Posted on: Thursday, October 31, 2002
ISLAND VOICES
How candidates stand on Hawaiians
By Haunani-Kay Trask
Professor of Hawaiian studies at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa
The morphing of gubernatorial candidates into friends of the Hawaiian people at election time measures the potential importance of the native vote.
Since statehood, pro-Hawaiian appeals have become a staple of advertising when elections roll around. But in this gubernatorial campaign, wooing Hawaiians has occupied center stage in political strategy because Hawaiians are the swing vote.
The following analysis clarifies the positions of both candidates on two issues, among others, of concern to Hawaiians: sovereignty and home rule.
Sovereignty
Mazie Hirono: Clearly supports federal recognition and reconciliation per the Apology Bill. Promises to work with Hawaiians and the congressional delegation to ensure all obligations to Hawaiians are met. Supports independent counsel for the Hawaiian Homes Commission.
Agrees Hawaiians are owed compensation for public use of ceded lands. Identifies a state agency, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, as one recipient of monetary compensation and land transfers. Promises to support the Hawaiian Homes Commission and OHA. Also supports Hawaiian language immersion and charter schools, more tuition waivers for Hawaiians seeking higher education, greater access to healthcare, including prescription coverage, and the creation of a Department of Hawaiian Health in the UH School of Medicine.
Analysis: Federal recognition is framed in terms of state agencies already in place, namely OHA and the Hawaiian Homes Department. But if Hawaiians are federally recognized as eligible for self-determination, then all native trust lands and monies, including the ceded lands, now managed by state agencies, should be transferred to a Hawaiian-controlled, independent entity that would interface with the state of Hawai'i and the federal government as a nation.
It is unclear whether Hirono supports the nation form of federal recognition, which clearly exceeds the powers of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and the Hawaiian Homes programs.
Linda Lingle: Supports federal recognition defined in terms of an inventory of the ceded lands, and a fair settlement for their use by the state. Does not support transferring lands to an established Hawaiian entity that is federally recognized. Supports federal and state funding of Hawaiian efforts to implement recognized initiatives of self-determination. Acknowledges Republican hostility to federal recognition at the national level but argues that as a Republican she is best suited to address this problem. Supports reinstatement of the Hawaiian Homes Claims Review Panel, state and federal Hawaiian health programs, and preservation and use of the Hawaiian language.
Analysis: The argument that Republican opposition to federal recognition in Congress and the White House is best addressed by a Republican is specious. With one or two exceptions, Republicans at the federal and state levels have not supported native nations and entitlements.
Lingle also does not define the land base of the Hawaiian people in terms of the ceded lands. She speaks in terms of a fair settlement, which means money, not lands. In this, she and Hirono appear to agree.
Hirono is the better candidate only because she supports the expansion of existing programs.
Home rule
Hirono: Supports the University of Hawai'i and the development of new technologies, including a film school; supports tax incentives for farming unique Hawai'i products to allow more diversification and less dependence on tourism; supports economic growth within frameworks of environmental and cultural values based in Hawai'i. No support for outside control of contracts.
Lingle: Supports the film industry, biotechnology, the sports industry and the out-sourcing of state contracts, which means tax monies going to non-citizens of Hawai'i. Supports healthcare as a form of tourism. This is particularly troublesome since Lingle appears more concerned with health delivery as a form of attracting tourists than as a responsibility to Native Hawaiians. Supports non-Hawai'i members of the UH Board of Regents, which contradicts her idea of home rule.
Analysis: Lingle supports non-citizen, outside control of state institutions. Lingle wants three non-Hawai'i residents appointed to the 12-member University of Hawai'i Board of Regents. This is simply outside control. The Board of Regents should be elected by the various districts they represent.
That Lingle supports outside regents is just part of her larger political agenda to transfer control of Hawai'i's institutions to non-Hawai'i residents. Why should out-of-state non-citizens determine the policies of institutions paid for by the taxes of Hawai'i citizens?
Conclusions: Without question, Hirono is the better candidate on Hawaiian issues. However, the Democrats have always been pro-Hawaiian when running for office and anti-Hawaiian once they are victorious. Hawaiians should inform themselves, then vote their conscience. I will vote Democratic, but without illusions. My vote, as a Hawaiian, will be an act of self-defense against the disaster for Hawaiians a Lingle victory would mean.
