On My Mind

I had vowed to say no more about the safe haven project, figuring I’d already had my say, but given what was said—and what was not—at last Friday’s public hearing on the project, and having come up with at least three more points I wish I’d made during my brief comments at the microphone, I find myself wanting to speak out (at least) one more time.

The multi-purpose center in Susupe was crammed and with an unexpected shortage of chairs, many were left standing throughout the proceedings. As was evident from the vocal response given to House member-elect Cinta Kaipat, who led off the long list of people offering public comment, the vast majority of attendees was clearly opposed to the safe haven project.

For my tastes, there was too much exhortatory language and appeal to emotion, and far from enough hard data on the part of the presenters. Almost all of those who spoke from the floor did ask hard questions, did make excellent points, rather than yield to emotion—though what would a public hearing be without at least some flowery rhetoric?

What I wish I’d said: that it looks like the CNMI is being used as the site of an experiment. Neither the Saipan branch of the United States International Mission, nor the U.S.I.M. California branch, has ever set up a “safe haven” before. They have never set up anything like it. What happens in the CNMI—if it were to go through—would be an experiment, a test, of an idea. It is a gamble, and like all gambles, entails a lot of risk.

I wish I’d said that it looked like the U.S.I.M. was setting itself up to help those victims who least needed it—those who were completely free of any and all diseases, who appeared most likely able to benefit from a short period of “rehabilitation.” Wouldn’t true humanitarianism take the worst cases? Those most needing help?

And I’d meant to ask whether, by any chance, the proposed premature arrival of the initial group—even before the regulations had been approved—had been prompted by the schedule of the movie star and producer who were supposed to be coming to film a documentary.

* * *

Deputy Attorney General Clyde Lemmons did a good job of keeping what was at times a restless crowd under control. He was quiet, polite, restrained, yet willing to yield, to be flexible, when that seemed called for. He was skillfully and admirably diplomatic when challenged about Attorney General Pam Brown’s role, about the role of the Attorney General’s office in promulgating the proposed regulations.

Two suggestions I would offer: never hold a public hearing without setting limits on the time given each person offering comments and, if at all interested in (print) media coverage, never hold hearings on a Thursday evening—that’s far too late to make the Friday papers. Though of course, this paper does have its Saturday and Sunday issues in which to report such events.

* * *

As the year draws to a close, there is often a summing up of the old year, in preparation of a clean slate for the coming new year. The latest issue of Micronesian Counselor, with its topic “Myths of the FSM Economy,” seems as good a place to start as any. In the publication, authors Fr. Francis Hezel and Chris Lightfoot consider and dispel seven “myths” that affect how people think about the FSM economy. There is relevance here for the CNMI as well, particularly with the CNMI’s economy being, at the moment, of such concern.

The first myth: that population growth is a problem. The authors say this myth is prevalent in the FSM, but prove through available statistics that in actuality quite the opposite is true. “The yearly growth rate then [in the 1980s] was well above 3 percent; between 1944 and 2000 it plummeted to 0.2 percent,” they state. Recently released projected statistics indicate that the CNMI population will grow, and if so, that could become a problem, but it is not clear whether the statistics are based on a future increase in the presence of foreign workers or other factors.

The second myth: that emigration is causing a brain drain. This belief exists in the CNMI as well. However, Hezel and Lightfoot show that data from the FSM community in Hawaii do not support the FSM myth. The data indicate that while there are more Micronesians with high school diplomas in Hawaii than in the FSM, in contrast, there are more Micronesians with college degrees living in the FSM than in Hawaii.

However, that data would seem incomplete. It does not take into account how many Micronesians with college degrees may be living on the U.S. mainland, or elsewhere and how that number relates to the number living in the FSM.

Though the same “myth” exists in the CNMI, without equivalent data it is not so easy to prove that in the CNMI it is also myth here, rather than fact. Certainly, the impression is that more CNMI students with college degrees take jobs elsewhere rather than in the CNMI, and that the CNMI does indeed suffers from a brain drain, which in turn has a distinct effect on the economy.

The third myth: that fisheries can provide hundreds of millions of dollars for the taking. Yet, according to the findings of Hezel and Lightfoot, “No fewer than 11 government-financed fishing ventures were established at a total funding of $56 million. During a seven-year span…the fishing ventures made a net profit only in a single year (1994) and the profit was no more than $20,000. Overall, the ventures showed a total loss of over $27 million during the same span.” Nor were those investments undertaken carelessly; according to the authors, they were based on advice from international experts in the field, on information that suggested that tuna fisheries could generate a substantial profit.

However, their analysis continues, “We recognize more clearly now that tuna is an international commodity and that the fishing industry is highly competitive and high-risk. It operates on small margins of profit and requires large economies of scale; the fishing fleets must be flexible and mobile. …Furthermore, we can not assume that island people will be willing to serve on fishing boats inasmuch as fishermen are poorly paid, subject to cramped and even squalid conditions on the boat, and expected to spend nearly all their time fishing even if this means neglecting other social and cultural obligations.”

Hezel and Lightfoot suggest that perhaps the FSM government might better “withdraw from the operational side of the business and continue taking what it can get from the fishing license fees,” though they say this should not prevent private interests from going into the business, provided they are willing to accept the risks of the industry.

This “myth” surely fits the CNMI! Here, too, fishing has been one of the core industries touted as appropriate and suitable for investment and as an important potential source of significant revenue. Yet in the CNMI as well, the fishing industry has not lived up to expectations. Perhaps the CNMI should take the advice given the FSM, and give up on the idea of developing it as government-based industry, leaving it to the private sector.

The next myth: Tourism: Build it and they will come. Again, this sounds familiar! Isn’t that what is being said about ongoing efforts to bring more flights into the CNMI from nearby Asian countries? The FSM has made similar efforts, and talked about lengthening runways, constructing golf courses, improving air terminals as a means of attracting more tourists, yet this “build it and they will come” approach has not worked for the FSM. The authors believe that “the FSM still lies outside the charmed circle of high-profile tourist destinations.”

“There is no evidence that an attempt to buy an industry will work any better in tourism than it has in fishing. …Some factors that may be responsible for tourism growth—like opportunistic publicity, proximity to a country with a rapidly expanding economy, and even good luck—have nothing to do with government initiatives.” Their recommendation: that while tourism should be encouraged, large expenditures of government funds not be used to develop the industry.

That advice may run counter to the CNMI’s dependence on tourism as a major source of revenue. However, the CNMI should take to heart the caution that factors having nothing to do with government investment in tourism appear to contribute substantially to growth of the industry.

Myth # 5: that agriculture is underperforming. While they acknowledge that agriculture in the FSM has not produced a major crop for export, such as sugar cane or pineapples, Hezel and Lightfoot assert that agriculture is providing food and shelter for a considerable segment of the local population as well as offering cash crop opportunities, such as sakau, betel nut, and Pohnpeian banana pudding, for people who otherwise have no cash income.

Though once again comparable statistics are lacking, this situation, too, would seem to hold true in the CNMI. Agriculture not only supplies a significant portion of local food consumption, but is also a significant source of employment. That the CNMI’s agricultural workers are, largely, not local but foreign, does not alter that fact. (To be continued)

* * *

This is New Year’s weekend. I would hope that all survive the weekend safe, healthy and uninjured. I’m not sure there’s that much to celebrate. Locally, there’s been a change in administration, and that does hold out some hope. But there’s been no crowning past achievement nor a particularly glowing promise for the future that call for boisterous celebration. In fact, I find the incoming administration’s promise to “streamline the permit application process for land development” unsettling, depressing, downright scary.

And I sure don’t enjoy all the noisy, ear-and nerve-shattering firecrackers that have come to the CNMI this year. Whatever happened to fireworks as festive displays of lovely glittering light patterns in the sky?

* * *

Movie ratings for the week: 2 PG’s, 4 PG-13’s, 1 R.

(The writer is a librarian by profession, and a long-term resident of the CNMI. To contact her, send e-mail to ruth.tighe@vzpacifica.net)