Prime Minister Fiamē Naomi’s reported comments at the Atoa-o-Samoa meeting last week in American Samoa must have been music to the ears of her supporters and empathisers out there.

One comment that struck me as a direct rebuke of her Minister of Agriculture and Leader of the Fa’atuatua i le Atua Samoa Party (FAST), La’auli Leuatea relates to his decision to lease 400 acres of Government land at Togitogina to the Government of American Samoa to graze their livestock. “[I]t is not the government’s responsibility to set up a commercial farm,” she declared. I can imagine the Minister seating there at the meeting fuming and feeling embarrassed because of the presence of American Samoa’s top political leaders.

Since this issue first surfaced, Fiamē has said very little about it other than her comments in Parliament that she didn’t know anything; it was fake news when questioned by the Opposition. When she said last week that the government had no responsibility to set up commercial farms, she was obviously referring to ‘Her Government’ and Minister La’auli’s deal with the American Samoa’s department of Agriculture. He could not have known that this rebuke was coming. Even worse, it happened in a foreign country.

To this political observer, there appears to be a serious breakdown in relationship between these two Government politicians; that the chasm between them is so vast that one doubts it can be easily mended. And while that continues, the country is ending up suffering. It is like the relation between a bullying, abusive and controlling husband and a wife who has had enough of him and is filing for a divorce. Bitter and acrimonious with no regard for the poor, suffering children.

Now, was Prime Minister Fiamē’s homing in on the ‘farm’ issue at the meeting a deliberate ploy to cut Minister La’auli down to size? I believe it was. Given that negotiations on the ‘farm project’ with American Samoa’s Department of Agriculture have been on-going since a similar meeting held here last October without her knowledge and that an agreement was to be signed at last week’s meeting; given also Fiamē was publicly humiliated by having to admit in Parliament last month that she did not know anything about it, it’s difficult to arrive at any other conclusion.

As they say, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”

Is this project now ditched? The media report didn’t say, but given the concern by the American Samoa Senate about using Federal Grants to fund the Togitogina farm; the “I smell a rat” comment by one of its Senators; the new proposal for “the establishment a Joint Cattle Farm initiative” between the two countries and the need for a feasibility study to be undertaken before any decision is made, I believe it is.

One other comment by Fiamē when she “emphasised [at the meeting] that any proposal for such a development [like the livestock farm] must be submitted via Cabinet for assessment” also caught my attention. It was a subtle warning to her Ministers, especially those who think they can bypass Cabinet when making decisions, that she would no longer tolerate them taking decisions that impact on government policy or foreign relations without first bringing it to Cabinet for consideration. This also implies that all past policy decisions that were taken by individual ministers without the consideration or approval of Cabinet must also now be brought back to Cabinet. It is a requirement under Article 37(4) of the Constitution.

If the Prime Minister fails to do it, the Head of State can require her to do it.

What also puzzles this writer are comments by the Pime Minister about what she/he requires of the ministers. Such comments are usually made in the confine of the Cabinet room to hide any suggestion that there are problems within the Cabinet. Not on foreign soil and in front of members of their government.

The public have long deduced from comments, action, and behaviour by some Ministers that Prime Minister Fiamē’s Cabinet has been dysfunctional for some time. It must make her job of running the country extremely difficult. Coupled with it is the number of Ministers and MPs who are actively involved in private businesses as owner, partner, or shareholder and who are unable to differentiate between their duty to the country and their obligation to their businesses. So, when travel overseas funded by taxpayers, people cannot help but ask: How much of their time away is spent on Government matters and how much on things related to their business?

Some businesspeople I have gotten to know have also pointed out some businesses that were once on the banks death row before the owner became a minister. Now they are thriving.

Is now not the time to establish a specific Code of Conduct for our Members of Parliament and Ministers like that for our public servants to ensure the integrity of our Parliament and to have them declare their business interest once they become elected MPs if that is not already a requirement?