Site hosted by Build your free website today!

Hawaii Legislature 2015 -- Bills and Resolutions Related to Hawaiian Sovereignty. Text, testimony, and outcome.

by Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.

Webpage published February 18, 2015 and then updated until end of session in May, whenever a new bill or resolution relevant to Hawaiian sovereignty is introduced and gets a committee hearing.

The Hawaii legislature is dominated by Democrats, most of whom are far to the left on the political spectrum. Legislation focusing on ethnic Hawaiians is often explicitly and shockingly favorable to racial supremacy, racial separatism in the tribal concept, and/or restoration of Hawaii as an independent nation. That's because ethnic Hawaiians as a group are the state pet: see "NATIVE HAWAIIANS AS THE STATE PET OR MASCOT: A Psychological Analysis of Why the People of Hawaii Tolerate and Irrationally Support Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism" at

Such legislation is usually passed unanimously, showing no difference between Democrats and Republicans, most of whom might be called RINOs (Republicans in name only) -- except for occasional "Nay" votes by the lone Republican Senator Sam Slom, who is politically conservative. As the only Republican in the Senate he is automatically a member of every committee but therefore is physically unable to attend most committee hearings.

These bills and resolutions are troubling. The public should study them to get a grasp of how real are the dangers of racial separatism and ethnic nationalism in Hawaii. Citizens should phone or write to their legislators to express outrage when a legislator sponsors or votes in favor of bills and resolutions like these, which are both dangerous and ridiculous.

Each bill or resolution has its own webpage on the legislature's website. On that webpage there are links to full text of the bill or resolution, list of all the committee hearings including a record of how each legislator voted, a pdf file containing all the written testimony, and the official committee report for each committee. If a bill or resolution is introduced in either the House or Senate and also has a duplicate companion introduced in the other chamber, links are provided to the webpages for both of them. Full text is also provided of the testimony of Ken Conklin on behalf of the Center for Hawaiian Sovereignty Studies. Conklin's testimony was provided to each committee as a formatted pdf file on letterhead, which can be seen in each committee's file of all testimony; but is also provided here in simple text to save bandwidth. Items are arranged so that the most controversial ones, most likely to draw public interest, appear first.

This webpage is being created on February 18, 2015 after ten different bills (not counting cloned companions) have had hearings in either the House or Senate, or both, for which Ken Conklin has submitted testimony. More items will be added to this webpage through the end of the legislative session in May, as new items get introduced and have committee hearings and Ken Conklin submits testimony. However, only Conklin's testimony on the first version of a bill or resolution will be posted. If there are amended versions of bills or resolutions and new testimony is provided, readers can track everything through the legislature's webpage for that item as listed for each item below.


Requires OHA to administer a training course on native Hawaiian and Hawaiian rights.  Requires members of certain state councils, boards, and commissions to attend the training course.

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

The bill says that OHA offered its training courses on three occasions to government officials on various boards and commissions, and that some of those officials took the course, and then some who took the course reported that they had found it helpful. How nice for OHA! Participation was voluntary, free of cost to those who took it and to their employers; and of course they were enthusiastic (or at least they were polite enough to their instructors to give a positive evaluation). How nice for those who took the course and for those who taught it!

This bill proposes to make the course mandatory for all members of a long list of boards and commissions. How awful it would be to force people to be brainwashed by OHA's political propaganda on highly controversial topics with no presentation of opposing views. Would any member of a board or commission dare to ask a question in class that challenges the correctness of what the OHA-designated teacher is saying, or disagrees with the opinions being presented? By analogy, imagine the situation of a middle-school student from a Christian fundamentalist family being forced to attend a sex-education course which graphically describes anal sex as normal behavior, and whose parents are denied the right to opt-out.

This bill places one state agency, OHA, in a position of authority over other state agencies by requiring employees to pass a course whose purpose is to brainwash them with the political views of OHA. Dozens -- perhaps hundreds -- of members of previously independent boards and commissions would now be placed under the direct authority and supervision of OHA, knowing that if they refuse to kow-tow to their OHA instructor they will be given a failing grade in this mandatory course and will then be ineligible to continue as a member of their board or commission.

For example, OHA has certain views regarding who owns the ceded lands and whether the state has a right to sell parcels of ceded lands. The Hawaii Supreme Court made a 5-0 decision upholding OHA's views. But on appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that OHA's views are wrong. Can we expect OHA to teach correct information about who owns the ceded lands and whether the state can sell them?

For example, OHA has certain views about the Hawaiian revolution of 1893 that overthrew the monarchy, and points to the Blount Report of 1893 and the U.S. apology resolution of 1993 to bolster OHA's views. But those views are controversial, and are disproved by the Morgan Report issued by the U.S. Senate in 1894 and by the majority report of the Native Hawaiians Study Commission issued by a joint Senate/House commission in 1996. Can we expect OHA to provide both sides of this controversy, or will OHA brainwash state employees by teaching only the views OHA endorses?

This bill would require government employees to learn about, and give deference to, the ancient Hawaiian religion as the justification for various state laws and practices regarding water rights for taro, protection of ancient burials, etc. It would constitute an establishment of religion contrary to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; and it would also force employees who have no Hawaiian blood to bow to a religion which portrays people who do have Hawaiian blood as possessing an inherent God-given right to rule these islands.

This bill requires government employees to learn about "traditional and customary rights" of Native Hawaiians to ensure that in carrying out their duties, the employees will give respect and deference to Native Hawaiian beliefs and cultural values. For example, we might expect employees to be trained regarding sacred places, the reasons why taro patches are given special guarantees of access to water, the reasons why ancient burials must not be disturbed, etc.

Those topics, and many others, are based in the ancient Hawaiian religion, which has a creation legend which today's sovereignty activists (incorrectly) describe as portraying Native Hawaiians (and only Native Hawaiians) as genealogically the children of the gods and the brothers to these islands, and the younger brothers of the taro plant, in a way nobody ever can be who lacks a drop of native blood.

The Hawaiian religion is the only one to be given special deference under the terms of this bill; thus this bill would be an establishment of religion. Under terms of this legislation, government money will be used to indoctrinate government employees with a religious belief. Furthermore, the way that belief is likely to be taught can best be described as religious fascism because it justifies giving governmental authority over land-use decisions to a particular racial group.

In 1819, the year before the American missionaries came to Hawaii, the sovereign King Liholiho Kamehameha II, with his regent stepmother Queen Ka'ahumanu, and with Kahuna Nui (High Priest) Hewahewa, exercised sovereignty on behalf of all native Hawaiians to abolish the ancient religion, and ordered the destruction of the heiaus and burning of idols. Those ethnic Hawaiians who try to resurrect the ancient religion for political purposes disrespect the decision of their ali'is and ancestors. By seeking to elevate that ancient religion above all other religions, they disrespect the right to freedom of religion possessed by all Americans.

This committee should not disrespect the mainstream majority of today's ethnic Hawaiians, and the multiracial, multicultural people of Hawaii, by passing this bill.


Appropriates funds for the office of Hawaiian affairs for the fiscal biennium beginning July 1, 2015, and ending June 30, 2017.

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:

The file of all testimony, found at the URL above, has very lengthy, detailed budget information, in color, provided by OHA.

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

During every biennium OHA demands an appropriation of millions of dollars of general funds (i.e., taxpayer dollars), and the Legislature meekly complies. Could we perhaps expect the Legislature to demand an accounting for how OHA spends its money? Will the Legislature demand that OHA comply with state law regarding disclosure of its operating expenses and transparency regarding meeting agendas, in return for giving state government funds to OHA?

The question arises whether OHA is a state government agency. OHA has repeatedly asserted it is not a state agency and therefore need not comply with state laws.

In view of its own assertion that it is not a state agency, the Legislature should feel no obligation to appropriate state funds to OHA.

OHA's refusal to comply with state law is most easily visible regarding the Office of Information Practices. On August 10, 2011 and also on August 29, 2011 online newspaper Civil Beat published articles about OHA's refusal to disclose the salaries of its employees despite being ordered by OIP to make such disclosures, just as other government agencies are required to do. See the following two articles, and take note of the headlines as found in the URLs themselves:

Most recently OIP filed a formal complaint against OHA regarding OHA's failure to publish an agenda regarding its trustees' decision-making activities on whether to endorse or rescind an important and highly controversial letter sent by the OHA CEO to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry -- a topic that large numbers of Hawaii citizens wanted to testify about to the trustees in hopes of influencing their decision. The State Auditor has also criticized OHA for its lack of transparency in business and real estate transactions.

During the most recent bienniums OHA has filed bills seeking to exempt itself from the laws governing procurement of goods and services, and from the open meeting laws. For years now, OHA has evaded public accountability. It operates in the shadows, spending millions on overhead, salaries, first-class travel and entertainment, political lobbying, advertising, etc. instead of on the "beneficiaries."

OHA has always imagined itself to be comparable to the tribal council of an Indian tribe, and asserted such claims in its legal briefs in Rice v. Cayetano as a reason why voting for OHA trustees should be limited to ethnic Hawaiians. The Akaka bill sat in Congress for thirteen years while newspaper articles repeatedly said its passage was just around the corner, raising OHA's hopes that soon there would be a federally recognized tribe in Hawaii which could govern its members with total secrecy and lack of accountability, just as the real Indian tribes do. Hawaii Act 195 of 2011 began a process of creating a state-recognized tribe even without it getting federal recognition. OHA imagines the state recognized tribe will be a private club which can operate in secrecy. The U.S. Department of Interior is right now conspiring to change the rules for federal recognition of an Indian tribe in order to allow the Obama administration to do by executive order what Congress steadfastly refused to do.

OHA has an ever-changing website with URLs that soon go dead (making it hard to prove what OHA actually says). The following statement has appeared repeatedly for many years:

"When OHA is spending State general fund revenues, it needs to operate as a state agency and, as such, must comply with various state laws and regulations. However, when OHA operates as a trust, its allegiance is to its beneficiaries."

But that's nonsense. OHA must always operate as a state agency, regardless whether it likes to imagine itself to be a trust whenever convenient to its purposes; and even if it were a trust it would still have to comply with state law and make a full disclosure of its operating expenses to the state Attorney General. I once had occasion to converse with Randy Roth, the distinguished Professor of Law at UH Manoa whose specialty is the law of trusts. I asked him "Is OHA a trust, like the actual trusts you teach about in your law classes?" He laughed at the absurdity, and said "No."

In keeping with the fiction that OHA is sometimes a state agency and sometimes a private trust, like a blinking light, this bill to appropriate general fund tax dollars to OHA purports to identify which portions of budgeted amounts are attributable to General Funds (marked with an "A") vs. which are attributable to Trust Funds (marked with a "T"). But the criteria are not at all clear for what percentage is attributable to each category, and in any case the whole blinking light concept is ridiculous.

According to its annual report, OHA has assets of more than $650 Million. Aside from real estate in Hawaii, most of that money has been ripped out of the economy of Hawaii and squirreled away in the New York stock and bond markets. Let OHA bring some of that money home and spend it for its operating expenses. When OHA was established in the Constitutional Convention of 1978, the idea was that OHA would receive and promptly disburse funds for the benefit of poor, downtrodden ethnic Hawaiians. It was never envisioned that OHA would accumulate a hoard of cash and real estate.

OHA talks about self-determination and nation-building. Let OHA prove that it is capable of walking the talk by paying its own way without leeching money forever from Hawaii's hardworking and overburdened taxpayers.


Establishes Makua Valley Reserve Commission to oversee control and management of Makua Valley. Subject to Commission oversight, requires the Department of Land and Natural Resources to implement controls and permitted uses for the Valley and provide administrative support to the Commission.

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

Some of my concerns are general; and some are specific to particular items in the bill.


This bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is a Hawaiian sovereignty bill masquerading as a bill for environmental and cultural preservation. § -8 Transfer is outrageous.

I believe the single most important issue facing Hawaii in the foreseeable future is the imminent and continuing threat that the lands, resources, government and people of Hawaii will be divided along racial lines. Please see "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State"

The Legislature from 2000 to 2010 repeatedly passed resolutions favoring the Akaka bill, and then passed Act 195 (session laws of 2011) to begin creating a racially exclusionary Hawaiian tribe empowered to negotiate with YOU, the legislators. It is expected that you will give away massive amounts of land, money, and jurisdictional authority to the tribe.

This bill, in § -8 Transfer, would already designate Makua Valley as the property of the racial Hawaiian tribe even before the tribe is created, and before any negotiations have started. That's absurd! No responsible negotiator gives away important concessions before the opponents even arrive at the table. Legislators have a fiduciary duty to protect the lands and resources of Hawaii on behalf of all our people, not just some. If you insist on giving away Makua Valley, at least you should get some concessions in return.

I vehemently oppose the effort (1) to place Makua valley under the control of a racially and ideologically stacked "cultural reserve commission"; and (2) to single out one particular racial group and its cultural heritage as the sole source of value for historic and cultural preservation; and (3) to declare that the valley will be transferred to a future race-based government if and when that new government achieves federal/state recognition.

Makua belongs to all the people of Hawaii, and should stay that way. It has been used for a variety of agricultural, commercial, cultural, and religious purposes by people of various racial heritages. May it always be so! That's why this bill must be rejected.

In 2009 a very similar bill passed the legislature but was vetoes by Governor Lingle. In 2013 a very similar bill died in the legislature. Please follow their lead and defeat this bill yet again.

This is also a bill to push the military out of Makua, despite a long history of military training there which has included environmental stewardship. Court decisions have repeatedly affirmed the Army's right to use Makua while making allowances for cultural activities and preservation; but this bill would over-rule those court decisions. § -10 Severability Section 2, coming at the bottom of the bill, may be insufficient to protect the rights of the Army.


§ -3 Reservation of uses.

"(1) Preservation and practice of all rights customarily and traditionally exercised by native Hawaiians for cultural, spiritual, and subsistence purposes"

But of course those rights are preserved throughout all of Hawaii. There's no need to reaffirm them here. Furthermore, all other racial and cultural groups in Hawaii should also be entitled to exercise their customs, and it is improper to single out only ethnic Hawaiians for protection to the exclusion of others. If paragraph (1) is regarded as necessary to be reaffirmed so explicitly, then the rights of everyone else should also be reaffirmed explicitly.

And in particular, the rights of the Army, found at the bottom of the bill in § -12 Severability Section 2, should be moved up to this paragraph so it is clearly given equal priority with ethnic Hawaiian race-based "rights."

By failing to mention military uses, lines 1 and 2 in the bill would actually exclude the military:
"The valley reserve shall be used solely and exclusively for the following purposes"

By failing to allow commercial uses, and later explicitly prohibiting such uses, this bill would deny former residents of the valley, who were evicted and whose lands were condemned, any opportunity to return and to resume their former activities including farming and ranching. The bill would also prohibit local residents from selling any fish they catch, and prohibit snorkel tours and other profit-making ocean recreational activities.

§ -5 Commission.

This section enumerates the criteria for membership on the Commission for each of its seven members. The criteria guarantee that the vast majority of members will be anti-military; and the criteria lean heavily in favor of guaranteeing a racial majority for ethnic Hawaiians. Here are six of the seven members as specified in Section 5: (1) Malama Makua, and (2) Hui Malama O Makua, and (3) families that were evicted from the valley -- these three are antimilitary and dominated by ethnic Hawaiians; (4) the "aha moku advisory committee" is ethnic Hawaiian; (5) Office of Hawaiian Affairs is race-based and has a history of filing anti-military lawsuits; (7) "member shall be appointed by the governor from a list provided by native Hawaiian organizations" is clearly race-based. Thus 6 out of 7 Commission members are either required to be, or very likely to be, ethnic Hawaiians who are politically active in the sovereignty movement.

(d) "Any action taken by the commission shall be approved by a simple majority of its members. Four voting members shall constitute a quorum." Since 4 members are a quorum, a zealous group of ethnic Hawaiian racial partisans could call meetings and make decisions in the absence of the other members.

(e) Why is there an exemption from chapter 76 ? Furthermore, in these difficult financial times, do we really want to be expanding the size of government by hiring an executive director and other "warm bodies"?

§ -6 Responsibilities and duties of the commission.

(5) "...curator or stewardship agreements with appropriate Hawaiian cultural and spiritual community organizations for the perpetuation of native Hawaiian cultural, religious, and subsistence customs, beliefs, and practices ..." This is clearly racist, because it excludes other ethnicities, religions and cultures.

§ -8 Transfer. "Upon the expiration of the lease existing as of July 1, 2015, the resources of the valley reserve shall be held intrust as part of the public land trust; provided that the State shall transfer management and control of the valley reserve to the sovereign native Hawaiian entity upon its recognition by the United States and the State."

Section 8 is outrageous. Handing over a piece of Hawaii to a racially exclusionary government is both illegal and immoral.

Setting aside Makua for such a fate even before the Hawaiian tribe has been created and before negotiations have begun with it is a violation of the fiduciary duty of the Legislature to protect the property and rights of all the citizens of our State.

Ethnic Hawaiians, or their spouses or family members, who sit as members of this legislature have a clear conflict of interest on this bill, which sets aside Makua Valley as the future property of the tribe for the exclusive benefit of themselves and their descendants. They have an ethical duty to recuse themselves from debating this bill or voting upon it.


Creates the Native Hawaiian Welfare Act establishing the na kupuna tribunal which is granted exclusive jurisdiction over child custody proceedings involving Native Hawaiian children. Establishes a one-year pilot project prior to full implementation of the Act.

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:

The file of all the testimony, available at the link above, includes some very detailed, technical testimony from state government officials and child welfare experts.

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

SB992 is a terrible bill. Explaining why would take more words than are in the bill itself! So I'll raise only a few disconnected issues for you to consider.

My dear legislators, are you familiar with the Indian Child Welfare Act? In particular, are you familiar with the lawsuit "Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl" (also known as the Baby Veronica case)? Google it. Study it. The U.S. Supreme Court finally decided it on a technicality in a 5-4 vote on June 25, 2013, following nearly the entire first 4 years of a child's life while she was handed back and forth between different natural and adoptive parents and adoption agencies depending on the progress of litigation through numerous courts and jurisdictions. The absentee biological father had signed papers giving up all parental rights; but after the baby's biological mother gave Veronica up for adoption, the Cherokee Nation intervened to assert tribal custody because the father had a smidgen of Cherokee ancestry which gave Veronica 3/256 Cherokee blood. Imagine how confused that poor child must be! And what about the other 253/256 of her genetic heritage? One thing that was clear in the legal arguments and court decisions -- the "best interests of the child", which is the usual basis for child-custody decisions, was simply irrelevant because the ICWA says that even a small percentage of native blood trumps all other considerations -- exactly like SB992.

Here in Hawaii there are almost no "pure Hawaiians." Probably 3/4 of all so-called "Native Hawaiians" have more than 3/4 of their ancestry being non-Hawaiian. Why should a child whose ancestry is overwhelmingly non-Hawaiian be regarded as "Native Hawaiian" to the exclusion of all his other ancestries? Why should a committee of elderly ethnic Hawaiians be allowed to sit in judgment and dictate a child's future over the objections of parents and other family members whose biological and cultural ties to the child are far stronger?

This bill would enshrine both racial supremacy and racial separatism on stilts. It explicitly envisions enclaves where the demographics become increasingly ethnic Hawaiian, and the people living there are governed by their own laws which are significantly different from the rest of Hawaii. It reminds me of recent discussions about Paris after the murders of the Charlie Hebdo journalists -- there are apparently areas in Paris and other European towns where Muslims live in self-segregated enclaves under Sharia (Muslim) law and where non-Muslims and French civil authorities are afraid to go. Is that the kind of Hawaii we want? And this bill says that any smidgen of "Native Hawaiian" blood in a child determines that a "Na Kupuna tribunal" of Native Hawaiian elders will have the right to intervene in any adoption or child-custody case, even in state courts, even across state lines! The Kupuna Tribunal would have total decision-making authority above all other racial and cultural groups and above all normal divorce and adoption procedures. Who the hell are they to dictate to everyone else! Such arrogance would certainly spur bitter anger and anti-Hawaiian racial hostility -- and justifiably so!

The bill says "No involuntary termination of parental rights may be ordered." Really? Several times every year we see news stories about children being tortured by their own mother or custodial aunty (remember "Queen" Rita Makekau?) or father (including a soldier who tortured and killed his little girl and was just today sentenced to life in prison when a jury could not agree unanimously on a death sentence). By the way, where is Peter-Boy Kema? Sometimes parental rights should be terminated, in the best interest of the child -- even an ethnic Hawaiian child -- before it's too late.

Adoption across racial lines has become more commonplace throughout America as the years have gone by. But what should we think when the child itself has multiple racial lines in its own genealogy (as is true of nearly all "Native Hawaiians")? A child conceived by impregnation across racial lines should be able to be adopted across racial lines. Such a child can fit comfortably into any of its racial/cultural heritages; and in Hawaii's society of many races and cultures, a child would feel comfortable in any home or neighborhood even if none of its biological heritages was represented there.

Hawaii is a beautiful multicolored rainbow. Should re rip the red arc out of the rainbow and put it in one part of the sky, while the green arc goes to a different place? Do not rip us apart.


Makes permanent Act 141, Session Laws of Hawaii 2009, which requires the counties to issue affordable housing credits to DHHL. Makes permanent Act 98, Session Laws of Hawaii 2012, which requires the counties to issue affordable housing credits for each residential unit developed by DHHL. Allows credits to be issued for rental units developed by DHHL on a two-credit per one-unit basis and to satisfy affordable housing obligations imposed by the counties, regardless of the date of enactment thereof.

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:


Makes permanent Act 141, Sessions Laws of Hawaii 2009, which requires the county to issue affordable housing credits to the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. Makes permanent Act 98, Session Laws of Hawaii 2012, which requires the counties to issue affordable housing credits for each residential unit developed by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands.

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

A developer who applies for a permit to develop a piece of land by building houses, townhouses, or apartment buildings is often required, as a condition for being granted the permit, to sign an agreement with the county government to set aside a percentage of the housing units as "affordable" housing. That means that for a specified period of years those designated units can be sold only to owner-occupants, or used for rental housing, at prices or rents significantly below what those housing units would otherwise command in the free market.

Some of the alleged purposes of the affordable housing requirement are to ensure that people with low incomes, or ethnicities that might be discriminated against, can nevertheless afford a decent place to live in a multiracial neighborhood, and that ghettoes or slums with high crime rates will be avoided by having low-income families dispersed in middle-class neighborhoods.

The concept of government-enforced affordable housing requirements for developers to get permits seems to be inspired by Robin Hood: Take from the rich and give to the poor. Take a landowner's right to develop his land, consistent with normal zoning requirements for safety and environmental protection, and confiscate a portion of the wealth he could expect from developing it in order to provide below-market prices for housing for low-income people. Social justice!

From the perspective of a developer, a requirement to provide affordable housing as a condition of getting a development permit closely resembles paying a bribe -- the main difference is that the bribe is paid in the form of legally allowed and well-publicized extortion of reduced profit rather than being paid secretly as cash in an envelope handed over in a dark alley; and that the extortionist is the elected county government rather than a Mafia hoodlum. Either way, force is being used.

Developers are allowed to buy or sell affordable housing credits among each other in a sort of marketplace, somewhat analogous to air-pollution credits or carbon credits. Thus a developer who builds a larger number of affordable housing units than required under terms of his permit can sell his surplus credits to a developer whose permit requires more affordable units than he wishes to actually build.

SB785 and SB1100 would badly distort the normal marketplace of affordable housing credits, turning it into a Frankenstein's monster. The Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL) operates a very abnormal collection of neighborhoods where land can only be leased but never owned in fee simple, and where racial segregation is practiced because someone must have at least 50% Hawaiian native blood in order to be granted a lease (or 25% to inherit a lease). Furthermore DHHL is not a normal developer hoping to make a profit; rather, DHHL is heavily subsidized by owning land it was given for free and by receiving operating funds from the government; and DHHL's mission is to develop roads and utilities to enable leaseholders to build housing units at below-market cost in a planned community with rules enforced by a heavy-handed bureaucracy.

Every housing unit developed on DHHL property is likely to satisfy county requirements to be considered "affordable." So under terms of SB785 and SB1100, DHHL would accumulate a huge inventory of credits for affordable housing, which DHHL could then sell to normal free-market developers. SB785 and SB1100 would drop an enormous windfall profit into DHHL, which seemingly materializes out of thin air.

But we all know nothing comes for free. So who would pay for DHHL's windfall profit?

It seems obvious that a few of the expected outcomes of SB785 and SB1100 would be as follows. Normal (i.e., for-profit) developers would purchase all the affordable housing credits they need from DHHL and would therefore have no reason to actually build affordable housing. Each county, as a whole, outside the DHHL ghettoes, would become increasingly gentrified due to lack of new affordable housing, so that young people from lower and middle class backgrounds would be under economic pressure to leave Hawaii even more-so than at present. Money that developers might normally pay to counties in lieu of the affordable housing requirement for a permit would now be paid to DHHL instead, forcing counties to raise taxes or reduce services for those unfortunate folks lacking the required native blood quantum.

I'm not an expert on economics or real estate. Surely the legislature can find experts to advise you on the consequences of SB785 and SB1100. Something seems terribly wrong with this legislation. Please get expert advice from people who have no affiliation with DHHL, OHA, or other racial entitlement institutions.


Provides that a project possessing a notice to proceed pursuant to a permit issued for the reconstruction, restoration, repair, or reuse of a Hawaii fishpond shall be exempt from the permit requirements of chapter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes.

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:

The file of all the testimony, available at the link above, includes some very detailed, technical testimony from cultural and environmental experts and activists.

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

The stated purpose of this bill is to place an application for permit to restore a fishpond at the front of the line, prioritized ahead of all other permit applications; and to require that a permit shall be certified as issued if the application and associated environmental studies are delayed longer than a specified time limit.

This bill should be defeated for at least two reasons: (1) It is not pono to automatically give top priority to permits for fishponds. There are many worthy projects awaiting permits, and some might be of greater importance to the community than fishponds -- for example, a dairy or cattle farm, a prison so that Hawaii criminals do not have to be sent to mainland prisons, or housing for homeless people. (2) Automatically granting a permit merely because an artificial time limit has expired will either result in a lot of bad projects that never should have been permitted or else will result in massive expansion of government bureaucracy to ensure compliance with the time limit.

Many individuals and businesses are rightly aggrieved and angry at excessive delays in the permitting process. The legislature, and some county councils, have previously considered legislation to impose a time limit on government bureaucracies, such that the permit must automatically be granted if the application process is delayed beyond the specified time limit. But such time limits are usually impractical and inadvisable; because, as we all know from doing home improvement or construction contracting, unexpected problems or environmental discoveries might require more time.

Would it be acceptable to impose a time limit on island burial councils so that failure to make a timely decision regarding whether to keep a burial in place or allow relocation of it will result in automatic granting of a permit to move the burial? Why should a landowner wanting to build a house or store or church recreation hall be kept waiting for years merely because a burial council lacks sufficient members for a quorum or lacks the desire to render a decision? Why should this situation be allowed to drag on but a fishpond application enjoys a deadline for decision-making?

The mere fact that a fishpond was constructed in its current location and used in ancient times is no guarantee that it should be approved for renovation and fish production in modern times. Today we have fertilizers, pesticides, and genetically modified organisms in mauka areas which find their way into the streams that flow into the fishponds. Thus the fish enjoyed by natives in ancient times might be unsafe to eat today from that same fishpond. It's important to do studies of streamflow, clarity, and purity in both the rainy season and the dry season during a period of several years. Mosquitoes were never present in ancient times, but a fishpond could become a breeding place for mosquitoes that would negatively impact neighbors living very nearby, such as the fishpond at He'eia (Kane'ohe) -- and some of those mosquitoes could cause an epidemic of malaria or dengue.

Some projects are quite similar to fishponds either regarding the amount of space they occupy along the shoreline or ocean, or regarding the pollution they create and safety of eating the fish. For example, a pier protrudes from the shoreline into a bay or ocean, with perhaps a roughly equal area of footprint. Why should a homeowner or business wanting to build a pier be subjected to excessive delays and need for multiple permits from multiple bureaucracies while a fishpond restoration group should get expedited and simplified consideration? Some companies have wanted to operate fishfarms offshore by using nets to surround large volumes of ocean, allowing water and nutrients and fishpoop to flow in and out of the enclosed area through the mesh of the net in the same way as happens in a fishpond with flow through the makaha(s). Even though such an offshore fishfarm clearly allows extremely free flow of nutrients and waste -- much more free than the flow through the makaha of a rock-enclosed fishpond -- nevertheless environmentalists protest the fishfarms but give protest-free approval to the fishponds. A fishpond needs more scrutiny than an offshore fishfarm before receiving a permit, because the fishpond interacts with neighbors and land as well as ocean, while a fishfarm has no neighbors and interacts only with ocean.


Requires a state agency to award not less than 20% of the total value of the agency's procurement contracts to native Hawaiian organizations. Defines "native Hawaiian organization".

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

Establishing a minority set-aside in government procurement or contracting is a very dangerous thing to do, because it invites civil rights lawsuits under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

For a government agency to engage in a program of racial discrimination, such as favoring one race over all others in government procurement, the program must satisfy strict scrutiny; i.e., it must be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest.

For example, a compelling government interest would be to make up for the effects of past discrimination. But there has been no proof -- not even an accusation -- that the government of the State of Hawaii has engaged in racial discrimination against Native Hawaiians while favoring all other ethnic groups, which would therefore warrant a remedy of racial set-asides in government procurement to make up for past discrimination.

To be narrowly tailored, a program must have a deadline, or at least a timeframe, when the goals will have been achieved and the program can end; but this bill sets forth no timetable. On the contrary, it seems to envision forever.

There is also no evidence that companies controlled by Native Hawaiians, nor independent contractor individuals who are Native Hawaiians, have been receiving a significantly lower percentage of government contracts that their percentage of the relevant workforce. For example, it might be asserted that Native Hawaiians comprise about 20% of our population and therefore should be expected to receive 20% of government contracts. However, there are many major flaws in that reasoning. For example, according to Census 2010, the median age of Native Hawaiians living in Hawaii was only 26, compared to a median age of 39 for Hawaii's population as a whole, which becomes a median age of 42 for all the rest of Hawaii's people who are not Native Hawaiian. Very few people at age 26 are owners or majority stockholders in a company capable of supplying goods or services to our government, whereas by age 42 such ownership is far more likely. Indeed, a much larger fraction of Native Hawaiians are below the age when it is legal for them to work, compared with the rest of the population. So it is expected and normal that far less than 20% of government contracts would be awarded to Native Hawaiians, simply because the median age of that racial group is so young. There must be strong evidence to prove discrimination or disproportionate representation; yet no evidence at all has been submitted to support this legislation.

The factor usually considered most essential to justify a minority set-aside is the need for adequate waiver provisions. A waiver provision is a procedure by which a non-minority contractor may receive a contract set aside for a minority by showing that after good faith efforts the set-aside requirements cannot be met. The state government needs to hire companies that can do computer programming and systems management, along with statistical analysis and actuarial work related to the state retirement system -- but are there Native Hawaiian controlled companies capable of handling 20% of that workload? Whoever wrote this bill apparently never considered the need for waivers.

Another consideration is that in Hawaii, every ethnic group is a minority; so if a set-aside is demanded for Native Hawaiians, then why not another set-aside for Filipinos, and another set-aside for Micronesians, etc.? Also, many individuals have multiple ethnicities in their genealogies. So it's a difficult question whether an individual should be assigned to a single minority based on the largest percentage of his genealogy, or whether an individual could be attributed to every one of his multiple heritages.

Please put this bill into the trash. The committee chair should never have scheduled it for a hearing.


Appropriates funds to the Kaho‘olawe Island Reserve Commission for restoration and preservation projects.

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:

SB438 should be deferred or defeated for two reasons:

(1) More than $400 Million was appropriated by the U.S. government to clean up unexploded ordnance on Kaho'olawe; and a trust fund totaling $44 Million was established for restoration work to be done by KIRC after the island was transferred to the State of Hawaii. However, there has not been a fiscal or management audit for how the money was spent, which individuals or companies were paid how much money to do what work, whether contracts were awarded in compliance with state procurement laws, and whether the work was completed satisfactorily. Such management and fiscal audits should be completed and reported to the legislature before any additional funds are appropriated.

(2) So long as the island of Kaho'olawe is set aside by law to be transferred to a future sovereign Native Hawaiian entity, state government taxpayer dollars should not be spent to maintain or improve it. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs has more than $650 Million in assets in its "trust fund", and its stated purpose is to provide for "the betterment of Native Hawaiians." OHA is the primary entity pushing to create a Native Hawaiian tribe, and has publicly stated that it plans to turn over all its assets to that tribe. Either this bill should be amended to include a clause rescinding HRS Section 6K-9 and making clear that Kaho'olawe is an unalienable part of the State of Hawaii, or else this bill should be amended to require that all funds for the rehabilitation, improvement, and operation of Kaho'olawe must come from the assets of OHA.

As the text of this bill explains, "Pursuant to section 6K-9, Hawaii Revised Statutes, the management and control of the Kaho‘olawe island reserve will be transferred to a sovereign Native Hawaiian entity upon its recognition by the state and federal governments. This event is anticipated to occur within the timeframe of the 2026 strategic plan." And indeed, Act 195, Session Laws of 2011, began the process of creating a state-recognized Native Hawaiian tribe with the expectation that once it has been established it will then seek federal recognition. During 2014 the U.S. Department of Interior held hearings in Hawaii and on the mainland to take testimony regarding an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-Making to change federal law regarding the criteria for recognizing Indian tribes, specifically for the purpose of facilitating federal recognition of the anticipated state-recognized tribe now being created under Act 195.

Does our state legislature really intend to create a Hawaiian tribe and divide the lands and people of Hawaii along racial lines? Will this legislature do anything to protect the 80% of our people who lack a drop of Hawaiian blood, against the rapacious demands of the tribe for land, money, and jurisdictional authority? Please rescind HRS Section 6K-9 and do not appropriate any money to do what OHA has a responsibility to do. I expect my legislature not to give away the store before negotiations with the Hawaiian tribe have even begun.


Provides that the treatment of a corpse in a manner consistent with traditional Hawaiian cultural customs and practices shall not constitute the abuse of a corpse within the penal code.

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:


I support the intent of this bill, which I believe is to respect the right of Native Hawaiians to preserve their ancient culture by engaging in ancient ways of treating a corpse without being punished for violating modern law regarding abuse of a corpse. But shouldn't this bill grant that same right to people who are not Native Hawaiian? Also, would we want this bill to authorize a Native Hawaiian to use ancient cultural practices to abuse a corpse when the dead person would have strongly objected, or perhaps was not even Native Hawaiian?

As this bill notes, current law says a person commits the offense of abuse of a corpse if he treats a human corpse "in a way that the person knows would outrage ordinary family sensibilities."

There were many different ways corpses were treated in ancient Hawaiian culture. One of the most gruesome ways, judging by modern mainstream culture, was to put the corpse into an imu (earthen oven) and bake it until the flesh fell off the bones; and then gather the long bones (arms and legs) and wrap them in kapa cloth, enclose them in a coconut-fiber casket shaped like a miniature human, and bury the "ka'ai" secretly in a cave. Clearly that way of treating a corpse "would outrage ordinary family sensibilities" and be subject to prosecution for abuse of a corpse under the existing statute. Is there any Native Hawaiian now living who would like his own corpse to be handled in that way? If so, his surviving family members should be able to do so without fear of prosecution.

However, the bill is too narrow, because it does not grant a similar right to people of other races, religions, and cultures. Shouldn't Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and people who have no religious affiliation have the same right to respectfully treat the corpses of their family members or fellow religionists in accordance with religious or cultural customs without fearing prosecution for "abuse of a corpse"? Perhaps a man who was never circumcised would have liked to have that ritual performed upon his corpse before he goes to meet his maker -- a decision his family members should be able to make on his behalf even if he never wrote it in his will. Perhaps a scholar of Egyptology would like his next of kin to eviscerate his corpse and mummify it. Perhaps someone would like his body to be immediately frozen and put in a cryogenic capsule to be preserved until two centuries later when the disease that killed him can be cured after he is revived.

The bill is also too broad, because it would give license to any Native Hawaiian to treat a corpse according to ancient Hawaiian practices even if the dead person would strongly disapprove of his corpse being treated that way -- perhaps the dead person was not Native Hawaiian at all; or perhaps he was a Native Hawaiian who was nevertheless a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim or person with no religious affiliation, who did not practice or believe in the ancient Hawaiian culture or religion and would have considered the ancient Hawaiian customs repulsive. The way the bill is written would give license to a zealous practitioner of ancient Hawaiian burial methods to inflict those methods on the corpse even if the person who died would have strenuously objected.

I am not a lawyer, but there are many lawyers available to the legislature. Please improve the language in this bill by taking account of the two areas of improvement I have described; or else defer the bill indefinitely.


SCR 154 and SR 96

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:


I note that this resolution contains much of the same language found in SB1166 and HB1297, and this resolution can be seen as a request that the Department of Health develop regulations for implementing those bills. I supported the intent of those bills but urged that they be amended in two ways. This resolution should also be amended to accommodate those two concerns, as follows: 

1. Broaden the applicability to ensure that all ethnic groups are treated equally. Ethnic or religious groups other than Native Hawaiian should be given the same rights as Native Hawaiians to identify ways of treating corpses and conducting burials that might be outside "normal" or "mainstream" practices. Laws and regulations should be developed to allow and encourage all ethnic or religious groups to identify and specify ethnic-based or religion-based practices to be done safely and without fear of prosecution. Please do not limit the scope of this resolution to Native Hawaiians alone.

2. Narrow the applicability to ensure that no individual corpse or burial can be "hijacked" by any ethnic or religious group such that the individual is treated in a way contrary to what he would have wanted or what his next-of-kin wants on his behalf. An overly zealous group of cultural practitioners might try to treat an individual in a manner he or his family might find offensive or repulsive, merely because the group focuses on that individual's race or ancestry and holds a stereotype that all individuals of that ethnicity should be treated in the same way. Such a group of zealous cultural practitioners might conceivably try to dictate that every individual who lives or dies in a particular place must be treated in accord with the group's cultural or religious practices. Please limit the scope of this resolution to ensure that no individual corpse or burial can be hijacked in such a manner contrary to what the individual would have wanted or what his next-of-kin wants. There are Native Hawaiians who wish to have their corpses treated according to Christian, Buddhist, or Muslim customs rather than according to ancient Hawaiian customs.


Requires that all letterheads, documents, symbols, and emblems of the State and other political subdivisions include accurate and appropriate Hawaiian names and language. Establishes references for accurate, appropriate, and authentic Hawaiian names and words, including proper Hawaiian spelling and punctuation.

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:

Ken Conklin's testimony in opposition:


SB895 should perhaps be entitled "Full employment act for Hawaiian language translators." For one small example, just consider the diacritical marks in the portions of this bill written in Hawaiian language. Whoever actually wrote the Hawaiian language portions was probably not a staff member of the legislature, but an outside expert on Hawaiian language. Was there anyone in the regular staffs of the bill's Senate sponsors who would have been competent to insert the proper diacritical marks? ('and 'avoid 'inserting m'arks wh'ere they don't b'el'ong!) What would have been the cost to hire an independent contractor to do the job? Is there a typewriter in the state Senate capable of creating the diacritical marks? Perhaps an ordinary English-language apostrophe would satisfy the language police for use as an 'okina [see, I just did it!], but probably not, because an 'okina maoli [real 'okina] is supposed to curve, and in one particular direction (not the other direction). But the kahako is much more tricky. Not only do you need an expert who knows when it must be used, but you also need a special font or special-function keyboard keys programmed to be able to produce it on the vowels where it is appropriate.


The original written version of Hawaiian language created by the missionaries in 1820 had no diacritical marks. There was no need for them, because Hawaiian was an oral language which people learned by hearing it spoken with the good pronunciation of fluent native speakers. The diacritical marks were invented by language professors in modern times in an attempt to help people to know how to pronounce words they were reading but had never heard being pronounced. The Hawaiian language as printed in the newspapers from 1834 to 1948 does not use diacritical marks. Out of respect for the language, perhaps we should not superimpose diacritical marks today. Let people learn correct pronunciation (glottal stops and long vs. short vowels) by hearing good speakers rather than by reading Hawaiian with added diacritical marks in isolation from anyone speaking it.


The bill SB2175 is vague and thus unenforceable when a decision must be made regarding whether a place name or person's name, or a phrase, is being written in Hawaiian language (and therefore requires diacritical marks) or is being written in English language (and therefore cannot use diacritical marks because such marks are not part of the English language).

For example: The name for our archipelago during the Kingdom period was "Kō Hawai'i Pae 'Aina", which is clearly in Hawaiian language and therefore must include diacritical marks if we are now to obey SB895 and require the use of diacritical marks even though such marks were not used during that historical period. However, the name for our archipelago at the present time, as a part of the United States, is "State of Hawaii" which is clearly an English-language name of a State and therefore must not use diacritical marks. The Hawaiian language zealots demand that the name of our State be rendered in its Hawaiian-language version with an ‘okina as Hawai'i even when it appears in an English-language sentence and should therefore have no ‘okina, as State of Hawaii. It is simply incorrect to mix the two languages by calling our entity State of Hawai'i. Either we are Ka Moku'aina O Hawai'i or perhaps Kō Hawai'i Pae ‘Aina; or else we are State of Hawaii [no ‘okina]. Which one of those do you want to see on your official letterhead?

Another example is the name of my town. When I want to show off that I can speak Hawaiian, I call it "Kāne'ohe" including a kahakō over the letter "a" and an 'okina between the "e" and "o". But when I put my address on an income tax form for the federal or state governments, my town is "Kaneohe" with no diacritical marks. The Hawaiian supremacists who authored this bill want to demand that I must always spell the names of my State and my town in the Hawaiian academic manner with diacritical marks even when I'm filling out federal and state tax forms. I refuse to comply with such a demand, and I invite the Hawaiian language police to arrest me.


When a letterhead gives an address that is on King Street, can the word "King" be retained, or must it be Hawaiianized as "Mo'i"? Can the street name "Richards" be kept, or must it be Hawaiianized as "Likeke"? It is customary in most civilized languages throughout the world to show respect to people and places by preserving the name of a foreign person or place precisely as it is written in its original language, and not to render it as either a transliteration or conceptual translation. But Hawaiian language in the past (and sometimes still today among the zealots) has a habit of Hawaiianizing at least the pronunciation (as in the examples of King and Richards) and sometimes raping the name to create a conceptual translation of it which sounds nothing like the original name.

Dr. Kekeha Solis is a Hawaiian language expert, and the author of most of the Hawaiian language columns every Saturday in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. The way he likes to butcher non-Hawaiian names demonstrates how things are likely to be done if this bill is passed without amendments to require respect for the names of people and places.

One particular name which got a conceptual translation by Kekeha Solis, in his column of April 28, 2012, is the name which professional basketball player Ron Artest gave to himself when he legally changed his name to "Metta World Peace" in September 2011. Certainly Ron Artest has a right to change his own name to anything the law will allow, even if it is weird or fantastical. And he made the name change official by following the correct legal procedures.

What makes Mr. Solis' article highly controversial is the name he used when referring to the basketball player. Instead of referring to him as "Metta World Peace" which would be the correct name for him in an article written in any language, Solis gave him a new Hawaiian name.

Solis actually translated the CONCEPT of the name by calling him "Maluhia Honua Meka" [pronounced mah-loo-HEE-ah ho-NOO-ah MEH-kah]. This new name uses Hawaiian language words, in the correct word-order for nouns and adjectival modifiers according to Hawaiian grammatical rules, to render the English-language meaning into a Hawaiian language phrase whose words individually mean Peace [Maluhia] World [Honua] Metta [Meka] in that order. Throughout the article, in Hawaiian language, Solis always referred to the basketball player with the conceptually translated name Maluhia Honua Meka.

Dr. Solis and I and another Hawaiian language zealot had a raging debate for several weeks about the inappropriateness of doing conceptual translations of names, and also the less offensive transliterations of them (following Hawaiian rules of grammar, and spelling, to make the name sound similar, as with Richards —> Likeke. Solis persisted in butchering English names, and his colleagues would be likely to do so if he were on the Senate staff. His butchery of English names when writing in Hawaiian is as offensive as it would be if, in speaking English, I decide to Englishify Hawaiian-language names, so instead of saying Kamehmeha School is on Makuakane Street I were to say Lonely-One School is on Father Street.

See more details about this issue in a webpage "Forcing the name of a person or place to be Hawaiianized through transliteration of its sound following Hawaiian grammatical rules or conceptual translation of its meaning into Hawaiian vocabulary" at
which is part of a much larger webpage "Hawaiian Language as a Political Weapon" at


Establishes and designates the 'ukulele as the official 'auana musical instrument of the State. Establishes and designates the pahu as the official kahiko musical instrument of the State.

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:


There's no doubt that the 'ukulele is the instrument which local residents, and the whole world, recognize as most distinctively Hawaiian. If we follow the custom of naming a single item to be "THE state instrument" it would be the 'ukulele.

Some folks complain that the 'ukulele was not created entirely in Hawaii but is an adaptation of an instrument brought from Portugal. But that's no reason to deny the label of "state instrument" to the 'ukulele.

Everything in Hawaii except the land itself -- all plants, animals, and people -- came here from elsewhere. Over time, after centuries of inbreeding due to lack of contact with outsiders, distinctive varieties evolved, now called endemic, indigenous or "maoli". Indeed, all people known as "Native Hawaiians" (including those with 100% native blood) have genomes adapted from ancestors who came from Asia, Europe, or America on voyaging canoes, ships, or airplanes. They did not spring forth from the 'aina like goddess Venus on Sandro Botticelli's scallop shell.

Some Hawaiian sovereignty activists insist that the only things that are truly or distinctively "Hawaiian" were here already before Captain Cook arrived in 1778. So when it became clear that the 'ukulele had overwhelming support to be named as the state instrument, Hawaiian activists felt a need to stop that from happening by bifurcating the title "THE state instrument" into two categories of ancient and modern, and of course using Hawaiian language words "kahiko" and "'auana" to designate the two categories.

So be it. It's a reasonable compromise and (in accord with their Asian ancestry) saves face for the Hawaiian activists. The billions of people throughout the world who know and love the 'ukulele will be pleased to learn that it has been officially designated as the state instrument. And a few thousand who know the word "pahu" can take pride that it has been called "the official kahiko musical instrument of the State" -- even though the sovereignty activists deny that there is any State. How wonderful is that!



Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:


Let's be clear about the purpose of this resolution, and let's be considerate of the financial resources of our people and our government.

This resolution envisions a future when individuals or institutions will be allowed to use Hawaiian language to read or write government documents, including the Hawaii Revised statutes, and legal briefs and memos submitted during court proceedings.

That would be very helpful to the preservation and flourishing of Hawaiian language.

However, allowing some people or institutions to use Hawaiian language for official court documents would also FORCE everyone else to read and write in Hawaiian language, or to spend lots of money to hire translators. If Kimo Kekanakaolelohawaii is allowed to submit his legal complaint, brief, or memo in support to a court solely in Hawaiian language, then defendant Jim Englishonly will be forced to hire someone to translate the document into English. And there's no need for Kimo to thrust such a burden onto Jim, because Kimo is able to read and write English at least as well, and almost certainly better than, he can read and write Hawaiian.

There is no NEED for anyone to use Hawaiian language, for the simple reason that everyone who is fluent in Hawaiian is also at least as fluent in English language.

Someone who would choose to use Hawaiian as the only language in his court filings would be essentially engaged in performing a stunt for personal gratification, or using the court as a stage for political theatre to assert ethnic privilege at everyone else's considerable expense and annoyance.

I'm reminded of Princess Ruth Ke'elikolani, who could understand and speak English perfectly well but who insisted on using Hawaiian language exclusively, as a sort of political weapon, forcing the haoles to knuckle under to her demands and to use translators.

See my large, detailed webpage on "Hawaiian Language as a Political Weapon" (and especially section 2) at

One of the "whereas" clauses says "other countries recognizing more than one official language provide access to government services and documents in all official languages." Yes, of course those countries do that, for the very obvious reason that many thousands of people are fluent in only one of the official languages while other thousands of people are fluent in only a different one of the official languages. So those governments have a need to publish documents and deliver services in all the official languages to ensure that all groups of people are able to understand what's happening. That is not the situation in Hawaii regarding Hawaiian language. Far more people in Hawaii are fluent only in Ilocano or Cantonese or Japanese than are fluent in Hawaiian; and all who are fluent in Hawaiian are at least equally as fluent in English (whereas the Ilocano, Cantonese, or Japanese speakers might not be capable of understanding either English or Hawaiian). If our government, and especially our courts, have extra money for language services, it would be far more useful to spend the money for Asian languages than for Hawaiian language. One of the "whereas" clauses says "Hawaiian is an official language of the State of Hawaii, which citizens should have a choice to use as their medium of communication and in receiving comprehensive services from state agencies." But no. What is true is that government should make documents and services available to citizens in a language they are capable of understanding. But government should not have any burden to make documents and services available in a language which a small number of people might prefer merely for aesthetic or political reasons, but which is not necessary for them to be capable of understanding what is being said.

It is an important and worthy goal of the State of Hawaii to preserve Hawaiian language, including providing help to people who wish to use Hawaiian as their language in everyday life and as a language for their children to use in learning the subject matter taught in school.

The Judiciary should consider carefully whether it wishes to allocate substantial resources to make the Hawaii Revised Statutes available in Hawaiian language as a way to show respect to the goal of preserving that language and as a stunt to give Hawaiian-speakers a sense of pride when they go to the law library. Or would it be better to spend those substantial resources in other ways to improve access to the courts for all Hawaii's people? Or -- OMG -- might it be better to reduce the taxes we must pay to support our Judiciary, by refraining from spending that money?

Instead of asking the Judiciary to spend tax dollars, or individuals or institutions to spend their own funds, to generate legal documents in Hawaiian, let's propose the following startup project for the Hawaiian language departments at UH Manoa and UH Hilo:

Professors of Hawaiian language teaching advanced-level courses should be asked to assign their students to translate sections of the U.S. Constitution, State of Hawaii Constitution, and Hawaii Revised Statutes into Hawaiian, until those documents have all been translated and made available on the internet and perhaps in print.

A friend of mine with a Ph.D. in linguistics, whose dissertation focused on Hawaiian language, translated into Hawaiian a few years ago the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution). If the professors of Hawaiian language agree to the project I proposed, I will ask my friend to contribute his translation of the Bill of Rights to that project.



Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:


Dear legislators, please consider very carefully the various hidden agendas that probably lie behind this resolution to establish a sister- state relationship between Hawaii (a State within the United States, whose statehood some activists deny) and Goa (a State within India whose status as part of India is protested by some activists).

Goa was a colony of Portugal for more than four centuries, continuing through the period when India was a colony of Britain. In the 1950s there was great political unrest in Goa from native Goans seeking independence from Portugal. Because Goa was immediately adjacent to India, and the newly independent India was feeling a desire for a robust and expansive foreign policy and wanted to push out Portugal, India provided economic and military assistance to the independence movement in Goa. In 1961 India staged a massive armed invasion of Goa by land and air, pushing out Portugal and then annexing Goa to become a part of India. There was strong international condemnation of India for its actions in Goa, including a resolution in the United Nations offered by U.S. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson, and a resolution in the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. I was a college student at the time and recall campus protests by the same left- leaning activists who protested Israel's existence, protested CIA involvement and military advisers in Viet Nam, and protested domestic civil rights injustices against Negroes (as they called themselves back then). To this day there are claims that India's annexation of Goa was illegal under international law, and Goa should be recognized as an independent nation. Does that sound familiar? Have you heard that rhetoric somewhere in relation to Hawaii?

Today the same people who protest against China's invasion and continuing occupation of Tibet also protest against India's invasion and continuing occupation of Goa; and they also protest against the so- called U.S. "armed invasion" of Hawaii during the 1893 overthrow of the monarchy, and the continuing U.S. "belligerent military occupation of Hawaii." The analogy to Hawaii is historically and morally incorrect; but the activists nevertheless love to assert it.

Among the factors you should consider is that the primary sponsor of this resolution is the father of U.S. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who recently made a highly publicized trip to India and gave her strong support to the newly elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose alleged oppression of minorities is a controversial issue in India's politics. Why would this legislature wish to embroil itself in the internal politics of India, and the even more obscure internal politics of the Goa region?

If the Legislature of the State of Hawaii wants to establish a sister-state relationship with one of the states in India, I urge you to choose a different Indian state whose status as part of India is beyond dispute and has never been a part of international controversy (and stay away from Punjab and Kashmir too!).


SCR 167 and SR 103

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:


Dear legislators, it's wonderful to plan for celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Hawaii state Capitol in 2019.

But of course there would be no state Capitol unless there were a State of Hawaii.

And as it happens, 2019 will also be the 60th anniversary of Hawaii statehood.

Therefore please amend this resolution to broaden it to include planning for celebration of both the 50th anniversary of the Capitol and the 60th anniversary of Hawaii Statehood. Why not have both celebrations combined into a single event? Save money and appeal to a wider audience.


SCR SCR 39 and SR 14

Bill text (including all amended versions), history, committee hearings, pdf of all testimony submitted to each committee, YEAs and NAYs, committee reports:


This poorly conceived and poorly written resolution (introduced "by request" of the constituent who wrote it) proposes to fly the "flag of Hawaii" alone (without the U.S. flag) on January 17 of every year, to commemorate the overthrow of the monarchial government in the Hawaiian revolution of January 17, 1893.

The real author of this resolution needs to learn that the flag of the Kingdom of Hawaii is not the same as the flag of the State of Hawaii. Both flags have the same union jack and 8 stripes alternating white, red, blue; however, the Kingdom flag had a length to width ratio of 2 to 1, whereas the flag of the Territory of Hawaii and State of Hawaii has a ratio of 5 to 3 (or sometimes 8 to 5 or 3 to 2). Therefore, flying the flag of the State of Hawaii would serve only to honor the State of Hawaii but would not honor the Kingdom. Indeed, flying the flag of the State could be construed as an insult to the Kingdom by those who know about the difference in ratio, because it affirms that the Kingdom is dead and has been replaced by the State. If the intent is to fly the Kingdom flag on the date of the overthrow to honor the long-dead Kingdom, then thousands of Hawaiian flags with ratio of 2 to 1 would need to be manufactured and distributed.

Removing the U.S. flag from its customary position above the "flag of Hawaii" would have the clear purpose of asserting a continued sovereignty of an independent nation of Hawaii. I believe most citizens of Hawaii would consider such an assertion to be historically incorrect, morally wrong, and insulting to our beloved nation -- the United States of America.

It would be analogous to the State of Virginia or South Carolina or Alabama deciding to fly only the Stars and Bars on its government buildings on April 9 of every year, to commemorate the date when Robert E. Lee surrendered at the courthouse in Appomattox. Some people in those states continue to say "The South shall rise again" just as some people in Hawaii think the Kingdom still lives. They are entitled to their delusions, but they are not entitled to use government resources to inflict those delusions upon the rest of us.

This resolution cites the U.S. apology resolution of 1993 as a reason to remove the U.S. flag. But the apology resolution is filled with historical falsehoods, as documented in detail at

For about ten years, 2000 through 2009, a lawsuit worked its way through the courts. The lawsuit was based on the assertion that the U.S. apology resolution puts Congress on record that the ceded lands were illegally stolen from native Hawaiians, and then illegally transferred to the U.S. in the illegal 1898 annexation, and then back to the State of Hawaii in the 1959 statehood act. And because those land transfers were illegal, therefore the State of Hawaii should be prohibited from selling any parcel of ceded lands until such time as the state and federal governments reach a settlement with Native Hawaiians. On January 31, 2008 the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii ruled 5-0 in favor of plaintiffs, based on the apology resolution. But on appeal the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 on March 31, 2009 to overturn that decision on the grounds that the apology resolution has no power to deprive the State of its ownership of the ceded lands which were conveyed to Hawaii in fee simple absolute at Statehood in 1959. A very large webpage provides text of all major decisions throughout the history of the case, accompanied by news reports, commentaries, amicus briefs and oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. See

As stated in the closing paragraph of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Rice v. Cayetano: "When the culture and way of life of a people are all but engulfed by a history beyond their control, their sense of loss may extend down through generations; and their dismay may be shared by many members of the larger community. As the State of Hawaii attempts to address these realities, it must, as always, seek the political consensus that begins with a sense of shared purpose. One of the necessary beginning points is this principle: The Constitution of the United States, too, has become the heritage of all the citizens of Hawaii."

The flag of our nation, the United States, must never be removed from its rightful position above the flag of Hawaii -- especially not to give aid and comfort to secessionists in the interest of "political correctness."



Personal note by Ken Conklin: I came permanently to live in Hawaii in 1992. From then until 1998 I spent full time doing independent study about Hawaiian language, history, and culture. I felt a strong spiritual relationship with the land and people, which I sensed on three summer vacations beginning 1982 and was one of my main motives for coming to live here permanently. Because of the beautiful spirituality in Hawaiian music, hula, and legends, I was inclined to go along with the historical victimhood narrative pushed by Hawaiian sovereignty activists on such topics as the overthrow of the monarchy (1893), annexation (1898), and statehood (1959). I attended a large number of Hawaiian sovereignty rallies, panel discussions at University of Hawaii, and conversations in public places or in private homes; and read many books. But having a Ph.D. in philosophy I am accustomed to studying issues that are both complex and controversial, asking lots of questions, and doing research. And my masters in Mathematics made me feel a need to be logical and keep my beliefs clear and consistent. The more questions I asked, the more my erstwhile "friends" began questioning my "loyalty" to them and to their movement. In many cases they did not know the facts; and in some cases they did know the facts but persisted in telling me half-truths or outright lies. It took many months of soul-searching, gut-wrenching introspection to figure things out; and then everything fit together within a few days and I saw the whole gestalt picture -- the face of evil in the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. Since then I gradually began stepping out of private life, writing letters to editor, creating this website, running as a candidate for OHA trustee in 2000, writing my book, etc. I began writing testimony on bills in Congress and in the state legislature around year 1999. For the past decade the internet has made it increasingly easy to keep up to date about bills in the legislature and to submit testimony by email or through the legislature's website.

Below are some webpages providing testimony to the Hawaii legislature over the years, mostly by myself but also some by friends who were members of the Aloha For All and Grassroot Institute of Hawaii groups. This is an incomplete list, but it shows the kind of issues arising in the legislature over time and how civil rights activists are fighting back in an effort to protect unity, equality, and aloha for all. There's a gathering storm in Hawaii as racial supremacists demand either creation of a racial separatist tribe recognized by the state and federal governments, or else restoration of Hawaii's status as an independent nation with racial supremacy for ethnic Hawaiians under the modern theory of "indigenous rights." See my book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State"

I hope that Hawaii citizens who read the bills and testimony in the 2015 legislature, and in the legislatures of more than a decade before now, will see the dangers, rise to the occasion, and hold their state Senators and Representatives accountable.

Items are listed in reverse chronological order (most recent listed first).

March 11, 2013: Racial entitlement bills in the 2013 Hawaii legislature (and how all the Republicans except Senator Slom and Representative McDermott are voting in lockstep with the Democrats)

February 10, 2013: U.S. apology resolution 20th anniversary -- A resolution was introduced in the Hawaii legislature to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the U.S. apology resolution; and testimony was offered to the Hawaii legislature in the form of a substitute resolution explaining that the apology resolution is filled with falsehoods, has produced bad consequences, and should be repealed.

July 24, 2011: Racial set-asides of land, money, and political power -- how Act 195 will move Hawaii toward New Zealand and Fiji

July 12, 2011: Gearing up for the divorce -- Klub Kanaka greedily looks ahead to property division and alimony from the State of Hawaii (Hawaii House Committee on Hawaiian Affairs holds informational briefing for government departments to tell how they can help implement Act 195 creating a state-recognized tribe)

May 4, 2011: Hawaii begins to create a state-recognized tribe. SB1520 passed the legislature on May 3, 2011. Why did they do it? What happens now?

April 1, 2011: HR258 and HCR293 in the Hawaii legislature of 2011 -- A resolution to rip the Treaty of Annexation out of the hand of President McKinley in his statue in front of McKinley High School

March 22, 2011: HCR107 in the Hawaii legislature of 2011 -- A resolution establishing a joint legislative investigating committee to investigate the status of two executive agreements entered into in 1893 between United States President Grover Cleveland and Queen Liliuokalani of the Hawaiian Kingdom, called the Liliuokalani assignment and the agreement of restoration.

February 3, 2009: Ceded lands issues in the Hawaii Legislature, 2009

February 3, 2009: Legislation in Hawaii in 2009 to declare ethnic Hawaiians as an indigenous people

January 17, 2009: Office of Hawaiian Affairs -- Watching the Moves It Makes in 2009 to Expand the Evil Empire. Subpages include protest of Supreme Court ceded lands case; OHA demand for legislative moratorium on ceded land sales; OHA demand for "back rent" settlement; Akaka bill; other issues as they arise in 2009 including Waimea Valley, Waokele o Puna, etc. Links to coverage of evil Empire expansion in previous years.

January 14, 2009: Some important issues for the Hawaii Legislature in 2009. Stop the giveaway. Just say no.

October 12, 2008: Iolani Palace and the Golden Jubilee of Hawaii Statehood. The Palace was the Capitol of the Republic of Hawaii (1894-1898), Territory of Hawaii (1898-1959), and State of Hawaii (1959-1968), where the transition to Statehood took place in 1959. But the state government is now prohibiting use of the Palace for jubilee celebration due to threats from secessionists and concerns for political correctness.

August 15, 2008: Proposed new rules for Iolani Palace and grounds -- testimony to DLNR offered by Ken Conklin in honor of Statehood Day, August 15, 2008

April 1, 2008: April Fools Day 4-page flyer, poking fun at Hawaii Legislature for passing a resolution in 2007 which assumed that an April Fools joke from 1894 was actually true. The joke was sarcasm against President Grover Cleveland in the form of a fake proclamation by Cleveland calling for a national day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer in repentance for the U.S. role in overthrowing Liliuokalani.

Updated and greatly improved February 13, 2008: Office of Hawaiian Affairs -- Watching the Moves It Makes in 2008 to Expand the Evil Empire (acquiring huge parcels of land; building a headquarters for its tribal nation; considering purchase of a TV station; making a settlement with Governor Lingle on ceded land back rent; taking control of Haiku Valley; demanding racial control and royalties for bioprospecting on public and private lands, etc.). YEAR 2008

Improved, updated, reorganized January 19, 2008: Office of Hawaiian Affairs -- Watching the Moves It Makes to Expand the Evil Empire (acquiring huge parcels of land, building a headquarters for the "nation", considering purchase of a TV station, etc.)

January 10, 2008: The Most Important Issue Facing the Hawaii Legislature for 2008 -- Testimony by Ken Conklin for the Kaneohe Town Meeting of January 10, 2008.

New November 27, 2007: Hawaii Bioprospecting -- Hearings by the Temporary Advisory Committee on Bioprospecting (late 2007), and testimony by Ken Conklin

November 26, 2007: Hawaii State Senate Education Committee informational briefing on charter schools, November 29, 2007, including testimony by Ken Conklin

Major Update April 8-28, 2007: Twisting History -- 2006 Reverend Kaleo Patterson knowingly uses fake Grover Cleveland proclamation from 1894, cites it as fact, and uses it as basis for a media blitz calling for a national day of prayer for restoration of Native Hawaiians and repentance for overthrow of monarchy. 2007 Patterson pushes resolution through Hawaii legislature citing joke proclamation as real.

July 8, 2006: Office of Hawaiian Affairs -- Watching the Moves It Makes to Expand the Evil Empire (acquiring huge parcels of land, building a headquarters for the "nation", considering purchase of a TV station, etc.)

June 24, 2006: KKK -- Klub Kanaka -- Office of Hawaiian Affairs confidential memo of June 2006 outlining OHA plans for setting up Hawaiian apartheid regime following failure of the Akaka bill

June 17, 2006: Akaka/Inouye Plan B -- Upcoming Consolation Prize --The Hawaii Racial Entitlements Protection Act of 2006

April 23, 2006: Twisting History -- Reverend Kaleo Patterson Cites 112 Year Old Joke as Fact And Launches Media Blitz -- National Day of Prayer set for April 30, 2006 to support ethnic Hawaiian economic and political causes, based on fake 1894 proclamation attributed to President Grover Cleveland

October 30, 2005: Hawaii State Legislature Hearings on How to Circumvent Court Decisions Unfavorable to OHA and Kamehameha Schools, October 2005

May 23, 2005: Hawaii Legislature Informational Briefing Regarding the Akaka Bill by U.S. Senators Inouye and Akaka, and U.S. Representatives Abercrombie and Case, on March 31, 2005 (Hawaiian language, Christian prayer, Legislature's failure to perform due dilligence)

July 12, 2004: OHA and DHHL Cost to State of Hawai'i Treasury: $1 Billion to Date. Estimate for Next Ten Years: $2 Billion More at the Current Expenditure Rate. See Spreadsheets On This Webpage for Details.

March 30, 2004: Hawai'i Bioprospecting Bill -- The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (a bill to regulate biological research on public lands is a trojan horse for Hawaiian racial supremacy in land use policy)

March 15, 2003: Hawai'I Statehood -- History and Current Problems. The Statehood Day Celebration resolution for 2003 has now been introduced in the Legislature. This webpage puts the resolution into the context of the current struggle to defend Hawai'i's status as the 50th State of the United States.

February 12, 2003: Hawaiian Racial Entitlement and Sovereignty Legislation, State of Hawai'i Legislature, Regular Session of 2003. An assemblage of bills and resolutions to give big bucks to OHA, to re-define the ceded lands and their revenues, to establish an apartheid school system, to support the Akaka bill, etc.; and testimony in opposition by H. William Burgess, Kenneth R. Conklin, and Paul M. Sullivan

Ceded Lands -- Open Letter to Hawai'i Legislature for January 2003 urging that no ceded land revenues should be sent to OHA. This letter is a shortened, simplified version of the extensive analysis provided in the ceded lands webpage.

Substantially improved August 17, 2002: HAWAI'I STATEHOOD. On August 16, 2002 Governor Cayetano issued a formal statement affirming Hawai'i's pride in being the 50th state, and the enduring commitment of our people to unity, equality, and aloha for all. The Governor's statement can be seen here, together with a lengthy list of the positive steps toward Hawai'i Statehood spanning 110 years, from 1849-1959. See also two competing resolutions in the Legislature of 2002, one pro-Statehood and one anti-Statehood.

Greatly improved and expanded April 8, 2002: Makua military training vs. Hawaiian Sovereignty: Using environmental concerns and cultural preservation as ploys to force the U.S. military out of Makua and eventually to force the U.S. out of Hawai'i (testimony submitted to scoping hearings for Makua live fire training environmental impact statement)

March 11, 2002: Aloha For All -- Political Activity in the Legislature and in State Regulatory Agencies, Year 2002. A resolution introduced, testimony opposing 3 OHA bills and 1 education bill, DLNR testimony regarding a NASA telescope project on Mauna Kea.


Send comments or questions to:

You may now