My name is Samuel Alda King II. I am the executive director of Ibu'a TMT. I am joined here today with James Stone, Peter Oppo, and Khalil Babayan to discuss defining sacred and the sacred-nased claims of the Qia'i or protestors on Mauna Kea and what that means for our community and what it means for all of us in Hawaii. And we want to talk today about everything around that topic, around the separation of church estate, about the importance of cultural claims and the importance of respecting religious identity and religious claims. So without further ado, I will introduce our three panelists. Mr. Stone is a Hawaii attorney with 30 years of experience who practice focuses upon the representation of real estate companies, trade associations, and risk management. He's written 15 certified real estate continuing education courses over 40 real estate related training manuals and well over 100 real estate related articles covered a wide range of topics. Regarding Hawaiian culture, Mr. Stone is an accomplished musician and hula practitioner who was trained by Wendona Beamer and Henry Mokeha Pa. Mr. Stone has recorded five CDs and has been nominated for three Nahoku Hanahara Awards. In 2008, he won the Hoku for album of the year for Nalani'e Ha as co-producer and recording artist. Additionally, he was president of the Hawaiian Music Hall of Fame from 2004 to 2016. Thank you, Jim. Aloha. Aloha. And next, we have Peter Apo. Peter Apo is the president of the Peter Apo Company LLC from Business Planning and Consulting Company. He was a Hawaii state legislator for 12 years. He's the director of arts, culture, and arts for the city and county of Honolulu under Mayor Harris. He was also the director of Waikiki Development under Mayor Harris. He was a special assistant on Hawaiian affairs to Governor Ben Kaetano. He was elected to the first Ohaha Board of Trustees in 1980 to 82 and re-elected to Ohaha again in 2010, serving until 2016 or 18? 18. 18. He continues to serve on countless boards and commissions, and he's been doing that for over 50 years. Last but not least, we have Chad Kolobobayan. Board of Rays in Lahaina, Kolobobayan has been an active participant in the Polynesian Voyaging Renaissance since 1975. Kolobba has served as captain and navigator on board the iconic Hawaiian double-hulled Voyaging Canoe Hokulea, as well as the canoes Hawaii Law and Hoku Alakati. In 2007, he was one of the five Hawaiian men initiated into the Order of Po, a 3,000-year-old society of deep-sea navigators by their teacher, master navigator, Maok Yama, on the island of Satawal. Kolobba has served as Imi Loa's first navigator-in-residence since his appointment in 2009. Kolobba most recently participated in the three-year Malama Honua worldwide voyage of Hokulea. He returned to school late in life, graduating with a BA from Kahakaula E'O'kei Leo Kalani College of Hawaiian Language in 1997 and followed with a master's in education from Heritage College. So thank you all for being here. Welcome. And I want to jump right into it just, you know, this topic clearly is of great importance to our community, to our society, maybe even to the whole world. Everybody is paying attention to this. So I wanted to give you a chance to offer your initial thoughts on this topic, defining sacred and, you know, Mauna Kea and TMT. So, Ima, why don't we start with you? My observation is that for most of my life, and I am 63 years old, Mauna Kea and the scientific use of Mauna Kea and Telescopes on it have been viewed positively by our community, by our community, I mean, the Hawaiian community, is a relatively recent development that Hawaiians are at least perceived by the larger community as being against scientific uses of Mauna Kea. And this is particularly heartbreaking for me because I know many of the people in the movement. And I understand the impact that this will have for our people, as you know, TMT presents the most important astrological tool that's even contemplated. It reaches, it's essentially a time machine that reaches back hundreds of millions of years. And its development is not only the telescope itself, but also the educational support for Native Hawaiians, 100-some-odd scholarships for Hawaiians every year for the next 10 years plotted out. It is the future of the general community and the scientific benefits that we can get for it, but also the direct impact it has upon Hawaiians. And the claim to sacredness currently been leveled are really, I think as we talk about it more, personal in nature, and it is very difficult to draw a true threat back to what was sacred to Hawaiians pre-contact. Thank you very much. Peter, why don't we go to you? What are your opening thoughts? Well, first of all, Aloha and thank you both and Kalepa on the big island for opportunity for me to join you folks. You know, my observation generally comes from my 40 plus years of public service. So I bring an eye toward the impact on public policy here, which runs a whole range of issues. And what's been particularly interesting to me and when this issue was first raised in around 2015, the first little bubbling under of the volcano, it was specific to the TMT, everything was focused on 30 meter telescope. Since then, the two three year break that they took to go to court and to fight the legal battles, there've been other issues that have slowly been bubbling under. This time around, it's very different. The volcano seems to have like exploded and it sent down the mountainside several lava flows, all of which represent different issues. So the issue has expanded to a wide range of issues, a lot of it triggered by the blocking of the road. So you have things like, first of all, it really important, validating, which we're gonna get more into when we get into body, validating the cultural claim of Manawa Kale. You get into the separation of church and state based on the sacredness claim. You get into the rule of law that it's preventing people from going to work and an officially approved project by the government. You get into a very divided Hawaiian community and while the optic may be through because of the more friendly nature of the media to the protectors and the kiai, you get this optic that all Hawaiians, as Kimo mentioned, are anti-TMT and that is not true. We're pretty heavily divided on this. One of the more foreboding, I think, impacts that are beginning to feel and to sense is that this is something that's beginning to divide Hawaiians from the rest of Hawaii. And when I say that, what I mean is that there have been issues before, but we've always pretty much had the support of all of Hawaii dating back to the Akaka Bill. I don't want to get into the weeds. This issue has beginning to shift that and it's beginning to draw a line in the sand between the impact of a negative decision on the TMT between the majority of the people of Hawaii and Hawaiians. That, I think, is a really onerous, kind of a heavy cloud that bothers me a lot. So somehow we have to come to some sort of resolution on this. But the issues go on and on. So probably the biggest issue for me and I think the place where the buck has to stop is where we're at and that is, in my opinion, the total lack of leadership from state government where the true responsibility to the Native Hawaiian trust, the fact that we are a state is based on the fact that on the Hawaiian presence in the Admissions Act. I think the state and the government is really failing us big time on this with really poor leadership and the total lack of any predictability about where we're going. Thank you, thank you. Kalapo, what are your opening thoughts on this? Well, I think I'm just gonna back it up and share with the audience how I come to my relationship with the mountain. As you know, I have had extreme and rare privilege to serve as captain and navigator on board the Hawaii, East T-Boys in Kanu, Hokulea, Hawaii, Loa, and Hokuala, Ka'e. I'm a student of history. I'm a graduate of the University of Hawaii at the Hapa'u Okaili Polani College of Hawaiian language. And I hold a master's degree in education at this college. For years, I've worked with students and educators sharing the really powerful story of our Mariner ancestors and oceanic navigators who settled these islands. In 2007, along with four other Hawai'i men, I was granted the rank of full and accepted into a society of non-instrument master navigators in the Sarawaliye tradition and extended the privilege to teach and pass on the skills and techniques and values of the oceanic wayfinder. So my relationship with monarchy is grounded in the many occasions that this special mountain has led me back to my home and to my family as a navigator aboard Hawaii's Voyage in Kanu. On one occasion, on a particular occasion of the evening of February 26th, in the year 2000, 21 days after leaving Tahiti, a crew of 15 women and men sailing on board hopefully arrived off Hawaii Island. As the island loomed large in the foreground, a colleague and I were in conversation. On the horizon, the slopes of monarchy rose out of the sea. It's summit silhouetted, but a fabric of stars circled over it. The conversation quieted as we stared toward that immense site. As we looked west, the wind kept pulling us along. I stared at the magisk and pulled it before me. A barfield circling overhead and arching toward monarchy, welcoming the night sky. On this cloudless night at sea, peering with my crew, we did the awesome sight of monarchy, the stars reached down out of the sky and touched the last peak of the mountain. And you recognize that they are the same, monarchy and the sky. In that moment, I realized that monarchy and the universe were one and that monarchy was truly a portal into the universe. Monarchy is a celestial window into the universe. Since that moment, I've been an advocate for astronomy in Hawaii. My realization that astronomy needs to be an integral part of Hawaii's community is teaching the tradition of the oceanic explorers to discover these islands. But getting away from the safety of these shores, they discovered the stars. The way-finding techniques used on deep sea canals rely upon traditional methods of observing the stars, destitizing one's body to the motion of the sea and observing all the natural clues that surround you. Peering is but one of the many examples that illustrate our ancestors' wisdom to adapt and use their knowledge and resources to survive. It manifests the body of knowledge into the culture we know today. As explored, Hawaii's utilized island people sustained their communities. Social monarchy contained a record of how the generation of very adaptive and intelligent people utilized the mountain as a vital resource. Establated that thin air slopes of monarchy for high-quality, durable coast produce the best set of neolithic tools in the Pacific. The monarchy adds powering the largest in the world, which concludes with evidence that the ancient recognize the importance of monarchy rich resources and its ability to serve its community by producing the tools of state to sustain daily life. The vegetative monarchy appreciate the environment like boring rocks, have the high evidence of the work, and took materials of the mountain to serve their communities with the full consent and in the presence of their God. Using the resources of monarchy as a tool to serve and benefit the community through astronomy is consistent with the example of the at-court. To value astronomy and its work in monarchy, you have to value the importance of the key knowledge and its quest for greater understanding of the universe we live in. Our ancestors were no different. We sought knowledge from their environment, including the stars, to guide them and to give them a greater understanding of the universe that surrounded them. The science of astronomy helps us to advance human knowledge to the benefit of the community. It teaches us where we have come from and where we are going. Its impact has been positive, introducing the young to the process of modern exploration and discovery, a process consistent with past traditional practices. My perspective of monarchy is based on the tradition of oceanic explorers, from whom I descend. As a Hawaiian, I recognize that I am at this time that with some of the best-making eye astronomers the world has known. It is totally consistent to advocate for online participation in a field of science to continue to enable the tradition and a field in which we are to lead. I firmly believe that the highest level of desecration rests in the action to remove the opportunity and choices from the kind of future our youth can hold. At times, the knowledge reveals of astronomical discoveries, writing of galaxies colliding in black holes to prove all the confusions. However, the purefulness of these discoveries should be viewed with an islander's perspective by recognizing our remoteness and vulnerability. As islanders, we are isolated, surrounded by sea and all our horizons, and only an ocean of stories the way ahead as a companion. But to purpose stewardship and willingness to adapt and learn, we continue to survive. I recognize that our planet is part of the greater natural cycle of the larger universe, and there is little that we can do in quest of future, set amid a dynamic universe. A ultimate job of humanity must be to ensure that our planet lives the fullest to life. It is not science fiction to recognize that our future lies in a darkness of space somewhere among the stars that gave us light. Astronomy must provide the answer to where our future will be and the challenges we'll have to overcome to right there. In order for humanity to survive, we will have to travel light years, but each of us only have a life sentence to be to the effort. When it is completed, the 30-meter telescope on monarchy will with greater accuracy vastly increase the capacity of the kind of scientific research that is vital to the quest for mankind's future. The search for valuable knowledge on the summit of monarchy is a spiritual mission that takes place on a special mountain and it's consistent with the work about accession for birds and is done to benefit the benefit of tomorrow generation here in Hawaii and that's possible. Monarchy, unlike life, is secured and special. We need to proceed with the important work of ensuring our future. That's all I look to monarchy and the energy of mountain, exploration, and stars. Thank you. Thank you, Colepa. If anybody's watching the beginning of this, they are going to get the whole deal right there and I know what Colepa thinks. And I want to jump right into kind of the central question on this one. And I'll start with you, Kim, always. Because you mentioned that you know many of the cultural practitioners involved in this particular movement. Is Mauna Kea sacred? It is sacred to many people, but that's different from saying that in some absolute term, that it's sacred. Just in terms of context, we can look at Mauna Kea II, which was the Hawaii Supreme Court case that sent the issue of TMT and the development of Mauna Kea back down to the Board of Land and Natural Resources. And there was a 44-day hearing held by Judge Ricky Mayo Monal that took in the evidence from every witness that was prepared to and willing to testify. And in that body of evidence, there are a couple key facts that stand out for me. The first is the use of Mauna Kea for religious or cultural practices, which did not occur until the summit road was opened in the late 60s. Frankly, the top or summit area of Mauna Kea is so inhospitable. It's above 70% of the Earth's atmosphere.  It is as just as a practical matter, not something that can be used casually or even regularly by anyone, including religious or cultural practitioners. There it was and has been some evidence of the use of Mauna Kea on an extraordinarily limited basis. And so I think one of the challenges for us as modern Hawaiians, and I only say modern meaning that we live here today, not in the 19th century or 17th century, is to reconcile some people's belief of what is sacred, which is frankly a cherry picking of beliefs that support already a point of view or conclusions. It's frankly confirmation bias. Looking for things to support what I already have decided is either correct or proper. And that is the heartbreaking part for me as a Hawaiian. I grew up in Hilo and we would visit Mauna Kea when I was a child and I remember- I heard there's numerous times when people live on the island. Plain in the snow. And there was no practices, use, or even talk about Mauna Kea from a sacred point of view. Other than, I think we can say that there is sacred in all of the aina that we have, but there are some particular areas that are especially sacred. And Mauna Kea would not be on the top of that list. I mean, just as an example, you can point to the sacred spring of Apokihau in Waikiki, which is surrounded by the Royal Hawaiian Shopping Center. Of all the architectural monuments of Waikiki, that is probably the most ugly. If you had to just look at what is essentially a parking lot. In terms of what the architecture is, but how it intrus, interferes, and sort of corrupts the area, that was sacred for Hawaiians and was the seat of power in O'ahu. If we were gonna pick on something, if we were gonna say something is desecrating an area that's particularly sacred to Hawaiians, it would have to be something other than the summit of Mauna Kea. And we can have dozens. And Apokihau and Waikiki, that area of Waikiki is just one example. I mean, I didn't wanna come back to that because Waikiki is owned almost entirely by the elite trust. So it seems that there's been some sort of transition in the understanding of what is or is not. Is that almost all owned by elite trust? But there are significant elite trust holdings in Waikiki, whether it's Commandment Schools or the Queen's Foundation that supports Queen's Hospital and the local elite trust. Well, Pia, I wanna give you a chance to respond to this. We're going to call up with you as, is Mauna Kea sacred? And however you take that, where you go with it? Well, let me just say this. You know, in my work as a cultural consultant at the Peterborough Company, some of the things that we got involved in was responding to that question whenever a claim was being made and a project was brought to a halt because of claim of some kind of cultural injury. And there is a system that is under federal and state law that you use to determine whether a claim of cultural injury is validated. None of those, none of that, the three principles are through archeology and anthropology, through the chants. It has to appear in the chant. The tradition or the custom or whatever the claim is, the tradition or custom that's being violated has to have occurred a number of times. You know, it has to have a system of frequency, et cetera. And none of those criteria can be met. As I understand, the broad overarching claim of Mauna Ava Kea, that is the mountain is sacred. Mauna Ava Kea refers to all mountains. And the first time that Mauna Ava Kea is even mentioned anywhere is in, was in 1819, that lake, the lake, early 1800s, and it did refer at the time, it was part of a birth chant, or keo keo ko olia, I'll forget the name of the agii. But anything previous to that, there was no mention. So the claim of Mauna Ava Kea itself cannot be validated. There's another thing that bothers me which is some of the claimants that are involved are really devotees of Pele. Well, Pele is not related to Mauna Kea. Mauna Kea is the goddess Poliyahu, that is her jurisdiction. So there's kind of a crossing of the lines there of jurisdiction, you know, even using the ancient rulings. And then lastly, it's unfortunate that today there is no center of gravity to adjudicate claims of cultural injury. The priesthood, which was a religious slash political body in ancient times, would be the ones to advise the Ale'i, the royalty, on whether a claim was good or not or, you know, guide them. And so the priesthood was dissolved with the battle of Kuo Mo'o when the religion itself was kind of wiped out as an official act of the kingdom. So the business of not being able to validate the claim, not even close, really bothers me that we're not hearing from the scholars on this. The silence actually is deafening. If you're really interested in preserving the dignity of our culture and our people, we ought to be able to demonstrate that we are living our culture as demonstrated and as lived over centuries. That all of it seems to be going out the window and we're starting to make up stuff. Lapo, what are your thoughts on this question? Is Mauna Kea sacred? Well, I can show you my own personal perspective and this is my opinion, right? I don't speak for any other Hawaiian except myself. On the matter of Mauna Kea's being sacred, I don't characterize Mauna Kea as being sacred. I do use the word spiritual to define my personal relationship with the mountain. And that's because of the definition of the word sacred and the premise of it. The word sacred, as defined, speaks about it's about the worship of God It's about a religious relationship. And the word spiritual is about a relationship to place. It's about a relationship to environment. It's about a reverence for serenity. It's about a respect for nature. And the reason why I base it that I don't characterize Mauna Kea as sacred is that because of the abolishment of the kapu system in 1819, historically our elite abolished the religious order that governed the daily lives of all Hawaiians in 1819. And so I'm going to respect that. I'm not going to act contrary to the will and wisdom of our esteemed elite by resurrecting an abolished religion. And let's be real clear, they abolished the religious order. They didn't care if they could say, only these gods, they completely abolished the whole religious order of which the apex of Hawaiian religious worship was human sacrifice. So I am not going to disrespect the will and wisdom of our esteemed elite by acting contrary to the will and wisdom. I am going to recognize that. So that's why I choose to call Mauna Kea a spiritual environment and not a sacred environment. Sam, you know, the thought that Kolepa triggers for me is it's one thing to say why it is not sacred, which is fine and his take is very good. But the sacredness, if you want to invoke sacredness, what is sacred about Mauna Kea is the opportunity for the search for knowledge. There is no denying that one of the fundamental principles and the dignity of Hawaiian culture and its history was the search for knowledge, was the constant, you know, paying attention to how things work, how the universe work. I mean, look at the accomplishments in the search for knowledge, what did it accomplish? Polynesians, Hawaiians being the last of the development series, without compass, without sextant, without stern post-brother, without keel, were able to settle one third of the Earth's surface through navigation over a moving environment. That's all based on the search for knowledge and the rise of the cultural, of the curiosity. Mauna Kea is, brings us down in history as one of the greatest opportunities, not just for Hawaiians, but for mankind, in order to reach out and the relationship of the 30-meter telescope that will allow us to go back in time, jives with the Hawaiian story of creation, which is the night of Paul, going back to the darkness, that this instrument will allow us to trace our ancestry down through the heavens, all the way back. There is nothing more sacred than that. So the mountain, to me, is sacred because of its opportunity to continue the search for knowledge, you know, and with our pride and the dignity of our people. Yeah, I just want to correct Peter. Thank you, Peter. It's not one third of the Earth's surface, it's actually two-thirds. Oh, two-thirds! Thank you, sir. Good thing we got that out of the way. Kimo, I want to bring something back that you mentioned specifically, which was the cherry picking, and that was a very interesting term. I think it speaks a little bit to what Kaleppo is raising about the religion having been abolished. Can you speak to what you mean by that exactly and what parts you see of being cherry picked and what parts being left behind? Well, I think Kaleppo mentioned how the Kampu system was overthrown by Hawaiians themselves, and it was initiated by the elite, but the high priest of Hawaii, Hava Hava, participated enthusiastically in the destruction of his own temples, and they threw off what they viewed at that time was the burdens and the shackles of a belief system that governed everything you do from the moment you awoke into your dreams and had aspects of that religion that included things that we would now today not accept by anyone or any religion, such as human sacrifice, such as the use of sorcery to pray people to death, and to the extent that you are accepting some aspects of a cultural belief, like the reverence for the Aina, the thought that the mountain is the residence of the gods, ignores all of the other aspects of the religion, which today could not be sustained. There would be not, as I sit here, I don't believe that any Hawaiian today would endorse the practice of human sacrifice. When Kamehameha, and this is something that Kaleppo mentioned, when Kamehameha was aged and he became ill, he was advised by his kahuna that they should sacrifice 40 people to help him recover from his illness, and so that was part of that belief system. Yeah, Kaleppo, I remember mentioning saying, oh, that left all the buck, I'm not a running for the hills there. Which was also part of it, too. I mean, there's a real practical aspect to our people. But let's be honest, that is not why the concept, or even the word, sacred is being used today. The word sacred is being used by those that oppose the TMT to stop the conversation. If you have a claim of sacred, there is no opportunity for accommodation, for understanding, or compromise. It's an absolute line drawn in the sand. That allows people to ignore the fact that the TMT is not going to be on the summit, which is arguably the most important place culturally of the mountain. It will not block the view of the sun as it rises or sets, which is important. It is off into a plateau 500 feet below where most of the most sacred or important cultural practices occurred. So the cherry picking that I was referring to was meaning that not only were we cherry picking amongst all of the aspects of couple, which were overthrown, and only looking at really the one or two percent of an entire belief system when we're talking about the realm of the gods and the mountain, but also cherry picking in just what was actually occurring on the mountain and how the TMT is not interfering with any of those.  Once all of those questions were answered, the permit after 10 years had to be accepted because it had met all the criteria. Now that people who are against the telescope have lost every legal avenue, they have resorted to what they have left, I think, or what they believe they have left, which is an emotional appeal, the traditional or historic denial of Hawaiian rights and cultural practices or the old grievances and the use of sacred so that there can't be any further discussion because that was already resolved by the courts. Can I just chime in? I just want to emphasize what people said about how we have of being a promoter for the establishment of the religious. It's a side note that he had the least vested interest in overthrowing the aqua system because that was his authority and he gave the monarchy to enforce, and so why you would never see that it was time for the abolishment of the religion? That's the most curious, one of the most curious aspects about individuals who chose to abolish the religion. So yeah, that's a good point. Thank you. Following up on what Kim was talking about sacred, from a public policy perspective, it's important to understand what Kimo said, which is when you say sacred, you're talking about no discussion, no discussion. All right. In all other matters that involve any violations of law that have to do with protecting historic sites, with tradition, with customs, there are processes that you use. The process is involved in investigation, process is involved, dialogue process is involved, some kind of a navigation. Here, they've raised the bar by using the word sacred because then it shuts off all dialogue. Now, I don't understand why the leaders who are trying to resolve this don't understand what that means because they've been spending months coming up with solutions. Mayor Kim with his package of cutting a deal, of creating conditions or trying to accommodate, and I guess it's not ringing true in their ear that sacred means no discussion. So the message that I'm getting from this very clear, very upfront, I mean, let's say they've been very upfront about this, we are not moving unless you tell us that the TMT is dead. What is it that we don't understand about that? Meanwhile, and we're going to get into this later, the impact of this on the community that goes beyond just the TMT issue. I absolutely want to get into that. I wanted to mention something that you had brought up before, Peter, which was there's a personal nature to the religious claim that I've heard this multiple times and I'm wondering if you can expand on it at all about this concept of family claims. I don't fully understand this, but I'm curious. This is the idea that every family on Big Island or in Hawaii, in ancient meaning pre-contact Hawaii, or even maybe shortly thereafter, had different family practices. How does that work? Well, this is kind of a gray area. I'm not an expert in it, but I know that, first of all, the Hawaiian gods were part human. They were like, it's like the Greek mythology, right? The gods were part human, and so you could argue with them. You could actually disagree with the gods. In the case of the almakua, that is the family gods. Family gods were established, but if they were not working, you got rid of it, and you created a new god. I'm not quite sure how that fits in here, but it kind of reduces the leverage that you're able to use in invoking the belief system of one or two gods because you can change it if it ain't working for your society. Sam, maybe I can respond to that. Sure. Everyone has a right to their own religious beliefs, and I have complete respect for anybody who has a belief in the mountain being sacred, but I don't think that that right for that belief and their personal belief to then impose obstacles or controls over other people who have equal and important rights as well. The challenge we have with the mountain is a relatively small group is imposing their view of sacred or religious upon everyone else, including an international consortium developing a telescope, including a hundred potential Hawaiian scholars every year who will be denied a portion of a million-dollar fund for 10 years or for education and astronomy. If it were up to me, every scientist on the mountain would be Hawaiian. Every Hawaiian that we lift up lifts up a family. 100 scholars a year lifts up 100 families. Over 10 years, that's 100 scholars and their families lifted up. That kind of creates a tide that is lifting the boats. My friends, and to this day, I called them my friends, even though some of them don't call me a friend anymore or on the other side. For me, it's not personal. I respect that their beliefs, but they will then deny a future for hundreds of Hawaiian families. They provide nothing in return. Now, I would feel completely different if they had a mechanism to provide a million dollars of scholarship funds every year for the next 10 years. Uncle, but it is not fair for my personal religious belief to deny another Hawaiian family an opportunity for excellence. If it were up to me, there would be an equal fund for Harvard Law School, Columbia Med School, and every other professional opportunity for excellence. We were a community known for excellence. No one even came close and everything we did, and whether it's feathers or astronomy, in Polynesia, the Hawaiians developed it to its epitome with one exception, the Māoris were better carvers, but other than that. There's a, that you, you hit right on another topic I wanted to discuss, and you might have said everything you wanted to say about it, but what does this claim of sacredness mean to the concept of separation of church and state in our society? And I want to give a little bit of context here at the danger of speaking too much, but people often, I've heard say, oh, you know, separation of church and state is a Western concept, and I, therefore, I don't want to talk about it or something like that. And I've never understood that argument because it's like, I don't care where it comes from, you know, you can get the yoga from India or wherever you're going to get it from or a feng shui from, you know, East Asia, and it's just be like, that's a great idea. I want to integrate that into my life. The idea of separating church from the political power of the state to me always seems like a great idea no matter where it came from. And you feel the same way, and this is for all three of you, or, and the extent you do, how do you think that this claim of sacredness fits into that? Well, I think you are showing your bias because there is an enormous proportion of the world that disagrees with you, that believes that it is not only good thing, but is you are compelled to combine religious as well as political and governmental administration. And then you have Iran. You have the Taliban. You, if you want to look at the most repressive societies on earth, you look at those that believe that base their government and political systems on absolute beliefs, religious beliefs, you will find the most oppressive governments that there are. Now, some people will argue that's a good thing. Obviously, I would not. What would you think? And I would not, but I don't think I have to. I don't have to take that position because all you have to do is look around and say, is that what we wanted? And I know that's what Hawaiians did not want because they lived, a couple was way more restrictive than even the most conservative form of Islam today. And Hawaiians threw off the Yoke of Kapu on their own and Heva Heva was the most enthusiastic leader of the complete dissolving of Kapu. Overly enthusiastic, I think you even said before. Yes, to such an extent that all of the artifacts that would be illuminating for us today were destroyed. But like Kalapa, I don't feel that it's my position to judge what they did at that time for their purposes. What they did, they thought was best at the time. What I object is that some of my friends are imposing what they think is best on everyone else, including denying opportunities for Hawaiians. Peter Kalapa, if you want to expand or? Well, I mean, the separation of church and state is a constitutional-based right. So I agree with Tehimo. Everyone is entitled to their belief system, whether the rest of the country believes it or not. But we do live under the Constitution, which says your belief system is yours, have it, practice it, as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of the other citizens. So that's where you run into a kind of a problem with it. I'm curious on the, on the, do you agree with that? Do you agree with that constitutional principle? Because what are the things that are most fun? Oh, absolutely. You know, the United States is unique. It's one of the few countries that was not, was established and its constitution recognizing the rights of, regardless of race, color, gender, or sex. There is no other country in the world that I think that I know of that has that as a founding principle of the nation, right? Australia. Australia does, yeah. Well, we had our own problems. Australia had their own problems. We had the democracies of the world. So I mean, it just, Australia had a lot of indigenous rights issues in Hawaii, you know, the United States had slavery, obviously, where we could vote. I mean, it was, there was a whole other aspect of Hawaiian history also where, you know, women were separated from the political power, right? That was another part of the conflict. There is a valid criticism that the belief systems of the West, and we're using why many natives are so skeptical of this separation of church and state, is that if we look at every instance where the West has contacted native peoples, we have had a horrific experience, whether you're aboriginals in Australia, or the Maori in New Zealand, or the Hawaiians in Hawaii, or the Native Americans throughout the entire continental U.S. and Alaska as well. So you can completely understand the emotional, the sort of centered in your gut reaction of Native Hawaiians on issues where they feel that they have been wrong. The appeal to the protest is very emotional, and that's not a rational argument. We consider all day talking to each other about how do you accommodate the various views, which is what happened for 11 years throughout the whole hearing process for the permit. But at the end of the day, it didn't turn out to be now a matter of competition because the current plan accommodates every single objection that was raised. Now it's just a matter of winning. Now we're getting to some of the other areas, which is separation of church and state, the government needs to do its job, and I agree. The issue is more than TMT now, and hopefully we're going to get into that in a little bit. This is really about sovereignty. It's about self-determination of Hawaii. It's about 100 years of violating so much of our culture of basically ripping off all the land. So that emotion, I agree with Kimo, it's powerful, really powerful. That's what we're kind of seeing. TMT happens to be the match that lit the fire. I think we'll get a lot into the other more issues on the second part of this whole discussion. One thing I wanted to discuss on the separation of church and state question is a lot of the protesters have said that they believe their constitutional rights are being violated because they have the freedom of religion, they have the freedom to exercise the religion. Do you see that? I understand the Supreme Court has said that's not happening. There's no violation of that. They are free to exercise. They're anywhere in the mountain. They just can't stop other people from accessing the mountain. There is a process, both in federal and state law, that protects the sacred sites. There's huge documentation of most of it. You can take new applications and through the management system that they have. If you have something sacred you would like to do on the mountain. There's no one that's preventing anyone. But when the claim of sacredness declares that every square foot of the mountain is sacred and nobody's allowed to do anything without their permission, now you've got a problem with separation of church and state. And there was another question we got from the audience because we've done this panel once before and we had a state capitol. Hopefully we get a chance to do it again sometime soon. There were a number of questions we got from the audience and one of them that was interesting to me from a sacred perspective and a historical perspective was, in terms of Hawaiian spirituality and individuality, was the kapu system brought to Hawaii by others like priest Paul? Oh, yes. Well, it was a different and sort of enhanced version of kapu. It was much stricter. Can you explain that? I'm guessing the majority of the audience on the internet does not know that little bit of history. Did you know a little bit about that? You can a little bit. I mean, the high priest Paul brought a stricter kapu system. He brought a essentially breathing scheme for elite and how you might maintain mana by making sure that the relationships work as close as possible. They brought the practices of human sacrifice, which was not a part of Kapu before his arrival. His direct descendant and real expert, I don't think to be the real expert and I just know this sort of superficially, is Kahumomilam, who is the kahu for the heyo, which is Kamehameha's luakini. She explains how the TMT and the development of Monkea is not offensive to Hawaiian beliefs. This is a direct descendant of the most stric form of kapu. We could really get lost, I think, though, in the forest for the trees by trying to argue about the fine points of which priests brought what version of kapu and at what point in time did we practice kapu and to what extent. What we have no disagreement on is that the Hawaiians overthrew kapu. It was not through foreign influence in 1819 and that the current imposition of a relatively narrow set of beliefs, it cannot prevent other people, Hawaiians or not, I just want to say for Hawaiians, cannot prevent other Hawaiians from exercising their beliefs to explore the stars. We were the first adopters, whether it was firearms or telephones in Ulaanipalas. There is Kolepa's navigator so he can speak to the opportunities that Hawaiians would have had if they had modern scientific instruments. Maybe we can ask him. Kolepa, is there anything offensive about the use of modern scientific instruments from a Hawaiian cultural point of view? No, because Kamehameha granted Captain Cook and Captain Vancouver to the authority of the priesthood at Hiki'au Hei'au a right to erect their temporary observatories there. So what does that say? That says that Hawaiian people's point of view that culture and science could exist and from the perspective of the priesthood, they absolutely felt that it was not offensive for science and its instrumentation to be erected right on the Hei'au ground. And quite frankly, when Kolepa returned from Maui, because he was fighting on Maui when Captain Cook arrived in Calakiki, Obe, the first place he went to visit was the temporary observatory next to Hiki'au Hei'au and they were amazed at the astronomy instrument. They were especially amazed at the progress that Captain Cook and his men had set up on the Hei'au ground. And this was at a time when Kupu was still the law of left. So to claim that it is somehow offensive or inconsistent with Hawaiian beliefs is just not supportive. What would you say to the descendants of those who lost the battle of Kua'ba'u? Because I think you practiced under Winona Beemer. I think the Beemer family actually traces their descendants based on an article I was reading about it. It was very interesting about the battle. That's where I learned about it. That's where I learned about it. It was fascinating. And I'm just curious, and he actually was debating, or he was on television discussing, or one of the Beemer families on television discussing with Makana Silva, a native Hawaiian astrophysics student that's reporting to TMT. I went to Mauna Kea with him. So there seems to be some tie-in there to that family. I don't know what they're exactly, but if anything, but what is that, does that tie in to this? How does that play into all of this? I can't speak for the descendants of Kua'u and Manono and the Beemer family, but it is something of a trap.  There are several baskets of importance. Some are very important to people personally. Some issues are very important to some people in terms of their family, and some issues are very important to a community. And then we have a larger community. The governor is responsible for the entire state. The university is responsible for its university system. There is frankly an absence of leadership both on the state side and the university side in terms of clarity. There is no clarity of the message that TMT is, one, been now established by legal process as a project that is entitled to proceed. And two, what is the benefits? And let's be transparent. And what are the deficits, if any, of the project? But there is no conversation at all from that side, whether it's leadership from the state government or the university, that responds in any meaningful way to a generalized protest. And it's very sympathetic to see natives say that they have been harmed. But if that's all you know, at that superficial level, then the real core issues get missed. Sam. Sam. Kaleppo. There are episodes in the history of humanity when there are dramatic shifts in the direction of a culture. A battle of Cuomo was one of the when there was a dramatic shift, right, whether they're going to retain the practice of the traditional religion or whether they're going to abolish it and break away and choose a new direction. Yeah, so that's what happened in the battle of Cuomo. But you got to ask yourself a question, right? Yeah, Kekuo Kalani and Manono was at Cuomo. But why didn't the population who supported the Kapu system, why didn't they continue to keep on rising up and battling for the continued practice of the Kapu system? That's because all the people supported the policy of the system. They were ready for that dramatic shift in their culture. So it was this time. And it's too bad that Kekuo Kalani could not accept it. And he greatly underestimated the firepower that Leo, Leo, his general Kalani Moku had available to them. I would have never gone into a battle bearing musketeers. It was a battle that was won by musketeers. So interesting about what your question is. In spite of the battle of Cuomo and the general acceptance of Christianity, missionaries arrived about a year after the battle of Cuomo. In spite of the fact that the Hawaiians basically, most of them became Christian. But many of them never totally gave up some of the old, what you would consider to be spiritual or religious practices. It's been interesting me down through the years to see pastors of Kauaiho Church actually kind of walk a line between the two. I don't think there was any harm, but this is a feeling of still staying connected to your past and your culture in some way that wasn't offensive or it didn't hurt other people. And so bridging those two is really kind of fascinating to watch all that play out. But you can only do that, Peter. If you don't claim those cultural beliefs to be sacred. Once your random is sacred, then they have a different meaning, which is a bright line. I can say like Pilahi haki did, that aloha means a kahai, to be humble. Lukahi worked together. Olu olu to be pleasing or pleasant. And ahunui. We can have all of these cultural values, but if I want to point to a sacredness, then all of a sudden I've turned into something else. I agree with what you're saying in terms of behavior system.  You know, that's still practice today. And there is a belief system in that. So it's those kinds of practices that I think it's kind of, I don't know. I like the fact that they're able to walk that line, but it can't hurt other people. No question. The difference is when you engage in those cultural practices, you are not denying anybody else. And that's what Hawaiians are particularly good at. Can I just point out, Sam, that when the Kapu system was abolished and the Hawaiian populace was instructed to burn their personal gods or to hide them away. Hawaiians are very, very respectful. Yeah, they were going to depart for the ancient tradition, but they just didn't throw their gods in the fire. A lot of them took them into caves and created papayas or platforms where they could re-rest them and they walked away from the religion, but they left those ancient gods who it was to scare and inspect. And they were very, very, very, very clear avenues of respect and reverence as they turned it back on the ancient religion. Yeah, it was a good departure. It's one of the things I'm wondering is, do you think there's a risk, and it touches on the sacredness, but it expands a little bit more, do you think there's a risk, you know, especially from the legal background, that the more you push or the sacredness stamp on cultural practices, the higher the risk is that the United States Supreme Court is going to come down and say, this whole Hawai'i constitution where you are respecting gathering rights and Hawaiian-specific practices and DHHL and OHA, that's just crossing the line. They now have this, they take a re-look at the race space, they take a look at, you know, all of these things that are specific to Hawai'i that are really based on a lot of this cultural practice kind of angle, when you start bringing the sacred and making political demands on it, do you think that heightens that risk? We would need more time, I think, to explore. That's a that question.  I can say this, with the current administration in Washington, D.C., and the appointment of 180 plus very conservative judges, it would not surprise me that Native rights in Hawai'i and elsewhere would be under threat, because from the point of view of people from the mainland, they see any program or preference or accommodation for Native rights as race-based. What they don't see is that there is a political basis for it, particularly in Hawai'i, but it was the whole reason for the Kaka Bill. And so that's why this is so complicated to understand in a meaningful way your question, I'd have to ask all of the questions that lead to what's the distinction between race-based or political entity, which allows programs to serve Native Americans on the mainland, because they recognize as separate political entities, and not a quote-unquote race. And then the whole idea of race is so complicated. I mean, there's no biological scientific basis for races. It's a concept that was imported from the West. I cannot say race in Hawai'i. There's no word for it. So that might be best served in another context, I think. There's a whole history, as Kimu mentions, the Native Native Americans. There's a whole history of law, federal law, that protects traditional customary. This is not sacred, but it's traditional customary practices that has been extended, even though Hawai'ians are not recognized as Native Hawai'ians, it extended some of those rights to the Hawai'i community, like the right to gather. A lot of that has to do with an undeveloped land, a Halao, a Hula Halao, has a right to cross undeveloped land, to access mountains, to gather flowers for whatever the ceremony is. Those traditional customary practices have been in place, but it is a very, very difficult, very fine line that you walk when you separate out that or try to take one of those practices and put a claim of sacred on it. Now you're talking about a whole different... We're at one hour, so we're going to take a little break and we're going to come back, I think, and expand on a lot of other topics that we can touch on in the time we have available. But, Kolepo, starting with you, I just want to give you a chance for some closing thoughts on the question of defining sacred.  I choose not to. I choose to defy monarchy as a spiritual environment, and my relationship is with the place, not with any religious practice. It is with my reverence for the serenity and the natural beauty of this special environment. Thank you. Well, for myself, I feel kinship to the people who protest TMT, because for 10 years, they fought the fight to use every legal avenue and all process that they were due to establish whether or not the TMT complied with all criteria and requirements. They use that system to make sure that there's a strict adherence to every single regulation that could be applied. It is tragic now that even, it's only because they lost, ultimately in monarchy, too, and the 44 days of hearings held by Judge Ricky, that they now deny that there's no need to follow the decision that they asked for, that they demanded, that they felt was required under the law. Now, if everyone who lost the case could ignore it and then just do what they want, then we would not be able to have any of the benefits that serve our people today. Our real challenges are not the telescope. It's health, housing, and at a warrant level of incarceration of our people, none of which we can address if we have no other effort than to stop things from happening like the telescope. My closing thought is that if the QIA and the protectors can validate their claim, validate the claim based on evidence like any other claim, then I would absolutely retract how I feel about it and say, okay, you validated the claim, then you go from there, but right now, there's nothing to validate what they're saying. All right, thank you very much. For now, we're going to take a little break and we'll be right back with our panelists.


Is there something you can do to support these people or not? How would you choose to engage? Would you choose to engage through the DDA, the District Development Authority As we saw might work in the market situation? Well, in this case, not so much Because what happens is that the District Development Association Get their funding in very uneven dollops And then they distribute it according to It gets kind of captured how the distribution works And it's distributed along clientelist lines So money coming out of the DSIP or the District Development Authority And into these complex and interrelated local Ecologies of justice really produce extraordinary disruptive effects So you really don't want to be engaging with the committees And through the same modality that worked in the marketplace situation So the takeaway there is that this is an adaptive system Let it stay adaptive, let it be adaptive Don't go through the DDA If you want to do something that will strengthen this You can actually work through the village court system And strengthen that Okay, I'm just about done And bring in new actors around that through the different committees there So that's a kind of a And what I think JFP kind of close local research Processes enable you to do is to be able to be in a position Where you can see which of those choices you would make Which of those choices are going to have good rules games And good outcome games at the end of them in that situation So thanks very much Okay, as we said at the start This is another case, another story That reflects perhaps a few years further on In researching, engaging, discussing, trying out different sorts of approaches And as you can see Solomon Islands And it's in a rural context And as we'll see that's quite significantly different There we go, there we go Okay, now the significant difference in this story Is that it involves the classic modality of approaches That is decisions have been made by people To invest in certain approaches To try and deal with particular kinds of problems It's not a research about which you might speculate What would you do if you had the opportunity to do it And this project is sometimes called the community officer project You see it has a longer title there It's modest in scale and size It's working in a couple of provinces McKerrer and as we'll see Rembell distinct In many significant ways It's been going for a couple of years The important thing as I want to show Is that it's about trying to influence both the rules game In WDR terms And the outcomes game And it's trying to do that in a way that engages Policy arenas both at highly localized And multiple sites In ways that recursively impact at the national level And it's building on a tradition of quite a bit of research And engagement in the past Now these questions you'll see are immediately recognizable Of those that David has went through There's a cascade of approach here It doesn't begin as Debbie said With measuring up a local circumstance In terms of what's missing or what should be there Against formal institutions But it's trying to understand what's there How does it work Who's involved What kinds of authority And what are the distributional consequences Ask the conditions How you might shift it And then thirdly This cluster of questions that we will talk mostly about in this In what ways can you engage in these contexts Without also dealing with this question of risks Now the time I'm not going to go through that in detail I want to make four points here And the first one is that the Comparing these two contexts Makira and Rambel In Solomon Islands You find that the underlying patterns of disputes And conflicts are extraordinarily diverse Okay So if you look at one level That one up in the left hand corner there There's a weighted average of degrees of The intensity of disputes and conflicts within villages And that's organized on a ward basis That information there So you know by and large it looks much the same But if you start to unpack that You'll find conflicts around land distribution For example are quite closely related to The incidence of logging Not surprising Or that in Whereas in Makira In Rambel In Rental Islands You find a great deal of disputation Around loge mining And associated disputes Of land It whereas across in Bologna Issues are more related to social order Including family domestic violence sorts of issues The second point is that how systems for handling These kinds of conflicts work What's there How it happens Very extraordinarily As also So I'm not going to go into the detail of this So these these biographs here For I was showing a colleague of these recently And he said to me I've never seen such asymmetric forms of government That are Governments that are reflected in these graphs So just briefly As you can see one is about substance abuse Another domestic And one logging There are six or seven of these These are just examples Patterns of resort In the In the Who is involved in the star graph You'll see the household The elder groups Chief Chiefly authority Church And external authorities in the form of policing This is obviously a gross simplification But it is to illustrate a point That in this case under Patterns of resort Relating to substance abuse You'll see obviously here in Makira The overwhelming significance of chiefly authority Whereas across in In Makira Church, police, elders, household Are variously involved Different ways of putting authority together To handle this kind of dispute You move across by contrast to the logging situation Between these two two provinces In aggregate You will see the overwhelming reliance On chiefly authority in Makira Just over there in Ranbel Again A much wider range Of Systems of authority here Being brought to bear Being as we say Stacked together To create durable solutions or responses And the third point So what works at the limits of the state's presence Here we are talking in situations These two island provinces At some remove From the centers of state inside power What seems to be working here is Where there is a local capability To stack together multiple forms Of what we call horizontal authority By that Back to your point Is local form I think you referred to local authority But in significant ways What sometimes a dispute What makes it stick What makes these things If you like, endure as agreements over time Is the extent to which they can articulate For what we call horizontal authority The most obvious case here is police Police in power Third party Third party Third party So this is the kind of context we were thinking Now what then would Greatly facilitate That kind of connection And along came The notion of the community officers This is the fourth and final point Community officers were introduced In each of these provinces They were selected by community But they were embedded as part Normally of the state structure Province Under province rules Who resourced them Remunerated financing and so on And their obligation was To facilitate These various forms of horizontal Mobilization of authority around disputes And where it was relevant and related to the dispute The vertical authority as well Now I will talk in question and answer time About the different kinds of disputes Where that works And then others where it simply doesn't But that was what it was about But apart from the fact that they had The common title of community officer Or those common understanding of what their functions were They differed in every other respect Meaning what they are doing locally The content of how they function Is being driven by local context Yeah Locally defined On the basis of some of the analytic work we've been doing But also dialogue with the local authorities That are hosting them Now the striking thing they make this remark Is from a community officer in Reynolds We are looking across the range Of other community officers We're all surfing different waves here But we're on the same sea This struck me as a lovely remark About adaptive institution It relates at a national policy arena In terms of the structure and character Of public authority State forms of public authority To this remark from For many of you will know It's only used At the height of the tension Who said whatever comes out in the future As a stable form of public authority In terms of state power State characteristics It's gonna look different It has to look different in different places Meaning highly adaptive functions And forms of institutions In a place like Solomon So those last three points That I've got flexible and adaptive and so on These are the things that are enthrasing me And are those that are engaged in at the moment It appears to be an institution Community officer Described on the left-hand side there This is able to cope with extreme diversity Both in context The circumstances are working in In some cases open combat with mining companies In other cases Low level chronic conflict and domestic violence But not in others In situations where the patterns are resort Meaning how are these kinds of disputes Are being resolved The sorts of authority that are being stacked together To handle those circumstances Very different Even within one ward Two neighbouring villages Different circumstances The second point here is that This looks like something to me That is trying to nudge both the rules game And the outcomes game Rather at the same time So appreciation has been recorded From community, from local elites and so on That there is immediate measurable benefit In certain kinds of disputes As a result of this kind of institution But see it happening at the national level too Some attraction has happened Meaning both this attention to a very localised policy arena Local level disputes involving often very few In number of individuals Is being heard and impacting in discussions At the national level National policy arena about for example The structure of the state in the future At what level of formal public authority Should regulatory functions be reassigned In order to reinforce the need for vertical authority To be present to back up the local deals That are being tried to be brokered Through local authorities This last thing about handling risks then Big deal for the World Bank But also for all of these discussions Is to say all institutions one way or another Are exclusionary The concern of the current arrangement Is that they tend to exclude Of course the vulnerable there Woman and youth All institutions are subject to capture Of one way or another In fact the community officer Must be socially captured If the thing is going to get traction Which is Krishna what kind of What kind of capture And likewise clients Elizabeth These systems are having to easily be So is it a final clue We're not going to need it Um these As David described in situations where The relationship between the centre And individual households and villages Is governed through things like Constituency development funds This DSIP in the Papua New Guinea case Then it is a predominantly A clientelistic relationship With vertical authority This kind of highly monetised Short term deal making through clientelism Is inherently hostile to these sorts Of local institutions But on the other hand Unless there is that connection Clientelistic relationships These local institutions won't work either So that box those last three sort of points There are things of continuing intrigue It is the case in some areas of rental If there's a couple of cases Where one of the community officers Has gone off to work for the loggers You can imagine the kind of disrespect And disablement that's going to come from that There are other cases where A chronic conflict around for example The distribution of disaster assistance Is there no longer People saying this is staggering How did this happen Can you attribute this To this intervention modality Or might there be another circumstances That would have favoured that outcome anyway Well of course we don't know We discussed that Thank you very much Okay thank you to the speakers We have about 20 minutes for Q&A But before we get to that I just wanted to raise a couple of points That I think came across all of the presentations So the first one is the point of function over form I think they all kind of looked at that In each of the cases We're talking about very different forms That were both studied and used And thought about in terms of how They could produce functions I mean ultimately these were all about Justice and security And yet we talked about markets We talked about local governance And community institutions And we talked about a whole range Of other kinds of justice providers So the point is focusing on the outcome Of justice How do we understand the different kinds of forms That might be more functionally able to get that The other one is the focus on power And not just capacity So the idea that you just kind of Trying to capacitate institutions By providing a lot of inputs Awareness, strengthening institutions More people, more money Is going to ultimately hit against the power constraint Because what is that doing then In terms of the nature of power The way power is going to still constrain Your ability to achieve something No matter how much capacity you put in it Or the way that you might be actually Reinforcing power dynamics By negative power dynamics by doing that The third point is How does one engage in the policy arena And I think one interesting point here Is that you do whether you like it or not So there's no such thing as really trying to Create a sort of intervention that avoids the policy arena Because one way or another You are engaging that policy arena So just struck by what Lisa said about in Myanmar If you want to just come and sort of Promote ideas of justice You might be actually reinforcing these notions of Law and order and military rule Fourth point Scale The question of scale That when we're talking about these policy arenas In some of these cases we were looking at A very micro level But I think the last presentation in particular Was really sort of showing how these Local dynamics have to also be understood In the context of national dynamics And how these different scales relate to each other And then Yeah, and then finally The point of the discomfort of engaging With institutions that are problematic You know what do you do There's capture, there's clientelism There's exclusion, what does one do Do we not engage, do we try to engage How do we think about But by ignoring them I think the important point is These are still providing capability It might be clientelistic It might be exclusive It might be captured But they are producing outcomes They just might be not the outcomes That we're looking for And the question is How does one engage with these institutions To try perhaps through this Recursive feedback loop To influence the way That the incentives are structured Around the policy arena And who was there to try to open them up A bit more towards better outcomes So with that The floor is open Thanks Hi, I'm Christina Simeon I'm a PhD student at the ANU And my research focuses on Myanmar And rule of law assistance So my question is for Lisa That was a great talk Thanks so much And I really like your report And I find it quite sort of funny That you say that there's no consensus About what justice means So when I was conducting my field work Donors were saying There's no consensus of what rule of law means So we should use the term justice instead So everybody was very nervous About saying rule of law And there were directions from the UNP And everybody should talk about justice And then obviously justice Is not a term that works very well as well And now it seems like more lately People are talking about trust So let's talk about trust building Instead of justice So I find it quite interesting And I want to ask Why do you still continue to use Those sort of development models Why do you insist on entering a setting With a preconceived model Which is in this case justice And even, I mean, you recognize that You should not promote it Because you know There might be bad connotations Using the concept But just by calling a program My justice, you're still promoting justice So why do you keep on doing that And why don't you enter a setting And just look at things Completely from the bottom up And try to make sense of what matters And what people need I know in the Myanmar case There might be Buddhist concepts That you could use So yeah, my question, thanks Great question Maybe we'll take a few Before we respond Any other questions now? Everyone's tired, huh? Yeah I found the circles And the way that they describe Is rules, rules games and outcome games The recursive link seems to be undugged In your presentation It struck me very forcibly You know, we get this stuff About changing the rules And we get the Adrienne left Which is about the games within the rules But what you seem to be describing Is actually playing the game To change the rules Is that right? Because that's what I think Is the interesting stuff Around how that happens Because it seems to be We tend to get stuck In one of the other boxes As opposed to understanding And I guess we're all gonna Have to go around doing this from now on But is that what's going on? Thanks Thanks very much, Christina So I guess the first thing to say Is in terms of the program itself I mean, we sort of don't have Much control over that I mean, it had its name Long before we were contracted To do the research And it is a justice program And I suspect that they're not gonna Change the name of that For EU reasons and whatever else In terms of our research So I mean, so I guess in terms Of the general framing I mean, we were contracted To do a piece of research That was looking at local experiences Of justice Now what we found very quickly When we started talking with communities Was asking people about justice Was not a useful way in at all So in a lot of the interviews And focus group discussions What we ended up doing Was just having Long conversations about life In the community And through that Sort of problems that people faced Would come about And we sort of Of course, with all the language Difficulties as well We were working across sort of Three different languages In the places where we were working We had to have sort of Translations of a whole variety Of terms from justice To trust To problem To case And you know, so on But I guess the only other thing I would say is that While I agree that justice Is not necessarily the best framing I don't take such a relative view That I don't think you can talk about The quality of local Understandings of dispute resolution In terms of how Rights respecting discriminatory Impartial and so on they are I mean, it is certainly the case That for instance women Would prefer to have Justice We call them Justice mechanisms available That serve them better Serve their interests better In whatever way they might understand That similarly religious minorities Absolutely feel that they would Like to have access to a dispute resolution system That they felt was fairer So I think that you can start to talk And in the report we try and talk about Those things of more non-discriminatory More rights protecting Sort of approaches Whether you call them justice Or anything else I'm pretty ambivalent about myself A good question And it then causes reflection As to exactly what's being said here In this context I think the first point that Debbie's already made Is that this dichotomy Between playing the rules game Versus the outcomes game is a nonsense And I want to Just a couple of examples to illustrate And I hope to answer your question A very typical thing is that You see in donor programming And perhaps the most classic example Is very often a thing called Community driven development here In which in immediate aftermath of conflict This kind of reasoning Becomes quite paramount The imperative is to get outcomes Developmentally relevant outcomes Whether it's from the point of view Of buying the piece Or responding to humanitarian crises And so on And for the meantime The rules game is too contested And we will stovepipe alongside it We will bypass Most of the evidence said There is a Surely there is a case For doing that In certain circumstances But never imagine You're not impacting on the policy arena You're not impacting on the nature of Local elite debates For example And very often In many countries we've seen Where these sorts of modalities persist Then it months or stunts Elite incentives To engage in their own obligations Being responding to citizen entitlements And servicing them Different example comes from here From Renault Now As I mentioned in one part of Renault In four of the wards They are blessed with Indonesian bauxite miners Who are rapacious And beyond monitoring We are at the extremes of the state It's incapable of monitoring The actions at this level So many of disputes Of domestic violence For example Can track back to the distribution Of mining royalties For example within the household And people are saying We've got to get on top Of this conduct of the miners And they took to one direct action And shut down a lot of the mining equipment Interesting This was in discussions In a sense facilitated But not promoted by the CEO And in other cases too They said And we need to start monitoring Or making sure this monitoring Compliance of the agreements is done To which the province says We have no assigned mandate This sits with the central ministry So debate starts With the local folks With the provincial leaderships To say Well de facto Let's do it And alongside it A discussion goes on in the centre That says Well would it be possible Given that we're going to think about this issue When it comes to reviewing Of the Provincial Government Act Let's on a Executive order sort of basis Assign Imagine assigning those functions For the moment To the Rambel Provincial Government And let's see what happens Wow I mean This is an outcomes focus Recursively impacting Straight back on the rules of the game It's a wonderful example I think Hi My name's Gobi I'm from the Asia Foundation's Office in Timor-Lest A lot of the issues that you Mentioned Lisa In Myanmar are very similar to To Timor Especially with regards to Say community policing And the local justice mechanism You mentioned that in In Myanmar there's low capacity For formal justice And a poor understanding Of the meaning of justice Is there in addition to say Brokering conversations about justice Is there potential to Create a new space That incorporates the standardization Of justice through the formal system While also ensuring trust Is carried by the local justice system Good afternoon My question is for Lisa I'm Dennis Rendell from the Philippines I'm just wondering How you chose your The respondents in your In your field work I'm now for sure that Myanmar is a multi-ethnic nation And I wonder if Affiliation to a certain ethnicity Influences Or affects their perception of justice Thank you The first question is for Lisa and for Deb I was just wondering, you know With this new approach I was just wondering what kind of Feedback or what kind of Blowback have you been getting from You know, folks who've been dealing In a more In the old I don't want to be negative about it But like, but in the previous You know, sort of way I was just wondering like How have you encountered You know, that kind of criticism And for Doug and for David I was just I'd like to ask you to just kind of Speculate or hypothesize You know, what would this be like At the national level In Papua New Guinea or Solomon's Is there any application that you see Knowing that both countries are extremely Amazingly diverse And scaling up is by nature Extraordinarily difficult But I just wanted to hear Your thoughts on these These separate issues, please It's just a very quick one Around I mean, clearly the Sort of focus on these Dynamics at the kind of Micro-local level Are incredibly insightful And revealing of How things actually work And how Parma works at that level But I'm sort of really wondering Whether or not There isn't a sort of risk Of the Bineries that we seek to get away From in relation to Distinctions between the sort of Local, provincial, The national, the state, the non-state Might not be sort of reinforced Through some of this analysis And in the process we omit the extent To which the state itself Is fundamentally informalised And becoming more informal In the nature of its operations And how these sort of local dynamics Actually seek into the state And the language, pathways At that level as well Is this on? Yeah, okay All right, let me start with the easier ones So on how we sort of picked Local respondents So the study was undertaken Jointly between ODI Who I was working for And Safer World Who have a national office Based in Myanmar And they had a network of Local civil society organisations That they then tapped into In Mon State and Yangon region Certainly in Mon State Most of the people that we spoke with Were Bema And that was sort of definitely something That we highlight in the report In the more contested areas It was much more heavily Mon And the number of smaller groups as well In Yangon region There was obviously much more ethnic diversity But I'd say, I mean, the thing that we Have emphasised in the report Is that given the diversity Across different places in Myanmar Having looked at only two regions of the country These can only be snapshots And, you know, the findings would undoubtedly Look different if you were working in Other regional states as well So unless you could sort of get much Greater geographic spread You just wouldn't be able to give A kind of national perspective, I think In terms of this question Of how people responded So, I mean, in terms of the My Justice programme They were really keen to engage With this kind of research I mean, they commissioned it Because they want to avoid What have sort of now widely understood Some of the pitfalls Of more conventional justice programming So, and that's why this was sort of Done in their inception phase While they're designing their activities That's still an ongoing process So I can't tell you what Those activities look like yet And whether they will, you know, Successfully avoid this stuff or not So, you know, I think that remains to be seen And on the typical question About, you know, working with state And local and how that goes I mean, the first thing I'd say And this was my fault for saying this Quickly at the end I mean, I wouldn't say that people Have a poor understanding of justice People have different understandings of justice And I would say they do have a limited Understanding of the content of the law The rights protections available Onto the law, even though those aren't Solid in all cases And the concept of rights More broadly as we might think about them So my sense is that you can work on On local dispute resolution practices Whatever they are and improve those aspects Without necessarily reverting to, you know Just working through the formal state system And assuming that that's the thing that has to work As not to say that I don't think you should work on the state I think, obviously, that's going to be an important part Of the justice picture in Myanmar's future But I think it's a long-term process And the process of trust building That's going to have to go on Between citizens and the state more broadly Means that I think in the foreseeable future And possibly forever Engaging with the justice providers That people actually use I think is equally important So I don't see this as an interim step That gets to eventually state supremacy I think we're actually just talking about Different ideas of how disputes are resolved That might continue alongside An improved state justice system as well I want to get to your grapple With your very difficult question, I find But to do so, it would help me to respond To the point that Sinclair is raising About these binaries Particularly binaries of scale You know, local, province, national Whatever the case may be And I think I will say that Your concern is the Flex of casualty of the speed With which I was presenting For example, it is easy to read What's referred to there as horizontal authority As something which is entirely local As you know, as there's attributes Of state presence appear in all manner of form Whether it's just a rubber stamp On a piece of paper or a badge That is carried by official Or the reputation of someone that's retired From the state service in the past And, of course, vertical is by no means State only in its form In fact, as you've observed in your work For the most part, public authority Is exercised through blended but predominantly Non-state forms of institution And I think that we're wanting to Convey the same sort of point Now that's relevant, I think, to I hope I'm understanding you're right About the implications, national level implications And again, perhaps moving a bit fast But that remark that was boxed on the last slide From a gentleman called Tony Hughes In his life in the Solomon Islands Is exactly what I think is the Profoundly significant implication The notion of an asymmetric state Say that how it appears at different levels of scale And that means basically in different geographies Would be fundamentally different And may it may necessarily have to be so If it's to accommodate the sort of underlying diversity That's expressed in the early slides To show diversity, whether it's in Geography, economy and history Or how it manifests in the nature of what is Let's call them local regulatory failures Or issues And therefore the kinds of authority That's going to need to be instituted For example, it's only some parts of the country However far forward you look It will be afflicted with incredible difficulties Of regulating transnational miners It doesn't mean, therefore, that you want to have A fully-blown capability at all levels of the state Across all, all over the country To deal with that kind of situation Likewise, you could work your way through All sorts of state functions And be thinking about it in the same way So it's not going to There is no possibility that the state Could look the same anyway All over the country Because it simply does not have the grunt To do that The political and the authority And the resources to do that Why are you feeling about it? The consequence of discussion so far And of course this is with one brand of elites They tend to be national politicians Or permanent secretaries So this is a really interesting implication For what we're seeing From this very early stage of the project To that extent, I think it's I'm most excited by the value In helping Solomon Islanders To have discussions that they have been Busting to have Since the 1920s, essentially They've been talking about this issue Do I get to your point? So in terms of the national level And what the implications are At that level for allocating functions And responsibilities down In public opinion, it does seem to me That there is a real problem of state reach Especially, do we need to say that? At all levels So into the province, into the district And you get below that and things get really grim And to walk around inside a settlement In Port Moresby or in Lay Is to hear a constant litany of complaint That no one from the state has ever been anywhere near them For a long, long time And it's not just that the state is dysfunctional When it reaches down And inept or expensive or other things It's also that it's often predatory So for a while, you know, the last couple of generations A couple of decades when the state arrived in a settlement Was in the presence And this is a bit odd, isn't it? In the person of a policeman Who's non-salary recurrent budget was not being funded And was probably using the badge to live off In that kind of context So you come to a situation Where you have to make choices about How to engage at that level And I do think that there is a mechanism there Which is a service delivery mechanism It's a local justice service delivery mechanism That does reach down pretty effectively Into communities I'm talking about the village court And the village court is a quasi-state institution That is often locally elected And has a range of statutory powers But it also is able to deal with Very everyday disputes very quickly And around that village court You get this whole ecology of other Village court magistrates themselves doing mediation But also them training up other people Having their own, they call He's my committee, she's my committee People who are coming up underneath them The idea of the individual as a committee Coming up and starting to take on these roles And pull together forms of local authority And then the law and justice leaders themselves Who may be village court magistrates Or who may be committee members Are developing a thing Which I add up there on the slide Which I should have explained Is a pass and blow leader man Or leader Mary So it's the fashion, the way of working The legal usage if you like Is becoming something which is acknowledged As not just a legal justice kind of form But also a political form So a leader man has a whole range of characteristics Which are different from the big man or the chief They don't have to be financially powerful But they certainly have to be able to talk And create consensus and adjudicate And create law and justice things So you're getting this adaptive response To the absence of the state And recolonizing this absence of the state And it's not just leader men There are some leader Mary involved Which I think may have some basis Going forward in terms of filling the gap That they are filling the gap Between the edges of the state And local forms of authority Okay, thank you, just very quickly As a nice sum up, I'll try to address your question Which is what do you do about criticisms And there's any number of ways that can go But I guess I would focus on the difficulty Of the institutional environments in which we work Which is one of the hardest And the common refrain coming out of the WDR Is, and I think this happens with many WDRs That are global, have to be a certain level Of conceptual abstract is Okay, that's all interesting and fine But how does this change what I do tomorrow? And so the need for institutions to have recipes To have things that they can just sort of apply In program So I think that's one of our challenges And I guess one of the ways I try to think about that Is applying the WDR framework To changing the policy Or another of the institutions in which we work And in fact, you know, I've noted those who have been engaged In thinking, working politically In political economy and TWA, whatever And DFID and DFAT who have been doing this for quite a while Have been thrilled that the WDR came out And I realize a large part of that is because It helps them make the arguments within their own policy I mean, there's a certain weight of the WDR And the World Bank saying these things Even if they've been saying them for quite a while To help convince their own masters and institutions Changing their incentives to kind of get with the trend Changing their preferences about what the evidence shows So, you know, hopefully we will make some headway Into changing the way our institutions work Thank you very much Thank you everybody for a great panel


So Wessex Storm is basically the ITX and the McCree version for the Forty Commando. Wessex Storm occurs in the southern portion of the English Isle in between London and Bath. It serves its purpose as checking the box for the Royal Commando to deploy and be the combat-ready unit for the UK. Forty Commando is basically the main force that's involved in this Wessex Storm. However, there's a platoon of US Marines of Fox 2-4 and then basically all their supporting assets, much like us back in the States, how there'd be a battalion and then different supporting agencies. Like there's an engineer platoon here. There's close air support, a few sections of the mortars here, artillery. England is one of our greatest allies. So this is seen as an opportunity to strengthen that bond so we can work together. If we do find ourselves shoulder to shoulder in a war, it will just be that more fluid fighting with each other, knowing each other's tactics. A US infantry platoon provides a commando unit with some capabilities that it doesn't normally have, some mass that it doesn't normally have as well. And that's a big thing between both of our militaries because it encourages us to be able to adapt to the circumstances not only on the ground but also to the fighting force that we're issued. You know, we're never going to fight the war alone. We're always going to be a coalition. So understanding how to use these different parts and different armed forces together to achieve an effort, to achieve an effect on the battlefield is very important. Our actions are when it's rain, they're when it's cold, they're when it's dark. Because that's when we're strongest and that's when our enemy's the weakest. So for the United States Marines coming over here, you have to be prepared to operate and be comfortable being uncomfortable at those times.


The study evaluates the impact of great vine rootstocks on the growth and tolerance of new grape cultivars to stress factors like drought, in regions where supplemental irrigation is more frequently needed due to climate change. The experiment was conducted on two-year-old soilless grown Primavines grafted on nine rootstocks, with a long-term deficit irrigation, DI, imposed before bud break. The results show that the 140-rewe rootstock significantly mitigated the adverse effect of water deficit on the physiology and growth of the cyan genotype Prima, and that V. Berlandieri times V. Rapestris pedigree rootstocks generally performed better than others. This article was authored by Alper Cucabas-Masai and Ali Sabir.


Hello, this is Pastor David Rosales of Calvary Chapel of the Chino Valley. Today I want to answer a question that is being asked by many. The question is, is the God of Islam the same God that Christians worship? There are many claiming that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, and there is even an argument that has been put forth by a bishop in the Netherlands that argues that Christians should call God Allah. He argued that calling God Allah would be common in 100 years, so if Christians were to begin doing this now it could lead to a synthesis of Islam and Christianity in the future. Interestingly enough, in 2013 an Islamic court in Malaysia ruled that only Muslims can use the name Allah in print because the use of the word would cause confusion in the community if used interchangeably amongst Muslims and Christians. Obviously Christians would be prone to agree with this Islamic judge because interchanging Allah with God would indeed invite confusion. Someone wrote in the Bible, God reveals himself to us in many names. These names are his personal property. We did not invent these names for God to the contrary, God revealed these names as his own. There are various names that are revealed to us in scripture. Elohim, which is used 2,500 times in the Bible and is plural but always used with a singular verb when it speaks of the true God. This indicates a unity and diversity within the nature of God and is revealed in scripture as the doctrine of the Trinity. Adonai, which is translated by the word Lord or Master. The name Jehovah is used 5,321 times in reference to God and is often used as a compound name such as Jehovah Elohim, Jehovah Jairah, Jehovah Rafa, Jehovah Nisi, Jehovah Shalom, Jehovah Ra'a, Jehovah Sid Canood, Jehovah Shema and Jehovah Sabaat. God is also spoken of as Al Shaddai, the almighty God, Al-Elyon, the most high God and Al-Olam, the everlasting God. With all of this said, the most precious name that believers use is the name Father. Muslims do not refer to God as their heavenly Father. The God they worship is impersonal and does not suit the picture of God as revealed in the Quran. This gets to the heart of the question, do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? The answer is no. The God of Christianity and the God of Islam are not the same. Islam teaches that Allah has no son. On the outside of the Dome of the Rock, a verse from the Quran reads, Allah who has not taken unto himself a son. This alone makes it clear that the God of Islam is not the God of Christianity. The God of the Christian is revealed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit and has existed eternally as three distinct persons. In Islam, this is blatantly denied. O people of the scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the Son of Mary was but a messenger of Allah and his word which he directed to Mary and his soul created a command from him. So believe in Allah and his messengers and do not say three, desist. It is better for you indeed Allah is but one God. Exalted is he above having a son. To him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth and sufficient is Allah as disposer of affairs. You see that in Quran 4, 171. In Christianity, it has been said that the doctrine of the Trinity allows for the incarnation of the word of God. Jesus Christ, for example, in the Gospel of John chapter one, verse one reads, John said, in the beginning it was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. In John chapter one, verse 14, John went on to say, the word became flesh and dwelt amongst us. We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth. The Quran states that Jesus was never crucified. It reads in Quran 4, 157.  They did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but another was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him for certain. This is taught concerning Jesus in spite of the fact that all four Gospels declared to us that Jesus himself was crucified, that he died, was buried and rose physically from the dead. This message is the heart of the Gospel and is necessary to believe in order to be saved. In Islam, Jesus is recognized as a prophet, but he's only a prophet. Quran 1930 states that Jesus said, indeed I am the servant of Allah. He has given me the scripture and made me a prophet, which is partially true. He is a prophet indeed, but he is not only a prophet. He is also Messiah, the Son of God. It was this prophet who said, before Abraham was, I am. It was this prophet who called himself the way, the truth and the life and said, no one comes to the Father, but by me.  He who believes in him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he is not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.  Paul said, for even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one God, the Father of whom are all things, and we for him and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live. God is not the author of confusion. He is not a man that he should change his mind or lie, and he has given to us the message of the gospel to proclaim to a dying world. This message is contained in the Bible, God's word. It is Messiah Jesus who said, sanctify them in your truth. Your word is truth. Jesus was crucified, he died, he was buried, but on the third day he rose from the dead and 40 days later ascended into heaven. He is now seated at the right hand of his father and he will one day soon judge the living and the dead. This is the savior that we present and every knee will bow, every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord through the glory of God, the Father. He is the true prophet, the final prophet and the greatest prophet.  This is David Rosales, pastor of Calvary Chapel of the Chino Valley.


Hello with this lecture, we're gonna work some smaller test type problems that will be the size that could be in multiple choice type questions First one says if a check correctly written and paid by the bank for 452 is Incorrectly recorded in the company's books for 389. How should this error be treated on the bank reconciliation? So obviously what we will see in the bank reconciliation We'll see the bank statement has something different than what our books say and obviously if we take these two numbers We have the bank says that we have a 450 452 on the bank statement in our books say that we have 389 then we have a difference of the 452 minus the 389 and that's gonna be 63 now our books are the thing that is wrong. So on our books side of things we wrote it on there at 389 and