The Tongan Parliament engaged in a heated hour-long debate over whether to remove the controversial word me’avale from the constitution, a term critics argue perpetuates a dark-age ideology that dehumanises ordinary citizens by likening them to animals.
The debate triggered personal attacks in the House after revelations that the removal proposal originated from public consultations, during which citizens argued that me’avale should no longer appear in the constitution.
It follows the recent proposed impeachment proceedings against the Minister of Police after he allegedly referred to Parliament as a “fale e kau vale” (house of fools) and called some Nobility MPs “kulikuli” (smelly).
During the deliberations on me’avale, lawmakers noted the term’s origins in pre-Christian Tonga, when societal hierarchies recognised only kings and chiefs as possessing spirits, while considering common people soulless.
The debate sharply divided Parliament, with some lawmakers becoming emotional in their arguments while others insisted on retaining the term in Clause 4.
A third group supported replacing it with kakai, the modern Tongan word for “people”, as proposed to the House, apparently by the Attorney General’s Office.
Translations
Tongan linguist Dr Melenaite Taumoefolau previously clarified in a scholarly paper that while me’avale has been translated as “commoner,” it literally combines me’a (“thing”) and vale (“foolish”) – effectively meaning “foolish thing.”
The contested constitutional clause currently states that laws apply equally to all, including hou’eiki (chiefs) and me’avale (commoners).
During the parliamentary proceedings, Deputy Prime Minister Taniela Fusimālohi reported that public consultations revealed widespread concerns about the term’s derogatory origins.
Emotional plea
Police Minister Piveni Piukala emotionally moved to remove the word from the constitution, strongly advocating for its elimination by asserting that “Tonga has evolved beyond such archaic language in our enlightened era.”
He noted the kau mātu‘a once approved the word, but insisted modern Tonga should discard it.
MP Johnny Taione defended the word as appropriate and criticised the democratic member of the PTOA and the Police Minister, claiming they were allegedly twisting the meaning to make it appear negative. The Minister dismissed Taione’s claim and pointed out that he was misguided.
Lord Vaea stated that the word me‘avale appears in the Holy Bible, though he failed to specify the exact reference.
Lord Tu’iha’angana proposed that the House acknowledge the proposal but defer action to a later time.
Opposition
Lord Nuku opposed the removal, arguing it would damage the social hierarchy (“maumau‘i lahi e ma‘uma‘uluta e anga e nofo”).
The Speaker then processed a motion by former Prime Minister Hu’akavameiliku proposing to remove me’avale from constitutional language, and limit House debate to only those adjustments meant for Parliament under Clause 23
While the House approved the motion, the Hansard record left unclear whether this approval authorised actual removal from the constitution or merely advanced the proposal for consideration.
This ambiguity stemmed from the me’avale only appearing in Clause 4, while the debate concerned adjustments to Clause 23.
