NiuZila: Land of full fat milk and welfare money

It’s been an interesting political year for Labour. After losing the elections, former leader Helen Clark appeared to have saved the party from internal squabbling by immediately stepping down, allowing for the new leadership to step in. However, this new leadership: Phil Goff and Annette King, have struggled to make traction with the voting public.

This is in contrast to the ruling Government. There’s no denying that the current National Government is popular, if the regular polls are anything to go by. While there have been hiccups along the way, National has stayed ahead. More specifically, Palemia/Prime Minister John Key is very popular. With this backdrop, it must be very fustrating for the Labour leadership seeing that no matter what they do, or how hard they try, nothings happening for them.

Because of this, the Labour leadership has apparently been asking itself some hard questions, as they should. However, the answers the leadership have come up with, I’m not so sure on. A lot of commentators, including some in the Labour ranks, have decided the electoral defeat for Labour was a rejection by the Niu Sila public, of the progressive/social liberal movement. Apparently, the Niu Sila public had become more conservative, and if Labour were to gain support, it would need to contest for that conservative support from National.

Goff has always been from the “right” of the Labour party, and there are quite a few traditional Marxists, such as commentator Chris Trotter. Along with strategist Pagani, there has been a slow movement from the Labour leadership towards laying down the platform in which Labour will preach from in 2010 going into election year. Earlier rants this year by Trevor Mallard were early warning signs of things to come. And recently Goff made a speech entitled “Nationhood”, further building on that platform.

While the speech had some very good points, regarding the role of the Maori Party in coalition with the National Government, some of the wording was clearly catering for the conservative/red neck voters, such as “grievance industry” and “birthright to the beaches” populist slogans. Now Goff and his leadership/strategists are not stupid, and know they are engaging important substantial political and philosophical issues (ie identity politics vs class politics), they are also taking the opportunity to grab the superficial political points from the conservative/red neck vote at the same time.

Unfortunately, I think they will lose using either or both strategies. Political point scoring from the conservative/red neck vote can only get you so far on the left. While Trotter believes there are more social conservatives than social liberals on the left, I think that’s all too simplistic a view. I think I am sociall conservative in many ways. I am a Christian, but I am also Samoan. I have a tertiary education and currently hold a professional occupation, but my background is from a working class family. I have some socially conservative values, but I have some strong convictions against neo-liberal economic theories. And thus, this is the reality of post-modernism. There are many more layers to an onion, than just class or identity.

And so this is the basis of social liberalism/progressivism. Whether we are male/female, hetero/homosexual, indigenous/immigrant, religious/atheist, the social liberal/progressivism strives for a society that is inclusive of all peoples, where there is an equality amongst all irrespective of background.

For Trotter, he believes there must be a point where the left must decide that one of those identities must take precedence over other identities. For Trotter, and the Labour leadership, that is the proleteriat. The class warfare is the paramount battle to be fought. Identity politics, including Maori/indigenous politics is a distraction to that paramount battle. I believe he is wrong.

It is because of the broad Church of social liberalism/progressivism, that the left finds it’s strength. Unity through diversity. Unfortunately for Trotter and Co, they are banging the drums of divisiveness on the left. It seems as though the beat they are banging too includes: you’re either with us or against us. That might win some votes from the conservatives, but it will alienate so many more on the left. Furthermore, many of the social conservatives on the left, are in fact Maori or Pacific Island. Those on the left that disliked the “anti-smacking” law and civil union legislation were Polynesian. The working class proletariats are again, people of Polynesian back ground. Therefore it kinda only leaves the true red neck Pakeha voters to which Goff will appeal to the most.

But there is an important question that needs to be asked of identity politics. As a Samoan, I can associate myself with the struggle of our fellow Polynesian cousins, the Maori. With a similar worldview, but also our shared experience with colonialism, the struggle to have an indigenous outlook may not grate with Euro-centric theories such as Marxism, but also against aspects of liberalism. Some indigenous academics have often called human rights (a product of liberalism) as another form of colonisation. Not because there is an outright opposition to human rights, but because the authors of mainstream human rights come from a Euro-centric point of view, such as centering around the rights of the ‘individual’. From a communal culture such as Polynesian societies, this form of human rights does not fit well. And so these issues will need to be resolved, but that in no way means one must choose one identity over another.

Identity politics (along with Marxism/class struggle and environmentalism etc) are here to stay. The Maori Party is likely to be around for a while, and therefore so is identity politics.

Ok, that’s my political spiel for a while hehehe. So many more exciting things to post up about soon…

Let me say this before I launch into my post: I think Taito Philip Field is guilty.  As a Member of Parliament (MP) at the time, he should’ve known the strict rules around bribery and corruption.

For those not familiar with the case, Taito Philip Field, former Labour Party MP for Magele / Mangere, in Aukilani Saute / South Auckland was found guilty at a jury trial yesterday of 11 of the 12 bribery and corruption charges and 15 of 23 of the obstruction of justice charges.  This followed a revelation in Setema / September 2005 when TVNZ reported that Taito hired Sunan Siriwan, a Thai man who was facing deportation, to work on his house in Samoa.  Taito asked then Associate Immigration Minister Damien O’Connor to review the situation, and Niu Sila work permits were granted to the man and his wife.  Taito at the time said there was no connection between the two events.

But this triggered a Queens Counsel inquiry announced by the then Palemia / Prime Minister, Helen Clark, to be conducted by Noel Ingram QC.  In July 2006 the inquiry report could not find evidence of corruption but severely criticised Taito.  This then led to the Police launching an investigation against Taito.  In May 2007 the Police charged Taito with 14 counts of bribery, at which the guilty verdict was found yesterday, after the trial begun in April this year.

As I said above, I think he is guilty.  But I also believe there is a certain amount of disagreement between cultures over what is considered a bribe or corruption.  Raymond Huo (Labour list MP) explains:

“With regard to business, Westerners are generally transaction-orientated. They walk in the door, figure out the deal, sign the contract and get out. Chinese, on the other hand, are relationship orientated. The Chinese concept of friendship, or guanxi, is vital. In a highly centralised state, the use of guanxi is sometimes the only way to get things done.”

“The core of guanxi is doing business through value-laden relationships. To some extent, guanxi is the counter-part of a commercial legal system. Don’t get me wrong – Asian people do respect contracts. They are ethical. The only difference is that they do business differently. Mostly, obligations come from relationships, not only pieces of paper.”

I have a Swedish friend who thought corruption was rife in Niu Sila, in that people tended to close ranks and not criticise each other irrespective of whether as an individual they see things to be criticised.  He said by not criticising others we make absolve ourselves from criticisms from others, thereby protecting them and in turn they protect you ie, don’t rock the boat.

And so I think if I were in Taito’s position I too may have offered overstayers sanctuary in my home in Samoa while the immigration issue is pending.  Heck, it’s in our Samoan blood to give, to show our hospitality.  As Raymond Huo says above, it’s not about the transaction, but the relationship that is formed around the transaction.

And I could easily see how those people might offer to keep my home tidy in appreciation for my help.  Of course I’d politely refuse, but it’s not hard how such facts might be viewed or skewed as corruption by others.  Generosity can easily be seen as cronyism or favouritism.

But of course the rules change if I were an MP in Niu Sila, as Taito was.  The blurring of the cultural differences is not an excuse when you are in a public office, especially a political office.  As all politicians will attest to, the public (via the media) are blood thirsty for anything that vaguely resembles the possibility of the likelihood of a chance that there could be a risk of corruption.  And I think that’s a good thing, if not by law then by morals, we should be keeping our politicians at a higher standards than others.

I think Taito knew full well that such actions whether intentional or not, could be and would be viewed as corruption.

Palemia / Prime Minister (PM) for Niu Sila / New Zealand,  John Key is leading a contingent of Niu Sila politicians, public figures and diplomats on a visit to the Pacific.  Yesterday in Samoa it was announced there would be a further advance of the unique “Treaty of Friendship” relationship between Samoa and Niu Sila.

PM John Key met Head of State, His Highness Tui Atua Tupua Tamasese Efi before meeting with Palemia of Samoa, Tuilaepa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi.  “During my discussions with Prime Minster Tuilaepa I outlined New Zealand’s intention to enhance our aid programme to Samoa,” John Key said.  “Development assistance to Samoa will increase from N$10.5 million (T$17.85m) to NZ$14 million (T$23.8m) this year.”

One of the people in the Government’s contingent is legendary All Black Michael Jones of Samoan descent.  One of the things he is famous for, other than his crunching tackles and superb athletic skills, was the fact that he was staunchly against playing on the Sabbath day, because of his Christian beliefs.  Yes, a son of Samoa.

Yesterday in nusipepa / newspapers here in Niu Sila there were questions posed by the media on whether Michael Jones would stand for National in the next general elections.  This isn’t something new as those rumours had been swirling around in last year’s elections.  While Jones did not stand for National last year, he publicly supported John Key during the campaign.  I’m sure National won over many Samoan votes since Jones’ public alignment.

As you may have gathered from reading my previous posts, I am of the centre-left in the political spectrum, as are the majority of Samoans here in Niu Sila.  The Labour political party, which occupies the centre-left, has had a traditionally large faithful Samoan following.  The majority of Members of Parliament (MPs) of Samoan or Pacific descent are from the Labour ranks.  The trade union movements which represented many Samoan / Pacific peoples are closely aligned with Labour.  Many Labour (and other centre left parties) MPs in the past were great advocates for Pacific peoples during the 1970s and 1980s.  The centre left always appeared to champion the less well off, the disadvantaged and the politically marginalised.

Therefore it’s no surprise that many if not the majority of Samoans are Labour or other centre-left supporters.  But the potential for Michael Jones to put his hand up for National may test the political allegiances with ethnic/cultural affiliations.

This isn’t the first Pacific person to be a candidate for the conservative centre right party.  In fact, there is currently a Samoan MP who won the Aukilani / Auckland seat off Labour in Maungakiekie, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga.  But before him there was Anae Arthur Anae who was a list MP for National a while back.  And there were countless other Samoan and Pacific candidates, such as Enosa Auvaa who stood for National in Manurewa (Aukilani Saute / South Auckland), Asenati Lole Taylor who stood against Peseta in Maungakiekie for the New Zealand First Party etc.

However the difference between the successful Peseta and the potential of Michael Jones as a candidate is Jones can win in Aukilani Saute.  Peseta was born in Samoa and raised in Mangere, but his background and public profile differs to Michael Jones.  Peseta was educated at Auckland Grammar School (one of the top boys public schools) and went on to the Iunivesite o Aukilani / University of Auckland to attain B.Com./LL.B. and M.Com.(Hons) degrees.  He also holds an MBA from the University of Cambridge (Queens College).

He is also currently an Auckland City Councillor (Tamaki-Maungakiekie ward) where he was Chairman of the City Development Committee.  He has also worked as a solicitor for Russell McVeagh, a financial analyst for Bankers Trust (London) and as an executive consultant for Macquarie Bank (Sydney). 

That’s not to say that Michael Jones does not have a similar success story, in fact he also graduated from the Iunivesite o Aukilani with B.A., M.A. and a BPlan.  But what the public knows of Jones is that he was born in Aukilani and grew up in Te Atatu South, a suburb in Aukilani Sisifo / West Auckland, that he was a Samoan All Black, and a proud Christian.  Not only did he play for Niu Sila in Rugby, he also played for the Manu Samoa, and was coach until recently.

Both stories are of great successes.  But Jones has the public profile that Peseta didn’t have.  Every Samoan father knew that if their son aspired to be an All Black then Michael Jones was the perfect role-model of how to be a Samoan All Black.  Every Samoan mother wanted their son to be respectful and humble as Jones, and koaga e loloku (regularly go to church).

To tell you the truth, if Jones was a candidate in my electorate next election, I’d vote for him too.  On the political spectrum he isn’t too far off from where many Samoans are.  He has strong Christian conservative convictions but a heart for social justice.  He just believes that National is the vehicle that will best deliver those aspirations, while for a long time many Samoans believed Labour was the best vehicle.

Getting Jones on board would be a smart move for National.

I think Samoans in any political party have to battle the mainstream thinkings within their own organisations, and for Jones it will be no different.  If he gets his teeth into policy and truly makes a change for the better of our people within the National party heirarchy, then he will need to battle the ‘far’ right in the party.  And the same for Labour Samoan MPs.  Towing the party line can cause many a headache for Samoan MPs.  That’s why the Maori MP, Tariana Turia broke away from Labour and created the Maori party who is now in Government with National.

And that illustrates the position Samoans are in.  While we naturally gravitate towards the centre-left / Labour, there are times when we just don’t agree with the centre-left / Labour and would comfortably side with a centre-right approach to matters, or at least form a political stance that is in opposition to the centre-left / Labour.

Former Labour MP Samoan Taito Philip Field opposed the Civil Union law (allowing for same-sex relationships to be recognised under law as having similar rights to a married hetro-secual couple) and the legalising of prostitution.  I’m sure if Jones was an MP at that time, he too would have rallied against those laws.

And there in lies the danger for Labour.  Just as they have miscalculated the Maori vote, they may too have taken for granted the Pacific vote.  The more liberal elements in the centre-left should take heed, that Samoans are very conservative peoples.  A Jones candidate could cement a relationship between Samoans and the centre-right.  The success of the Maori party may push Pacific candidates and voters to argue Labour and the centre-left may not always be the way.

Well that’s all for now.  Those are my musings over the potential of a Michael Jones candidate for National, which may be at odds with the traditional allying of Samoan voters with Labour, but shows we are just as capable to support our own on the centre right.  This could also be just the wake up call for Labour to take us seriously, and not taken for granted.

In Samoa, if you want to swim at a beach you have to ask the village for permission, and sometimes a small fee.  If you want to take a photo of a historic landmark (lava ruins etc), you also have to ask permission and/or pay a small fee.  If you want to climb the banyan trees of Falealupo, you have to pay a fee.  If you want to see the Taga blow holes and have coconuts blown up 25 metres into the air, you have to pay a fee.  If you want to go to Aganoa surf beach in Sa’aga, you have to pay a fee.  If you want to relax on in the beach fales on Saleapaga, you have to pay a fee.

The village is the ultimate authority (although after the creation of the modern State of Samoa the boundaries are unclear).  This is because after you’ve had your little swim, after you’ve snapped your photo’s to take home to show your friends, after you’ve had your little snooze on the beach, it is the village that looks after and maintains the area.  It is the village that lives there day in and day out.  It is the village that reaps the benefit, and pays for the costs. 

The village has total authority, and total responsibility.

Here in Niu Sila however, the imposition of the British constitutional make-up, legal structure and civil governance has whittled away Maori customary authority over their lands and beaches.  For centuries non-Maori individuals and the State alienated much of the land, to the point where only less than 5% of land is still Maori land.

However, it wasn’t until a Court of Appeal decision earlier this decade that Pakeha New Zealanders assumed the foreshore and seabed was vested in the Crown / State of New Zealand.  The Court said Maori customary title may still exist for some tribes as it had never been extinguished by the Crown.

In a knee jerk reaction Pakeha were up in arms at the prospect of losing access to the beaches.  The then Labour Government immediately passed a law extinguishing any Maori customary title in the foreshore and seabed and vesting it in the Crown.  Leading up to the passing of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, there were protests by Maori against another confiscation of their rights, and protests by Pakeha about the possibility of not being able access to the beaches of Niu Sila.

Nevermind extremely wealthy people already owned coastline restricting public access and were not affected by the new law.  Nevermind that companies such as ports have already been given exclusive title to seabed, but no-one kicked up a fuss then.  Nevermind that the Court believed it was unlikely many Maori would be successful in claiming an unbroken exercising of customary title over the foreshore and seabed.  Nevermind that there were clear examples of Maori co-managing foreshore and seabeds with local authorities.  Nevermind that farmers owned great tracts of land which hindered public access to beaches than any potential Maori ownership of foreshores would have.

From that debacle grew the Maori Political Party.  Six years on, the Maori Party is in coalition with the governing National Party.  As part of the coalition agreement, National promised an independent review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004.  The independent panel released their report yesterday recommending the Government repeal the legislation and find a better solution, including co-managing of foreshore and seabeds; and a mixture of Court process and Crown negotiations for Maori claimants (things many Maori had argued for to begin with).

Polynesian concepts of ownership do not equate to that of the European concepts.  The Polynesian concept included guardianship which encapsulates ideas of responsibility as well as authority.  European concepts are of commodities that can be bought and sold, changed amongst different people - no ancestral links, no need have responsibility to it and therefore no need to exert authority.  Currently, there are popular inner-city artificial beaches in Auckland (in the affluent areas of St Heliers and Mission Bay) that needs to have truckloads of sand dumped on it every 5 years or so.  The sand comes from a beach north of Auckland where the local iwi say their ancestors were buried.  The council didn’t care and allowed the sand to be taken for the rich yuppies in Auckland.

Samoans and many other Polynesians are lucky to still have that authority and responsibility over their lands.  But for Maori (and Hawaiians) European laws and customs have taken precedent over Polynesian laws and customs.

If National is brave enough to take on the recommendations of the independent panel, this could be another victory won for Maori in trying to defend their rights in a European setting.

Congratulations Maori Party!

With the departure of former Palemia / Prime Minister (PM) of Niu Sila / New Zealand, Helen Clark, her electorate she represents, Mauga Alapati / Mt Albert will be holding a by-election in the coming weeks, to find a replacement. 

While there has been quite a bit of PR media spin about creating doubt in Labour keeping it’s safe seat, if you say it often enough people will believe you.  And so Labour I believe has also bought into the lies and have brought in a new face all the way from the UN to contest the seat, instead of sticking to the people who had worked hard in the area.

Now that they’ve bought into the spin, this by-election has become crunch time for Labour.  It’s not so much a test of whether the opposition can win the seat off Labour, but it’s a test of how the general public still feel about Labour long after the last general elections.  It is a litmus test that will not only gage the current public opinion, but also will set the tone of the rest of the political term.  Labour will be taunted by the opposition if it to were lose a safe seat, let along the former PM’s electorate seat.

But this is all because Labour bought into the spin machines.  I think Labour will win, but with a reduced majority.  But it is a lesson for Labour to learn from.  The media is a fickle beast, and taming it to use it to your advantage is something the current Government has a grasp of (for now). 

The contesting of the seat by Green Party co-leader Russell Norman has added more complexity to the mix.  The Greens have every right to put up their candidate.  But one of the results could be the splitting of the centre left vote.  This merely illustrates the centre left bloc needs to get their act together, and start working together.  Labour is the biggest culprit of not working with other left-wing parties, but the longer there is bickering, the more of a hold the right will have over the political landscape.

Perhaps the silver lining, if a loss is what Labour faces, is that this could lead to a re-vamp of the leadership, with new younger blood coming through, and the 1960’s baby boomer activists can leave (Phil Goff and co).

There is a joke that has done the rounds a few times about when Phil Goff (current Labour leader) went to Samoa on an official visit along with Helen Clark and Taito Philip Field.  As they were leaving back to Niu Sila at the airport the Samoans were waving goodbye and shouting “Tofa Helen, Fa soifua Taito… Fa Goff!”

But for now, I’m quietly confident that Labour will win this by-election.  Otherwise it’s Fa-Goff to Phil Goff and co for losing the “BYE”-election.

Former Prime Minister (PM) of Niu Sila / New Zealand, Helen Clark is leaving her political career here, and will be off to New York to settle into her new role as the head of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the third highest position in the United Nations (UN).

She has an impressive political career.  She has been in parliament for 27 years.  She was the first female to be voted as Niu Sila’s PM.  She led the Labour political Party for 12 years, and got them into Government for nine of those years.  She was an intellectual who knew policy inside out.  Her great knowledge of her portfolio’s and those of her ministers was an asset to her as a leader.  She ran a tight ship, sanctioning those that had any clouds gathering over them, and rewarded those loyal to her.  She united a Labour Party that had been lurched to the far right under the Roger Douglas’ and David Lange’s.

As PM, Helen Clark made serious social reforms, and faced New Zealand in a progressive direction.  (I say “faced” because many of the free-market reforms of the 1980s and 1990s were still in place after Helen Clark was defeated at the polls last year.)  She strengthened unions, and empowered workers.  She redistributed wealth more evenly under schemes such as Working for Families (although this particular scheme disadvantaged those families on a benefit), especially after a period where the rich and wealthy few bought many of the States assets on the cheap only to run them down.  This also meant Labour bought back some of those assets, such as the trains, KiwiBank, shareholding in Air NZ etc and reinvested in them.  Assets which Labour deemed essential to Niu Sila’s economic outlook. 

Labour has always been the preferred political party of the majority of Samoans / Pacific Islanders.  But under Helen Clark, many felt they had a real champion of Pacific issues here in Niu Sila.  Nearly every major Samoan / Pacific Island event, Helen Clark would make an appearance.  Even beyond the little sniggers when she mis-pronounced Polynesian words, Pacific Islanders generally admired her, because making an attempt is better than not.

Under Helen Clark Niu Sila had the highest number of Members of Parliament (MP’s) of Pacific Island descent: Taito Philip Field, Luamanuvao Winnie Laban, Vui Mark Goshe, Charles Chauvel, Carmel Sepuloni, Sua William Sio and others.  Helen Clark also visited Samoa and officially apologised to the people of Samoa, on behalf of Niu Sila for the poor way Niu Sila administered Samoa (allowing an influenza into Samoa killing 22% of the population, shooting of 11 peaceful Samoan protesters etc).  It was an important event in the relationship between Samoa and Niu Sila.

But some of the progressive policies under the Labour Government rubbed many Samoans / Pacific peoples the wrong way: the Civil Unions legislation which allowed same-sex couples to have legal rights like a married couple (but not marriage); the legalisation of prostitution; and changing the criminal law to make it an offence to assault a child, which infamously (and incorrectly) became known as the anti-smacking law.

Even within the Pacific, many island leaders saw Helen Clark as the iron lady at best and a bully at worst.  But I believe underlying this view is an admiration for Helen Clark, as a strong and straight talker, who’s steely eyes actually portrayed a highly intelligent mind constantly ticking, but also a person who noticed and appreciated the details and nuances of cultures and customs where ever she visited abroad.

It is such traits that I believe is why Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon sees as what is needed as the head of the UNDP.  Helen Clarks international role as PM for Niu Sila has made her many fans and admirers.  She elevated Niu Sila’s status in the world while PM, and has garnered respect and praise by countries that have never heard of Niu Sila, let alone find it on a map.

There are so many things that I have been disappointed in and almost outraged at with Labour under Helen Clark, but there is no doubt that she was a great leader.  She was a leader of our times, a leader of Niu Sila and a leader of the Pacific.

To those that despise her, they think of her as a cold hearted machine, the communist leader of Helengrad.  To many of her supporters, she was simply Aunty Helen.

Malo lava le tauivi, malo foi le onosai.

I suspect that similar to here in New Zealand/Niu Sila, most Samoans in other countries are found in low-skilled/unskilled, retail, hospitality, factory floor, building industry, etc occupations.  As relatively new migrants to these rich Western democracies, these merely play as stepping stones in the story of the Samoan diaspora.  There is an emerging brown middle class here in New Zealand, but generally, our people still occupy the lower rungs on the socio-economic ladder.

So when I read Business New Zealand chief executive, Phil O’Reilly’s comment on Monday that “right now, of all times, you don’t want to make those on the margins of the workforce more difficult to hire” in opposition of a proposal to lift the minimum wage, I knew exactly who he was referring to by “margins of the workforce”.

By the “margins” he meant Maori and Pacific Islanders, the brown work force.  By the “margins” he meant the young and vulnerable.  By the “margins” he meant women.

Yet it seems a bit “rich” (pardon the pun) that O’Reilly and many of the employer members of his Business New Zealand association will benefit from the Government’s planned tax cuts in April.  As the global economic crisis looms, it’s the poor, those on the bottom rungs, that will bear the brunt of its impact.  Those with the least job security, the worst working hours, the lowest paying jobs, the majority being the brown workforce.

Yet again, the business community want the people who are already the most vulnerable in society, to be the shock absorbers of this economic crisis.