H.R.P.P. division spills into Parliament

“It is the first time, (H.R.P.P) members have said something straight up to him while in Parliament. Everything that came in we all said ‘yes sir, yes sir’ but this time no. We have been dictated to like his children” – Tu’u’u Anasi’i Leota

Prime Minister, Tuilaepa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi, is finding it tough to contain the divisions within his party.

The differences in fact surfaced yet again last Monday when the Prime Minister tabled the Constitutional Amendment (No. 2) Bill in Parliament, which proposes to change the election of the Head of State, among other things. The Bill sparked a heated debate.

But it was where the most stinging criticisms of the Bill came from that raised eyebrows. While the Opposition threw ire onto the content of the Bill and in the process rejected it, it was members of the H.R.P.P. that brought the debate to fever pitch.

At one point during the day, Individual Voters M.P, Papali’i Niko Lee Hang, objected strongly. He had cause to since the amendment would affect him directly.

If the Bill is passed for instance, Papali’i and another H.R.P.P colleague, Maualaivao Pat Ah Him, will have their constituency redefined.

Papali’i is not prepared for this to happen.

“I am still wondering why the government has touched on this amendment now given the support provided from here,” Papali’i said in Parliament, adding that he was unsure if he did anything wrong.

“In my opinion that could have been done by the government should one be at the Opposition. Anyhow, we are still here with Maualaivao (Peter Ah Him) while the amendments are brought forth to end the Individual Voters’ seats.”

“For the individual voters hearing this, we continue to convince the government to revisit its decision on this matter, though we can not do much to change.”

“We are of the opinion that this amendment should be left out until the current term is over and that should the next new members elected appear to favour joining the Opposition, that would be good timing for government to implement this change.”

“Anyway we the sitting members tend to think that we are not supporting the government.”

“Honourable Speaker, with due respect to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, I do not support the amendments of the Constitution including the seats for Individual Voters.”

Tuilaepa was not impressed.

 “Mr. Speaker I spoke with respect,” the Prime Minister responded. “At this stage, any matters relating to the Constitution, once an amendment is set, I as the leader of the political party seek the support of the whole Party, from those who entered and competed under the party name.”

 “I am the Prime Minister, the leader of the Human Rights Protection Party whom we collectively agreed to support this Amendment Bill. Even amendments of the Constitution, all members of H.R.P.P are to stand together as they swore to when entering this House. Hon Speaker, that is my reply to the member who spoke last.”

However, despite this – it appears that the H.R.P.P. did not get the chance to collectively agree to the proposed amendment.

During an interview with the Associate Minister for Education, Tu’u’u Anasi’i Leota, he said the proposed law was never presented to the party.

“It was not given to Cabinet, this Constitutional amendment. It was not given to our party, it was not given out for our thoughts,” he said.

“If this thing was brought in and we had given our thoughts, ideas, we would have supported it. But no it was just rushed in.”

He said for this reason, on the day it was tabled in Parliament, he wanted to put a question to the Prime Minister.

 “I was going to ask (the Prime Minster) a question in Parliament. I was just wondering who’s advising the Attorney General to draft these types of amendments?”

“Is it for one man for his own good? I was going to ask him (the Attorney General) why are you being informed or advised by just one man instead of the Cabinet?”

“Because if Cabinet was aware of that, I think it would be okay. But it missed Cabinet; it missed the H.R.P.P Party so it must be one man knowing all about this.”

“I didn’t have the time to say that but I was actually going to say that.”

It’s a claim Tuilaepa himself seems to have inadvertently backed up in a response he gave to the Opposition leader, Palusalue Fa’apo II, during the debate.

“I guess I can see that the Member (Palusalue) did not read the Amendment Bill, but this Amendment Bill was here on Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday,” the Prime Minister said.

“Four days without reading the Amendment Bill, it’s a straight forward Bill.”

If this is the case, Tu’u’u and other Members of the House, had four days to digest the legislation before it was tabled in the house.

Tuu’u’s response in Parliament was telling.

“How sad I was when this was given,” Tu’u’u told Parliament.

“My belief is that there is nothing solid on this amendment made by this political party. I am the candidate from Si’umu and I cannot accept being likened to a fish that’s being caught and led by a hook.”

 “My apologies to the Prime Minister, this is not a counter attack for that matter. Moments like this, we are often guided by the usual expression ‘If you know the right thing but do otherwise, that is a sin before The Almighty’”.

“I feel the Amendments presented here are not proper. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the first part of the Amendment.”

“This is why I asked because it looks as if the appointment of the Head of State will be done politically. I do not see the difference between the current process and the proposed amendments.”

Tuilaepa quickly took the floor.

 “Honorable Speaker I do not understand how politics is involved as mentioned. The Amendments are presented clearly and I have also read it out.”

“The appointment of the Head of State is made by Parliament on the advise of the party in government.”

“The proposed process is that the Party with the majority will be the majority to appoint the Head of State.”

“It’s a process (that’s) much easier to follow than the original one, which makes allowance for any member of the House to submit his own nomination.”

“That provides allowance for any member of this House to submit his/her own nomination. That is the hard part.”  

“That prompted this side to change. It is the Party’s decision to avoid individuals from nominating any Simi or Sione, which bears no dignity.”

“So we are not playing politics with these matters. Stop talking politics. We do not play politics here.”

Later on in the debate, Tu’u’u was again given the floor further advocating against the change to the Constitution.   

 “Honorable Speaker, I personally believe that the current process is proper and is working alright. The question is, were there snags or problems arising from our appointments made before?”

“There is nothing. I am worried because once these changes are approved and later on handled by the wrong people; there is a possibility of problems occurring.”

“In case this is deliberately predetermined, bear in mind the fact that H.R.P.P. will not be in government permanently. Time will come for a change.”

“Honorable Speaker I am expressing my concerns now thus rejecting any change of the current procedure.”   

However, Tuilaepa, clearly not used to debating members of his own party responded in kind.

“Honorable Speaker, what the member mentioned during his presentation is a misconception. There is nothing like that in it. “

“What is clear is the need for this in order to speed up our decision making process. Simple, clean and clear. “

“Honorable Speaker time changes and we do need this proposal to allow for the appointment of the respected Head of State. This must be done in a more dignified way.”
Rejoining the debate, Tu’u’u disagreed.

“Honorable Speaker, gone are our farsighted-forebears who compiled this Constitution,” he told the House.

“I personally believe that this is not the time for us to amend these parts. Far from now. Honorable Speaker I do not support this amendment. With respect.”  

In the subsequent interview, when asked about this matter, Tu’u’u, like Papali’i, said he speaks for his constituents, not his Party.

“We speak our own minds, we came here to represent our own districts and we say what we feel is the right thing to do,” he said.

“That is why I stood up and I said that because all our members, as usual, they were afraid when the Prime Minister was so harsh and spoke strong words against us.”

“That is exactly what he did. He was looking at me straight in the face when I said I am sorry friend, this man here will not toe the line I will speak my own mind. I am against this amendment, this is what I said.”

Tu’u’u said it was the first time H.R.P.P. members had publically stood against their leader on an issue.

 “It is the first time, (H.R.P.P) members have said something straight up to him while in Parliament,” he said. “Everything that came in we all said ‘yes sir, yes sir’ but this time no. We have been dictated to like his children.”

He said by doing so, the Members that spoke against the change have set a precedent and that it may give others the courage to speak their mind if they do not agree with proposed legislation.

“I think we have set the precedent we have started the thing in motion,” he said.

“We have been trying to instill this into our H.R.P.P members.”

Asked if he believed the Prime Minister’s motive for seeking this amendment was so that he himself could seek the Head of State position, Tu’u’u responded: “If you read between the lines”.

“Actually, in the debate he (Tuilaepa) said ‘I have got four or five titles and they are all related somehow to these paramount (families).”

“Reading between the lines, I see that is how it is.”

He said if this was what was motivating the Prime Minister to push the amendment through the House, it was risky.

 “This political thing, it is a risky one because you don’t know the future,” he said. “If this ever comes into effect, you need your whole party to put you up there.

“This is unpredictable when you do things like this with your hopes of coming to fruition. But when it comes and you suddenly find that your people there don’t support you, then it is a waste of time doing this whole amendment change.”

He said this is why everyone is questioning the timing of the legislation.

“I too don’t understand his vision. He is just saying; oh we need to change it now.’”

“Because I actually said when you know something good and you don’t do it, that’s a sin in the eyes of the Lord. So I see it is a good thing to challenge this, to stop this amendment.”

*The quotes in this story from Parliament’s Monday session were translated by the Samoa Observer Translation Unit from Parliament’s official hansard of the day.