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

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 …

“... i e luā” (2 Tupu 20:5;8) Whaaat?

 ON TODAY’S SUNDAY SCHOOL LESSON: Archaic and Obsolete Words. 

————————

Words, hence language, can be quite interesting especially when dealing with those that are obsolete and/or archaic. The Samoan language is no different. 

As a Gospel Doctrine Teacher in my LDS Ward,  and in the assigned reading for today’s lesson (Sunday 7/17), I had a similar experience with what seems to be an archaic Samoan word/phrase.

Before I get into the specifics, let me say that the very early/first Samoan translations of the Bible, as in other language translations, I’m sure, translators would often use words and terms that were contemporary and common to the vernacular and usage of the time. It is perhaps one of the reasons that revisions are made through the years as certain words become obsolete  - or no longer used. Note also that revisions of the Bible translations are often made in order to suit and conform to a dogma and beliefs of a particular religion, church or denomination. There are several other reasons.

In today’s lesson, we were studying 2 Kings 17-25 in which Israel, the Northern Kingdom, fell to the Assyrians during the reign of king Hoshea. Judah, the Southern Kingdom, coincidingly, is on a decline and would later suffer the same fate as Israel.

One of the kings of Judah at this time was Hezekiah who was generally a good king compared to others like his father Ahaz and Manasseh - who surprisingly repented in his final days.

When Hezekiah was sick and was told by the prophet Isaiah that he was going to die, Hezekiah prayed and implored the Lord to have mercy on him since he had “walked in truth with a perfect heart...and done that which is good....” (2 Kings 20:2-3). The Lord heard Hezekiah’s prayer and granted him fifteen more years to live. In addition, the Lord, through Isaiah, told Hezekiah (verses 5 & 😎 that “on the third day [he] shalt go up unto the house of the Lord”, — or the temple (a reference to which members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can relate).

Now the gist of this post is in the words “the third day”.  First of all the metaphorical context and implication of the death and resurrection of Christ can be drawn here, as in other verbatim “third day” scriptural references. 

Surprisingly however, to most if not all Samoans, the translation of “the third day” is not what they, at least the younger generations, had expected which would be something like “i le aso tolu”, or “i le lona tolu o aso,” etc. Again, “tolu” for “three/third”, and “aso” for “day” would be expected in the translation, but neither key word is found in the Samoan translation. Instead, this phrase is used:

 “i e luā” (20:5;8). Note the faamamafa (macron) above the /a, to be discussed later. Also the same Samoan translation is found in Exodus 19:11 when Jehovah told Moses to prepare the Israelites on the "third day" when He shall visit and speak to them.

Even to most native speakers, like me, the words seem nowhere related — semantically, syntactically, phonetically, morphologically or otherwise — to “the third day” in its usual and contemporary meaning and translation. Etymology still needs to be settled.

And so, like the proverbial cat, my curiosity got the best of me and I unfurled my feelers, antenna .... or whiskers 🦊 🤣

I first started checking other versions/revisions/publications of the Samoan Bible (of which I have a few - 1884, 1887 and 1965) and expectedly, they all have the same “i e luā” translation.

 

I knew however that the translation was not a mistake just a difference in meaning or context. So my next step was the natural (these days) online search. And as the scriptures attest: “...knock and it shall be opened unto you”..lol! 

So lo and behold (no pun intended), I found a document that dates back to the colonial times kept by the Germans who ruled Samoa at one point answered my curiosity: “i e luā” literally means “the day after tomorrow” which, in today’s usage, we Samoans say “talaatu taeao”.   

Further analysis on my part seems to find that “luā” (with the macron) is a derivative of “lua” (two). Apparently therefore “i e luā” means “two days from now/today”. 

Interestingly enough, however, I have looked up most or all of the occurrences of “third day” in both the Old and New Testaments and they all have “aso tolu” as the standard translation. Ia ga!! 

Happy Sabbath, and talk to y’all tomorrow, if not “i e luā”. God bless!!🙏

Fear or Faith

(This post was written in 2020 just after we returned from Samoa, before the travel restrictions due to the Covid pandemic)

During these times of uncertainty, distress and hardship, as we hunker down in our homes, fear, anxiety and trepidation often come as consequences.
We arrived in Samoa in late February and at the airport terminal, we queued up to a table where a few attendants, clad in germ proof gear, checked our temperatures. Cyclones Wasi and Vicki were in the forecast for Samoa. We had heard about them before arriving and the worst of the two happened on the night we arrived. We drove through wind and rain from the airport to town, through Fugalei where our car felt like a boat wading through knee-deep waters. So we returned on March 10 just in time when travel restrictions - in Samoa and elsewhere - went up a notch.

We spent a day in New Zealand before flying back to LA, Los Angeles that is, not Lalomanu Aleipata ...lol. I wished! 😍 And so we got back home just as home isolation was recommended.

Back to winter wonderland, to the cold and the snow ...LOL! ..Beautahful!!

...FAITH!!!!