 Back with our panelists discussing TMT today, Peter Poe, Timo Stone, and Kolepa Babayan. I wanted to jump right back in with you, Kolepa. And I wanted to ask you, what else could T-HEP-T have done in this situation? There's endless conversations in Hawaii about what is a good project? What project, what do they have to do? Who do they have to consult? After 11 years, the business community looking at this thing is like, oh my god, what steps do we have to go through in order to get this going? And I want to know, what can we do? So what else do you think TMT could have done, if anything? And what did they do? Actually, the actual conversation going on for 12 years now, and basically, TMT came and had conversations with private citizens. Some of these citizens were other protectors. And they asked for recommendations or suggestions as to what they can do to help. To help, what is it that they can do that the community would see as a benefit, as part of a benefits package? So I don't think TMT can do anything else with the mitigation package that they've already offered. It is now basically like a contractual agreement, I guess, that whatever they've agreed to is signed off by the participants and is now part of a package of deliverables. So I don't think they can go back and renegotiate. It really is up to the Hawaiian community. If they see something that they're impassioned about, I would say bring it to the table. But as of right now, I believe that TMT has done a good job of garnering or investigating what things would benefit the community and to get a pretty benefit package. If you have an opportunity today on the internet to give the governor some advice in the mayor, what would you recommend? I think we have to seek what alcoholics see, which is a moment of clarity. There is no clarity in the message that the state of Hawaii supports TMT. So as Colipa mentioned, this is a process that started 12 years ago. And there have been at least 10 years in litigation over whether or not we can answer all the questions and accommodate all of the demands. And so the site is not in the vicinity of the traditional customary uses. It does not block the view plane as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It's not interfering with the depositing of an Ipiko or gathering of water at Lake Waio. It is in a place that by all of the evidence that's been submitted in that decade-long process, not interfering with any other religious beliefs, claimed by the kiai. So I think that the disconnect is that clarity of a message that it's no longer a matter of accommodations. The project has accommodated the request and or demands of the practitioners. And why that message isn't coming out from the gov. It's just beyond me. All you'd have to do is read the record in terms of what are the demands met? What is the response? And is it in the plan? And if you take a look at the plan, you can see the result. Obviously, there's all sorts of accommodations. And then, of course, the obvious benefits to the Hawaiian community. It is a tragedy that many of my friends who are against the telescope will rob the next generation of an opportunity for scientific achievement unparalleled. No one is offering Hawaiians this level of educational support. And that's heartbreaking for me. Peter, one of the things that has come up from the KIA protesters I've spoken to and I've basted online about this is the question of arrest. Because I've heard that arrests are genocide. Arrests are human rights violation. Arrests are they're violating the Convention on Human Rights. And don't speak to the legal aspect of it. But from your point of view, if you see arrests happen on Mauna Kea now, similar to the KUKA ones, what is your feeling on that? Because the KIA have said they are not going to move. And I believe that. I think the arrests are a side issue. First of all, the whole optic, including the arrests, is fashioned by mainstream media. Mainstream media tends to be very friendly toward the KIA and the protectors. So the optic that they create helps to actually complicate the problem. There's no question in my mind that the rule of law has to at some time be invoked, period, the rule of law. But it can't stop there. So the TMT has to proceed under the law. They're allowed to proceed. But you can't stop there. The state has got to wake up, finally, that this is about over 100 years of pent-up frustration that the trust responsibility has not been met. And worse, it's been violated. That's what this is about. The TMT is, like I said, it's the match that lit the fire after all of these years. So when you get into this, there's a bunch of other things going on dealing with Hawaiians that is not being addressed. There is no center of gravity of leadership, even in the Hawaiian community. If you say, where are the leaders of the Hawaiian community? Well, you can probably name 150, 200 people. But you can't name anybody politic. Particularly, oh, I forget about that. They've become almost irrelevant. Sorry, I used to be a trustee. I agree. So there has to be a way to position the TMT issue as a starting point for a new, revitalized acceptance of the responsibility from the people in charge that they're going to be able to address all these longstanding questions. That's what this is kind of, you know. Does that need to be addressed before TMT proceeds with construction? It needs to be addressed. I mean, you know, the issues are not, they're not rocket science. I mean, housing, health care. Quality of life. Quality of life needs to be addressed. Well, I mean, but see, the thing that I'm wondering, though, obviously, is that those are just not going to get solved in the time frame that we have. You don't have to solve them. But you have to make a plan. You have to make a formal commitment and be serious about addressing that. I mean, I think Mayor Kim presented that plan that he had to talk about it in the government. This is not a plan to give to the TMT. OK, sacred. What do we not understand about sacred? This is not a conversation you're having with the Ki'ai or the protectors. It's a conversation you're having with the rest of Hawaii. We're going to approve the TMT. We've got to get it moving. But we accept our responsibility to the Hawaiians. And here, you know, we're going to start moving on it seriously. And this has to begin with our own Hawaiian caucus in the legislature that has to stand up and be counted. What's so interesting about this TMT issue is not so much the voices that you're hearing. It's the voices that you're not hearing from, the people with the titles, the people with the responsibility, the people with the salaries. Sam, the message to the governor, I think, has to be the governor must make it clear that the TMT is a surrogate issue for all the other issues. It is not the real issue. I mean, stopping TMT will not build a single house for a Hawaiian family that's homeless. Stopping the TMT is not going to address the overwhelming incarceration rate of our people. It will not address diabetes and heart disease that plague our community. Those are the issues that are part of the pent-up frustration of Hawaiians waiting several lifetimes for your homestead. The TMT has become the surrogate for all of that pain and suffering. But what the governor has so far been unable to do is point that out. To say what you want about the telescope, it does not address the problems that need to be addressed for your people. So he needs to. It's not a before after. He needs a plan for all of those issues. That is separate apart from the telescope. Now, once you separate the telescope from all of the wire range of issues for Hawaiians, you might be able to have some functional dialogue. As long as the dialogue is only about whether or not the telescope is on sacred land, then we can't move the ball forward. We can make no progress at all. You know, there's another interesting aspect to what we're talking about, the quality of life index. When you take a look at the Hawaiian community, the economic capacity that we have, right? And sometimes, you know, I get from the finance people, they say you shouldn't be talking about it. You know what? When you, just the five major land-holding institutions, billions and billions of liquid assets, hundreds and thousands of acres of land, what's missing is any kind of collaboration, any kind of thought leadership, any kind of collective vision that would take those resources and figure out a way that they can work together to address the quality of life issues, ease the pressure on the other stuff. Turn about the elite trust. Elite trust. And the HHL and OHA. So it's not just the state's responsibility. Hawaiians, we have a responsibility within our own leadership structure to try to rise to the occasion. But for us to sit on the sideline, why, well, something important like this is going on is, to me, inclusion. I suppose, Peter, part of the challenge is each elite trust has their own mission. And they have a fiduciary duty to support their mission. So whether it's education, or the elder at Lunalilo, or the orphans for the Iwakalani Trust, the hospital for Queens, each of them have their own missions. So all of them are contributing now. Yeah, they are. To those missions, what is missing is the commitment of the state and the clarity of the leadership distinguished between TMT and all of those others. And I would just differ with you. This is not quality of life. Many of these issues are life and death. People are dying from diabetes and heart disease and the illnesses connected to homelessness and incarceration. Is the, I guess the only concern that I would have is the state, the state's gonna have a plan. But like you said, you gotta separate it. But we're talking a timeframe of weeks, maybe months here. And those issues, even if you had a plan, they're just not gonna, the plan itself is gonna take forever to make up. I mean, all of us that existed for 50 years, they haven't come up with the plan yet. So where is the, the plan is not gonna come up. What timeframe are we looking for that would help the governor say, okay, time to come up with the plan now and you move in the police a week later? A week before, I mean, that's what we're talking about. That's the conversation the governor's having in his office. I agree, but you know, or not have. Or not have, well, I mean, I hope he's having it. But they have to state intention. I mean, if what you're suggesting is they let the TMT go or not say anything about the rest of it, not address the broken trust, so to speak, not address the fact that DHHL, after all these years, 200,000 of acres of land have only been able to build 10,000 homes. That's ridiculous, stuff like that. So if what you're thinking is that this is gonna solve the TMT problem, as we're saying, TMT is not the problem. It's just the match. You know, it's the other stuff. Colombo might have a thought. Yeah, I agree with what the Kibo and Peter supported on me. Yeah, TMT is a curve of access. What I, you know, I've always maintained in my, whatever I've said to the leadership at the county level and at the state level is that you have to restore the rule of law. I mean, TMT is just a permitting. The state controls the access to the mountain and so the state has to restore the rule of law. They have to remove the obstruction of the road and they have to restore access for all parties on the mountain. The maintenance workers, the researchers, the facility staff, the protectors as well, as well as the TMT construction crew and you have to constantly reinforce the message that every person that's involved in this conversation has to learn how to share the mountain. What should the next step be for the governor then? What is the next move? Three steps. One, he has to develop the message. He has to make it clear that the TMT has a right to be built, that obstruction of TMT is illegal. That message has to be clear. Two, he needs a plan to support that message. What will it take to ensure that the workers who need access to the mountain have that access without threat to their life, without serious harm or injury? Third is the follow through because this is not a problem for a week or two weeks. This will last longer than our lifetime. And so what is, in addition to the construction, the steps necessary to ensure that this is properly maintained in the most productive way or Hawaii? Do you think that Kia'i could be held financially responsible for this protest? In a sense, why not? You can't punish the people that have been troubled and pummeled for a hundred years, you know? I mean, the fact that they're doing what they're doing comes out of, again, a really deep frustration. That's legitimate, it's a legitimate frustration. But to punish them for trying to act out their belief system because they're frustrated, there was no other way to get some attention. They finally got some attention. We finally got some attention. And they put them in jail for it, you know? So no, I don't agree with that. They are responsible for the trespass. They are responsible for the obstruction. They are not responsible for the lack of leadership on the part of the state or lack of leadership on part of the university or the lack of leadership on part of the consortium that's proposing the plan. A better way to state it, right? Well, I guess the question has been, there's been a harm, right? I mean, some people have lost business over this and who is responsible for that? And it's not just this protest, right? Obviously, other protests have been happening, inspired by this, telephone poles getting cut down. And this is the reason for the question. If you are not held responsible for this protest at some level, and maybe not the full 11 million, because who knows what the state of the county is actually spending the money on? I agree that that number might be too high. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know, it's what you're investigating court. But if we don't hold protesters responsible for illegal protests, what happens the next time the protest is the next one or the next one? Sam, as an attorney, you know that you have a right to express yourself in this country, whether you like it or not. But you cannot divorce responsibly to those that enable the bad behavior. The state has enabled the behavior that has allowed this to drag out to cost 11 million dollars. Have a situation where you, I, Peter, and Kolepa cannot see the end. So if you ask me, I think the state is even more responsible. The Ikea here are exercising their right to political protest. There's a cost. If you trespass, if you obstruct, you go to district court and there's a $50 fine. You do it again, it's $250. You do it three times as $500. Sooner or later, that's stopped. That's what Mayor Aura Cabo found when he was on Maui and there's a similar protest at Haliakala. So I think we want to make sure that we separate the responsibility for those trespass violations on the larger public policy deficits that are clear. There is an absolute absence of a leadership and clarity of a message from the state. And that may be a strategy in and of itself. I don't know, I'm not part of that conversation. It may be that they think they'll get tired and go away. But if that's what they think, they misunderstand the psychology of movement. Movement politics is about winning. And right now, they're winning. This is success. This gives meaning to the movement, which makes it stronger, which gives their leadership a stature. It is a strategy that you couldn't design better to make sure the TNT protests continue. So that's the responsibility that I'm concerned about. So I agree with what you both stated. Yeah, yeah, he just said it so eloquently. There is a question we had discussed this before. And I think it comes up here on what you were just saying about the fact that you can't arrest the people that have been oppressed for 100 years. But I mean, that's one of the questions is, are these the people that have been oppressed for a new year? That wasn't your question. Your question is, can you hold them responsible? Right. Peter said that you can arrest. You were talking about financial responsibility. Of course. Amongst other things, yeah, right? So the question that I had and where this leads to is the issue of, and there's context that's necessary in the sense of the University of Hawaii, which is a central player in all this, has a, they call themselves a Hawaiian place of learning. And so the question that I always have is, who defines what Hawaiian is? I'm gonna ask you the narrow question. You're talking to me? No, Sam, I mean, honestly, who defines that's the trap? If you think that's the question, rather than from a Hawaiian point of view, being Hawaiian is how you live. It's how you speak, how you move, what you hold in terms of your values, whether or not you live up to what aloha really means. You go down a road with no ending. Hawaiian is not a Hawaiian word, trust the law. But also it's a dysfunctional question because that's what the West has always tried to do. They have tried to divide us as Hawaiians or Japanese and Puerto Ricans and Portuguese, going as far as to put us in separate camps during the plantation era. Well, I'm not sure the West is the one that's going around saying that the U.H. is the Hawaiian place of learning. I'm pretty sure that the- No, no, no, no, but you see- But you see that- The Kieti are the ones who have claimed that U.H. is the Hawaiian place of learning and that has an identity. Let me just say this. Them saying that the University of Hawaiian place of learning is largely, the relationship is largely political and collegial. It's in the collegial politics. That's what all that is. Beginning with Hanani Trask and how that whole- What do you mean? The whole thing kind of- Because I don't think everybody- No, the genesis of the school, the Hawaiian study school, Hanani was actually applying for tenure in American studies. But she caused such a ruckus. They didn't really want her involved in American studies. But the chancellor at the time, or the president at the time, created this Hawaiian opportunity and gave her the opportunity in order to get tenure to take over. And that's how she ended up out in the whole Hawaiian studies program out there. That was the politics of the situation that allowed that to happen. Now, whether or not, you know- My concern with your question was that it carried with it a pejorative. That by labeling the university as a Hawaiian place of learning, that was somehow excluding other. Yeah, yeah. And that is the most un-Hawaiian thing you could possibly do. I agree. We are different from the West to this extent. In the United States, there was an emphasis on racial purity. You were not white, for example, if you're one drop of some sort of other blood. In Hawaii, you could be Hawaiian and not be Koko, John Davis. Isaac Davis and John Young. You could be Queen Emma. Who's a descendant from Keoneana? And we embrace other people. So a Hawaiian place of learning means that this is a place that embraces, that includes everybody else, including my oldie friends, my Japanese friends, et cetera, et cetera. It really, I have to respond strongly because it rankles me when I hear people trying to put us in a pigeonhole that was created to divide. Well, that's a fascinating part because I'm not sure that I'm not sure that the people who you are claiming would do that are the ones who called it a Hawaiian place of learning. I mean, when I asked this question previously at a debate about water on Mauna Kea, the response from the Hawaiian programs, the individual who was identified as a native Hawaiian program officer said that Hawaiians define what a Hawaiian place of learning is. And the person down at the front made of Hawaiians what she meant. And the person down at the front who said what you just said which is that Hawaiians includes all people, all races, and all cultures. That the Hawaiian, native Hawaiian cultural or program officer objected to that definition. She said native Hawaiians are the ones who define what Hawaiian is. And that was I objected. I found that objection. And I think we are, and they are when they're saying that and we are when we speak of this, shifts passing in the night. We're talking about two different things. One is a political status. One is a racial category. And another way to look at it is that I choose to look at it is that it is a cultural or system of cultural values that define whether or not you are Hawaiian or not. Whether or not you act with humility. Whether or not you try to be pleasing, work together, be humble, and patient. All of the elements. You don't need the coco to be a cultural Hawaiian in terms of defining it. So some of the greatest contributors to Hawaiian culture have been people with not one drop of Hawaiian blood like Oakea Nogomaya. Yeah. Pila Wilson. People like that. Alika Spore. Oh yeah. So it's a, so being Hawaiian, I mean I would define as how you live your life, your lifestyle. As an example, my brother and I, you come to my house, you will see all kinds of Hawaiian stuff. You go to Hawaiian Chinese, you go to my brother's house, it's all Chinese. So does that mean he's not Hawaiian? And I'm Hawaiian and he's not? I don't know. What does that mean? That's a good question. Kalapa, are you rewinding your way in? No, I'm enjoying the conversation as an observer, but I have to agree with what Peter and Kim are saying. I guess it's my question. See, the danger for me is that, and I'm not trying to make it about myself, there's other TMT supporters who have faced the same issue, which is I come out, TMT supporters come out, and say I support TMT, and all of a sudden I'm a fake Hawaiian, I'm not even a real Hawaiian anymore. There's, if the irony is, if it's not based on the cocoa, it's not based on race, then all of a sudden you can exclude people based on your special committee of individuals that get to decide who's Hawaiian. And now who voted for that committee? Who elected that committee? But apparently that committee exists because they tell TMT supporters all the time that we're not Hawaiian. Yeah, but I'm saying so it doesn't make it so sad. Oh, yeah. I have been called two things in particular, coconut and donkey. Donkey, what I've never heard before. Because of my testimony at the land use commission, hundreds of responses, five to one, positive. But amongst the negative responses, most often it was your coconut, which is brown outside, white inside, or donkey, which is just an insult. But not a single, not a single point with regards to the argument. You said your panel that you have today on this thing is probably taking more hits about not feeling alive from social media than you can believe, you know? And one of the reasons why my community isn't more vocal is because they don't just, my high school classmate told me this, called me up and said, hey Kimo, I saw your testimony, terrific, but now that I am my wife at the time we're patients for this anymore, go get them brother. There are lots of wines who say, this is a bunch of, you know what? I'm not gonna waste my time, but go get them. And so when you called me, you remember how reluctant I was? And you persisted and persisted until I just finally gave up. Look how happy you are now. Okay, well I'm not happy. I am still, I am a reluctant warrior. I think what- My only issue is you're depriving us of educational opportunities and you're not solving the health, incarceration, housing problems. So maybe the title of the show should be TMT instead of defining sacred history. TMT, defining Hawaiian. I think so. I mean, I think because it's, because the irony of it all is that in this magical committee that I imagine you're saying that you can be Hawaiian and support TMT. I am Hawaiian. I mean, see, I don't have any ambiguity in terms of my identity. I don't care. People can call me coconut, they can call me whatever they want, but I will walk through the world with confidence and purpose because it is important for at least 100 scholars every year for the next 10 years. I'm not to mention a million dollars in rent and a million dollars in workforce pipeline support. For all the good reasons and none of the housing and healthcare and incarceration issues are addressed by the key at all, none. So that frustration based upon all of the decades of neglect is misplaced. I just want to say that, you know, Hawaiians, we have lived under any different chiefdoms all at the same time, right? Did Kaikili agree with Kamehameha's leadership that Ke'aua was the wrong, was challenging, was Ke'aua a trade-off with challenging Kamehameha? Just historically, we have lived under different opinions and different leadership structures that work in sync all the time. So I think having disagreements in the societies that's just life. I want to close then on this note because I think we got to wrap up now is what you tell young kids, especially young Native Hawaiian kids, watching this broadcast right now or watching it later in the future. What message would you send to them as you close? I tell them when I tell my daughter, who lives with me, who teaches Hawaiian language at University of Hawaii, who is a Ki'ai, she protests a telescope. We delight in each other's differences. We have no problem discussing this at home. I don't denigrate her for her opinions. I entirely respect her opinions. She respects mine and we don't take ourselves too seriously and that's a part of it. But I ask them, if you ask the question, what must we do? Post-war wrote a whole book on it. What must we do? We must address our health issues. We are dying from diabetes and heart disease. We must address housing. We are homeless and then you have all the diseases that are associated with this. We are incarcerated at proportions that are appalling. All of those issues are issues of poverty. Every single one. And to the extent I can lift a portion of our community up, I have an obligation. I have a duty. And if it's a duty, that's sacred. I'll call it that. A sacred duty to advocate or lifting up a portion of our community to that end. I would just quote Manolo at the Battle of Komo as she lay dying. Keep you aloha. Whatever, keep you aloha. Kalaapa? Well, you know, my grandfather and I'm not sure if you're familiar with Terry Kanalu Young, was a professor at the University of Hawaii at Manoloa. His grandmother, Susan, Kalaapa, my uncle Archie, they would all gather at the Cup of Hulu House and they would have these robust, vigorous discussions about things that concern everyday Hawaiian communities. And they invited different perspectives. What was really, the only requirement was that it is to be able to articulate and make your point and your reason. And that's what I invite Hawaiians to do is to be respectful. We have great to be, leave the conversation with a sense of aloha. And that's what I hope that in the very end, from the heart, we all need to find this place of aloha. Thank you very much to Think Tech Hawaii and thank you to all the supporters of Imua TMT, all the donors that have made this community outreach effort possible. And thank you especially to our panelists, Peter Poe, Himo Stone and Kalaapa Bayon. Please support Imua TMT if you wanna see more of these conversations. We're gonna try and keep this conversation going, trying to keep it out in the public sphere so we can continue this conversation with aloha, helping our community understand this very complicated issue, not just in Hawaii, but around the world too. Thank you very much for watching aloha.