HAWAIIAN ISSUES -- A POSITION PAPER
D.G. "Andy" Anderson
Candidate for Governor
of Hawaii - 2002
I can recall, as a part
Hawaiian youngster growing up in Honolulu, hearing
Kupuna speaking among themselves in hushed tones. I could not
understand what they were saying as they spoke in the native tongue.
It seemed that we, the kamalii -- the children -
were never addressed in 'olelo Hawaii, the Hawaiian language.
I wondered how, without that interaction, we could learn it. All instruction
in school was conducted in English. We were taught world and American
history. We learned about Hawaii's annexation and its status as a territory,
its agricultural and rural like character, but very little else. We
knew that Hawaii was once a monarchy, presided over by its own King
and Queen, a fact that could hardly be disguised, with Iolani Palace
prominent on King Street in downtown Honolulu and the statue of King
Kamehameha I directly across from it. But the details of how Hawaii
transitioned from a Kingdom to a territory of the United States were
never clearly known to us other than the fact that it happened and that
supposedly it was a circumstance of good fortune.
As I grew to adulthood,
I became more and more interested in Hawaii and its history and began
to examine the past. Some believe that those who ignore history will
likely repeat it. That is, perhaps, as good a reason as any for examining
it, and this position paper is the result of that examination. I found
Hawaii's history gripping and tragic. But it has provided me with a
focus on Hawaiian issues and my thoughts on how, as Governor, I would
deal with them. It is my hope that you find this interesting reading.
INTRODUCTION
When a language is lost,
a nation is lost. We need look no further for examples of the wisdom
of this phrase than in our own backyard. It is the one thing that all
too many fail to understand. People tend to think only in terms of
the benefits derived from being a part of the United States of America.
And there are, and have been, benefits to be sure. But the native Hawaiian
paid a price for it. Those Hawaiian by blood and those Hawaiian at
heart sense the loss. I know the feeling, for I am Hawaiian. The
'eha -- the hurt, the pain -- is never far away. I think often
of what the world might look like today from a Hawaiian perspective
if things had been different in 1893. Some, maybe even many, might
say that things happened for the best. I say, "Perhaps so, but we will
never know, will we?" And it is the unknowing that fans the fire inside
and creates a longing for justice.
When Hawaiians lost their
language through a policy of suppression, they lost their ability to
think as Hawaiians; they lost Hawaiian thought and philosophy; and as
more and more of their culture and traditions were submerged by a language,
a way of life and a value system that came from distant continents,
they came perilously close to losing their homeland. There is no other
Hawaii but Hawaii itself. Except for the Native American Indian, no
other group of people in this "immigrant" nation of ours has had to
face this danger. The Hawaiian renaissance has forced the status of
Hawaiians to the forefront; and what was unspeakable just five decades
ago -- the issue of sovereignty -- is now a rallying call for many. I
believe it is a call that deserves an answer; it is a call that needs
an answer. And in light of Public Law 103-150, the Apology Bill, I
am convinced that the United States must either act or face the prospect
of a finding by a World Court, pursuant to international law, that may
not be to its liking. All who aspire to the governorship must be prepared
to deal with the issue. They must enable Hawaiians to exercise the right
of self-determination, but they must be helpful without being intrusive.
THE HISTORICAL BASIS.
All free men who firmly believe that liberty and justice are cornerstones of a civilized society would be appalled, as I was, at the circumstances that surrounded the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. I can well imagine the agony that Queen Lili'uokalani was forced to endure on January 17, 1893. But I can also applaud the magnificent manner in which she dealt with it.
Besieged by a conspiracy
that can only be described as treasonous, aided and abetted by the ardent
annexationist John Stevens as U.S. Minister in residence, and facing
the prospect of armed insurrection through the support of military forces
of the United States, Queen Lili'uokalani, the last reigning monarch
of the Kingdom, declared that day:
"I, Liliuokalani, by
the Grace of God and under the Constitution of the Kingdom, Queen,
do herby solemnly protest against any and all acts done against myself
and the constitutional Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom by certain
persons claiming to have established a provisional government of and
for this Kingdom."
"That I yield to the
superior force of the United States of America, whose minister plenipotentiary,
His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be
landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support the said provisional
government."
"Now, to avoid any collision
of armed forces and perhaps the loss of life, I do under this protest,
and impelled by said force, yield my authority until such time as the
Government of the United States shall, upon the facts being presented
to it, undo the action of its representatives and reinstate me in the
authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian
Islands."
It was to be the Hawaiian
people's "Day of Infamy".
I need to remember, and
to remind all, that our Queen protested the abrogation of her authority
and her government. She protested not to the provisional government
but to the United States government, and asked for redress. History
records the Queen's action as a well calculated one. I could not agree
more. Any protest to the provisional government would have been entirely
futile. After all, those in the provisional government were the schemers
and perpetrators. When Sanford Dole accepted the Queen's communiqu*
he did not challenge her surrender to "the superior force of the United
States of America", and by failing to do so he acknowledged the protest
and the reasonable expectation by any fair minded person that a process
of investigation by the United States into the causes and circumstances
of the change in governance would ensue. It was more than the Queen
had hoped for.
History now recalls that
the Queen's cry of protest did not fall upon deaf ears. In response
to it, President Grover Cleveland sent former Congressman James Blount
to investigate. In his subsequent report to the President, Mr. Blount
concluded that United States diplomatic representatives had abused their
authority and were responsible for the change in government. Whereupon
the United States Minister, Mr. John Stevens, was recalled from his
diplomatic post and the commander of United States forces stationed
in Hawaii was disciplined and forced to resign his commission. On
March 9, 1893, President Cleveland withdrew the annexation treaty from
the Senate "for the purpose of reexamination". Further, on December
18, 1893, the President sent a message to the Congress. I found the
message quite revealing and commend its reading to all, especially its
following provisions:
"I suppose that right
and justice should determine the path to be followed in treating this
subject. If national honesty is to be disregarded and a desire for
territorial extension, or dissatisfaction with a form of government
not our own, ought to regulate our conduct, I have entirely misapprehended
the mission and character of our Government and the behavior which the
conscience of our people demands of our public servants."
"When the present Administration
entered upon its duties, the Senate had under consideration a treaty
providing for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the territory
of the United States. Surely under our Constitution and laws the enlargement
of our limits is a manifestation of the highest attribute of sovereignty,
and if entered upon as an Executive act, all things relating to the
transaction should be clear and free from suspicion."
"These considerations
might not of themselves call for interference with the completion of
a treaty entered upon by a previous Administration. But it appeared
from the documents accompanying the treaty when submitted to the Senate,
that the ownership of Hawaii was tendered to us by a provisional government
set up to succeed the constitutional ruler of the islands, who had been
dethroned, and it did not appear that such provisional government had
the sanction of either popular revolution or suffrage. Two other remarkable
features of the transaction attracted attention. One was the extraordinary
haste characterizing all the transactions connected with the treaty.
. . . between the initiation of the scheme for a provisional government
in Hawaii on the `14th day of January and the submission
to the Senate of the treaty of annexation concluded with such government,
the entire interval was thirty-two days, fifteen of which were spent
by the Hawaiian Commissioners in their journey to Washington."
"In the next place, upon
the face of the papers submitted with the treaty, it clearly appeared
that there was open and undetermined an issue of fact of the most vital
information. The message of the President accompanying the treaty that
declared that 'the overthrow of the monarchy was not in any way promoted
by this Government,' and in a letter to the President from the Secretary
of State, also submitted to the Senate with the treaty, the following
passage occurs: 'At the time the provisional government took possession
of the Government buildings no troops or officers of the United States
were present or took part whatever in the proceedings. No public recognition
was accorded to the provisional government by the United States Minister
until after the Queen's abdication and when they were in effective possession
of the Government buildings, the archives, the treasury, the barracks,
the police station, and all the potential machinery of the Government.'
But a protest also accompanied said treaty, signed by the Queen and
her ministers at the time she made way for the provisional government,
which explicitly stated that she yielded to the superior force of the
United States, whose Minister had caused United States troops to be
landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support such provisional
government."
"The truth or falsity of this protest was surely of the first importance. If true, nothing but the concealment of its truth could induce our Government to negotiate with the semblance of a government thus created, nor could a treaty resulting from the acts stated in the protest have been knowingly deemed worthy of consideration by the Senate. Yet the truth or falsity of the protest had not been investigated."
"These conclusions (of
Mr. Blount's) do not rest for their acceptance entirely upon Mr. Blount's
honesty and ability as a man, nor upon his acumen and impartiality as
an investigator. They are accompanied by the evidence upon which they
are based, which evidence is also herewith transmitted, and from which
it seems to me no other deductions could possibly be reached than those
arrived at by the Commissioner."
"The report with its
accompanying proofs, and such evidence as is now before the Congress
or is herewith submitted, justifies in my opinion the statement that
when the President was led to submit the treaty to the Senate with the
declaration that 'the overthrow of the monarchy was not in any way promoted
by this Government', and when the Senate was induced to receive and
discuss it on that basis, both President and Senate were misled."
Recalling the Queen's
written protest and her intent in yielding to the superior force of
the United States, the President said: "This protest was delivered to
the chief of the provisional government, who endorsed thereon his acknowledgment
of its receipt. The terms of the protest were read without dissent
by those assuming to constitute the provisional government, who were
certainly charged with the knowledge that the Queen instead of finally
abandoning her power had appealed to the justice of the United States
for reinstatement in her authority; and yet the provisional government
with this unanswered protest in its hand hastened to negotiate with
the United States for the permanent banishment of the Queen from power
and a sale of her kingdom."
"Our country was in danger
of occupying the position of having to actually set up a temporary government
on foreign soil for the purpose of acquiring through that agency territory
which we had wrongfully put in its possession.
The control of both sides
of a bargain acquired in such a manner is called by a familiar and unpleasant
name when found in private transactions . . . I believe that a candid
and thorough examination of the facts will force the conviction that
the provisional government owes its existence to an armed invasion by
the United States . . . Fair minded people with the evidence before
them will hardly claim that the Hawaiian Government was overthrown by
the people of the islands or that the provisional government had ever
existed with their consent. I do not understand that any member of
this government claims that the people would uphold it by their suffrages
if they were allowed to vote on the question."
". . . Believing, therefore,
that the United States could not, under the circumstances disclosed,
annex the islands without justly incurring the imputation of acquiring
them by unjustifiable methods, I shall not again submit the treaty of
annexation to the Senate for its consideration . . .".
"In commending this subject
to the extended powers and wide discretion of the Congress, I desire
to add the assurance that I shall be much gratified to cooperate in
any legislative plan which may be devised for the solution of the problem
before us which is consistent with American honor, integrity, and morality."
President Cleveland's
refusal to support annexation spawned the creation of the Republic of
Hawaii, the provisional government's answer to the failed attempt at
annexation in 1893. Unfortunately, his defeat by William McKinley in
the presidential election of 1896 removed Grover Cleveland from the
final resolution, but he remained sympathetic to the Queen and opposed
to annexation, calling it outrageously disgraceful. Members of the
provisional government found a more receptive climate in the McKinley
Administration, and, to its dubious credit, successfully lobbied for
a new investigation into the circumstances of the overthrow. Annexation
took place despite the fact: (1) that 38,000 people, predominantly
Kanaka Maoli, signed petitions opposing annexation [the Native
Hawaiian population at the time numbered less than 40,000]; (2) that
a treaty of annexation failed to gain the 60 votes needed for ratification
in the US Senate [annexation took place, instead, by a Joint Resolution
of Congress - the Newlands Resolution - passed by a simple majority
of each house amidst the fever of war with Spain and the claimed need
of Hawaii as a refueling port for ships with troops bound for the Philippines
to engage the Spanish]; and (3) that annexation by joint resolution
is unconstitutional under U.S. law and not possible under international
law. I find it incomprehensible.
It would take 100 years
before the facts surrounding the overthrow of the Kingdom would be given
full and fair consideration in the halls of Congress, but on October
27, 1993, the United States Senate considered and passed the Apology
Bill -Senate Joint Resolution 19; the U.S. House did likewise on November
15, 1993; and President William J. Clinton signed the measure on November
23, 1993 as Public Law 103-150. The Public Law declares that the overthrow
of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893 was illegal; that it occurred
with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States;
and that it resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty
of the Native Hawaiian people and the deprivation of the rights of Native
Hawaiians to self-determination.
THE IMPLICATIONS OF
PUBLIC LAW 103-150.
In the debate of the
apology resolution on the Senate floor, the Honorable Slade Gorton,
Senator from the State of Washington opposed the bill because he believed
". . . the logical consequences of this resolution would be independence.
That is the only way that the clock can ever truly be turned back."
There are scholars who tend to agree.
Among them is a Francis
Anthony Boyle, Esq., professor in international law at the University
of Illinois. On examining P.L. 103-150, he opined that the US has admitted
that they overthrew the Kingdom of Hawaii. It is an "admission against
interest" and clearly an illegal act under standards of international
law existing at the time. He goes further to say that the implications
of the law are for the Hawaiian people to decide; not Congress, not
the State of Hawaii. It is their call, the Hawaiian people, pursuant
to their right of self-determination. The Hawaiian people should determine
the remedy appropriate for the loss of their entire sovereign nation
state.
A PLATFORM ON HAWAIIAN
SOVEREIGNTY.
We are a nation governed
by law. We take pride in that fact; pride in the fact that those laws
protect the rights of all citizens -- the strong, the weak, the vulnerable,
the poor, the rich -- regardless of their station in life. That must
be a fundamental premise; it must be the pinnacle of whatever process
and resolution is fashioned.
Public Law 103-150 is
the law of the land. The findings of fact as regards the overthrow
of the Kingdom of Hawaii and the United States' wrongful participation
in that act have been stated clearly without ambiguity, debated and
passed by the Congress and approved by the President. As a nation governed
by law, we must accept what has now been cast in statute. President
Cleveland put it well when, in 1893, he wrote:
"The law of nations is
founded upon reason and justice, and the rules of conduct governing
individual relations between citizens or subjects of a civilized state
are equally applicable as between enlightened nations. The considerations
that international law is without a court for its enforcement, and that
obedience to its commands practically depends upon good faith, instead
of upon the mandate of a superior tribunal, only give additional sanction
to the law itself and brand any deliberate infraction of it not merely
as a wrong but as a disgrace. A man of true honor protects the unwritten
word which binds his conscience more scrupulously, if possible, than
he does the bond a breach of which subjects him to legal liabilities;
and the United States in aiming to maintain itself as one of the most
enlightened of nations would do its citizens gross injustice if it applied
to its international relations any other than a high standard of honor
and morality. On that ground the United States can not properly be
put in the position of countenancing a wrong after its commission any
more than in that of consenting to it in advance. On that ground it
can not allow itself to refuse to redress an injury inflicted through
an abuse of power by officers clothed with its authority and wearing
its uniform; and on the same ground, if a feeble but friendly state
is in danger of being robbed of its independence and its sovereignty
by a misuse of the name and power of the United States, the United States
can not fail to vindicate its honor and its sense of justice by an earnest
effort to make all possible reparation."
In Public Law 103-150
the United States apologizes to the Hawaiian people for its part in
destroying their sovereign nation state and depriving them of the right
to self determination and promises to support reconciliation efforts
between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people. As Governor,
I will affirm that support, but will also acknowledge the Hawaiians'
right to seek, in any lawful endeavor, a remedy that may go beyond mere
apology and reconciliation. It is my firm belief, after having examined
the evidence presented to me, that Native Hawaiians have a strong case
for independence and could prevail in an international court pursuant
to international law. Support of Hawaiians' right to self-determination
could avoid the acrimonious and divisive debate that would otherwise
surely follow; it would help reason prevail over emotion.
I concur with Senator
Slade Gorton of the State of Washington when he says that independence
is a logical implication of P.L. 103-150, but differ with him in that
I believe independence is but one of several logical implications.
There are those who believe in independence as the only resolution.
There are also those who would rather contemplate some other form of
sovereignty. Many believe that history, once played out, cannot be
rewritten; that one can't "turn back the clock" and begin anew; nor
are Hawaiians predisposed to "run from the United States".
Sons and daughters from
Hawaii, and in this context I refer to Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians alike,
sacrificed their lives in the interest of freedom and justice on the
battlefields and in the skies of Europe, the islands of the Pacific,
Korea, Vietnam, the Mid East, Central Asia, and our own Pearl Harbor.
Each year on the occasion of Memorial and Veterans' Days and the 4th
of July, Hawaii resounds with voices raised in honor of those who served
with distinction in the 100th Infantry Battalion and 442nd
Regimental Combat Team in the hills, valleys and forests of Italy and
France; of those who served in Korea with "Hawaii's Own" the 5th
Regimental Combat Team, the 4th Cav, the 24th
Division, and the Tropic Lightning Division; of those who served in
Da Nang, Pleiku, the Mekong Delta, and other areas of South Vietnam;
of those who served in the Gulf War and, more recently, in the bleakness
of Afghanistan. I do not believe for a moment that the people of Hawaii,
and especially Hawaiians who have proven themselves as able, stalwart,
and reliable soldiers, are about to turn their backs on the sacrifices
that have been made. Alienating these islands from the United States
would symbolize precisely that.
Moreover, Hawaiians are,
by nature, a forgiving people. After all, forgiveness is an essence
of Aloha. I cannot think of any finer example of Hawaiian Aloha than
Lili'uokalani who, on her seventy-seventh birthday, sat at the head
of the receiving line when Lorrin A. Thurston, the firebrand of the
overthrow, entered. He wrote: "She extended her hand to me and said:
"I am very glad to see you here this evening Mr. Thurston.' Those were
the first words she had spoken to me since her deposition, they were
the last words she spoke to me. The incident pleased me, for it indicated
that she had finally accepted annexation and no longer harbored resentment
against me personally." Mr. Thurston was only half right -- she had
forgiven him. She understood that forgiveness was a virtue to be nurtured,
but did not oblige one to forget. Hawaiians today can look to her as
an exemplary model of guidance.
Hawaiians are also a
compassionate people. They need not be reminded that hundreds of thousands
have come to populate these islands; hundreds of thousands who had not
the remotest link to the events of 1893. They have put roots down in
Hawaii; built their homes; raised their children and grandchildren here
and hope to live out their years in Hawaii. They need to be assured
that the Hawaiian agenda does them no harm in any way. A prominent
member of the Hawaiian community once commented, not too long ago, "Our
huhu , anger, at the loss of the Kingdom is more properly directed
at the rascals who overthrew the Queen. And none of them is around
today." .If we keep that in mind - and I am confident that we will -
the Hawaiian quest for justice can only gain even greater respectability.
The world in which we
operate today is far different from a century ago. Through the wonders
of technology, what happens in Hawaii this morning can be on this evening's
news in Washington. It took the provisional government's commissioners
15 days to travel to Washington in 1893. The same journey today can
be accomplished in12 hours. The people whom we need to deal with today
are informed, worldly, and sensitive to public issues. Hawaiians have
not always found favor with national Administrations of the past. The
Administration of President George H. Bush, for one, displeased us for
its opposition to Hawaiian initiatives. Whether the decisions of his
Administration stemmed from the President's personal convictions or
from advice of his advisors, I can't say because I simply don't know.
But what should concern us now is whether we will receive the same treatment
from the son, the sitting President George W. Bush. I think it is too
early to tell. However, recent disclosures of executive and corporate
malfeasance at Enron, Arthur Anderson LLC, and WorldCom offer a glimmer
of hope that things could change. President Bush's announced indignation
at corporate and executive misconduct and his call for stringent measures,
even criminal penalties, for transgressions evident his intent to set
wrongs aright. And it doesn't seem far fetched to think that if a truer
account of the cessation of the Hawaiian Kingdom and the annexation
of Hawaii were known to him, he would see the justice in the Hawaiian
position and seek to correct that wrong as well.
For a hundred years,
Hawaiians have looked for some acknowledgment that the events of January
1893 were illegal and totally unjustified. P.L. 103-150 accomplishes
that; but the victory would be a hollow one if simply left there. Hawaiians
are interested in one thing and one thing only -- Justice!
Is there justice for
Hawaiians when the United States pays the government of the Marshall
Islands millions each year for the use of Kwajalein as a base of operations
and subsidizes the Federated States of Micronesia and the Government
of the Northern Marianas under compacts of association while Hawaiians
receive nothing for the use of Hawaiian lands? And was there justice
when the United States paid the Philippines for its presence at Clark
Air Base and Subic Bay while Hawaiians received nothing for military
bases in Hawaii?
The road to Justice can
begin by compensating Hawaiians for the use of lands by the Federal
Government, to include such areas as Pearl Harbor, Hickam Field, Schofield
Barracks, the Marine Corps Base at Kaneohe, the Pohakuloa training site,
and others. U.S. military bases in foreign countries do not come rent
free; or, if not in the form of direct rental payments, in the shape
of foreign aid packages. If the United States can pay other countries
for the use of land and facilities, why can't it compensate the Hawaiian
people in like manner? It offers Hawaiians an alternative to independence.
The Hawaiian people have
continued to suffer. The events of 1893 were just the beginning. Today
Hawaiians are battling on several fronts to preserve what little they
have from further erosion. The Hawaiian Homestead Act of 1920 was supposed
to put Hawaiians back on the land. In spite of the Federal Government's
trust responsibility to Hawaiians, the program was consistently underfunded
and many died while on its waiting lists. Despite the program's less
than spectacular performance, Hawaiians are spending time and money
today against litigation aimed at opening the program to all, disenfranchising
Hawaiians in the process. In 1978 Hawaii voters approved an amendment
to the State Constitution establishing the Office of Hawaiian Affairs
to work in behalf of Hawaiians. A U.S. Supreme Court decision struck
down the "Hawaiians only vote" in elections for OHA trustees and thereby
opened the doors to further assaults on Hawaiian benefits. There is
on-going litigation that seeks to terminate OHA funding and/or expand
OHA services to everyone. The bleeding has to stop and the wounds repaired
and healed.
In 1883, Princess Bernice
Pauahi Bishop bequeathed her sizeable estate consisting of substantial
real property to the establishment and operation of the Kamehameha Schools
for the education of Hawaiian children. She chose, as the first trustees
of her estate, five well- known haole members of the community:
her husband Charles Reed Bishop, Samuel M. Damon, Charles M. Hyde, Charles
M. Cooke, and William O. Smith. She charged them with the responsibility
to carry into effect the trusts she established. It was to be done,
and was in fact accomplished, with her own funds and assets.
The question over whether
beneficiaries of her trust were to be children of Hawaiian blood only,
or any child of Hawaii arose early in the School's history. The Princess
was specific in her will that her trustees were to devote a part of
each year's income to the "support and education of orphans and others
in indigent circumstances, giving the preference to Hawaiians of
pure or part aboriginal blood" (underscoring added). Except in the
reference to orphans and indigents, her will does not otherwise include
language that is exclusive to Hawaiians. And that is where the argument
has raged. But there are three factors that provide rather clear evidence
of the Princess' intentions:
The issue is before us
once again and this time perhaps for a long while. Only last week,
the school administration and the board of trustees made a decision
to admit a non-Hawaiian student to its Maui campus and thereby created
a storm of protest and anguish from alumni and others in the Kamehameha
family. It was incomprehensible that with the number of Hawaiian children
awaiting admission, not a single one could be found to fill the vacancy
on Maui. In the meeting with alumni that followed, it seemed that concerns
with the IRS played a big part in the decision.
I can understand their
feelings on the matter. I believe all Hawaiians do -- and that includes
myself. The decision portends further intrusions on the Princess' estate
and her concern for the welfare of her people, and adds to a diminishing
list of Hawaiian benefits. Despite the Princess' wishes and admonishment
to her trustees against the sale of lands in her estate, Hawaiians have
seen 70,184 acres of the corpus lost in the period 1884-1963 (and more
since then) through a combination of condemnations, exchanges, and sales.
Much of these losses were precipitated by eminent domain proceedings
and mandatory lease to fee conversion laws. The estate enjoys tax exempt
status, but with that comes close scrutiny from the IRS, including not
only matters of revenue, but the matter of admissions as well. In 1998
and 1999, the IRS audit provided the leverage for removing the entire
Board of Trustees. It was either that or withdrawal of the tax exempt
status.
Feelings are running
so high that some have suggested that the exempt status be given up
in order to escape IRS oversight. I am Hawaiian by birth and a businessman
by profession. On that question, my business sense tells me quite clearly
that the tax exempt status serves the best interest of the schools and,
by extension, the beneficiaries. Education, whether public or private,
is a very expensive proposition requiring every possible means of assistance.
Kamehameha is engaged in a major expansion of services, with new campuses
on Maui and Hawaii and a new outreach program. Its tax exempt status
enables Kamehameha to offer quality education at a modest and affordable
cost. Building new campuses is only the beginning and is the least of
expenses. The cost of operating, maintaining, supplying, and staffing
them is where the big money rests, because those are fixed costs that
will continue well into the future. Without the tax exempt status, the
cost of attending Kamehameha could be prohibitive for many and it wouldn't
be long before the schools would be home only for the well to do. Princess
Bernice Pauahi Bishop's Estate is good not only for Hawaiians, it is
good for all of Hawaii. Its tax exempt status provides for a greater
level of discretionary income, which translates to more dollars available
for spending in the economy. We need to do two things: maintain the
tax exempt status and seek a strategy that would legally permit the
preference for Hawaiian admissions. .
I want to
see Pauahi's legacy continued for Hawaiian children, just as the Kamehameha
alumni does. I think the first step is to look to ourselves. We need
to avoid any bickering, and that should start by welcoming that Maui
student and his family to the ohana. He fell through the cracks
in the admission process. We can voice our displeasure at that decision
that allowed him in, but not at his presence. To do so will only worsen
matters. We need to remember that this is an issue for all Hawaiians,
not just graduates. In fact, it is a greater issue for those beneficiaries
who are yet to be served by the estate. Those who have not attended
Kamehameha exceed, by the tens of thousands, the number who have, and
their counsel must be included.
I believe that any remedy
lawfully permissible must have the consent of a clear majority of Hawaiians
eligible under, and voting in, any plebiscite on the question. It is
also my belief that a period of education must precede any plebiscite
vote to better assure an informed electorate; so that the choices of
remedy are clearly understood, both as regards their substance and their
implications. To this end, therefore, I would support an educational
effort to reach all Hawaiians regardless of their status, political
affiliations or persuasions.
I would support a Constitutional
Convention to draft a document of governance at a time when and if appropriate
to the process. As Governor, I would work tirelessly for a fair resolution
to the injustice of more than a hundred years ago.
Hawaii is known the world
over as the land of Aloha. And what is Aloha but the sense of affection,
hospitality, and genuine warmth of the people who first settled in Hawaii,
the loveliest group of islands on the face of this earth. Without Hawaiians
there would be no Aloha.