By Richard Salvador —-
Alii Villager, Ngirchoteot
You ask me two questions; I summarize them in my words below so that I can best respond to them:
[Question #1] – Why do you think the writers of the first Constitution give primacy to the English language not the Belau language in our Constitution? And do you think it’s time that we change this and elevate the Belau language as our primary language including translating all official deliberations and documents of our government into our Belau language.
[I assume from cursory reading of your question that you are implying not just the act of translating our Official deliberations and documents but a way for us to bestow primacy and highest honor and praise and acknowledgment on the Belau language.]
[Question #2] – When our court fails to reconcile and or adjudicate fairly on all matters it faces utilizing Western/American law (like what we are seeing with seemingly irreconcilable land disputes and traditional, chiefly titles), what path can we choose that will help to reconcile many of these disputations in our court systems?
I don’t presume to know the intentions of the writers of the Constitution when they considered and wrote the provisions on language. Some of them are still around, so you should ask them. JT was one of them too. Or you can go peruse the journals of the ConCon’s deliberations to see what they meant. We have what they said inside the Constitution, so let us look at them again. The following Constitutional languages define our legal understanding of the uses of English and Belau language.
Article 13 under General Provisions, sections 1 and 2 are as follows:
“Section 1. The Palauan traditional languages shall be the national languages. Palauan and English shall be the official languages. The Olbiil Era Kelulau shall determine the appropriate use of each language.
“Section 2. The Palauan and English versions of this Constitution shall be equally authoritative; in case of conflict, the English version shall prevail.”
In Section 1, “tekoi er a Belau” are national languages. Palauan and English are the “official languages.” The second sentence has given us much leeway in terms of using and justifying our usage of both languages in our government. In the 3rd sentence where freedom and authority are given to the OEK to “determine the appropriate uses of each language,” we (that is, both ourselves and our representatives in the Congress, are given the role to play in terms of determining [that’s the operative word] how much primacy we might give to the uses of the English or the Belau language and WHERE we bestow such primacy (whether in our schools, our churches, our homes, in various programs we sponsor in our community, etc).
The writers of the Constitution, contrary to assumptions in your question, did not assign primacy to the English language. They wrote that each language was going to be “equally authoritative.” We have to consider the deeper meanings and motivations of our Founding Brothers then. My interpretation therefore is that the position they took was a practical one. They might have seen English as an indispensable international language that all folks around the world including Belau people needed to learn and understand and use.
To say that “in case of conflict, the English version shall prevail”, to me, represented a very practical position. What I mean is that when the Founding Brothers deliberated on this issue, they were probably NOT suggesting that they will agree to such language, hoping that it will one day lead to an eradication of Belau culture and traditions, much of which are articulated in the nuances and shades of meaning inherent in Belau language. Also, I don’t think they were looking forward to the day that a confusion between languages and the cultures they represent, and are a manifestations of, will produce the conflicts Belau people are suffering from or produce the amount of disputations rampant among families, clans, and villages across Belau.
I say the above because I want to suggest that their (incomplete) lack of foresight on this very matter recommends and but more importantly advocates a way forward for us today. That is to say, we have a way forward in terms of how we argue for and advocate a position and a way forward. The 3rd sentence in Article 13, section 1 of our Constitution: “The Olbiil Era Kelulau shall determine the appropriate use of each language” is open enough to suggest what we have always had the power to do: to determine how we can utilize both languages in order to support the interests of the peoples of Belau.
Moreover, I suggest also that the ultimate meaning of this section 1 sentence be irrevocably tied to the meaning of Section 2:
Section 2. The Palauan and English versions of this Constitution shall be equally authoritative; in case of conflict, the English version shall prevail.
That is to say, “The Palauan and English versions of this Constitution shall be equally authoritative; in case of conflict, the English version shall prevail.” And prevail ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT IT SUBJECTS ITSELF TO ULTIMATE INTERESTS OF THE REPUBLIC AND THE PEOPLE OF BELAU. I may be wrong but I don’t think that the Founders of our nation sought to produce these competing meanings of our usage of the English and Belau language if they were perceptive enough to see that potential confusions between languages would create the legal catastrophe that has visited Belau peoples today. No one is perfect. In my mind, the Founding Brothers of the Belau republic were wise enough to produce a Constitutional document that has ensured political stability for us in the past 30 years. But they were not perfect. They could not clearly see that the consequences arising from confusions among languages would fundamentally deform Belau peoples’ relationships in an area where we seek to develop our economic infrastructures. This must apply to all disputations and conflicts, not just the competing versions of the languages of our Constitution. Our Constitution is an exemplar; it is a model for the way we govern ourselves but it is also a model for how ought to shape societal norms and mores.
Again, as I’ve alluded to above, I think the operative key of this Constitutional provision is embedded in the sentence: “The Olbiil Era Kelulau shall determine the appropriate use of each language.” Members of the OEK are our representatives. They produce Constitutionally informed legislations that seek to enhance our quality of life and clarify the means by/through which we improve our overall well-being. I feel strongly that the expansive meanings of these two sections of our Constitution allow us to continue to clarify the terms wherein we can utilize both languages in as fair a manner we can and in a way that respects and enhances our own Belau language.
But we can always move beyond the language of law, Constitution, and politics and explore culturally and socially appealing ways in which we can elevate Belau language in all areas of our national life. We must continue to teach Belau language classes in all grade levels. This means that we must educate and prepare Belau language teachers. This means we must create, within the college level (at PCC), curriculum and scholarship programs that instruct teachers how to teach the Belau language. We must explore ways in which the community can participate (engage our respected elders to participate in some form of continuing education residency programs at PCC) in Belau language courses. The extent of primacy we bestow on the Belau language should be reflected in the way we use and or support the uses of our language throughout the community–in the schools, our churches, our homes, in various programs we sponsor in our community, such as plays or youth theater done entirely in Belau language with money to support and promote such programs.
Where would such money come from? Well, we need to recast the uses of Belau language (teaching it, learning it, using and promoting it, etc) as a fundamental educational goal integral to the perpetuation of Belau culture as well as an integral part of national identity.
And so on and so forth…
[Question #2] – When our court fails to reconcile and or adjudicate fairly on all matters it faces utilizing Western/American law (like what we are seeing with seemingly irreconcilable land disputes and traditional, chiefly titles), what path can we choose that will help to reconcile many of these disputations in our court systems?
As for your second question, the path we choose has to be one that seeks to maximize the greatest benefit to all. I have suggested in my last response that we have to help in bringing to pass a renaissance in peaceful and active conflict management strategies that are informed by both Western and Belau traditional conflict resolution mechanisms. Once again, we can do these by creating continuing education programs at PCC to help understand and define the problems of over-reliance on litigation and create support for peaceful, nonviolent conflict resolution.
Again, in our Constitution, Article 5, sections 1 and 2 address Traditional rights. Section 2 has 2 sentences as follows:
“Section 2. Statutes and traditional law shall be equally authoritative. In case of conflict between a statute and a traditional law, the statute shall prevail only to the extent it is not in conflict with the underlying principles of the traditional law.”
I wish the provisions on language had similar qualifications. Imagine if we had additional language included in Article 13, Section 2 like this: “The Palauan and English versions of this Constitution shall be equally authoritative; in case of conflict, the English version shall prevail ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT ITS COMPETING MEANINGS ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES OF BELAU CULTURE AND TRADITIONS AND THAT ITS USES SEEK TO PROMOTE CLARITY AND PRIDE IN THE USES AND APPRECIATION OF BELAU LANGUAGE!
But they were not. And here we are in 2011, 30 years after the creation of our Constitution. But Constitutions are not like the final word of God. Constitutions are made by men in order to establish a political order that guarantees freedom and clarify how we ought to govern. We can and we should change them to suit our needs. We should explore all possible meanings of Constitutional language that will serve us. Constitutional principles suggest that we are bound by the original intents of the Founding Brothers. But times change and we should re-think and re-create the rules and laws to better reflect our day. Saying this does not mean we abandon the authoritative pronouncements of Constitutional authority. It means we take literally the purpose of creating such things as Constitutions to guide our affairs. As humans, we are smart enough to establish Constitutions and nation-states wherein we might live in relative safety. That also means we are smart and practical enough to tinker with our founding documents here and there as we learn new things and seek to continuously improve our collective well-being.
I have taught or helped to teach peace and nonviolence classes before and completed a graduate degree in peace and conflict management, so I obviously have many things to say about how we can adopt alternative, more peaceful, means of resolving our conflicts. Let us continue to discuss and explore how we do all these…
I have written too much and I apologize. I look forward to more discussions.
mesulang,
richard salvador
That is to say, “The Palauan and English versions of this Constitution shall be equally authoritative; in case of conflict, the English version shall prevail.” And prevail ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT IT SUBJECT SUBJECTS ITSELF TO ULTIMATE INTERESTS OF THE REPUBLIC AND THE PEOPLE OF BELAU. I may be wrong but I don’t think that the Founders of our nation sought to produce these competing meanings of our usage of the English and Belau language if they were perceptive enough to see that potential confusions between languages would create the legal catastrophe that has visited Belau peoples today. No one is perfect. In my mind, the Founding Brothers of the Belau republic were wise enough to produce a Constitutional document that has ensured political stability for us in the past 30 years. But they were not perfect. They could not clearly see that the consequences arising from confusions among languages would fundamentally deform Belau peoples’ relationships in an area where we seek to develop our economic infrastructures. This must apply to all disputations and conflicts, not just the competing versions of the languages of our Constitution. Our Constitution is an exemplar; it is a model for the way we govern ourselves but it is also a model for how ought to shape societal norms and mores.
)
