and still said that Prince Tu’ipelehake was all for it”.

What a simpleton! To think that Prince Tu’ipelehake, upon whom evolved the traditional culture and social customs of Tonga was happy at this marriage of his eldest daughter! Does Siosiua think that Prince Tu’ipelehake was “all for it”, marriage which is akin to sacrilege in the eyes of the Tongans, as the best that can be made of a bad bargain?

Does Siosiua feel that the eldest daughter of Prince Tu’ipelehake, a royal princess in the Royal House

of Tonga, who, after the king’s children, stands in line as heir to the throne of Tonga, will be cheaply treated as a nobody?

There is far, far more than what meets the eye in this occasion, and readers ought to look more into this marriage to avoid being biased in their views, and so help them to mind their own.

Prince Tu’ipelehake’s reaction, in his role as the father of the princess, at this heart-rending revelation, was the highest and the noblest that a father can do in such an undreamed of crisis, especially with his status in society in comparison to that of Siosiua. Prince Tu’ipelehake’s re action, clearly demonstrated not only the highest quality of his upbringing to fit his status in society as the leader of his people, but personally, he set the highest example that human beings are capable of at rare instances in human tragedies that bring man nearer to God.

Both Siosiua and Princess Siuiki kutapu will one day (in fact the princess had already done so), give thanks in their hearts to King Taufa’ahau in his timely intervention; for saving them both from a mistake that would bring nothing but un happiness and regret in the future, and also save the identity of Tonga’s social culture and traditional customs upon which depend the everyday life, developments and future of its people.

Once again, King Taufa’ahau of Tonga has demonstrated his versatility and farsightedness in his usual practical manner.

Joe Fanamanu

Nukualofa, Tonga • As all interested parties have now had opportunity to contribute their two cents’ worth, this subject is closed. (More letters next page)

Princess Siuilikutapu.

Unfair Regulations

Sir, —About a year ago the British side of the New Hebrides Con dominium brought into force the New Hebrides Shipping Regulation.

Although a high sounding title, these regulations apply only to British vessels, so leaving about 80 per cent, of ships still running around without inspection.

The regulations, for some unknown to Condominium Government vessels, although these vessels proudly dis play the Union Jack.

That this brings about ridiculous situations one can imagine. It is not unusual for British Administration officials to charter non-British vessels, which run around with complete dis regard of the regulations; or even better, the Principal Licensing Officer finds himself aboard a Condominium vessel travelling around the group, although he has no power to declare this vessel unsafe even if she is leaking.

Yet a Britisher going fishing in Vila harbour or fetching his bread in Santo with his small launch or outboard dinghy, must comply with PLO Safety Equipment, September, 1968, if he moves more than 200 metres from shore, and have among other equipment a compass aboard.

The regulations, for some unknown reason, were copied exactly from the Solomon Island Shipping Regulations, including the terms “Inner and Outer Islands”, without even to bother to look at a chart. The “Outer Islands” in the Solomon Islands are several hundred miles away from the “Inner Islands”, while in the Hebrides the Banks group is only 25 miles away.

So a 500-ton vessel can accordingly, under command of a coxwain 2nd class, run all the way from Cape Cumberland to Vila, a distance of 200 miles, yet the same vessel must have a master and a mate aboard to run the 25 miles separating Maewo from Merelava (Banks). (Schedule 7 vi(a) and Schedule 7 iii).

Once these 25 miles are covered, the master and mate can disembark and the hundreds of miles among the Banks Islands can be run under command of a Coxwain 2nd class, which is next to the lowest certificate available (Inner Island Voyage Part I General).

Originally in 1967 when these Shipping Regulations were proposed, it was stated by the British Residency that the UK Merchant Shipping Act could not apply to local shipping, hence the reason for special Regula tions.

While a 400 ton vessel is restricted to 45 passengers, a 40-tonner (non- British) carries regularly 200 natives

(Santo wharf labourers) from Santo to Aoba.

No one will deny the necessity of sound shipping regulations but surely there is something wrong when in the same territory, only 20 per cent, of the vessels are subject to them. British owners have to go through heavy expenses to keep their vessels up to British Marine standards while the others run around without regard to safety, overloaded with cargo and passengers including Britishers.

E. W. Lamberty

Master of Konanda, Santo

Eliminate Runways And

Tourists

Sir,—A great rousing cheer for Mr.

D. Hibbert and his refreshing com mentary on the scourge of tourism {PIM, Jan., 1970, p. 23).

Proof that the tourist is indeed a blight is evident by the fact that no one will admit to being one.

As airplanes get bigger and fares become cheaper, these isles will be plagued by ruder and cruder “locusts” —not travellers—but merely slobs who want to have travelled, and to return home as rapidly as possible, entwined in yards of Instamatic film with which to impress their neigh bours. Another status symbol as it were.

If we really knew what we were about, we would shorten the runways or eliminate them altogether and seek a more honourable means of develop ment, if indeed development is really required at all beyond the seeking of individual contentment.

For it is a paradox of the tourist industry that those profiting from it will come to hate the source of their profit—the tourist.

And no one really wants to be a

tourist anyhow.

Paul Bovard

Kailua-Kona, Hawaii.

"Poranui" Stranding

Sir,—Your reference to the Poranui stranding and implied ridicule directed at Mr. Rusden {PIM, Jan., p. 24) was far from good taste. Mr. Rusden has already suffered a great deal of grief and financial loss over this present casualty and your inaccurate long list of suggested past losses places before underwriters and other busi ness houses an untrue picture which can only have an adverse effect on future dealings with them.

Although this poor publicity is directed at the owner, he was not

master of these vessels. Poranui was making a passage between Santo and Noumea, an area where Captain Rusden traded for seven years with an old vessel, his wife and a native crew and never had a mishap. In 20 years around the Pacific in many different vessels he was never on board a vessel which was wrecked.

The only casualty he was associa ted with was a fire on board Sorana Del Mar at Santo, and this was caused by a major oil company shipping benzine in light wine drums, Poranui was built in 1956 and is complete with radar, echo sounder and she had just passed a special survey to maintain her Lloyd’s 100

A 1 classification. She cost Captain

Rusden just under $lOO,OOO.

Her crew was: Ray Synnott, qualified foreign - going master (captain); J. Lenfesty, qualified foreign-going master (first mate): B.

Robinson, qualified mate unlimited (second mate); K. Teppet, qualified first class, steam/steam diesel (chiel engineer); B. Smith, qualified second class diesel (second engineer); G Cornthwaite, qualified bosun, N 2 Marine (bosun).

There were also four New Zealanc AB’s, two greasers, a cook and £ steward. This vessel was manned tc BOT standards and perhaps higher.

The most disturbing feature ol your article is that your facts an incorrect. Most of the vessels yoi name were not under the control ol Captain Rusden. 9 Nikau was not owned b} Captain Rusden and was under th< control of Captain Bochenski of Vila who was also the master on boan

Attempts to salvage Mr. Athol Rusden's 1,000-ton "Poranui", above, aground on Jouan Reef, New Caledonia, since Novem ber 17 last year ("PIM", Jan., p. 24) were abandoned in early February by Mr.

Rusden. He said the ship "must be con sidered a total loss".

when the vessel was wrecked at Tanna. The vessel was owned by Messrs. Burns Philp. • Wallisien was under “bare boat charter” to Wallis Navigation Co., Noumea. • Tuvalu (Captain Barrett) was chartered to the American Company United Geophysical Services.

Your magazine is read widely in shipping circles and the implication a reader would construe from your incorrect grouping of all these vessels is altogether wrong and unfair. I am sure your shipping reporter has not meant this to be the case, perhaps he could therefore remedy the dam age done.

Poranui’s stranding has been a great blow to Captain Rusden and as always it is the owner who suffers, through loss of earnings and other worries. Your rubbing salt in the wound seems to be a great injustice.

At the first word of the stranding it is he who has to pack his bag and get off to the scene of the wreck and tackle the difficult task of refloat ing. However with his tenacity I am sure this will be accomplished.

B. Williams

Secretary, Rusmor Shipping Line.

• It is quite true, as Mr. Williams says, that Captain Rusden was not personally involved in the shipwrecks we listed. We have said this before in print when on other occasions we have totted up Captain Rusden’s list of bad luck. We regret not having said it yet again in this case, because it is not our intention to persecute Captain Rusden. His friends and em ployees, and former associates, are all loyal to him and that says much for Captain Rusden.

Nevertheless, our point remains unaltered—and that is that it is newsworthy when a shipowner has no less than six of his vessels come to grief over a period of a few years in the Pacific. It has been a matter of wide comment in shipping circles.

How unlucky can you get and who would want to be in his shoes?

Despite Mr. Williams obvious good will, our facts are still correct.

Our information is that “Nikau”, which was owned by Burns Philp, was chartered by Captain Rusden who also supplied her master.

“Wallisien” was partly owned by Captain Rusden when she was wrecked, and “Tuvalu” was partly owned by Captain Rusden when she was lost off New Zealand. We certainly have no quarrel with Captain Rusden, but if he doesn’t want to get into ’’PlM’s” news pages, please ask him to stop making news.