A Non Traditional Security Threat in the Kingdom of Tonga：Democracy and Democratisation
Siamelie Latu[1]
ABSTRACT
The aim of this paper is to examine and analyse how democracy and democratisation have become a non traditional security threat （NTST） in the Kingdom of Tonga. This paper argues that the process of democratisation the pro democratic movement （PDM） is trying to implement is not suitable for Tonga. For the purpose of this paper the current political system in Tonga is identified as a hybrid democracy and is a legacy of the merger of the Westminster model，brought by the Wesleyan missionaries and the Tongan traditional political system. It is embedded in the provisions of the 1875 Constitution. In practice，the Rights and Freedoms as outlined in the 1875 Constitution have not been fully utilized by the people of Tonga. This is due to the inappropriateness of Western democratic values to the lives of a people who have been socialized into their own cultural values. These values include faka'apa'apa （respect），‘ofa （love），mamahi'ime'a （loyalty），lototo （humility） and fetokoni'aki （sharing）.These cultural values underpin the socialization process of all Tongans and are embodied in the concept of Mo‘ui fakatonga （Tongan way of life）.
The cultural values enshrined within Mo'ui fakatonga are presented as essential to understanding how Mo'ui fakatonga has bound the unity of the classes and has led to the stability of the constitutional monarch for over two centuries. In the context of this paper，the cultural values enshrined in Mo'ui fakatonga are also used as a yardstick whereby the traditional Tongan social and political systems are measured against Western democratic systems.
Little has been written on the topic of democracy or democratisation as a NTST in the Kingdom of Tonga. This paper has attempted to bring together different perspectives from Tongans and non Tongans，historians，academics，and political analysts regarding the development of democratic ideals and democratic reforms in Tonga which have taken place contemporaneously with the political reforms in the Pacific region.
The conclusion drawn from this analysis is that the current hybrid democracy is ideal for Tonga. The most pressing need for Tonga is change in the structure of the political system rather than the form of democracy it is practising and/or the values enshrined in Mo'ui fakatonga.
Keywords： Tonga；non traditional；security threat；democracy；democratisation；tradition
“The road to comprehensive and common security for the South Pacific is going to be long and hard，and will require above all a good dose of unconventional wisdom”[2].
“…the death and destruction caused during the riots is a regrettable part of the process of democratic change that is now sweeping the country”[3].
‘Akilisi Pohiva
INTRODUCTION
A Personal Perspective
As I was reflecting on this topic and the events which have taken place on the Island Kingdom of Tonga，I realised that I needed to write a section on my personal perspective which has been my frame of reference in writing this paper.
Although born and raised in Tonga the awareness of the importance of my own culture and tradition has been more recent. Like most Tongans，I found the events of the 16th November 2006 shocking. This has led me to focus and reflect on the happy days of my childhood life and to appreciate the values which have been transmitted to me by my grandfather.
I was adopted by my father's parents，Siosaia Latu and Salote Puipui Ki He Toa Latu. Siosaia was a school teacher and later became a Minister of Religion of the Free Church of Tonga. As a legacy adopted by King Taufa'ahau Tupou I from the Wesleyan missionaries，education （ako） and religion （lotu） became the treasures for all Tongans who made sure that these were passed on from generation to generation since the late 19th century. The rationale was that King Taufa'ahau Tupou I strongly believed that if his people were well educated and believed in the new religion brought by the Wesleyan missionaries it would provide Tonga with better citizens to help build a modern Tonga. I remember my grandfather saying to me，“Siamelie，manatu'i ko ho'o ako ke ke ‘aonga kia Tupou mo hou’eiki，‘o ‘ikai ko au pe ko koe.” （Siamelie，remember，the purpose of your education is not to help me or yourself，but to be an asset for his Majesty's country and its Chiefs）. My grandfather had emphasised the values of faka'apa'apa （respect），‘ofa fonua （patriotism，love the country），mateaki'i fonua （loyalty to one's king and country），and lototo （humility）. I have come to realise that these are the values that have kept Tonga socially and politically intact and stable for two centuries. This is despite the fact that Tonga adopted the Westminster model and merged it with its own traditional political hierarchical system. In addition，working in the military has helped to strengthen these values in my life.
As a result of the 16th November 2006 incident，I have asked myself the following questions.Firstly，why does the Pro-Democracy Movement （PDM） want to change the current political system if it has been able to keep Tonga stable for two centuries？Are their motives siokita （to reap personal interest） or ‘ofa fonua （love the country）？Is the current hybrid democracy good or bad？Secondly，in what way are the strategies used by the PDM detrimental or beneficial to the country or to the democratisation process of the structure of the government？Thirdly，How has the movement's philosophies contributed to the riots？
Reflecting on these questions gave me the idea that the PDM is a NTST to Tonga. It has led me as a senior officer of the Tonga Defence Services to undertake this study in order to identify where the challenges to security lie. It is important that analyses are made of the PDM in Tonga based on the views and perceptions of Tongans as viewed through their own cultural awareness.
In order to identify these challenges，this paper therefore，will examine and analyse how democracy and democratisation as NTSTs have contributed to the major political riots and instability in Tonga. “Western democracy and democratisation” are two different concepts. Both terms will be examined because they have implications for peace and security in Tonga. An analysis of Western democracy and the current Tongan traditional political system and their associated values will be conducted. The concept of “Mo'ui fakatonga” is presented to justify the appropriateness of the hybrid democracy in the Tongan context. Mo'ui fakatonga is the yardstick by which the Tongan traditional social and political systems will be measured against Western democratic systems and values. Finally the legacies of the 16th November 2006 crisis will be examined for their implications on national security.
AN OVERVIEW
Geographical Location
The only remaining Kingdom in the entire Pacific is the Kingdom of Tonga. It is the smallest Kingdom in the world. It is divided into three main island groups：Tongatapu the largest to the south，Vava'u the second largest to the north and the Ha'apai group in the centre. There are 160 islands，of which 36 are inhabited. Geographically，Tonga is situated southeast of Fiji and southwest of the Samoan islands. The population is about 100000 people[4].
Historical Development：Pre Contact
Prior to the arrival of the Wesleyan missionaries in 1826 Tongan society was divided into political factions based on the rule of chiefs[5]. Each kainga （people who live in the same community or village and not necessarily related by blood） had a paramount chief who was their political leader. There was no unified or central government to administer the whole of Tonga including the islands. The politics of Tonga at this time were based on civil war，dominated by paramount chiefs fighting each other in their struggle for power. This was the scenario found by the Wesleyan missionaries. According to Latukefu，the successor to the office of the Hau[6] （temporal ruler） was elected by the Electoral College[7]. The criteria for the successor included a person who was a warrior，a chief and a person with vision.
The whole life process （Mo'ui fakatonga） of Tongans including their values，education，religion and politics at this time was based on the pyramid of the socio-political hierarchical system. This system was divided into different groups. The top consists of the Royal Family. The Royal Family consists of the three lines of Kings-Tu'i Tonga，Tu'i Ha'atakalua and the Tu'i Kanokupolu. Each of these lines had their various duties and responsibilities. The highest and most respected was the Tu'i Tonga who was the representative of the God of Harvest. He was both the secular and temporal leader[8]. The celebration of the harvest season known as the ‘inasi ceremony was conducted in the court of the Tu'i Tonga[9]. The next group consists of the hou'eiki （Chiefs） who were the paramount chiefs of their own respective kainga. The next group consists of the tu'a （Commoners） who would be the kainga of the paramount chiefs and who spent most of their time doing chores and serving in the chief's court. The bottom group consists of the kau popula （slaves）. They had no possessions whatsoever. The chiefs owned these people. When a chief died，one，two or three of his slaves would be buried alive with him in order to accompany him to the next world[10].
Post Contact and Political Change
When the missionaries arrived，they became very influential in Tongan politics. During the 1830's civil war there was a young Chief by the name of Taufa'ahau. He was not only a great warrior，but had very strong blood connections to all the three lines of kings. He was also the sole heir to the Tu'i Kanokupolu line. In addition，Taufa'ahau was seen by the Wesleyan missionaries as an intelligent young man and a person of vision for Tonga. Taufa'ahau saw the newlotu （religion） brought by the Wesleyan missionaries as the gateway to lead his people into a more civilised and stable life[11]. The vacancy of the office of Hau in 1845 was taken by the Wesleyan missionaries as their opportunity to influence the Electoral College to install Taufa'ahau as the Tu'i Kanokupolu. Taufa'ahau was then known as King George Tupou I[12]. It is important to acknowledge King George Tupou I because he was responsible for the socio-political changes that took place towards the end of the 19th century. In 1862，King George Tupou I granted the tau'ataina （freedom） or emancipation which gave freedom to the tu'a and the kau popula from their chiefs. Most of the chiefs however did not want any reform. With these reforms the tu'a and the kau popula had the right to own their own labour and were entitled to work their own land[13]. As a result，there were only three main groups now in the social pyramid，namely the Royal Family，the Chiefs and the Commoners. The promulgation of the Constitution in 1875 was another turning point in the socio-political changes initiated by King George Tupou I.
Form of Government
The form of Government practised in Tonga is a Constitutional Monarchy and is divided into three main parts；firstly，the King，Privy Council and Cabinet，secondly，the Legislative Assembly and thirdly，the Judiciary. The Privy Council is appointed by the King and consists of the Cabinet Ministers，Governors and the Chief Justice. The Cabinet consists of the Prime Minister，and Ministers of the Crown who are all appointed by the King. The Legislative Assembly consists of three main groups：the Ministers，the Nobles and the Representatives of the People. The Ministers are appointed by the King. The number of Ministers has increased from 12 to 13 including two governors of the Vava'u and Ha'apai Groups[14]. There are nine Nobles elected to the Legislative Assembly by the 33 holders of the Noble titles of the realm. They enter the House as representatives of their kainga. The King appoints the speaker of the House from the nine elected Nobles. There are also nine Representatives of the people elected by the people[15].
The Constitution consists of three main parts：the Declaration of rights，Form of government and the Lands. The Declaration of rights sets out the Rights of Freedom as commonly found in a Western democracy. Examples of these are embodied in provision 4 and 7 of Part 1 Declaration of Rights，Constitution of Tonga[16].
Provision 4：“There shall be but one law in Tonga，one for the Chiefs，and Commoners，for non-Tongan and Tongans. No laws shall be enacted for one class but the law shall be the same for all the people of this land.”
Provision 7：“It shall be lawful for all people to speak，write，and print their minds and opinions，and no law shall be enacted to forbid this for ever. But this does not nullify the law relative to libel and the law for the protection of His Majesty and the Royal Family.”[17]
Provision 4 shows how all Tongans are to be treated equally in the eyes of the law despite its hierarchical social structure. It is important to differentiate between written law like the Constitution and unwritten law enshrined in cultural values practised by the Tongan people. In reality，the Commoners continue to acknowledge the Chiefs and both the Chiefs and Commoners continue to acknowledge the Royal Family[18]. Provision 7 is an example of the basic freedom given to the People of Tonga.
The Judicial power of the Kingdom is vested in the Supreme Court，Circuit Court and the Police Courts. Elections are held triennially with the following electorates. The main island of Tongatapu，with a population of approximately 67000 out of 98000 at the 1996 census，has three Representatives. The entire island votes as a single electorate and each voter has three votes. The candidates winning the largest numbers of votes are elected. The Vava'u and Ha'apai island groups elect two members each and the northern islands of Niuafo'ou and Niuatoputapu elect one member together. The southern island of ‘Eua elects one member. A similar structure is applied to the election of the Nobles’ representatives[19].
Evidence of the merging of the traditional political system and the Westminster model can be seen in the components of the Legislative Assembly，namely in the combination of the nine representatives of the Nobles and the nine Representatives elected by the People. Both groups are referred to as representing the People in the Legislative Assembly.
There is no provision for a party system in the Constitution. This element of Western democracy is not suitable within the context of Tonga in regards to its size. Tonga is a small island nation of about 100000 people and a party system would not be suitable，economical or practical. For Tonga the party system is not the only mechanism for people to voice their opinion to Government. The traditional process isfofola e fala kae fai e talanga （spreading the mat so that the people can talk）.
Helu states，“In such small populations，party politics always pose a real threat of fragmenting the communities into tiny ineffective pieces thus weakening them as a systems or throwing them into chaos”[20]. A party system would cause factions amongst the people. A serious consequence of political parties in Tonga would be that the country might risk reverting to the chaotic state from which King George Tupou I had united Tonga to become a nation in 1845[21]. This was a legacy that all Tongans are proud of，the fact that King George Tupou I was able to unite the islands and the chiefs of the various Ha'a （clans） under his rule and form a Government. As a result，the administrative centre became centralised in Nuku'alofa，the capital，which is situated in the main island Tongatapu.
Non Traditional Security Threats in Tonga
In the context of Tonga the definition of non traditional security threats （NTSTs） constitutes any natural or human cause in any combination of endogenous and exogenous forces without the involvement of the Armed Forces[22]. As well as the obvious threats posed by natural disasters human causes should be given much attention because they can also be a major security threat. Decision makers need to keep their minds open and analyse and evaluate these threats as part of a dynamic process. This avoids being extreme and simplistic about the issues. For example，part of what happened on the 16th of November 2006 in Tonga was the result of not being able to critically analyse the situation as to “who threatened” and “who are being threatened”.
NTSTs have become increasingly common in the Pacific region and the International arena. Such threats as faced by Tonga have much in common with those faced in other Pacific Island Countries （PIC）. Threats should be analysed and dealt with in order of priority specifically as they affect the country. This is evident in the context of the South Pacific as NTST issues have been taken into account seriously and prioritised by other South West Pacific （SWP） islands according to their socio-political values and the posed order of security threat. For example，Fiji gives priority to their “identity as Fijian. The meaning embraces their land，their culture，their tradition，their language and their very soul”[23]. The Samoan Islands give priority to the “general ideal of Fa'aSamoa”’，expressing that Samoa existed before the arrival of the Europeans’[24]. The Solomon islands gives priority to the “political aspects，namely the internal collapse of law and order”[25]. Papua New Guinea gives priority to “finding the right political systems and policies as well as dealing with the rapid spread of HIV/AIDS that has increased by 30 per cent each year since 1997”[26].
Once a threat is identified it must be analysed and assessed in order of priority so that the real security issues can be identified and made known to the public in the interest of public safety. This process is particularly important for decision makers in the Government because the deployment of Government resources is dependent upon it. The event of 16th November in Tonga has proved that the NTST for Tonga today is either democracy or democratisation. Both are two different things，as claimed by Agus Widjojo，“Democracy is one thing，Democratisation is another.”[27] It is thus important that both are analysed in order of priority.
Democracy in the context of this paper refers to Western democracy and its associated values. It means that political power is authorised and controlled by the people[28]. This paper argues that the process of democratisation or struggle for democracy is the principle NTST that has ruined the social and economic prosperity of Tonga on 16th November，2006. It is widely understood that the 16th November 2006 riot was initiated by the PDM. However，the youth also took an active role in aggravating the situation. As stated by Stephanie Lawson，“...a push for change toward democratisation may lead to violence”[29]. Encapsulated within this quotation is the crux of the problem in Tonga.
Origin and Development of the Pro-Democracy Movement
The Pro-Democracy Movement （PDM） was initiated in the 1970s by a loose association of students from the University of the South Pacific together with a few Government civil servants. Some of the controversial issues at the time included：“civil servants' salaries，irregularities in the conduct of elections，the number of seats in the Legislature available for Commoners and inequities in the land distribution systems”[30].
These are an interesting set of grievances. Implicitly，the first one is certainly one of personal gain and is related to civil servants being members of the PDM. The second one is a real issue in the sense that if elections are not viewed as fair then Tongan society will have problems. The issues of the number of seats in the Legislature and land distribution are especially pertinent in Tonga. How much representation should Commoners have？ In addition，how should a very precious and scarce resource （land） be distributed among society？
It wasn't until the 1990s that the label “PDM” was more formally referred to the members of the “Tonga Pro-Democracy Movement” （TPDM）[31]. This movement was founded in 1992 as a result of a national Convention held in the capital city （Nuku'alofa） to discuss constitutional alternatives and political systems for Tonga[32]. In 1998 the TPDM changed its name to “Tonga Human Rights and Democracy Movement”. This was the result of a decision by its members to expand its agenda to encompass “human rights.”The sole purpose of this name change was （and is） to attract international development and human rights agencies financial assistance. Despite the efforts and initiatives of the TPDM it was unsuccessfully operated. In 2005，after negotiation with government，the movement changed its name to “Friendly Islands Human Rights and Democracy Movement” （FIHRDM）. In April 2005，the organisation again disbanded due to a number of controversial issues confronting its members. One of these issues was the differences in opinion as to who would be the best candidate for the 2005 Legislative Assembly election[33]. As a result，the Deputy Chairperson and a few other members were expelled. The expelled group then formed the “Tonga Democratic Party” （TDP） which incorporated under the incorporated Societies Act later the same year[34].
Despite the lack of coordination among members of the movement for democracy and the newly established TDP，they all worked towards one goal. This was the political reform of Tonga. The agenda for this reform was based on a number of reasons. They wanted and still want more peoples' Representatives to make up the Government and for people to have more input into constitutional amendments and Government decision making. These amendments would give Commoners a greater share of the Monarch's constitutional powers by allowing them to elect thirty members of parliament from among whom the Monarch can then appoint his Prime Minister and Cabinet[35].
At the end of the public servant strike in September 2005 there emerged another loose organisation which combined with the members of the PDM. Members of this newly combined group included individuals from the people's Representatives to the Assembly，the clergy，teachers and the legal profession. Membership also included a number of people who felt personally aggrieved by some government policies. It also included a large group of aspiring politicians who had failed in numerous attempts to win a seat in the legislative assembly. It also included individuals who had lost a seat they once held and who saw the opportunity to stake early claims for seats in a reformed Parliament. This loose coalition formed what is now called the People's Committee for Political Reform （PCPR）. It was this PCPR that was responsible for the actions justified as part of the process of democratisation that resulted in the violence of 16 November 2006[36]. This was not the appropriate strategy to use.
It has long been the pride of the Tongan people to acknowledge political reform without violent conflict. This can be seen in the peaceful manner in which two of the landmark political reforms，thetau'ataina （emancipation edict） and the promulgation of the 1875 Constitution，were implemented by His Majesty King George Tupou I.
Response by the Sovereign and Government
The response to 16th November，2006 by the Government was the creation of the “National Committee for Political and Constitutional Reform” （NCPCR） on 12th October 2006. This was approved by the Legislative Assembly[37]. This response was not a consequence of the burning of the town on the 16th November 2006；rather it was a response plan to counteract the demands and petitions which had been made by the PDM. The purpose was for the committee to review the Constitution and to conduct discussions with the people of Tonga both at home and abroad. These discussions concerned not only political constitutional reforms and proposed laws but other changes as well to foster unity within the country. It was hoped this would，promote social and economic development for the people of Tonga. This process of discussion continues to be an important undertaking because it gives an opportunity to the people at home and abroad to contribute their views concerning the best formula to use to restructure the Constitution. The discussions provide a forum to identify and discuss what political reforms would take Tonga on the road to peace and prosperity in the next generation and generations to come. The NCPCR is comprised of a Minister chosen by the Prime Minister along with a Noble chosen from the representatives of the Nobles in the Legislative Assembly. There are also two members from the People's Representatives in the Legislative Assembly and four members chosen by the National Committee who are known in the Tongan communities and who are not public servants. It also includes four reserved members from the same categories[38].
The methodology used to implement discussions by the National Committee was the democratic traditional Tongan custom which is mentioned earlier as “Fofola e fala kae fai e talanga ”[39]. The National Committee conducted their meetings throughout the whole of Tonga. The meetings extended to and included the Tongan communities living in Fiji，New Zealand，Australia and the United States. The results of the report were to be submitted to His Majesty，together with the recommendations to the Legislative Assembly after a month from the last day of May，2006[40]. Moreover，the report was made public through Tonga TV and via the Internet[41].
As a result，of this reconciliation process，there were diverse views represented by groups like church leaders，village communities，outer islands；and overseas Tongan communities in Fiji，New Zealand，Australia and the United States of America. There were those who believed that the current system should be maintained and those who believed that a process of political and constitutional reform should be conducted so that the people chose all members of the Legislative Assembly. The King would then appoint the Prime Minister and Ministers from the members whom the people had elected into the Legislative Assembly. Simultaneously，there were people who believed that the “fale” （house） was still in excellent condition and that there was no need to tear down the whole fale if there was only one single tinned roof leaking. Fale is used here to refer to the Legislative Assembly or the whole structure of government[42]. There were some people who supported the basic proposal that the present Constitution and the structure of the Government remain but the Government needed to improve how it did things for the good of families，“kainga，” churches，communities and all islands of Tonga. In fact this latter view is of the majority of the Tongan people. The rationale for this view is the reflection by people of the political landmarks and reforms made by King George Tupou I. Despite the diversities of socio-political views，most importantly，the people understood through the fofola e fala kae fai e talanga that the ultimate goal was for unity and peace for the country.
The planned reform programme in accordance with the report of the NCPCR was to be conducted in four Phases and implemented in four different time periods：Phase One was implemented in 2006. The plan is to continue discussion and debate by members of the Legislative Assembly about the propositions within those chapters of the report. Phase Two is to be implemented in 2007. The purpose is to initiate the important and major task of implementing political，constitutional and economic principles based on the reforms of the members of the Legislative Assembly. Phase Three is to be implemented in 2008. Its purpose is to enact laws for reform. Phase Four is to be implemented in 2009 and the purpose in relation to the reform is for the work of the leaders of the Government，all the People and Nobles to travel on a road of unity for the good of the country[43]. The view expressed in this paper is that if the Government is given the time to continue with the plan in place，following up the Fofola e fala kae fai e talanga process，there is great hope that the political reforms demanded by the PDM will be achieved peacefully without further riots.
Democracy or Democratisation
Democracy and Its Origin
From the ancient Greeks，the term democracy means rule by thedemos （people） or in its simplest form a “government by the people.”The ancient Greeks were the first in the Western tradition to introduce an organised democratic political system during the 5th century BC. This political theory implies that there is a right for all citizens to decide in matters of general concern. This political philosophy was first practiced by the Athenian city-state where every citizen was directly involved in the decision making.
Democracy has，since its inception been a controversial political term especially in the contemporary literature. As Bole puts it is，“one of the maligned words in English language”[44]. It has become controversial because of the complexity of the modern state in terms of massive populations and diversity of political interests. The principle of democracy is used in different countries and contexts around the world with different meaning and purpose. In some countries the term “people and republic” is used to imply that they are democratic. For example：The People's Republic of China；The Republic of Cuba；etc.
From a Tongan perspective，the word democracy is interpreted in different ways in different countries. It is seen as a form of government that has no apparent root in culture. A political idea imposed on people and cultures that have had no experience with it[45]. Democracy as it is practised or understood in the West and imposed on people through the process of colonisation is a problem and alienating for the people of the place and disrespectful of their cultures.
Self determination is a precursor to democracy. In the Tongan context this cannot be imported as an ideology but can only be achieved through the existing cultural processes of Tongan culture and society.
From a Tongan perspective：
“One thing that we should always remember is that no-one else knows what is best for us other than ourselves. We all talk about democracy but we do not know what it looks like. It has a different shape and a different colour for different countries…Here it is different，people are just going about their daily lives，and when the breadfruit is in season they are very happy. I do not know what （you） would call that，carefree or what，but you can't talk to people like that about democracy”[46].
Democracy in its original form as ‘government by the people’ can never be directly controlled by the people in terms of decision making. Plato，a Greek Philosopher，contended that democracy can never be controlled directly by citizens because the governing of such a system is handed from experts to populist demagogues. In other words，what is called democracy today is government by the people indirectly，through elected representatives or is described as parliamentary democracy[47].
Why is Democratisation a Non Traditional Threat？
As quoted by Akilisi Pohiva，“...the death and destruction caused during the riots is a regrettable part of the process of democratic change that is now sweeping the country”[48]. Democratisation or the push for change toward democracy is one of the underlying themes predicted by the conservative side of politics in Tonga that may lead to violence[49]. That is exactly what happened on 16th November，2006. Differences in opinion among people had made it difficult for political reform overnight. The PDM contains a number of factions. There are the moderates who seek reform while supporting a stable transition. There are those who have spent years overseas and have returned with strong disagreement to the political reform. Most devastatingly，are those who are more militant，extremists，who are being influenced and inspired by other countries constitutional and political change like in Fiji. The PDM，its supporters and members are struggling for immediate change to the political system[50]. This can not just happen overnight. The decision by the Legislative Assembly to adjourn its meeting for a year in order to continue the dialogue about the best possible solution for a reform was a wise decision. This is because the Government owns a road map for political reform which has already been presented to the Legislative Assembly on 19th October，2006. As well as there is a National Committee for Political and Constitutional Reform （NCPCR） Report and Recommendations. The Prime Minister has established a communication touch base with the No.1 people's Representative，the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the People's Committee for Political Reform （PCPR） and Associate Members in the hope of allowing the political dialogue to continue in peace. Unfortunately，the People's No. 1 Representative falsely advised the people in their public meetings that the Government will not vote in favour of the NCPCR's Report and Recommendations，therefore they should come to Pangai Si'i （Rallying Point in the city area） on the day of the vote so as to intimidate the Legislative Assembly into voting in favour of the NCPCR's Report. Unfortunately，the transition process implemented by the PCPR for the political reform was not through dialogue but by force using a small number of people to spark the fire[51].
Agus Widjojo views democratisation as transition from an authoritarian regime into a democratic regime and these transitions largely defy generalisation[52]. This view contradicts the present author's paradigm of democratisation. Tonga is interpreted by the PDM and its supporters as an authoritarian regime. This is not a fair assumption because His Majesty，King George Tupou V and the Government have always supported the NCPCR[53]. The process of democratisation in Tonga will require patience and tolerance in order to find the best solution. In the context of Tonga the democratisation process involves consultation without which political progress would not be orderly. Consultation and dialogue have been an important traditional cultural concept for dialogue，fofola e fala kae fai e talanga in Tonga where the head of the family literally uses it as a method for problem solving. This method of fofola e fala kae fai e talanga is used widely in Tongan society[54].
Democracy in the Tongan Context
As a result of the PDM activities in Tonga during the last 15 years，Western democracy has been the most critical controversial discourse in almost every corner of Tongan society today. This section will argue that Western democracy is culturally inappropriate in the context of Tonga. This is due to the fact that Western democracy was just a myth to the native Tongans because the term democracy was hardly used or discussed in the Tongan society. This was despite the fact that Western democratic values had been written into the Constitution towards the end of the 19th century. Western democracy was not an issue of great importance to the Tongan people because they live and believe in their own socio-political system of ‘traditional’ Tonga or the chiefly system[55]. This political pattern is a well centralised，unitary political system presided over by a monarch. Also incorporated into the system are some major elements of traditional socio-political organisation[56].
Western democratic values such as freedom of speech and press，the right to vote，the rule of law and the structure of a responsible government was not that crucial to the socio-political survivability of the Tongan people. The Tongan people found contentment in living a simple life in the island by maintaining the concept of “Mo'ui fakatonga” which encompasses the importance of maintaining Tongan values within the context of the traditional socio-political system. These values had portrayed an image of Tongan to the outside world of stability，contentment，and durability. Every Tongan was proud of it and was proud to maintain their identity as the only remaining Kingdom in the entire Pacific islands[57]. In addition，the pride of the Tongan was one of the nationalistic views that the 1875 Constitutional arrangements were historically instrumental in securing. This has protected Tonga against foreign domination in the past and should therefore be defended as a matter of pride，gratitude，and loyalty in this present generation[58]. As claimed by the previous Monarch when he was Minister for Foreign Affairs and Defence：
“In Europe，monarchies have been retained in a constitutional framework. There it is worth remembering that popular liberties were won from the monarchy. In Tonga，it was the monarchy which granted the popular liberties，so it is seen by the Tongan people as a champion of their liberties and last defender of them”[59].Here，King George Tupou V refers to the giving of the emancipation to thetu'a and the slaves from the chiefs，by King George Tupou I in 1862. This is an element of democracy that Tongans are proud of. It is commonly referred to as the tau'ataina meaning the freedom of the tu'a and popula to be entitled to the fruits of their own labour. Prior to this，these two classes did not have any possessions whatsoever. They did not even have authority over their own children. A result of the 1862 emancipation edict was that equal status was given to the tu'a and the popula by granting them the liberties to own their own labour and the entitlement to kelekele （piece of land） and the fua e fonua （fruits of the land）.
The hierarchical socio-political system has been kept intact by the‘eiki/tu’a （chief/commoners’） relationship. Within Tongan society the King sits on top of the social pyramid. He exercises wide and presiding authority over all aspects of Tongan life and Government. According to the late King George Tupou IV，“this is the most effective system for Tonga because many people who are in the Government have very strong traditional ties in various parts of the country”[60]. The next class down is that of the hou'eiki （chiefs or nobles），followed by the kau matapule （talking chiefs or chief attendants）. Then the kau tu'a （commoners）. At the bottom of the social pyramid were the kau popula （slaves）. Since 1862，the kau popula does not exist. Each level has its own duties and responsibilities to each other. The relationship of reciprocity provides peace and prosperity to each level of the social classes. Traditionally，the fonua （land） belongs to the Royal Family. It is divided amongst the estate holders known as the Nobles. These estate holders have the discretion to give the 18 year old males upon application，in their kainga an eight and quarter acre piece of land. This piece of land would become hereditary in that family. In return，the kainga would harvest their first fruits and present it to the estate holders. The kainga and their estate holder，in return，would offer presentation of gifts in the form of food crops，mats and tapa to the Royal Family. These gifts would be presented in an appropriate celebration like a royal wedding or royal birthday of His Majesty. In addition，the estate holders were supposedly seen as the leader for their kainga，leading in village projects related to health，source of water and the social welfare of the people. For instance，the late King Taufa'ahau 1V held the Noble title of Tungi. His estates were Fua'amotu and Tatakamotonga village. The church buildings that belong to the Wesleyan churches in these two villages were the result of his maa'imoa （initiatives）. It was the King himself who initiated the negotiation with builders in Brisbane，Australia to come to Tonga and build these two church buildings. The buildings were styled after the steel made buildings in Brisbane that could withstand strong winds and cyclones[61].
In Tongan culture，the ‘eiki is perceived as the expert in politics，the most knowledgeable and the most skilled. In a conversation between an ‘eiki and atu'a，the tu'a would address the ‘eiki in such a way to show that he/she is the expert. A common address by commoners would be，“Koe ha pe ha'o me'a” （Whatever you say），implying that no matter how much knowledge the commoner has，the ‘eiki will always be the expert and addressed as such. This concept has been used by Wolfgramm Foliaki，who argued that the pedagogical practice which underpinned the interaction between parents and caregivers （experts） and their children （novice） during literacy activities is an impact of the hierarchical structure of Tongan society[62]. Wolfgramm Foliaki stressed the point that this kind of relationship originated from the socio-political hierarchical structure in Tongan society where the ‘eiki had been given a lot of faka'apa'apa by the tu'a. Latu also used the same concept of the‘eiki/tu’a relationship to explain the teacher and student interaction during literacy activities in a classroom setting during a guided reading session in her study of a Tongan Bilingual unit. The teacher is seen as the ‘eiki （expert） and the student is seen as the tu'a （novice）[63].
The concept of Fofola e fala kae fai e talanga is a democratic concept that has existed in the Tongan traditional socio-political system. It is one of those values instilled during the socialisation process where mothers，guardians，and the wider communities instruct their offspring and the youth within their communities. This is an important concept which was often applied when differences in opinion among members of the family，members of the church community，village community and even in the government institutions existed. This concept was used by NCPCR in order to find a workable solution for political reform. The committee believed that implementing this cultural value would facilitate political stability，peace and prosperity in Tongan society[64].
Tongan Cultural Values
Next follows an analysis of the cultural values which are embedded in the traditional socio-political system of Tonga. These have contributed to maintaining the stability of the hierarchical system and the Government for over two centuries in Tonga. These cultural values include fe'ofa'aki （mutual love and caring，generosity），faka'apa'apa （respect），feveitokai'aki or tauhi va （reciprocity，cooperation，consensus；maintenance of good relationships），mamahi'ime'a （loyalty，commitment），lototoo （humility），fetokoni'aki （sharing，fulfilment of mutual obligations） and fai fatongia （obligation，duty）.
Fe'ofa'aki is a value that exists between the relationship of the houe'iki （Royal Family and Chiefs） and the tu'a （Commoners）. For example，a Commoner has obligations to his Chief and the Chief to the Royal Family. He/She may offer his/her best harvest from his/her crops to his/her Chief. The Chief would reciprocate by offering a piece of land from his estate or whatever he deems necessary. The base word in fe'ofa'aki is ‘ofa which literally means love. Helu Thaman suggested that Tongans use ‘ofa as moral justification for behaviour[65]. Kavaliku describes ‘ofa as the central value to the whole life process of Tongan society. It is this social value that explains the social practice of the Tongans towards each other. Once an outsider understands ‘ofa in its complexity and the contribution it brings to the political，socio economic practices of Tongan people，the entirety of Tongan society is understood[66].
Faka'apa'apa is a feeling of deep admiration for someone based on ability or achievement. This value is widely practiced throughout the socialisation process starting within the family setting. Children give respect to parents，brothers give respect their sisters and vice versa. Tongans believe that when faka'apa'apa is practised correctly at home，respect will prevail in Tongan society. Thus，faka'apa'apa maintains cohesiveness between Commoners and Chiefs and Chiefs with Royal Families. As noted by Latukefu，when it is practised at its best，it provides a basis for a stable and relatively peaceful lifestyle between the Commoners and the Royal Family and in Tongan society.
The term fatongia （obligation） is shared and used equally among each level of the social classes. The Chiefs' obligation to the Commoners is to offer protection and jurisdiction to ensure the security of their lives and properties. On the other hand，the Commoners with their deep sense of fatongia，offered their Chiefs the first fruits of their crops and the best of everything they possessed. Truly， feveitokai'aki （reciprocity） created and maintained peace and order throughout Tongan society during the period of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries[67]. These values continue to be practiced in contemporary Tonga today. They are the means through which Tongan society and its inter-woven mat of relationships are protected and sustained. When these values are not well protected or sustained the woven mat of relationships will be broken and the whole system will become vulnerable and at risk.
Western Democracy in Tonga and Its Associated Values
“Modernisation and progress should be subservient to the continued vitality of Tongan tradition”[68].
The late Queen Salote Tupou Ⅲ
Western democracy was brought to Tonga by the Wesleyan missionaries during the first half of the 19th century. They came with the political views of Wesleyan Methodism in England at the time. The values associated with these political views include：loyalty to the Monarchy，Country and the Constitution. These values could thus be regarded as the basis of Tongan society's political views. During the course of their work in Tonga they deliberately insisted on the establishment of a central Monarchical authority，the creation of a Kingdom，and the establishment of Constitutional rule in the country[69]. During this period，the Westminster style of political institution was established in Tonga. A Prime Minister，Cabinet，Legislature，Judiciary and Electoral System，as well as a Declaration of Rights，were legalised in order to give the system legitimacy during this period of time. Since the establishment of this unitary centralised system，Tonga has enjoyed a long period of peace and prosperity over 100 years. This has surprised most outside observers[70].
However，the rise of the PDM over the last two decades has placed Western democracy and its values as a stumbling block to social and economic development. Reformers and radical parliamentarians have spent too much time criticising the Government，without making any contribution to improving the economy. Some Tongans at home and abroad are beginning to accuse some of the “radical parliamentarians” of the same greed for power and money of which they accuse the Government ministers[71]. Western style democracy in Tonga is premature because the obstacle to democracy is more permanent and institutionalised. The relationship between each other in terms of communal living or living by the ‘kainga’ in Tongan society is historically too strong[72]. Tongan culture and values can not be compromised or replaced with Western democratic values because the Government was not only founded historically on principles of democracy but on a chiefly system of rule and this has contemporary implications[73]. In addition，an important question is how the critics should approach and present their views to the Government. It is suggested that it be done using an appropriate cultural strategy such as fofola e fala kae fai e talanga.
Western democratic values such as equality，human rights，and popular sovereignty，were embedded in the Constitution of 1875，but they have not been that important to the Tongans. Their culture and tradition were more important than Western perceptions and values. There was a fear that the Western perception of development would ruin Tongan culture. Fiji's former Prime Minister，Laisenia Qarase said，“Western democracy and some of its associated values are a problem，arguing that island states were finding it difficult to preserve their cultures”[74]. It suffices to say that some Western democratic values are culturally inappropriate in the context of Tonga because it is difficult to transplant Western democratic institutions to non-Western polities such as Tonga. This reflects the view，noted by Davidson，that “South Pacific Islanders tend to view Western democracy as culturally laden”[75]. At the heart of the political problems，there lies a conflict between democratic values and cultural values. This raises an ideological dilemma：should Western democracy override culture or culture override Western democracy. There is a conflict between these two systems of value which can only be resolved by compromise. The challenges faced by Tonga lie at the changing，conflicting meeting point of Western and Tongan cultures and values.
Hybrid Democracy
For the purpose of this section，hybrid democracy is the merging of the Westminster model brought by the Wesleyan missionaries and the traditional political system. In merging the two models one could be able to record the inconsistencies of the Western democratic system in the Tongan context.
As mentioned elsewhere in this paper，this section argues that Western democracy and its associated values are culturally inappropriate in the Tongan context. As an example，take the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities embodied in the Western democratic concepts of “egalitarianism and social justice.”These are traditionally difficult to practice in the Tongan context because of its social hierarchical system. The social hierarchical system is at the core of leadership in the political and social systems of Tonga. Culturally this has fitted well with the experiences of the Tongan people. There is this anti-equality ethic portrayed in a form of Tongan proverb：‘Oua ‘e tangi ke tatau，na’a ‘ita ‘a Taufa'ahau （Do not aspire to be equal lest Tauafa'ahau be angered）[76]. Taufa'ahau is the traditional hereditary title of the present dynasty. To this end，it draws its strength and cohesiveness from a well defined hierarchy of social groups and subgroups with clearly specified roles. The roles have their roots in history and tradition. For example，tauhi ‘eiki （paying homage and allegiance） is a particular role played by the commoners towards their chiefs[77]. The chiefs will reciprocate. Reciprocity is one of the core values shared by the chiefs and groupings of people in the various communities. The relationship of groups and subgroups are governed by adherence to recognised codes of protocol and customs. For example faka'apa'apa （respect），fatongia （obligation），and lototoo （humility，generosity）. The underlying strength of this social cohesiveness is that each group is related to each other through kainga and ha'a.[78]
An attempt will now be made to analyse some of the inconsistencies of Western democracy in Tonga as opposed to the current political system which is based on the Westminster style of government seen in Tonga today. It includes only those characteristics so far as Tongan experience reveals. This includes the Constitutional Monarchy，Prime Minister，Cabinet，Legislature，Judiciary and Electoral System. The underlying feature in this political structure is that the Sovereignty of the Monarch is declared in terms of the absolute authority to govern Tonga and its people. An important aspect of this authority is the Monarch's power over the Prime Minister and Ministers who are responsible to the Monarch for administering the Government. The Monarch may dismiss and appoint the Prime Minister and Ministers at any time[79]. This political structure has been proven culturally appropriate for Tonga over a century. The fundamental reason for this is that the traditional political system was structured that way by the Wesleyan missionaries. The Tongan traditional cultural values were taken into account together with the theories and practice of Western democracy. This was because Tongan culture as in any other islands of the South Pacific is indigenous and democracy was imported[80]. Western democracy can not in itself work alone in the context of Tonga until some elements of the Tongan traditional socio-political system are combined with that of the West. Helu，suggested that an “eclectic system would be the ideal model for Pacific island countries，one that combines the strength of ancient and modern theories and takes into account the geographical and socioeconomic circumstances of island communities”[81]. This issue has become widely controversial at home and abroad even in the eyes of the palangi people （white people）.
In analysing some of the biggest democracies of the world like India，the equality of people is thwarted by an extensive caste system and by religious divisions. ‘Eseta Fusitu’a claimed that the “Westminster model in India makes no provision for the multiple religions there，so the model remains but the society suffers”[82].“In one of the most democratic and freest countries in the world，the United States of America，the two top executives，the President and the Vice-President，are still elected by electoral colleges，not by popular vote. In New Zealand，one of the freest countries in the Southern hemisphere，the Maoris still have separate voting provisions in that country's electoral and franchise system”[83].
In Western Samoa，the constitution stipulated only Samoan matai （chiefs） could vote and only matai could be candidates. The former Prime Minister （Tofilau Eti） perceived to be the leader of the Human Rights Protectionist Party （HRPP） tried to change the qualification of the voter by giving the right to vote to everyone over 21 years not including the right to stand for election into Parliament. This is not entirely Westminster but reflects Samoa[84]. In Tonga，the Constitution stipulated that the Monarch will select the Prime Minister and Ministers，the Nobles will select nine Nobles' representatives and the people will select nine people's Representatives.. It is also not entirely Westminster but that is the way it is presently practised in Tonga. This is because the nine Noble's representatives are not only representing the 33 Nobles of the whole of Tonga but they also represent their own commoners in their own estates. In reality，the nine People's Representatives and nine Noble's representatives are representing the People. What is best for the country and its culture should prevail. What is best for Tonga is its concept of Mo'ui fakatonga.
Finally，it is important to understand the extent to which there is a marriage between the Mo'ui fakatonga and democracy，and whether that marriage will last. There is a need first to understand the cultural values of the Mo'ui fakatonga. “Fakatonga，means the Tongan way，referring to both the holistic process and outcome of being an authentic Tongan”[85]. Latu refers to this as being Tongan，which means practising a Tongan way of life or Mo'ui fakatonga. Helu Thaman also refers to Fakatonga as conforming to the Tongan way meaning the Tongan culture[86]. The concept of “Mo'ui fakatonga” encompasses the importance of maintaining Tongan values within the context of the Western democracy in Tonga. The democratic value such as “freedom of speech” contradicts the concept of ‘Ulungaanga Fakatonga which means the ways Tongans behave. This is a common phenomenon derived from a shared understanding that each group in Tongan society has a certain way of behaving. For instance，Tongan children are not expected to initiate a discussion or join in the conversation of adults. They are raised to believe that in order to show respect to authority a person will only speak when spoken to. This is behaviour rooted in the social hierarchical structure of Tonga[87]. Unbelievably，“silence” is to demonstrate the respect the commoners （tu'a） has for the chiefs （‘eiki）. It is regarded as unruly behaviour for a commoner to talk to or initiate a conversation with a chiefly person. The belief is，the ‘eiki is sacred. This explains why the Royal Family and paramount Chiefs have a matapule to talk to the tu'a who also has a spokesperson to talk on his/her behalf[88].
Legacy of 16th November 2006
Events Leading to the Riot
This paper now addresses the issue of misinformation about Tonga being transmitted around the Tongan communities by the PDM and its associates. The PDM had utilised Kele'a news paper and OBN TV，（an arm of the PDM），in order to release false information about the Government and its intended political reform. As Dr.Crayson Kirk contended，“When the press，radio and motion pictures are united in repeating lies，as communist communications were used to spread the lie of germ warfare in Korea，captive audiences like those in the Soviet Sector of Vienna，have no opportunity to learn the truth”[89].
The reality is that the Sevele Government has introduced new governance measures to Tonga in an effort to cease corruption. The Government's commitment to political reform has been in progress with the support of the His Majesty King George Tupou V[90]. Despite the difficulties expressed in differences of opinion and views，the Government preferred that reform should be carefully and wisely implemented. Oddly enough，the PDM news media and its associates blindfolded the people by false information that the Government would not vote in favour of the NCPCR's recommendations. They suggested that people should come to the rallying point （Pangai Si'i） on the day of the vote so as to intimidate the Legislative Assembly into voting in favour of the NCPCR's recommendations[91]. The Government's opinion was that the NCPCR's recommendations should not be voted given the disparity in numbers of the House. The Government proposed that a Tripartite Committee of the Assembly be set up. This committee consists of three Representatives from each of the tables，the Cabinet，the Nobles and the people's Representatives. They are to continue the dialogue and seek a consensus on the best formula for a restructured Legislative Assembly and reformed Constitution[92].
Furthermore，after the incident of 16th November，2006 a regional journalist had published false information that the government of Tonga had singled out the Kele'a newspaper and OBN TV because of their pro-democracy stance. The Manager of OBN TV publicly announced that the government was trying to shut down the television station. The truth was that OBN TV could not afford to continue. In addition OBN TV had been asked by the landlord of the property it was using to vacate more than a year before the November 16th riot[93]. The landlord was never paid for the station's use of the property. The march to protest the Legislative Assembly on November 16th was organised by the manager and his associates. The Editor of the Kele'a newspaper protested that his newspaper was being persecuted. He was in fact asked to stop work because of the Kingdom's Sunday law[94].
The Actual Events
A proper analysis of the actual events of the 16th November 2006 would bring to the surface the reality of the violent acts by the PDM who caused the looting and destruction to the capital city （Nuku'alofa）. The event was an attempted coup d'etat. Samuel Huntington divided coup into three types namely：“breakthrough；guardian and veto coup.”The most recent example of the “guardian coup” was that which occurred in Thailand on 19th September，2006 where the military suspended the Parliament and declared the creation of a Council of Democratic Reform （CDR）[95]. Similarly，the attempted coup in Tonga on 16th November was a failed breakthrough coup where the security forces take over to quell rebellion. The PDM and the seven people's Representatives had portrayed a coup mode on the 16th November where they were hoping for the Government to resign in force. Their intent was to call on the King to dissolve Parliament and appoint an interim administration comprising the heads of Government departments pending fully democratic election. Their intentions were clearly indicated by their behaviour at the Prime Minister's office where they were pressuring for a Memorandum of Understanding （MOU）. Their “victory speeches” on radio Tonga on the eve of the destruction are also conclusive evidence of their “coup plan”[96].
The PDM and their associates claimed that the death and destruction caused during the riots was the result of frustration among the people of Tonga because Government had stalled the reform process. Absolutely，there was no evidence of Government stalling the reform process. In fact，Government was very involved infofola e fala kae fai e talanga，and thus advancing the reform process from the King，Prime Minister，and Cabinet[97]. In January 2005 the Crown Prince Tupouto'a （now King Tupou V） had indicated that in future apart from the Prime Minister，all Cabinet Ministers would be selected from the winning parliamentary seats. Simultaneously，the appointment of two elected Nobles and two elected Commoners for three year terms rather then life terms demonstrated a commitment to the reform policy[98]. In addition，Government should publicise most of its performance for better awareness of its citizens. These reforms are eminently reasonable and a significant step forward.
It is also important to look at the claim by the PDM and the seven people's representatives who led the PCPR that they were simply trying to carry out “the wishes of the people.”It can be verified by various sources that among the 2000 people who had gathered in Pangai Si'i （the rallying point at a park near Parliament House），about half were curious observers. Those who looted，smashed and burned buildings were mostly young people who could not have been there “as the voice of the people.”Some of them were intoxicated，some rascals. Most of them were beggars[99]. It is more than likely the core crowd in the park was not generally representative of the ordinary people.
The Aftermath
The aftermath of the 16th November 2006，has placed Tonga in the arc of instability in the Pacific Islands. In defining the arc of instability，the strategic thinker Paul Dibb sated，“the arc extended from Indonesia to Papua New Guinea and into the South Pacific”[100]. The looting and destruction of the capital city of Tonga on the 16th Nov 2006 resulted in 8 victims. A State of Emergency was declared in order for the Armed Forces to secure the capital city and other Government vital installations. State of Emergency gives the right to the Armed Forces to stop and search people without a warrant. Under the same State of Emergency Law，a gathering of more than five persons is illegal. Most of the businesses and services were relocated to the suburbs to allow the Armed Forces to cordon off the whole city. The arrival of the contingent from Australia and New Zealand helped relieve the exhausted Tongan soldiers. There were 110 soldiers and ten police officers sent to assist the Tonga Defence Services and the Tonga Police Force. A joint investigative operation of the Australian Federal Police，New Zealand Police and Tonga Police，codenamed Operation Kaliloa，was conducted and the result was 571 people were arrested[101].
The aftermath has resulted in hundreds of people losing their jobs and incomes. This means that their standard of living is lower. At the same time the Government can no longer collect income taxes from individuals who have lost their jobs. Large companies can no longer pay any kind of taxes such as consumption tax，income tax，or port taxes. This implies that the Government will have to cope with a below standard Public Service or no Public Service at all in the next few years[102].
According to the survey of the Ministry of Labour，Commerce and Industries released in the first week of December，2006，the damage to businesses in Tonga as a result of the violence of 16 November amounts to nearly T$123.5 million，with 153 businesses affected and 697 jobs lost. The cost of damages to stock on shelves amounted to T$23187384. The total cost of damage to buildings was T$38230.357. The total cost of damage inventories T$26674741.The total estimated trading losses T$17740550. These losses were calculated as per November 16th 2006. There were other costs estimated at T$6109042 which included losses to business that have not been included in these figures. There was also damage to personal property and the vehicles of residence owners[103].
As a result of economic depression caused by this event，the demand for 60%～80% pay increases that were agreed to in 2005 by the strikers will mean that the Government will have to design a redundancy programme for its Civil Servants in order to continue with these salary increases. Either this or reductions in the rate of salary will have to be implemented[104]. Effects have taken place already and there is now an outflow of skilled migrants from Tonga to New Zealand，Australia and the United States. Furthermore，the aftermath affected education programmes and has resulted in the closing down of Government primary and secondary schools due to lack of teachers as most teachers stood against the Government.
Implications for Security in Tonga
It is important that the general public is aware of the fact that Tonga in yesteryears is no longer the same today. The peace and stability enjoyed over centuries ago can not be treasured again today. This generation has brought many security challenges such as the increasing influence of the drugs in the young generation. This will require every citizen to take security precaution in relation to their lives and properties. The Government will have to ensure that its resources are well protected especially vital installations such as the Government Telecommunications Network，Oil Depot，TV station，Royal Palace，Banks and Office of the Prime Minister.
A reform programme for the Tonga Police Force must be considered. The failure of the Tonga Police Force to act on 16th November 2006 has drawn the attention of the Public and the Government to question the status of their professionalism. According to the Political Adviser of the Prime Minister，the Police Force did not have any plan at all and did not anticipate the situation. The Deputy Commander of the Police Force informed the National Security Sub-Committee that the level of threat was low and that there was nothing to be concerned about. Shortly afterwards the Prime Minister's office was stoned as part of the riot[105]. The failure of the Tonga Police Force in its assessment of the situation left the situation unattended by any security forces. This was despite the fact that there was Police present，however they seemed to be acting as observers.
The short falls of the Police Force identified through this event will pave the way ahead for its reorganisation into a more professional organisation. Such a reform program will need to include in its reform package；logistics planning，equipment skill，training in internal security and the use of non lethal weapons. Most importantly，the level of preparedness and readiness are critical in maintaining support to the Tongan public.
The 16th November，2006 has brought many lessons. Not only does it give an opportunity to the Police Force to be able to carry out necessary reforms in every level of its organisation but it creates a sense of cohesiveness and cooperation between the Tonga Defence Services （TDS） and the Police Force.
The realisation of the importance of the functions of the TDS was first recognised in the aftermath of the 16th of November 2006. Prior to this security had not been a concern to the Government and the Public because Tonga had been politically and economically stable for over a century. Although the functions of the TDS are enacted in the TDS Act 1992 and Regulations，they were not recognised. The TDS' functions and duties are：“the defence of the Kingdom；the aid of the civil authorities in the maintenance of order in the Kingdom；the support of the civil authorities；and those other functions and duties that His Majesty may from time to time determine.”[106] These functions were considered by some members of the Parliament especially the No. 1 people's Representative and leader of the PDM as inappropriate because there is no current external threat to Tonga. Oddly enough，this argument has always been brought up by the PDM. There have been some motions in the Legislative Assembly for so many years for the TDS to be disbanded so that their budget could be utilised for some other Government activities.
The destruction and looting of the capital city on 16 November，2006 was the first time for the Public to realise how important security can be in any society. This is the first time for the Public and the Government to recognise the importance of the TDS as an instrument of national power. Without the Tonga Defence Services the capital city Nuku'alofa would have been completely destroyed. John Bailey of Georgetown University defines NTST as “originating from a variety of non-state human and natural causes and they can affect both government institutions and civilian populations”[107]. The events of November 16th in Tonga were the result of ‘non-state’ human causes by the PDM and perpetrators.
The recognition of security interests of individual human beings is of paramount importance because human security in Tonga has been threatened in recent years by the PDM. Ramesh Thakur referred to human security as ‘the protection of people from critical and life-threatening dangers，regardless of whether the threats are rooted in anthropogenic activities or natural events'[108]. Recognising this security need the government approved the TDS' force expansion for the next 5 years so that its strength is increased to 1500 strong. [109]
Conclusion
Western democracy and its associate values are culturally inappropriate in the context of Tongan society. This is due to its traditional socio-political system and its important core cultural values instilled in the Tongan socialisation process. Western democracy is a form of government that for Tongans is culturally rootless. Due to its recent origin in the practice of modern states and its lack of roots，Western democracy is accepted in Tongan society by degrees only in its original form of the Westminster model.
The process of democratisation the PDM is trying to implement is not suitable for Tonga. The current political system is identified for the purpose of this paper as a hybrid democracy. The hybrid democracy Tonga is currently using is a legacy of the merge of the Westminster model brought by the Wesleyan missionaries and the traditional political system existent prior to the missionaries. This system is embedded in the provisions of the 1875 Constitution. However，in practice，the Rights and Freedoms stated in the 1875 Constitution have not been fully utilized by the people of Tonga. This is due to the inappropriateness of Western democraticvalues to the lives of a people who have been socialized into their own cultural values like faka'apa'apa，‘ofa，mamahi’ime'a，lototo and fetokoni'aki. These cultural values underpin the socialization process of all Tongans and are embodied in the concept of Mo'ui Fakatonga.
Tongan cultural values owe their strength to the fact that the Royal Family，Chiefs and the People are indivisible. This indivisibility derives from the tight interwoven mat of relationships amongst them. This interwoven mat of relationships does and will keep Tonga intact through maintaining its cultural identity.
The concept of democratisation and its processes are not suitable for Tonga. The major challenge to the short and long term security for Tonga arises from the process of democratisation implemented by the PDM. This requires immediate attention for the safety of the general public today and tomorrow.
The deaths and the destruction of the capital city as a result of 16th November，2006 have led to the realisation by the general Public and the Government of the importance of security and the security forces in the Kingdom of Tonga. The major security threats to Tonga will remain non traditional either by natural or human causes. Human causes will remain a priority for Tonga today. This analysis should be viewed meaningfully by Tongans who live and work in Tonga.
Glossary of Terms
Ako：to learn，learning process
Akonaki：to specifically communicate moral instructions usually by adults to children
‘eiki ：chiefly，chief
fakatonga：providing something in the Tongan way
faka'apa'apa：respect
fatongia：an obligation
fetokoni'aki：sharing，fulfilment of mutual obligation
feveitokai'aki：reciprocity
fe'ofa'aki：mutual；love and caring，generosity
fofola e fala kae fai e talanga：spreading the mat so that people can talk
fua e fonua：fruits of the land
ha'a：clan
hau：temporal ruler，office of the warrior in ancient Tonga now used for the Tu'i Kanokupolu dynasty
hou'eiki：chiefs
‘inasi ceremony：an annual ceremony during the reign of the Tu'i Tonga at the peak of the Tongan Empire whereby colonies of Tonga and the outer islands come to present their tribute to the Tu'i Tonga dynasty，the representative of Hikule'o，God of Harvest
kainga：people who live in the same community or village and not necessarily related by blood
kau popula：slaves，usually captives in wars
kau palangi：white people
kelekele：land
lotu：religion，to worship
lototoo：humility
matapule：orator or spokeperson
mamahi'ime'a：loyalty，commitment
mo'ui fakatonga：living in the Tongan way
‘ofa：love，compassion
‘ofa fonua：love the country，patriotism
popula：slaves
ulungaanga fakatonga：a behaviour peculiar to only the Tongan people
tau'ataina：freedom
tu'a：commoners
[1]西亚梅利耶·拉图，上校军衔，曾任汤加国防军副司令，汤加国防军陆军司令，汤加王国驻华大使，汤加外交部副部长，2018年当选宗教部部长。
[2]Peter King，Redefining South Pacific Security in The South Pacific Problems，Issues，and Prospects，Ramesh Thakur （ed.），Macmillan，UK，1991，p.63
[3]Pacific Island Resort，Tonga's Democracy Movement Slams outside Intervention， Pacific Islands Development Program/East-West Centre，With Support from Centre for Pacific Islands Studies/University of Hawaii. ‘Akilisi Pohiva is an extremist and leader of the pro-democracy movement and No.1 People's Representative to the Legislative Assembly.
[4]I.C. Campbell，“Rock of Ages：Tension underlying Stability in Tonga” in Australia's Arc of Instability：The Political and Cultural Dynamics of Regional Security， Dennis Rumley，Vivian Louis Forbes and Christopher Griffin （eds） Springer，2006，p.274.
[5]Sione Latukefu，Church and State in Tonga，Australian National University Press，Canberra，1974，p.28.
[6]Ibid.，p.2. The term hau means high chief or king and is similar to the Fijian terms sau.
[7]Ibid.，p.85.
[8]Stephanie Lawson，Tradition Versus Democracy in the South Pacific，Fiji，Tonga and Western Samoa， Cambridge University Press，Hong Kong，1996. pp.83-84.
[9]Sione Latukefu，op cit.，p.4.
[10]Ibid.，pp.9-10.
[11]Also found in the Tonga Legislative Assembly website，Brief history of the Kingdom of Tonga.Http：//parliament.gov.to/new_page_3.htm（Accessed 12 July 2007）.
[12]Sione Latukefu，op cit.，p. 85.
[13]Ibid.，p. 173. The Emancipation Edict of 1862 ended serfdom in Tonga by declaring that common people no longer had to surrender their labour or possessions upon demand to people of chiefly rank.
[14]The information can be found in the Tonga Parliament website，which was the latest information about the political structure of the government.http：//parliament.gov.to/ministers1.htm（Accessed 12 July 2007）.
[15]Steve Hoadley，The South Pacific Foreign Affairs Handbook，Allen ＆ Unwin，in association with the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs，NSW，Australia. 1992，p.190.
[16]Ibid.，p.253.
[17]The last amendment to clause 4 was in 1976. It is found in the Tonga Legislative Assembly website，The Constitution of Tonga （Revised Edition 1988）.http：//parliament.gov.to/constitution 1.htm（Accessed 13 July 2007）.
[18]The Royal family-currently used to refer to the descendants of the late King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV and his brother late Prince Fatafehi Tu'ipelehake. They were the only two children of the late Queen Salote Tupou Ⅲ.
[19]Stephanie Lawson，op cit.，pp.79-81.
[20]‘I，Futa Helu，‘Thoughts on Political Systems for the Pacific Islands，’ in New Politics in the South Pacific，Werner vom Busch （et al.，eds），Institute of Pacific Studies，University of the South Pacific，1994，p. 325.
[21]Sione Latukefu，op cit.，pp.83-86.
[22]Vijay Naidu，‘The Oxymoron of Security Forces in Island States，’ in Security in Oceania in the 21st Century， Eric Shibuya and Jim Rolfe （eds），Asia Pacific Centre for Security Studies，Honolulu，Hawaii，2003，p.25.
[23]Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi，‘Keynote Address-Governance in Fiji：The interplay between indigenous tradition，culture and politics，’ in Globalisation and Governance in the Pacific Islands，Stewart Firth （ed），ANU E Press，Australian National University，Canberra，Australia 2006，p.291.
[24]Stephanie Lawson，Tradition Versus Democracy in the South Pacific，Fiji，Tonga and Western Samoa，Cambridge University Press，UK 1996，p.151.
[25]Trevor H.B. Sofield，‘Solomon Islands：Unity in Diversity-The end of Dream？’ in Australia's Arc of Instability，The Political and Cultural Dynamics of Regional Security， Dennis Rumley，Vivian Louis Forbes and Christopher Griffin （eds），Springer，Netherlands，2006，p.177.
[26]Ben Scott，Re-Imagining PNG，Culture，Democracy and Australia's Role，Lowy Institute for International Policy，2005，p.33.
[27]Agus Widjojo，Democracy，National Security and Foreign Policy，A paper presented in NDU/PACOM Symposium，“Asia-Pacific Democracies：Advancing Prosperity and Security in Honolulu”，Hawaii on June 8，2005.http：//www.ndu.edu/inss/symposia/Pacific2005/widjojo.pdf（accessed 4 June 2007）.
[28]Thomas Pogge，Achieving Democracy，Ethic and International Affairs，Vol. 15 No.1 p.3.
[29]Stephanie Lawson，op cit.，p.108.
[30]Ibid.，p.101.
[31]For a full history of the development and membership of the PDM see the Tongan Government website.Http：//www.pmo.gov.to/artman/publish/printer_257.shtml（Accessed 11 July 2007）.
[32]Report on the Convention on Constitution and Democracy in Tonga，November 24-27，1992. HRDM website.http：//www.planet-tonga.com/HRDMT/Articles/Convention_92/Convention_92.shtml（Accessed 16 July 2007）.
[33]Lopeti Senituli，（Press Secretary/Political Adviser to the Prime Minister），The Attempted Coup of 16 November 2006：p.1 Http：//www.pmo.gov.to/artman/publish/printer_257.shtml （accessed 15 January 2007）.
[34]Ibid..
[35]James Kerry，Tonga's pro-Democracy Movement，Pacific Affairs，Vancouver，Summer 1994，Vol.67，Iss，2；p.3，Http：//proquest.umi.com/pqdweb？did=6161771＆sid=9＆Fmt=3＆clientld=43274＆RQT=309＆VName=PQD（Accessed 15 January，2007）.
[36]Lopeti Senituli，op cit.，p.3.
[37]Report of the National Committee of the Kingdom of Tonga for Political and Constitutional Reform （NCPCR） 31st August，2006. p. 15，http：//www.tonga-now.to/Resource.aspx？ID=4506. （Accessed 9 April 2007）.
[38]Ibid..
[39]Fofola e fala is used as a tool of reconciliation particularly between two or more groups who are encountering very difficult issues and finding them hard to resolve. It is in using this strategy of reconciliation that parties are expected to open up and unravel whatever it is that causes their grievances.
[40]NCPCR Report，op cit.，p. 19.
[41]The author and the general public observed the reading of the report by the Chairperson of the NCPCR （Dr. Halapua） to the Legislative Assembly whilst in session through a special programme broadcast by TV Tonga. The report is also available on the Tonga now website.Http：//www.tonga-now，to/Resource.aspx？ID=4506 （Accessed 22 June 2007）.
[42]NCPCR Report，op cit.，pp. 40-43.
[43]Ibid.，pp. 145-150.
[44]Filipe N. Bole，‘Fiji's Chiefly System and its Pattern of Political Self-reliance，’ in Culture ＆ Democracy in the South Pacific，Ron Crocombe，Uentabo Neemia，Asesela Ravuvu and Werner Vom Bush （eds），Institute of Pacific Studies，University of the South Pacific，1992，p.68.
[45]Ibid.，p.69.
[46]This is the views of Prince Fatafehi Tu'ipelehake，younger brother of the king and prime minister of Tonga for over 25 years until his retirement in 1991. Responding to a question on whether he supported the theory that cabinet would be stronger if its members were elected by the people，the Prince indicated his opposition to the idea. This is found in Stephanie Lawson，op cit.，p.112.
[47]Uentabo Neemia，“Decolonisation and Democracy in the South Pacific，” in Culture ＆ Democracy in the South Pacific， Ron Crocombe，Uentabo Neemia，Asesela Ravuvu，and Werner Vom Busch （eds），Institute of Pacific Studies，University of the South Pacific，1992，p.4.
[48]Pacific Island Resort，Tonga's Democracy Movement Slams Outside Intervention， Pacific Islands Development Program/East-West Centre，With Support from Centre for Pacific Islands Studies/University of Hawaii. ‘Akilisi Pohiva is an Extremist and a leader of the pro-democracy movement and No.1 People's Representative to the Legislative Assembly. http：//pidp.eastwestcentre.org/pireport/2006/November/11-20-04.htm （Accessed 9 July 2007）.
[49]Stephanie Lawson，op.cit.p.107.
[50]Selwyn Manning，Tonga Faces Crossroad，Scoop on Assignment，Thursday 23 November 2006.http：//www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0611/S00412.htm （Accessed 9 July 2007）.
[51]International Press Institute Website：Tonga，http：//freemedia.at/cms/ipi/freedom_detail.html？country=/KW0001/KW0007/K... （Accessed 9 July 2007）.
[52]Agus Widjojo，Democracy，National Security and Foreign Policy，A paper presented in NDU/PACOM Symposium：Asia Pacific Democracies：Advancing Prosperity and Security in Honolulu，Hawaii on June 8，2005，p.2.http：//www.ndu.edu/inss/symposia/Pacific2005/widjojo.pdf（Accessed 25 May，2007）.
[53]Lopeti Senituli，op. cit.，7.
[54]NCPCR Report，op. cit.，p. 17.http：//www.tonga-now.to/Resource.aspx？ID=4506. （Accessed 9 April 2007）.
[55]Stephanie Lawson，op cit.，pp. 80-81.
[56]I.C. Campbell，op. cit.，p. 276.
[57]Stephanie Lawson，op. cit.，pp.79-87.
[58]Ibid.，p.81.
[59]James Kerry E，Social conditions ＆ trends，History，Grass roots movement，Democracy：Tonga's Pro-Democracy Movement，Pacific Affairs，Vancouver，Summer 1994，Vol.67，Iss. 2，p.242，http：//proquest.umi.com/pqdweb？did=6161771＆sid=9＆Fmt=3＆clientld=43274＆RQT=309＆Vname=PQD （Accessed 15 January，2007）.
[60]Jeremy Carew-Reid，Op cit.，p.16.
[61]The village of Tatakamotonga is the author's home town. The author also had the opportunity to eyewitness these projects initiated by the late His Majesty King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV in his estates，Tatakamotonga and Fua'amotu.
[62]Foliaki Wolfgramm，Koe hala Kuo papa，Pathways and Sites for Literacy Development in Tongan Families， PhD Thesis，The University of Auckland，2006.
[63]Sesilia M. Latu，op. cit.，p. 103.
[64]NCPCR Report，op. cit.，p. 17.http：//www.tonga-now.to/Resource.aspx？ID=4506. （Accessed 9 April 2007）.
[65]Konaiholeva Helu Thaman，Ako and Faiako：Educational concepts，cultural values and teacher role perceptions in Tonga. PhD Thesis，University of the South Pacific，Palmerston North，Manawatu Microfilm Services，1988. in A Case Study of a Tongan Bilingual Unit by Sesilia M. Latu，University of Auckland，2006，p.110.
[66]Senipisi Langi Kavaliku，An analysis of ‘Ofa in Tongan society an empirical approach. BAHons Thesis，Harvard University，1961 in A Case Study of a Tongan Bilingual Unit by Sesilia M. Latu，University of Auckland，2006，pp.110-111.
[67]Sione Latukefu，op cit.，pp. 9-10.
[68]Ian Campbell，‘The Emergence of Parliamentary Politics in Tonga，Pacific Studies，’ University of Canterbury，Vol. 15 No. 1，1992，p.79 http：//patriot.lib.byu.edu/PacificStudies/image/4829161932003_102537.pdf（Accessed 13 July 2007）.
[69]The rest of this paragraph is found in Sione Latukefu，op cit.，pp.83-84.
[70]I.C. Campbell，“Rock of Ages：‘Tension Underlying Stability in Tonga，” in Australia's Arc of Instability：The Political and Cultural Dynamics of Regional Security， Dennis Rumley，Vivian Louis Forbes and Christopher Griffin（eds.），Springer，Netherlands，2006，pp.276-277.
[71]James Kerry E，Tonga's Pro-Democracy Movement，Pacific Affairs，Vancouver，Summer 1994，Vol.67，Iss 2，p.9 http：//proquest.umi.com/pqdweb？did=616177＆sid=9＆Fmt=3＆clientld=43274＆ROT=309＆VName=PQD（Accessed 15 January，2007）.
[72]‘I.F.Helu，‘Democracy Bug Bites Tonga，’ in Culture ＆ Democracy in the South Pacific，Ron Crocombe，Uentabo Neemia，Asesela Ravuvu and Werner Vom Busch （eds），Institute of Pacific Studies，University of the South Pacific，1992，pp. 139-140.
[73]Stephanie Lawson，“Perspective on the Contemporary Agenda，” in Security in Oceania in the 21st Century， Eric Shibuya and Jim Rolfe （eds） Asia Pacific Centre for Security Studies，Hawaii，2003，p. 9.
[74]Stephanie Lawson，op cit.，p. 9.
[75]Ibid.，p.27.
[76]‘I.F. Helu，‘Democracy Bug Bites Tonga，’ in Culture ＆ Democracy in the South Pacific，Ron Crocombe （et al），Institute of Pacific Studies，University of the South Pacific，p.140.
[77]Stephanie Lawson，op.cit.，p.83.
[78]Sione Latukefu，op.cit.，9.
[79]This is found on the Tongan Constitution of 1875 Part 1，Declaration of Rights，Clause 17，31，41，and the Church and State in Tonga，Sione Latukefu，Australian National University Press，Canberra 1974，pp. 252-265.
[80]Tony Deklin，‘Culture and Democracy in Papua New Guinea：Marit Tru or Giaman Marit？’，in Culture ＆ Democracy in the South Pacific，Ron Crocombe （et al ），Institute of Pacific Studies，University of the South Pacific，1992，p.36.
[81]‘I.F.Helu，op.cit.，p.324.
[82]Stephanie Lawson，op.cit.，p. 111.
[83]Tony Deklin，op.cit.，p.69.
[84]Aiono Dr. Fanaafi Le Tangaloa，‘The Samoan Culture and Government，’ in Culture ＆ Democracy in the South Pacific，Ron Crocombe，Uentabo Neemia，Asesela Ravuvu ＆ Werner Von Busch，（eds），Institute of Pacific Studies，University of the South Pacific，1992，pp.130-131.
[85]Sesilia Monalisa Latu，A case study of a Tongan Bilingual Unit，A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirement for the Degree of Masters of education，University of Auckland，2006，p.32.
[86]Ibid.，same page.
[87]Ibid.，p.106.
[88]Sione Latukefu，op.cit.，p.9.
[89]Dr. Grayson Kirk，What is Democracy？，Richard M. Ketchum （ed） E.P. Dutton ＆ Co.，Inc，New York，1955，p.120.
[90]An article written by the Chief Editor of the Taimi o Tonga （Tonga Times） News Paper entitled：Misinformation，nothing new in the islands. http：//timesoftonga.com//content/view/253/37/（Accessed 6 July 2007）.
[91]Lopeti Senituli，op.cit.，p.7.
[92]Ibid..
[93]An article written by Kalafi Moala，the chief editor of the Taimi o Tonga （Tonga Times Newspaper，Misinformation，nothing new in the islands，Monday 16 April 2007，http：//tomesoftonga.com//content/view/253/37/Accessed 6 July 2007）.
[94]Ibid.，Also found in the article written by Kalafi Moala.
[95]The information about the coup in Thailand is found on the website：http：//encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Coup+d'%eatat（Accessed 7 July 2007）.
[96]Pacific Island Report，Pacific Islands Development Program/East-West Centre with Support from Centre for Pacific Islands Studies/University of Hawaii，Also found in the article written by Kalafi Moala，see footnote 72.http：//pidp.eastwestcentre.or/pireport/2006/November/11-20-04.htm （Accessed 15 January 2007）.
[97]See the Report of National Committee of the Kingdom of Tonga for Political and Constitutional Reform 31st August，2006. http：//www.tonga-now.to/Resource.aspx？ID=4506. （Accessed 9 April 2007）.
[98]This information contains in the Jane's Website dated 9 November，2006. http：//www4.janes.com/subscribe/sentinel/OCEA_doc_view.jsp？Sent_Country=Tong... （Accessed 15 January 2007）.
[99]Tonga Broadcasting Commission News，Main News：Crime，Last Updated 11 April，2007. http：//www.tonga-broadcasting.com/artman/publish/article_606.shtml（Accessed 6 July，2007） .
[100]Dennis Rumley，‘The Emergence of Australia's Arc of Instability，’ in Australia's Arc of Instability，The Political and Cultural Dynamics of Regional Security，Dennis Rumley，Vivian Louis Forbes and Christopher Griffin （eds），Stringer，Netherland，2006，pp. 16-17.
[101]Australia and New Zealand in Tonga，Television New Zealand，Australian Associated Press，18 November 2006. Also see Radio Tonga news and matangitonga online news. http：//www.matangitonga.to/article/tonganews/crime/suspects011206.shtml（Acessed 9 July 2007）.http：//tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411424/895213（Accessed 8 July，2007）.
[102]An article written by the Editor，Pesi Fonua，Tonga's fight for survival overwhelms efforts for reform，Matangi Tonga Online，24 March 2007. http：//www.matangitonga.to/article/tonganews/crime/suspects011206.shtml（Accessed 9 July 2007）.
[103]Lopeti Sentituli，op.cit.p.10.
[104]Pesi Fonua，op.cit.，p.1，see footnote 86.
[105]Lopeti Senituli.，op.cit.，p.9.
[106]Tonga Defence Services Act ＆ Regulations，Government Printing Dept，Nuku'alofa，Tonga. 1992，p.3.
[107]John Bailey. Nontraditional Threats in the U.S.-Mexico：Bilateral Relationship，Overview and Recommendations. Georgetown University，January 25，2005，pp.2-3.http：//www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/Nontraditional%Threats.bailey.doc. （Accessed 2 April，2007）.
[108]Ramesh Thakur，‘Human Security and Intervention，’ in Strategy and Security in the Asia-Pacific，Robert Ayson and Desmond Ball （eds），Allen ＆ Unwin，Crows Nest NSW，Australia，2006，p.122.
[109]The decision for the increase of the TDS strength to 1500 strong was approved by His Majesty's Board.