[?]Amoans Now

ne Reader's Views

[?]Annot

[?]Elf-Rule To

[?]Amoans Now

Mr. A. M. Gurau, long-time resident and businessman of Apia, Western Samoa, is one of \the Europeans of that Terri tory who feel that the Samoans are now capable of running their i own affairs. Although not every one agrees with him, all will admit that he sets out his arguments admirably in this \letter to the editor.

MR. T. J. Dunleavy, former (1 Editor of the Samoan Bulletin, who left Samoa beginning of ovember, after seven years’ resid ue in the Territory, has lost no ne on his return to New Zealand F voice in the Press his strong ►position to the granting of Self overnment to Western Samoa, and [ suggest that Self-Government ould be postponed to 1970 at the xliest.

Mr. Dunleavy bases his views on e assumption that New Zealand [pushing Western Samoa toward dependence in 1960 or 1962, when je mass of the Samoan people do understand and may not even int Self-Government.

He claims that it is difficult to tain a clear expression of Samoan blic opinion as political rights are nfined to Samoans of chiefly rank latais); and as there are no

litical parties.

He also claims that demands for iependence made to the United itions and the New Zealand Gov iment were made by relatively .all groups of higher ranking chiefs d ambitious politicians seeking litical powers, indicating that such mands lacked support from the iss of the Samoan people.

Hr. Dunleavy cites the fact that •tain measures submitted by the moan Cabinet Ministers were de ited by the Legislative Assembly ■proof that Cabinet Government this stage of political develop :nt has failed.

Bulletin Policy

fhe views expressed by Mr. uleavy have been propounded by a in the Samoa Bulletin for years, en he continuously criticised and acked Samoan leaders and the mbers of the Legislative Assembly o had different opinions and he S concentrated his attacks on the -tai System, the traditional chief tern of the Samoans which, in his w, is the root of the evil and be abolished. ?he Samoan people, however, pgly oppose any change in their ditional way of life at the pre

sent time though there will almost certainly be modifications of the matai system and the land tenure system connected therewith, in years to come.

The claim that the matai system and the present land tenure system are harmful to the agricultural pro gress has been convincingly dis proved in 1958 when the Samoans under the matai system doubled banana production and banana ex ports to New Zealand.

There has been no demand voiced by any body of Samoans and par ticularly by the untitled Samoans, for whom Dunleavy pretends to speak, that the matai system should be abolished or that universal franchise should be introduced in Western Samoa.

Many of the untitled young Samoans are in fact potential matais or chiefs who will be title holders of the future and for this reason they are not opposed to the matai system.

Apart from this it is the un titled young Samoans and women who elect one of their number matai, and therefore the matai is actually the spokesman for the whole family, which, if so inclined, can also dis place him.

When the Legislative Assembly recently rejected the introduction of a Customs amendment to provide for increased import duties, it was proved right, when, without this revenue, the Government found sufficient means to carry on— additional revenue from higher cocoa prices, a better than average cocoa crop and vastly increased banana exports, combined with higher imports, provided sufficient revenue to cover Government ex penditure.

It is true that, as Mr. Dunleavy points but, the Samoans were wrong

when they refused to sanction the levying of a direct tax, as in former years, in the form of a head-tax for the sole benefit of social services, roads, etc., in the outside districts and villages.

Mr. Dunleavy is also right that Self-Government could and should not be granted without insisting on full guarantees of security and rights of the European minority including Part-Europeans in the Territory.

However, Mr. Dunleavy’s campaign in Samoa and his statements in the New Zealand Press have undoubtedly increased a previously non-existent antagonism to Europeans and Part- Europeans amongst the Samoans, and have caused considerable con cern amongst the Europeans.

Breach of Faith Moreover, the Samoan public is practically unanimous in believing, as the New Zealand Prime Minister, the Hon. Mr. Nash, and the Minister of Island Territories have stated in their comments on Mr. Dun leavy’s articles in the New Zealand Press, that a postponement of the establishment of Self-Government in 1960 would be considered a breach of faith by the Samoans and would, make a continuance of the present Trusteeship system by New Zealand wholly unworkable, as the Samoans would refuse to co-operate.

New Zealand has given a solemn undertaking and promise to grant Self-Government in 1960 and cannot go back on this undertaking. Apart from this, the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations has frequently expressed full agreement with New Zealand Policy and intentions and the coming visit of a Trusteeship Council Mission will undoubtedly favour the granting of Self-Govern ment in 1960.