First Episode. Enjoy! Oh and please subscribe to my channel. Thank you and Faafetai Lava
2/9/25
SAMOA MATTERS
“SAMOA MATTERS” …. COMING SOON….. to a YOUTUBE CHANNEL… near YOU!! This NEW PODCAST hosted by yours truly will feature discussions of most things about SAMOA, including culture, language, socio-political and socio-economic issues; history, music and other Samoan topics and interests. The PODCAST is intended mainly, but not exclusively, for members of the Samoan diaspora and all those who want to learn more about Samoa. Tune in to be enlightened. SAMOA MATTERS premieres in the next few days!!
“If Samoa Matters to You, Samoa Matters are for You!”
2/1/24
2/1/23
Respect Almighty God, The USA and Human Rights
ON SAMOA'S "THREE AMIGOS"
This is a religio/socio-political post -- with a pinch of parody -- based on a current political conundrum in Samoa 🇼🇸
NOTE: I am not a politically partisan person; I just want to parse things - at least passably.
Respect Almighty God, the USA and Human Rights.
Recently three Members of Parliament (MP) resigned and left their Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP). According to an existing law, passed a few years ago by the HRPP while in power, these three MP's will have to vacate their Parliamentary seats and return to their districts for their by-elections.
The law, however, is seen by the "Three Amigos" (as the three MP's have since been risibly and eponymously labeled), and others like myself, as being a bad, unjust and draconian law, and should therefore be rescinded and repealed. The law is now being challenged in court.
One of the reasons cited against the ill-conceived law is its infringement on a person's constitutional right and freedom of association. But I have my own reasons.
First, respect Almighty God.
The country's national motto or foundation (faavae) is "Samoa is founded on God" - specifically Jesus Christ according to inscriptions on some of their national monuments. The Christian Trinity provision is even unabashedly written into the Constitution - by the HRPP. And so when the Members of Parliament, Speaker and others are sworn in upon the start of their tenure, they put their hand on the Bible and recite this Oath of allegiance:
"I ......................... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Independent State of Samoa, and that I will justly and faithfully carry out my duties as a Member of the Parliament of Samoa. So help me God."
This Oath is part of the Constitution, which makes it binding, legal and efficacious. Note that the allegiance in the oath is to the country (Independent State of Samoa). The MP is a member of Parliament of Samoa, first and foremost, and party second. Moreover there is no party oath; but even if there were, it would be subordinate to the above Oath. In essence, therefore, a party cannot sack a member of parliament from Parliament. It can dismiss a person as a party member but not from Parliament, and any law that aims to do such should be unconstitutional. The invocation of the 'Almighty God' in the Oath should be sufficient to rescind and annul the law especially within the context and application of Samoa's Faavae - the Constitution and national motto.
Hence if Samoa is founded on God, then honor and respect the Almighty God by which the Oath is administered and sworn.
Second, respect the United States.
Why? Well, hmmm.....why not?
The United States has long been a role model for democracy and had been admired for many achievements and accolades around the world. The admiration comes with respect even despite some of her flaws - admittedly. For democracy, the US has been the leader of the so-called democratic free world. The USA was the first country to have and adopt a written Constitution and all other democratic countries followed suit. Speaking of "follow suit", Samoa should follow the US and overturn its law to dismiss the three MP's from Parliament. Coincidentally two members of the US Congress recently left/resigned from the Democratic Party and became independent without any legal ramifications. They are Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and, ironically, an American Samoan-born Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. This should be a proper guidepost and precedent for Samoa too.
Despite ongoing efforts by Samoa to carve her own cultural democracy niche and blaze her own political trail, the principle of individual freedom and rights to "cross the aisle" and change political parties should be honored and respected as being universal, at least democratic. Samoa is different you say? I'd say "same difference". Samoa and the USA share not only democratic values but also their Christian piety and heritage. In fact both countries have God invoked in their national mottos: "Samoa is founded on God" for Samoa and "In God We Trust" for the US.
Therefore, I'd invoke the familiar maxim of "Follow [and respect] the Leader."
Third, respect Human Rights.
For a party to claim in its name to champion and protect human rights and then pass a law that infringes upon human rights reeks of political treachery and hypocrisy. Simply, HRPP is not protecting human rights, it is plundering them - Human Rights Plundering Party.
So talk the talk and walk the walk, aye?
Meanwhile, let's await what the Court will decide on - whether to protect or plunder human and individual rights. Judicial independence please! 🙏 Let the 'Three Amigos' stay, don't "deport" them! (please pardon pun)
Ciao!
12/13/22
What is a Nuu (Village)?
The following is a writeup and opinion that I have sent (via email) to the Samoa Government through The Ministry of Women Community and Social Development and The Office of The Ombudsman. It is inspired by recent events in Samoa and is by no means an exhaustive treatment of the subject(s), just a synopsis and overview.
_______________________________________________
The Need for Clarification of “Nuu”, “Pulenuu” and “Sui o le Malo” Within Their Socio-political and Legal Contexts.
ABSTRACT:
The informed opinion in this writeup is the result of a personal intuitive prognostication – as opposed to any secondary nudges – based solely on a recent series of REAL issues and events in a village and sub-village in Samoa to which I have familial connections and relationships. My personal knowledge of the events, in addition to my overall socio-political cognition of Samoa, have prompted me to scrutinize the events and then pose (and expose) a possible and specific conundrum regarding the topic and subject of the writeup.
Village, as probed here, refers not only in its Samoan socio-political and traditional contexts, but hopefully in a potentially legal one, notably in connection with the context and contents of the Land and Titles Act 2020, its application, implementation and administration.
The gist of the writeup, therefore, is to seek a clarification and disambiguation of the terms and concepts, especially of what a village is in light of the above-referenced issues – with potential of worrisome violence – among families of the village and subvillage involved. I hereby petition, albeit indirectly, the Courts, the Legislative Assembly and Government Ministries (as main arbiters) to study and look into the matter, not only in order to pass legal muster but ultimately resolve the seeming ambiguity - at the very least.
NOTE: I will not be using the real and actual names of the village and subvillage involved; instead I will be using fictitious designations and labels A,B,C etc. The matter is a potential case study that will have national ramifications and therefore can possibly be a consequential one.
PROLOGUE:
In a de facto sense, according to the Samoan government, there are two main types of villages in Samoa - traditional and non-traditional. In the de jure and contemporary contexts, however, the term “village” (nuu), has, and is becoming ambiguous at best and controversial at worst. It lacks a specific, definitive and uniform meaning and therefore should be analyzed and scrutinized so as to be intelligible in its burgeoning contexts. As it currently stands, “village” and its evolving connotations are “not all equal under the law”.
BACKGROUND (CASE STUDY):
B, throughout history, has been a SUB-VILLAGE (PITONUU) of TRADITIONAL VILLAGE A. It (subvillage B) consists of one big family (X) and a few other smaller families. At any one point, through the years, there had been no more than five families (aiga) in this B subvillage. Any title bestowal (saofai) for families in subvillage B, including the Sa’o of X had always been under the authority and auspices of Traditional Village A and its council (fono). Subvillage B, according to the Ministry of Women, Community and Social Development as well as testimonies of some of the staff of the Land and Titles Court, was neither an independent (nuu tuma’oti), non-traditional village nor a traditional village (nuu mavae); it was, and still is, as recent as two years ago (2019/2020), a subvillage of A.
Within the last several years, however, there have been attempts and efforts by the chiefs of subvillage B to secede and break away from A. These efforts, including two group visits by the said chiefs to the former Prime Minister’s office and residence to bid him to declare B as a separate and independent village, were unsuccessful and were therefore denied.
In 2020, the case of the title bestowment (nofo/saofai) for the Sa’o of X, was nullified by the Land and Titles Court. One of the main issues and perhaps the main determinant of the dubious decision had to do with the claim and interpretation that B was already independent and “self-ruled”, hence had seceded from A. That was an error if not a blatant disregard by the Court of the “custom and usage” of A and its sub-villages. It is also a direct contradiction and possible violation of the Land and Titles Act 2020 (details below). The said case is currently in the process of being appealed.
Fast forward to the end of 2022 (a few weeks ago). B held a mass installation of titles (saofai) without the presence and/or auspices of A and its village fono. Surprisingly, some Members of Parliament (past and present) were involved as candidates and recipients of titles. These were audacious and in possible violation of the law, if not the Land and Titles Act 2020 which states that in order for a bestowment to be valid, one of the requirements is that:
“the village council of the village are physically present to acknowledge recognition of the bestowment of the Matai Title.”(Part 15(1)(c)(ii)) (Emphasis mine)
The fact is that subvillage B does NOT have an official village council (fono) per se, due to its lack of a traditional village (nuu mavae) status, including being without its own traditional salutations and honorifics (faalupega). Subvillage B is supposed to be under the umbrella of Traditional Village A. The blatant irony in the recent title bestowments in B is that some of the recipients, and attendants, are present and past lawmakers or Members of Parliament.
Consider also the fact that B is not a “village” around town where non-traditional villages mostly exist. Therefore the village fono requirement and status above had been circumvented, forced and sanctioned allegedly through and by the auspices of the Ministry of Women, Community and Social Development so as to satisfy its programs by installing a “pulenuu” or “sui o le malo” in what seems a controversial and conflicting process. This seemingly new development of “village” creation by ministries and other government bodies is adding fuel to the fire and controversy of what the definition of a village is - hence what a pulenuu (versus “sui o le malo) is as well.
In 2019, according to the Ministry of Women, Community and Social Development, B was not a village apparently in all the available connotations and contexts discussed above. It was still a PITONUU (sub-village) of A. What has changed since? Yet B, presently, has a “pulenuu” (or “sui o le malo”) and that change alone, a seemingly arbitrary and unsanctioned move has therefore given a de jure and full-fledged village status to B. The process, seemingly by the WSCD, can be viewed as an anomaly and deviation in the contexts – legal and otherwise – of the terms “village” (nuu) and “pulenuu”. It’s a contradiction within the socio-political and legal framework of government operations.
Faamalie pe afai e popona le toa i se finagalo ona o le mataupu ua laga, but for the sake of honesty, transparency and accountability, ua mafua ai ona faato’ai atu le mataupu. Ae maise e mafai ona faapogai ai nisi o lave ma feteenaiga (complications and conflicts) i isi faiga ma tulafono a le Malo. It certainly begs the basic questions: How, when and who has the authority to form or create a village? Are there basic requirements - legal and otherwise?.... Etc., etc.
Also consider that with the vagueness of a village definition also comes the ambiguity between “pulenuu” and “sui o le malo”. The two terms may be synonymous at best and contradicting at worst. Again the terms and concepts parsed herein need to be studied, settled and resolved in their meanings, contexts and applications.
Ma lo’u faaaloalo tele,
LV Letalu
11/26/22
ON A DRACONIAN LAW (Re: Samoa Parliament)
ON A DRACONIAN LAW (Re: Samoa Parliament)
Presently on Samoa’s political front, news of two Members of Parliament (MP) of the Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP) have resigned as members of that party. Now the HRPP leadership wants them to vacate their seats in Parliament and hold by-elections according to a law (a draconian one I think) passed a few years ago when the HRPP was in power. The two MP’s insist that they should instead remain as Independents and now the case is going to be decided by the Supreme Court, per the Constitution.
Two years ago, I wrote specifically about the above-mentioned law here in my blog, not knowing it will one day be challenged in Court. Below is an excerpt from the referenced blog post.
“[This] pea-brained law is the one where a Member of Parliament loses his/her seat (in Parliament) when he/she leaves or resigns from a political party. When a person runs in the national elections, he/she primarily and principally runs for a seat in Parliament, first and foremost, and not a seat in a party. The constituents and voters elect their candidate to go sit (no pun intended) in Parliament as a Member of Parliament not as member of a party. The candidate can and may run as a registered member of a party, yet his/her premiere right and privilege as a Member of Parliament supersede that of any party membership, loyalty or primacy.
Most importantly, when a member of Parliament is sworn in and takes the oath, in Parliament, he/she is sworn in, literally, as a “sui usufono o le Palemene,” (Member of Parliament) but not as member of a party. It is proper to read again the text of the Oath. When an MP leaves a party, he/she needs to stay in Parliament as an Independent. A party should not have the right — through its by-laws or through any Act — to abrogate or deny a duly elected MP his/her seat until the voters decide during a normal election or by election -- or for another legitimate reason. Or a recall also. Power without authority is illegal. The authority is vested in the people - not the party. A party may have the right, power and authority to sack an MP as member of the party, but not as member of Parliament. It’s blatantly absurd, if not stupid. I think the law was devised and passed by the HRPP as a ploy to prevent any member from leaving or defecting their ruling and majority party at the time, hence still having a monopoly on power as they have had for decades. Moreover, apart from other constitutional provisions as the right and freedom of assembly and association, I think the Oath as Member of Parliament supersedes that right and has overriding precedent in this context.”
And so the issue and law that I considered draconian and “illegal” two years ago, will now finally be scrutinized and tested in Court. I will wait and see if I was right. The law should be voided and removed. Hahahaaa …
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)