of Eita’s

Letters

Sad fate of Eita’s M'aneaba

The M’aneaba in Eita Village, South Tarawa, where Her Majes ty the Queen and Prince Philip were officially received as guests of Kiribati in October 1982, col lapsed under its own weight on Sunday February 13, three months and 19 days after the illustrious Royal occasion.

Eita is the place where disting uished visitors to Tarawa are traditionally received. The Queen and her husband, the Duke, were by far the most dis tinguished visitors yet to come to Kiribati so the old M’aneaba was not considered a fitting abode for them. Even for half an hour. A new M’aneaba had to be built.

Coconut and pandanus trees were felled and sennit string roll ed by all the able-bodied men and women of Eita. A new, bigger, wider, longer, taller M’aneaba sprung up with the speed of light. An old man from the village told me they were going to put in some boutabu (centre pillars) but never got round to it after the Royal visit.

He said the freshly cut wood, shrinking as it dried, may have loosened the lashings and the heavy rains on the previous Saturday, the first downpour in the New Year, may have put extra strain on the already weakened structure. At one o’clock on Sunday morning the village was awakened by the thunderous sounds of cracking timber and snapping sennit twine.

The M’aneaba in Kiribati trad ition is the centre of community life. It is the free hotel for travel lers, the sanctuary in tribal wars, the court room, the meeting house and the place for execu tions in the days of old. No one was injured.

Billy Schultz

Tarawa Kiribati Sorry, you two

Tonys

Your article (PIM Jan p!7) on the “new wave” of interest in the Pacific region in New York City, written by Caroline Yacoe, was

quite interesting and informative.

The new Michael Rockefeller wing of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Pacific collections and film festivals of the nearby American Museum of Natural History have transform ed NY’s Central Park into the only marae in the Western Hemisphere (winter blizzards notwithstanding!).

However, I must point out one unfortunate error in the text of the article. The Australian an thropologist who assisted the Gogodala of Papua New Guinea in their “cultural revival” is named Tony Crawford, not Tony Curtis. Mr Curtis, an American, has played a number of roles in his film career, but never to my knowledge an anthropologist!

James A. Baldwin

Indiana University Indianapolis

Usa

The error, we believe, was that of a film-struck type-setter

Pim.

Samoa’s divided

families

From 1850 until 1899, the Sa moan islands, an ethnic unit, were entangled and divided arbit rarily and without Samoan repre sentation by Western nations (England, Germany and the Un ited States).

As a result, in 1899, our is lands were divided into two un natural political entities. Eastern Samoa, now called American Samoa, was acquired as a pos session by the United States.

Western Samoa was adminis tered by the Germans until it became a mandated territory of New Zealand in World War I, and an independent nation in 1962.

The notion of possible reunion was unsuccessfully dealt with by our Samoan governments just be fore Western Samoa became in dependent. However, I personal ly believe that, without US con cern, if any, American Samoa would continue to refrain from unification. American Samoa is now solely and economically de pendent upon federal funds from the US. They assume that a merger with Western Samoa could mean a loss of this economic support; however, this

is unlikey, because of the import ance of this strategic location for the United States. In view of this, uniting the Samoas is to a great extent dependent upon the US Government.

Moreover, because of colonial influence, our islands have not only been divided in two politic ally, but unnatural relations have arisen between them as well. For instance, shortly after Western Samoa became independent, it became law that Western Sa moans had to be residents in American Samoa at least five years before they could obtain employment. In response, West ern Samoans have been creating and tightening up their immigra tion rules and regulations aimed at American Samoans. It may be hoped that the humanitarian American Government would take action to alleviate this im portant problem for our people.

Since Western Samoa became independent, our governments’ lack of amicable relationship has primarily affected our families.

For instance, in my own family, my father moved to American Samoa in 1959 for contractual employment. For a while, he lived with his aunt who was married to an American Samoan chief, namely, Ifopo, in the vil lage of Fagatogo. In 1961, my mother, with some of my young brothers and sisters, moved to American Samoa. Some are still in Western Samoa, but most are now living in American Samoa.

In all, there are 14 brothers and sisters, seven of whom were born in American Samoa and seven in Western Samoa.

Those born in American Samoa have the advantage of free medical and dental care, free access to the continental United States, free education, and free dom from legal entanglement, whereas those bom in Western Samoa are considered aliens and, therefore, have to pay for medic al and dental care. They are without free access to the US; they cannot attend the communi ty college which was established in American Samoa in 1971, since the school is federally funded. They are sporadically threatened with deportation and have to be residents in American Samoa five years before obtain ing employment, among other

inequities. Since there is no legal mechanism existent in American Samoa to change this status from aliens to US nationals or citizens, they continue to feel humiliated within their own family.

A people with a common heritage, whom the US divided, ought to be united and assisted

together again not only by

the Samoan Governments but by the American Government as well.

Falani A. Peters

Seattle Washington

Usa

Kiribati report

criticised

Your comment in the January issue of PIM (Political Currents: Kiribati Government Ousted) is tendentious and misleading. I shall be obliged if you will print this letter in your next issue. It sets out the facts and refrains from comment.

The 1982 Kiribati Budget, which was passed by Parliament, contained, in its Introduction, the following statement: the Budget “allows for a 5 per cent salary increase across the board for the Public Service”. The Budget in cludes salary provision for cer tain statutory office-holders whose salaries are contained in the Schedule to the Statutory Offices Salaries Act. Unfortu nately at the time the 1982 Budget was passed the necessity to amend the Schedule to that Act was overlooked: never theless the money had been voted.

A Bill to amend the Act was introduced at the 1983 Budget Meeting. It was this Bill which was defeated in Parliament. Its purpose was to give effect to the decision already taken in 1982 for a 5 per cent across the board salary increase so far as statutory office holders were concerned and in future to empower the President in Cabinet to amend the Schedule to the Act by Order whenever, and in the same pro portion as, a salary increase was approved for the Public Service.

The provision of additional funds was not involved.

J.A. Jones

Former Parliamentary Office Management Adviser Tarawa Kiribati