Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 5, Number 7, 1 July 1988 — Single Class Definition [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Single Class Definition

By Clarence F. T. Ching Trustee, O'ahu

lt is a fact that all definitions regarding Hawaiians have been decided by non-Ha-waiians. lt was the Congress of the United States of America, taking a position opposite from the Hawaiian viewpoint, that created the "blood quantum" for Hawaiians eligible to

participate under the Hawanan Homes Act of 1920. Although initially being shoved down our throats by American imperialists, the idea of "blood quantum" is now looked upon as an irrevocable truth by some Hawaiians. Little do they realize that "blood quantum" has been a very important factor in dividing Hawaiians from Hawaiians, ohana from ohana, even children from their parents. Removing this barrier could release the latent power of the Hawaiian people. So, how long do we want to be stuck with these imposed definitions? Does government really have the right to tell us who we are, or is it we who have the basic right, based upon our cultural traditions, to make that decision for ourselves? The Office of Hawaiian Affairs' Ad Hoe Committee for Ceded Lands Entitlements (Ad Hoe Committee) decided that the time was ripe for its entire Board of Trustees to consider the "Single Defini- , tion." The Board, I believe, exhibited a gutsy kind of decisive leadership by taking positive action on the question. The question whieh will be asked of us is: should every Native Hawaiian have the right to enjoy the benefits of the assets of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, as provided by policies adopted by the OHA Board of Trustees? In other words: Should all of us be included in a single definition of Hawaiian, one without any reference to blood quantum? That no matter what amount of Hawaiian blood eaeh of us has, that we are all Hawaiians. In addition to coming up with the idea of a single definition, the Board also adopted the committee's recommendation to take the principle of "self determination" from the realm of theory to the real world. Although "self determination" and "self governance," two terms that are closely linked to "sovereignty," have been written and talked about for many years, nothing has been done to breathe life into them. Now is that time. The OHA Board has made the decision. We Hawaiians will have the opportunity to decide for ourselves who we want us to be. Arming Hawaiians with such basic democratic rights goes mueh further than the State of Hawaii is willing to grant its citizens. The state's power brokers have not allowed us to have the rights of initiative, referendum (except for constitutional amendments) and recall. However, a Hawaiian referendum is in the making. There will be Hawaiians who say that this new definition of "Hawaiian" will adversely affect those 50 percent or more Hawaiians who now benefit exclusively under the "Hawaiian Homes" and "Ceded Lands" Trusts. Although the new definition will affect the OHA (Ceded Lands) Trust, the Trustees have specifically exempted Hawaiian Homes from the new definition. The critics will continue: But will the effect on the OHA Trust be detrimental to our interests? My response is: Not really. We need to take a closer look at what is going on. Discussions are continuing between the Ad Hoe Committee and representatives of the Governor's office to design a settlement for the State's past and on-going breaches of the Ceded Lands Trust. In

order that the settlement have the full force of law, the settlement must be ratified by the State Legislature. What will the Legislature's major concerns be when the question comes before them? Being prudent, the Legislature will ask: Who and how many will benefit? How mueh will they benefit by? And what should be the form of benefits? The Legislature will have to justify its approval of the package. To obtain the largest possible amount of benefits, the number of participants and the programs that are involved must be maximized. Although the dollar amount of the proposed settlement is presently unknown, there is the extreme possibility that it could be as high as $100 to $200 million. Would the Legislature be willing to allow OHA these kinds of dollars for the decreasing numbers of present beneficiaries (50 percent Hawaiians)? And what will the Legislature be expected to do about the growing number of less than 50 percent Hawaiians that it now provides for by matching general funds with OHA's Trust revenues? Would the Legislature want to get drawn into a match of $100 to $200 million? I don't think so. To 50 percent Hawaiians, the single definition will tend to shrink the relative size of the pieces of pie, but, because of the size of the settlement eontemplated, the whole pie will grow to gigantic proportions so that the actual pieee that eaeh will have will be significantly larger than it is now. No individual will get less than what he is entitled to now. And all Hawaiians will be credited with more. Certain preferences are being built into OHA's policies that will benefit 50 percent Hawaiians anyway.

Additionally, because there are roughly twice as many less than 50 percent Hawaiians for every 50 percent Hawaiian, the state should probably be matching OHA's Trust revenues in the ratio of 2:1 instead of 1:1. To be consistent with the appropriate ratio, the state would have to provide matching funds of $200 to $400 million. This will never happen. To eome straight to the point, if OHA were to receive a settlement of $100 to $200 million, the current system of the use of "matching funds" by the state is sure to vanish. The creation of a single definition for Hawaiians is the only practical way to solve the "matching" problem. To top it off, even if Hawaiian numbers were maximized by the use of the single definition, the Legislature may still have a difficult time justifying its approval of the package to other citizens of this state. However, assuming that the single definition is ratified by the majority of Hawaiians, OHA will then be well-armed to petition the Legislature to amend all relevant constitutional and statutory definitions of "Hawaiians." Not only would the Legislature have to sit up and recognize Hawaiians and our issues, with the "unity" that a single definition should encourage, more Hawaiians would be expected to be elected to puhlie office. This would be

especially true in districts with large Hawaiian voter populations. And what do we do with the settlement that we hope materializes? It will be transformed into aecelerated programs that will address Hawaiian cultural, educational, health, housing and eeonomie needs. The "unity" that we are on the verge of claiming is expected to be unquestionable. We will be awesome. If it is true that the display of unity at Ho'olokahi had a positive effect on the Legislature this year, a greater effect is sure to eome when we adopt the "single definition." With a "single definition," we will transform our voting strength to political and financial clout. That clout is power.