Ruling on Hawaii Restriction

At Issue: The striking down by the US Supreme Court of restricting voting of OHA board members to Hawaiian descend.

Our View: There’s a silver lining in the decision which didn’t forbid the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) from administering programs.

The US Supreme Court decision striking down the limiting of non-Hawaiian descend in the election of board members to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has some positive aspects to it. At least, it didn’t forbid OHA from administering programs from the $300 million annual fees from ceded lands to people of Hawaiian descend.

Such a decision simply nullifies the recent approval of limiting voting on the fate of the NMI’s Land Alienation provision strictly to Chamorro and Carolinian descend. But it doesn’t repeal land-ownership as contained under pertinent provision of the Covenant Agreement nor did it grant non-indigents anything else other than the privilege to vote on the disposition of said provision.

We are not advocating the elimination or retention of such provision (Article XII), but perhaps it would be healthy if the local people debates the wisdom of perpetuating it down the stretch. For one, such provision has alienated legally situated non-indigent US Citizens who have made these isles their home. And lest we forget, the family unit is the very foundation of our community or any society the world over.

Perhaps the wisdom of ensuring that such provision is included during the first decade of local constitutional government is well taken by most who also sympathize with the view of protecting the limited indigenous land. But a lot of private land have been leased out over the same period as to lessen the very essence of such provision.

The issue becomes even more irrelevant when viewed from the sale of land from one indigent to the other. Some have actually become landless over such transaction. And so we protect land from non-indigents but ruined such intent among ourselves in the process. Such sale is predicated on the superficial notion that there’s more public land even for those who have sold their properties to another indigent.

Retaining Article XII would be up for consideration in about three years. It is prudent that a healthy discussion is held among the indigenous people on how do we wish to dispose of this matter when the time arrives. We no longer can perpetuate the alienating view of “Them Against Us”. In other words, we can’t have our cake and eat it too. Si Yuus Maase`!