Posted on: Thursday, October 24, 2002

Letters to the Editor

We must understand Pidgin for what it is

The debate between Pidgin or Hawai'i Creole English (HCE) vs. standard English will never be resolved until people understand what HCE really is.

Susan Endo's Sept. 20 comment suggests that those who profess to speak standard English really don't. There are many features of HCE that make it stand out from standard English. Aside from using words from various languages and syntax, there are different words to be used for negation — three, to be exact.

Then there's another word we sometimes use in place of the verb "to be." Usually in a stative sentence we omit the verb "to be," in which case negation for that type of sentence requires a certain word, plus the fact that we simply use the second person singular form for the third person singular.

And as for "subtle usages that set us apart from standard English speakers," this applies for all languages. They're called dialects. We know people from the South not just because of their accent but also by their additional pronoun "y'all," and some people say "pop" versus "soda."

So yes, even in Hawai'i there are subtle differences, but that doesn't mean we don't speak standard English.

Kalani Mondoy
Glendale, Calif.

Article was misleading on UH endowment

An Oct. 14 article, "UH doubles payment to fund-raising arm," seemed to imply that the University of Hawai'i Foundation's operating costs were over 50 percent of dollars raised: "According to the foundation's most recent tax return, it received nearly $29 million in revenue in the fiscal year ended June 2001, and expenses totaled about $16.6 million."

This statement is misleading.

Included in that $16.6 million is $11.4 million in distributions to academic programs and $1.9 million in fiscal administration costs, including managing the UH endowment and alumni database. These are certainly expenses in a literal sense, but this figure does not represent the cost of our fund-raising operations.

We raised $18.6 million in FY 2001 to support scholarships, faculty positions and other university priorities (some donations are made to the UH endowment and are not immediately distributed to programs). Our direct fund-raising expenses for that period were $3.3 million — a decidedly different proportion and one that represents the true value of the UH Foundation to the University of Hawai'i. Combined with a $5 million distribution from the endowment, UH received $23.6 million in private support that year.

The significant vote of confidence given to us by the UH Board of Regents in renegotiating our contract will allow the foundation to build on this record of success. By increasing the university's investment in pursuing private philanthropy and partnerships, the UH leadership has signaled that they are ready to draw more deeply from our greatest resource: the aloha that our alumni and friends have for UH's students, faculty and programs.

Betsy Sloane
President, University of Hawai'i Foundation

Blank ballots again will cause confusion

Election day is approaching and once again we have the state's Alice-in-Wonderland explanation of the meaning of a blank ballot on the proposed constitutional amendments. The explanation starts with: "A 'blank' vote ... is not counted as a 'yes' vote or a 'no' vote." Then it goes on to say " ... casting a 'blank' vote has the same effect as casting a 'no' vote."

In other words, a blank ballot is counted as a "no" vote in spite of what the first sentence says.

As I recall, the vote tabulations do not separate "no" votes from blank ballots — they are both lumped under the "no" category. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.

This brings up the question of blank ballots in primaries. In order to win outright election in a primary, a candidate has to receive over 50 percent of the vote. Is that 50 percent of the total votes, or 50 percent of the ballots, including blank ones? Following the above logic, it should be over 50 percent of the total ballots, since a blank ballot could be construed to mean "none of the above."

Edward K. Conklin

Punchbowl burial is not appropriate

Isn't it ironic that Patsy Mink, an anti-war activist, is now buried at Punchbowl National Memorial Cemetery next to American war heroes?

Patsy Mink was a champion for equal rights for women and minorities and was a dedicated member of Congress. But during her many years in politics, she always fought against military funding and always voted against the use of the American armed forces.

It is highly inappropriate that she be laid to rest at Punchbowl Crater with 18,000 soldiers who lost their lives in World War II and the Korean, Vietnam and Persian Gulf wars.

Mike Andrews

Let's have reason, not rhetoric, on Iraq

I am compelled to come to the defense of your Oct. 13 editorial, "Hawai'i delegation voted the right way," regarding the Iraq war resolution.

I don't know what Gregory Sheindlin was referring to in his Oct. 15 letter titled "How can you forget what happened to us?" but I saw nothing in the statements by our congressional delegation or your editorial that manifestedin any way, shape or form "venom and hostility for the American way of life," lack of "compassion," blind "hate for President Bush," or "visceral hatred of ... political opponents."

To suggest that the victims of the World Trade Center attack are somehow dishonored by a well-reasoned reluctance to start a war, that has not been proven necessary to our self-defense andwill cause more problems than it will ever solve is utterly unproductive.

By way of contrast, Jeff Pace's letter of the same date made a factually based argument in support of military action against Iraq. I disagree with him because I think an attack will undermine, not enhance, stability in the Middle East by unleashing the anger of those who have suffered at the hands of regimes propped up by American oil dollars and military assistance.

Finally, even our own intelligence agencies (and those of our allies) disagree about the extent and immediacy of the threat. If an attack is not clearly ill-advised, it is of dubious wisdom at the very best.

These pages are well-served by an informed discussion on the merits, just as they are stained by shrill and empty sloganeering. Open debate based on facts, law and history is no threat to the American way of life; it is the American way of life.

Ted Baker

Democrats could use a new scriptwriter

Does the Democratic hopeful for governor realize that her program of change dates back to Gov. Ariyoshi? It also dates to the current lame-duck governor, and that none of these changes has ever taken place.

Isn't it time the Democrats get a new scriptwriter or learn that the same old "pasture gold" doesn't work anymore?

Hopefully, the voters will see this as the same old stuff and vote for change.

Curtis R. Rodrigues
Kane'ohe

Interisland ferry must be given state priority

The state has planning under way for two ferry terminals in Honolulu Harbor, one on Pier 19 (by the Department of Transportation) and the other on Pier 5 (by the Aloha Tower Development Corp.). But an interisland ferry design has not been selected. This is not the "cart before the horse." There is no "horse."

I recommend that the next governor, promptly after her inauguration, initiate a design competition for an interisland ferry to carry both passengers and vehicles. Only a ro-ro ferry has the economic potential to warrant the expense of a statewide ferry system. I am a naval architect with experience in designing aircraft carriers, destroyers and submarines for the U.S. Navy and shall anticipate competing.

E. Alvey Wright
Kane'ohe

Remember the victims and vote yes on No. 3

I have heard countless victims of crime describe the distressing and unnerving experience testifying in a courtroom setting. Losing a loved one or suffering a serious physical injury is horrifying enough, but having to relive and describe this awful experience over and over again in uncomfortable and often adversarial environments compounds the problem.

Information charging would eliminate the cruel requirement for victims of crime to repeatedly give testimony before trial. An unbiased magistrate would ensure defendant rights. Defendants would have their day in court. No rights would be violated.

Instead, civility and sensitivity would be shown to victims of crime. This is something that has been lacking in the criminal justice system for far too long.

Voters must realize that no one is immune to crime. Ensuring proper and compassionate treatment of crime victims today would contribute to ensuring everyone's civilized treatment tomorrow. Encourage you family and friends to vote and check "yes" to Constitutional Amendment No. 3 on Nov. 5.

Connie Abram
Executive director, Mothers Against Drunk Driving Hawai'i

Those smaller airports serve a vital function

Gov. Cayetano proposes to close five of Hawai'i's smaller airports to help "balance the budget." These airports cannot possibly make up much of the budget, and I think it is just a feel-good smokescreen at election time.

I wonder how many Airports Division jobs are at stake? How about none. I'd like to see the numbers on this ridiculous proposal. I wonder how much the state allocates to maintain, say, Port Allen on Kaua'i? There are no electronics, no lights, no security, no building and no runway maintenance.

It is pretty obvious that the state puts very little into any of the fields they propose to close or privatize. This may seem like an irrelevant issue to the average guy on the street, but any airstrip plays an important role in emergencies and natural disasters. Instead of closing them, the state should be maintaining them and adding aids to navigation.

Brian Barbata
Kailua

No 'green light' given to Carlisle on amendment

I write to clarify your Oct. 14 editorial, "Lawmakers must close loopholes in ethics laws," and a previous story in the Oct. 10 issue that stated that the Hawai'i State Ethics Commission had told City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle that using state resources to advocate for a constitutional amendment did not violate the state ethics code.

Mr. Carlisle was not given a "green light" from our office in regard to state agencies using state resources to advocate for a constitutional amendment. Before using state resources, Mr. Carlisle was told in a July 1 letter from our office that he should contact the attorney general as to whether support for a ballot issue lies within a particular state agency's authority and, if so, the extent to which the agency may use state resources to advocate for a constitutional amendment.

The Hawai'i State Ethics Commission has always prohibited the purely personal use of state resources for campaign purposes. However, the situation posed by Mr. Carlisle is different. Government agencies may have a legitimate interest in commenting on constitutional amendments that affect their agencies. This is entirely different from the "personal" use of government resources for campaign purposes.

The use of state resources by a state agency to comment on a constitutional amendment raises First Amendment issues for the state agency, as well as issues pertaining to the agency's powers and duties. First Amendment issues are also raised with respect to the proper use of taxpayers' money when government funds are used to support or oppose a constitutional amendment. Because these issues raise constitutional concerns, the opinion of the attorney general should be sought before state agency resources are used.

A "loophole" does not exist in our ethics laws in regard to this situation. These are constitutional issues that have often been addressed by the courts. The Office of the Attorney General, and not our office, is the agency to opine on fine-line constitutional matters.

Daniel J. Mollway
Executive director, general counsel, Hawai'i State Ethics Commission