Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 6, Number 1, 1 January 1989 — More On The Referendum [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

More On The Referendum

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

The use of a referendum to gauge the feelings of OHA's beneficiaries on the single beneficiary class definition was a success. I was elated because I had initially proposed the referendum process. Despite encountering legal problems because Hawai'i state

statutes don t allow the process, UHA s skirting ot the problem was solved only after a lot of deliberation. That OHA was exercising its power of selfdetermination by initiating the first use of referendum at the state level and, in turn, allowing Hawaiian individuals the ability to exercise their right of self-determination in deciding who we are, was of utmost importance. The implementation of the process was not perfect. Although most Hawaiians agree that getting the ball rolling to change the blood quantum may have been theoretically fine, many beneficiaries were unhappy that OHA asked the question now. To compound the problem, many beneficiaries were unhappy when their ballots were lost or delivered late by the post office. OHA's taking the lead was its response to those calling for Hawaiian leadership. With trustees who are willing to stick their necks out, Hawaiians need to realize that this is not the time to be timid. That the trustees as a group were willing to take the risk is reason to applaud. The major argument against the single definition was that 50 percent Hawaiians had not gotten their share yet. Then, and only then, after they get theirs, should other beneficiaries be added. The irony of it all is that those few who were against the referendum were willing to deny these benefits to their own flesh and blood, their own diluted mo'opuna. The trustees countered the

argument by proposing an enlarged trust that would take care of everyone. But the critics must .be asked: Why haven't the 50 percenters gotten their share yet? Look at the Hawaiian Homes program. (Remember, however, that the program was exempt from OHA's definitional concerns but eonfused by the media and others.) Whether it was by initial design or not, benefits have been slow in coming. Only 30,000 acres, more or less, of the total 190,000 acres in the program have been awarded to beneficiaries. There are more non-Ha-waiians on the land than Hawaiians. The major problem seems to have been a case of gross underfunding. The federal government, while it was responsible (before statehood in 1959),. opted for a self-supporting program. When the program was forced upon the state at statehood, the state followed suit. It was not until this year, 1988, that the state made its initial grant for infrastructure. In the meantime, more non-Hawaiians became benefīciaries of the land than 50 percent Hawaiians who were supposed to benefit in the first plaee. Hawaiians fell into the trap of the sugar planter lobbyists who pushed for a 100 percent blood quantum back in 1920. The planters knew that the Hawaiian Homes program would fail since 100 percent Hawaiians were on the road to extinction. That Congress went along with a 50 percent blood quantum was bad enough. In the process, they succeeded in dividing Hawaiians from eaeh other. However, to get back to the referendum, OHA trustees were told by the experts that in using the mails, a response of only 6 percent to 10 percent could be expected. It would have been great if we were lucky enough to get a 20 percent return. That we were blessed by at least a 35 percent return was exciting. The trustees' educated guess of the people's feelings and their belief that the Hawaiian qualities •of aloha and 'ohana would prevail became very apparent. The 84 percent "yes" vote was overwhelming. The Hawaiian "silent majority" has spoken.

The media were wrong when they reported that OHA would wait two to three years before any action involving the single beneficiary class definition would take plaee. It is my expectation that OHA, at the state level, will either pursue separate legislation to codify the single definition or that it will be part of the proposed ceded lands negotiated settlement. In either case, the result of the referendum is to be implemented. In the least, OHA will be armed with a "mandate" of the people to seek such legislation. One of the little known impacts of the referendum is that other Hawaiians, wherever they may be, are brought into the OHA fold. Where our instate numbers have been estimated to be 220,000, the addition of an estimated 100,000 or so Hawanans worldwide would swell our numbers to a niee round number of 320,000. Even without these additional numbers, Hawaiians make up the largest single group of indigenous people in the United States. With about a third of a million individuals, the Hawaiian confederation becomes a reality. If we could get other Polynesians to join us, a Polynesian confederacy could fill a big political puka in the central Pacific. Interestingly, we are more numerous than the Navajos, the largest U.S. Native American Indian tribe. The single beneficiary class definition is a tool we ean use in future deliberations. Remember, we are seeking reparations from the federal government for the 1893 loss of Hawaiian lands. No money has ever been paid for the Hawaiian lands they elaim to "own." No money was paid for those ceded lands given to the State of Hawai'i at the time of statehood either. One would be guilty of illegal possession of stolen goods in any court of law. But since all of the courts of this land belong to the "fox," other methods to seek justice must be used. Whatever method, the unity of over 300,000 Hawaiians would have to be recognized. Let us not, however, forget that in the nahonal scheme of things, 300,000 of anything is but a drop in the bucket. To obtain the kind of justice we seek, we need to spread the word. We need to cultivate all the friends we ean get and when the time is right, we need to motivate them to rally their congressmen, maybe even to demonstrate with us. We need to build good relationships with all other indigenous peoples of the U.S. and to bring the other minorities into our eamp. We cannot overlook anyone. When we are successful in obtaining an acknowledgement of wrongs committed against Hawaiians by the U.S. and an honest reinstatement of our sovereignty and lands, the U.S. ean then begin to honestly boast to the rest of the world that it is a just nation. Only after the U.S. has taken care of its own backyard ean it honestly preach to others to elean up theirs.