On freedom

and truth in Western Samoa

A rejoinder from Felise Va’a

It is my personal belief that I should not reply to Mr Tumele Tuimavave’s letter which appeared in the September issue of PIM. However, on a professional level 1 think Mr Tuimavave’s letter should not go un challenged.

Mr Tuimavave indicated that an article I wrote for PIM recently “inferred that there is almost a ‘police-state’ suppression of criticism in Western Samoa under the present regime”.

However, there is in fact no such inference. I was merely describing an actual state of affairs. Mr Tuima vave cannot validly conclude that therefore I meant there was some kind of police-state in Western Samoa.

But it is logically possible to infer that the government couldn’t care less about its relations with the press, that it doesn’t care about public opinion or even that it is ignorant of its function to inform the public, and even the government may secretly be plotting to establish a police-state.

But certainly not that there is one, or one almost.

The article merely asked a question.

It did not provide a solution. More careful reading would establish this.

The question, therefore whether I should be in prison or not is meaning less because I never claimed that there was a police-state in Western Samoa. (However, this does not rule out the possibility that I could be im prisoned later on for my forthright views.) Secondly, Mr Tuimavave is being very unfair to the former prime minister Hon Mata’afa F.M. 11, whom I consider to be one of the ablest, most distinguished and most honest of Samoa’s leaders today.

When we got independence in 1962, the main newspaper editors from that period onward to 1969 approximately were two men, Messrs Peter Creevey of the Bulletin and Bob Rankin of the Samoana. They are both here in Samoa. Both are married to Samoan girls and both had been at times extremely critical of the Mata’afa government. If they were encouraged to leave by Mata’afa, how come they are both here? Rankin particularly was almost vehement and sometimes insulting in his criticisms of the doings

of the Mata’afa government. In reply to these criticisms, Mata’afa was mostly silent. He kept his dignity and peace and was much admired thereby.

Lastly, I find it insulting to the public interest that a mere public servant should have the audacity to pass judgment on the present and past governments. Surely, it is not the duty of a public servant to comment on political matters. This right be longs more to the public and their representative, the press.

I should remind Mr Tuimavave that 1 had worked for the government public relations office from 1962 to 1965, and from 1965 to the present in local newspapers in both Samoas.

I should know what I happen to be talking about. I know what govern ment policy is and whether it is good or bad. (I never claimed the government “suppressed” the news, as Mr Tuimavave erroneously con cluded.) I should also know the people involved in my field of journalism.

I also know that one of the key employees of the Samoa Times, an outsider, was recently refused ex tension of his permit, presumably as retaliation for criticism of the govern ment by the Samoa Times. (A short extension was later granted but only after certain complicated political manoeuvres by the newspaper owners.) Finally, I would remind Mr Tuimavave that the biggest blessing his country can get is criticism by out siders. It means a country is im portant, that people care about it.

Why not profit from the criticism? 1 appreciated Mr Matthews’ article mainly because he was so right in many matters. He may be laughing at us, but he also wants us to laugh with him. Without a sense of humour we would all be lost in the world.

The Romans laughed at Jesus because he claimed to be God and yet could not save Himself from the cross.

But Jesus had the last laugh. His religion subsequently conquered the Romans.