Opinion | Tonga’s Fiscal Stability Is Not the Same as Fiscal Strength
An opinion challenges our recent editorial on Tonga’s economic management, arguing that aid stabilisation is not progress but a symptom of deeper dependency.
Claim 1: “Stabilised Aid Dependence”
The Rebuttal: Stability at a Crisis Level is Not an Achievement.
The editorial celebrates that aid has “stopped rising” and now constitutes 49.2% of the budget. This is like celebrating that a patient’s fever is no longer climbing while they are still in the ICU.
The Reality: A nation that relies on donors for nearly half of its entire national budget is not “stabilized”; it is profoundly vulnerable. This dependence means Tonga’s core government functions and development projects are at the mercy of foreign political and economic shifts. A single change in a donor country’s priorities could cripple the national budget.
The True Trend: Look at the five-year trend: the domestic share of the budget has collapsed from 60.0% to 50.8%. Framing a 0.5% uptick after this steep fall as a success is a classic case of “spin over substance.”
Claim 2: “Strengthened Fiscal Discipline”
The Rebuttal: A 52% Budget Increase is the Opposite of Fiscal Discipline.
The editorial praises “tighter fiscal management” while the data shows a massive spending spree.
The Numbers Don’t Lie:
2021/22 Budget: TOP 618.4 million
2025/26 Budget: TOP 940.8 million
Increase: TOP 322.4 million (52% in 4 years)
The Logic: True fiscal discipline involves making painful choices—cutting wasteful spending, prioritizing essentials, and living within your means. Funding a massive expansion of the government through a combination of debt and donor money is not discipline; it’s a risk-laden strategy that mortgages the future.
Claim 3: “Improved Domestic Revenue Collection”
The Rebuttal: Your Revenue is Growing, But Your Self-Reliance is Shrinking.
The editorial highlights a 6.8% rise in domestic revenue as a sign of strength. This is a misleading half-truth.
The Context of Spending: While domestic revenue is growing, total government spending is growing much faster. As a result, Tonga’s ability to pay its own bills is getting worse, not better. The shrinking domestic share of the budget (from 60% to 50.8%) is the only metric that truly measures progress toward self-reliance, and it shows a government moving in the wrong direction.
Claim 4: “Long-Term Benefit” and “Sustainability”
The Rebuttal: Programs Funded by Debt and Aid Are Inherently Unsustainable.
The editorial points to popular programs like Community Development Grants and SME schemes as evidence of building from within.
The Funding Question: If nearly half the budget is donor-funded, where is the money for these new, recurring programs coming from? The most likely answer is from the very aid and debt the government claims to be managing. This is not sustainability; it’s building a house on a foundation of sand. These programs create permanent expectations for spending, but they are funded by temporary and unreliable sources.
Conclusion: The “Methodical” Management of Dependence
The editorial attempts to paint a picture of a technocrat leading Tonga to self-reliance. The data reveals the opposite: a government that has become adept at managing its dependence, not ending it.
The Prime Minister’s record is not one of creating a “firmer foundation,” but of constructing a larger, more expensive government that remains perilously reliant on the goodwill of others. This isn’t a “benchmark for capable leadership”; it’s a case study in how to use data to obscure a deepening structural crisis. True leadership would be demonstrated by making the tough choices required to drastically reduce the aid share of the budget, not by celebrating its “stability” at an alarming 49%.
Melino Maka
