FSM has unfairly kept the states deprived of their share of the national treasures causing a backlash evident today in joblessness which leads to deeper societal issues in front of us. Let's do away with the middle man and control our own borders, safety and destiny!!


  • I truly believe we Micronesians have grown beyond the negative mentality of segregation. The only way to move forward is by working together with our current leaders or with newly elected leaders who are motivated to exact change that is beneficial to all 4 States in terms of growth and prosperity for all.

    If this means a drastic change in the structure of our current leadership than so be it.

    "United we Conquer, Divided we Fall."
  • The process hasn't bear fruit in that old thinking of up keeping with the status quo.
  • We were never micronesians. We are not micronesians. Only in a make believe I don’t know.
  • biz e, why don't you think so?
  • kinen, you mean we are NOT ONE MICRONESIA

    I blv that too
  • I never believe it. The concept was imposed on the individual people as part of the colonization of the islands. It was evident in the manner that the quest for self sovereignty was handled by the people in authority (colonizers) during the 1970s negotiations for local self government and thereafter.
  • My bad, happy New Year pwipwi sinbad.
  • How much has Chuuk State spend so far on the secession movement?
    Why are the commissioners making it sound as if Chuuk State is going thru hardship with the way FSM is allocating its resources?
    Yet our government makes it sound so convincing that we will be better off once Chuuk seceed. They the commissioners says that instead of the money being divided by 4 it will all go to 1 (chuuk). How many Municipals are in Chuuk State? Will the money not be divided accordingly amongst the municipalities? (instead of 4 states, it will be 40 states). How has Chuuk State spread its infrastructure funding? Does it benefit all the 5 regions equally? Or does it mostly benefit the one region Election District 3 other than the other 4 regions.

    The commissioners are so quick to say that chuuk will be better off once it manage its own resources. But they are not really telling us how the state will go about implementing such equally amonst the regions or municipalities.

    Wake Up Chuuk
    The Political Status Commission is bend on seceeding from the FSM that they have failed to educate us the people on the pros and cons of the secession movement. Why are they advocating secession? Is it to benefit all or the few elites.

    How much will the Political Status Commission willing to spend more of the much needed funds for the state to be please. Will it ever be enough? So if Chuuk decides to seceed, how much more will the commission ask for to amokutu things accordingly? If Chuuk failed, Will the commission be dissolved? or will they regroup and ask for more funding?

    Chuuk Chuuk
    Are we really ready to take the step?
    The commission says why Palau but not Chuuk?
    They say that Palau does not divides its resource more than once. Man I heard one of the commissioner say that Chuuk will be like Palau once we seceed because Palau does not divide its rescource (money) amonst states. What a dumass? Does he not realize that Palau is made up of several States?

    And this Paulus commissioner is using his fb and messenger to spread lies about how chuuk will be better off once we seceed. I for one have unfriend the guy, because of his lies.

    What ever Chuuk decides this coming election, I hope it will be prosperious for the state and its people.
    Ika met?
  • "What a dumass? Does he not realize that Palau is made up of several States?"..... Kinisou chuukiss.

  • This is why the Chuuk State Political Status Commission DOES NOT GIVE A PIG DOODOO ABOUT JOHN HAGLELGAM'S and all of you people's argument against the legality and constitutionality of the Chuuk Independence Movement. The Commission already had its legal research on the constitutionality of the Independence Movement and it believes in the soundness of it findings and constitutional analysis.

    Haglelgam should not be too harsh on Chuukese leaders. Haglelgam became FSM President in 1987 as a DEFAULT CHOICE when the Congress could not give Pohnpei State the Presidency (because Vice President Bailey Olter of Pohnpei who was second in line to Chuuk President Nakayama, had lost the election to Leo Falcam), so because the Congress did not want to give Leo Falcam the Presidency, the Chuuk Delegation put Haglelgam in the Presidency BY DEFAULT FOR NO BETTER CHOICE TO BAILEY OLTER! Some people in Pohnpei did not like the outcome and tried to burn the Congress building down! The Chuuk Delegation were so upset in the Congress Chamber that their Delegation Leader, the late Kalisto Refalopei, threw a cup across the chamber and smashed it against the wall, silencing the whole chamber like a funeral!

    Haglelgam is not a certified attorney that he can give legal opinions. That is against the law for non-attorney to give legal opinions which is unauthorized practice of law. Haglelgam attended law school at Lewis and Clark in the US Northwest for one year and did not finish. He never practices law in the FSM other than teaching political science at the COM Palikir. He cannot render legal opinions on the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the Chuuk Independence Movement. The Chuuk Status Commission legal opinion on constitutionality of their Independence Movement is provided below in part, rendered by their legal consultant, a professor of law at one of the US law schools with extensive researches into constitutional and international law, to show that the Commission is not recklessly leading the Chuukese people out of the FSM toward political independence.

    Please read for yourselves:


    This memorandum responds to the two issues posed by the Chuuk State Political Status Commission (CSPSC). 1

    (1) What is the constitutionality under the Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), ratified in 1990, of the Chuuk State Movement to Secede from the FSM and become a politically independent entity as proposed by the Chuuk State Political Status Commission (CSPSC) and approved by the Chuuk State Legislature?

    (2) what is the right to secede or become independent under international law of Chuuk State or the Chuukese people?

    QUESTION 1: What is the constitutionality under the Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), ratified in 1990, of the Chuuk State Movement to Secede from the FSM and become a politically independent entity as proposed by the Chuuk State Pollical Status Commission (CSPSC) and approved by the Chuuk State Legislature?

    I. Recent Efforts in Chuuk to pursue secession.

    In 2012, the Chuuk State Legislature established the Chuuk State Political Status Commission, as
    representative of the people of Chuuk State, which will have broad authority to examine alternative political options for Chuuk State, and to make one or more recommendations regarding a desirable future political status to the Legislature

    1 But the effort is not to also sever all ties with the U.S. or forego benefits of the U.S. Compact of Free Association. According to Chuuk’s Attorney General, Sabino Asor, “The independence we are pursuing now would be in the same context as Palau, the Marshalls and the FSM with the US. We still need the US as a major partner, financial and security wise, but at the same time we're looking at the way events are evolving in our part of the region and we don't feel peace.” Ben Bohane, “Island of Chuuk looking to break free from Federated States of Micronesia” (Apr. 10, 2016) available at:

  • CONT'D

    and the Governor for approval by the people of Chuuk State in a plebiscite under applicable state or national laws.

    The primary mandate of the Political Status Commission was to “review and recommend possible political status suitable for long term financial survival” of Chuuk after the expiration of the COFA economic provisions in 2023. The legislation was clear that the Commission had broad authority to “make such studies as it may deem necessary” including “complete independence from any political state, independence with free association with the United States, maintain the status quo, or as a territory or state of the United States.”3 After hearings, research, debates and studies, the Commission decided to recommend that Chuuk become a “fully independent sovereign republic.” The Commission concluded that this was the only option that “offered potential for a modern, healthy and productive Chuuk.”4The Political Status Commission then formulated a public education program for Chuuk’s forty municipalities and communities abroad.5

    Chuuk Law No. 11-18 gave the Political Status Commission eighteen months to conduct its public education program before submitting the final report, but this was extended to twenty-five months.
    On December 15, 2014, the Chuuk State Political Status Commission filed their final report which recommended that Chuuk secede and become independent from the FSM.6 The Chuuk Political Status Commission concluded in relevant part:

    The right to independence was recognized by the International Court of Justice in its 2009 finding that the people of the Kosovo region (then within the nation of Serbia) had acted in accordance with international law in their declaration of independence from their former nation. Furthermore, the undeniable right to a nationality is enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 15. While the legal foundation for secession is sound, the Commission is confident that Chuuk’s secession from the FSM will not result in regional instability.7

    2 Act 11-08, Eleventh Chuuk State Legislature, 1st Reg. Session, 2nd Special Session, §3 (Jan. 2012),


    3 Id.

    4 “CPSC Final Report to the Chuuk Legislature as Required by Chuuk State Law 11-12-08,” at 1-2, (Dec. 15, 2014), See also, Clement Yow Mulalap, “Micronesia in Review: Issues and Events, 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2015,” 28 The Contemporary Pacific 172 (2016)
    5 Id.
    6 Id.
    7 Id. at 3.

    Pursuant to Act 11-08, the Final Report was to be sent to the Chuuk State Election Commission and the Chuuk Legislature. On December 19, 2014, the Chuuk Legislature accepted the Final Report with no amendments.8 Thereafter, the Chuuk Legislature approved a recommendation from the Chuuk State Political Status Commission that “a Chuuk State wide plebiscite be held on March 3, 2015 for eligible Chuukese voters to express their choice, for or against, a proposed initiative by CSPSC that Chuuk State secede as one of the four states of [FSM].”9

    In advance of the March 3, 2015 plebiscite on Chuuk secession, on January 27, 2015, FSM President Mori issued an Executive Order establishing the “FSM Task Force on National Unity whose purpose is to assist and educate Chuukese voters on the question of whether Chuuk State should or should not secede from the Federation.”10
    In February 2015, the FSM Department of Justice (DOJ) offered an analysis of the legality of Chuuk secession, which concluded that the FSM Constitution does not allow for secession, although a legal pathway towards secession exists through the amendment of the FSM Constitution.11 FSM based its argument upon the following components of the FSM Constitution: Preamble; article XIII, §3, intention of the framers of the constitution; the Micronesian Constitutional Convention Journal of 1975; and, Standing Committee Report (SCREP) No. 40, Committee on General Provisions, October 30, 1975 (Comm. Proposal No. 27) re Secession and Admission of New States.

    Micronesia’s Fourth Branch12 hosted a series of articles reflecting both sides of the Chuuk Independence argument. On February 7, 2015, the Fourth Branch published a three part “dialogue” between FSM legal counsel James Stovall, who provided eight points on the negative implications of Chuuk secession regarding U.S. Compact benefits;

    8 See Chuuk State Reform, Commentaries on Chuuk Political Status Public Hearing in Hilo (Dec. 3, 2014), http://www -political-status-public-hearing-in-hilo/.
    9 Office of the President, Palikir, Pohnpei, Presidential Order (FSM Task Force on National Unity) (Jan. 27, 2015),
    10 Office of the President, Palikir, Pohnpei, Presidential Order (FSM Task Force on National Unity) (Jan. 27, 2015),
    11 “FSM Department of Justice: The Legality of Secession From the FSM,” The Fourth Branch Micronesia (Feb. 11, 2015),
    12 Fourth Branch is an online news aggregator whose objective is to collect information to involve citizens in their respective states in serving as a “check” on their governments and to hold them accountable. See Fourth Branch “Mission,” (accessed May 3, 2017),
  • CONT'D (Part #3):

    Tadasy Wainit, who provided counterarguments to Stovall, and then FSM DOJ’s responses to Wainit.
    On February 11, 2015, the Chuuk Political Status Commission adopted a resolution “[e]xpressing disappointment over the failure of the Chuuk State Election Commission to implement the Chuuk State Political Status Plebiscite as provided by law and recommending the Governor to take appropriate remedial action.”
    On February 23, 2015, Governor of the State of Chuuk, Johnson Elimo issued an Executive Order severing the Chuuk State Political Status Plebiscite from the National Election effort scheduled to be held on March 3, citing shortcomings by the Chuuk State Election Commission on their ability to conduct the plebiscite as scheduled.14 Governor Elimo’s executive order specifically cited the Chuuk Election Commission’s failure to print the ballots for the plebiscite in the manner required by law in time for the elections.15 On February 25, 2015, President Mori suspended further efforts and activities of the FSM Task Force on National Unity.16
    It has been announced that on July 4th of 2018, the people of Chuuk will vote to determine whether Chuuk will maintain the political status quo or seek an alternative political arrangement.17
    I. Constitutional History of article III, FSM Constitution
    In 1975, members of the Committee on General Provisions at the Constitutional Convention discussed permitting states to secede and issued SCREP No. 40, which was signed by thirteen of fifteen committee members.
    The Committee Proposal is based on the assumption that a State, by sending Delegates to the Convention and by ratifying the final document, has made a firm commitment to join the Federated States of Micronesia. The Proposal does not allow a later reassessment of this commitment which may be motivated by a change in the economic or political conditions within a State. To allow a State to secede makes it uncertain whether that State is making a full effort to meet its responsibilities to the new nation or only buying time until the
    13 FSM Department of Justice Responds to Tadasy Wainit, The Fourth Branch Micronesia (Feb. 7, 2015),
    14 Office of the President, FSM Information Services, “Chuuk State Postpones its Plebiscite on Political Status,” Press Release No. 1502-03, Palikir, Pohnpei (Feb. 25, 2015) available at:
    15 Mulalap, “Micronesia in Review,” supra note XXX, citing Kaselehlie Press, Pohnpei (Feb. 25, 2015),
    16 Id.
    17 Chuuk Political Status Commission, Home, (accessed Nov. 3, 2017).
    conditions are ripe for secession. It may be difficult for the central government to operate efficiently when faced with such uncertainties.
    This is especially true when dealing with international affairs. The central government lacks credibility when it attempts to negotiate as the representative of all States if secession is allowed. Any foreign government which is aware of the situation is free to deal with the individual States and play them off against each other and the central government. This will quite possibly result in a loss of overall Micronesian bargaining power.
    The purpose of forming a union is so that all states might work together for the betterment of all. It is not desirable to allow a State, which may in the future receive additional revenues, to withdraw from the union rather than to share for the good of the union. The same logic which would allow a rich State to withdraw the expulsion of a poor State. Such thinking goes against the whole concept of the establishment of national unity for the benefit of all Micronesians.
    Your Committee is of the opinion that unity is necessary if the Federated States of Micronesia is to become a strong and respected member of the international community. Therefore, we urge that the Micronesian Constitution not allow secession.
    Although SCREP No. 40 presented a rationale against secession, provisions prohibiting secession were rejected. Initially, the draft Committee on General Provisions Proposal No. 27, dated October 21, 1975, was titled, “Relating to secession and the admission of new States” and explicitly prohibited secession.
    RESOLVED, that the following be agreed upon as the Micronesian Constitution:
    ARTICLE ___
    SECTION ___. Secession. No State or political subdivision thereof shall be allowed to secede from the union established by this Constitution.
    SECTION ___. Admission of New States. New States may be formed and admitted by law, subject to the same rights, duties and obligations as provided for in this Constitution. 18
    A later draft of Committee Proposal No. 27 was titled “Relating to the unity and admission of new states,” and provided in relevant part:
    RESOLVED, that the following be agreed upon as part of the Micronesian Constitution:
    ARTICLE _____
    18 JMCC V.2 at 931.
  • CONT'D (Part #4)

    ECTION _____. It is the solemn obligation of the national and state governments to uphold the provisions of this Constitution and to advance the principles of unity upon which this Constitution is founded.
    SECTION _____. New states may be formed and admitted by law, subject to the same rights, duties, and obligations as provided for in this Constitution.
    The Constitutional Convention adopted Committee Proposal No. 27 on October 23, 1975. The current FSM Constitution reflects passages from Committee Proposal No. 27 in article XIII, §3 and article I, §4 respectively. By rejecting the limiting language specifically prohibiting secession, the Committee indicated secession was not prohibited and it is reasonable to conclude that the secession can be permitted.
    The U.S. Ninth Circuit concluded that “when Congress does not adopt limiting language contained in a draft bill, such an action is ordinarily deemed evidence of Congressional intent to reject the limitation.” Nuclear Info. & Res. Serv. v. U.S. Dept. of Transp. Research & Special Programs Admin., 457 F.3d 956, 962 (9th Cir. 2006) ((second draft of law omitted a provision limiting scope of actions subject to direct review was evidence of intent to permit review for a wider scope of actions (citing Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614, 623 (2004)).19 The 1975 Committee’s specific decision to remove the prohibition against secession from its proposed language for articles XIII, §3 and I, §4 is evidence that the Committee did not intend for this prohibition to be amongst the general provisions under article XIII.
    On July 12, 1978, a referendum was held on the FSM Constitution. The Marshall Islands, Palau, Ponape, Yap and Kosrae, which had recently become one of the districts, participated. The Marshall Islands and Palau did not ratify proposed constitution because the majority vote requirement was not satisfied. The Mariana Islands did not take part in the referendum because it had earlier pursued its own arrangements with the United States. On April 01, 1978, the United States approved its commonwealth status.
    After the vote by the four Districts, on October 1, 1978, U.S. Secretariat Order 3027 from the U.S. Secretary of the Interior established separate legislatives for the three
    19 Under FSM law, resort to U.S. case law is appropriate after careful consideration of the language and history of the FSM Constitution. FSM v. Tipen, 1 FSM Intrm. 79, 83 (Pon. 1982) (If doubt as to meaning of constitutional provision still remains after careful consideration of language and constitutional history, the court should proceed to other sources for assistance. These include interpretations of similar language in U.S. Constitution, decisions of Trust Territories High Court, generally held notions of basic justice within international community, and consideration of law of other nations, especially others within the Pacific community); Lonno v. Trust Territory (I), 1 FSM Intrm. 53, 71 (Kos. 1982) (the FSM Supreme Court may look to law of other nations, especially other nations of Pacific community, to determine whether approaches employed there may prove useful in determining the meaning of particular provisions within Constitution).
    polities: Interim Congress of Micronesia, Palau Legislature, and the Marshall Islands Nitjela. FSM became a sovereign nation on November 3, 1986.

  • we have to cut it short here. Sorry to take up so much time with part of the Chuuk Status Commission's legal foundation for its pursuit for Secession and Independence.

    For those who simply cannot accept the Chuuk Independence Movement for any reason at all, it is okay. You take care of yourself and your families. We will not try to spend our respective lives changing each other's views and interests.

    But let's make it clear that there are indeed those of us who believe Chuuk needs to move out of the FSM Federation, not just because of financial and economic reasons after 2023, but also because of inherent, fundamental differences and inequalities among our states and people that we know will never been resolved through remaining in the FSM Federation. And we now we just cannot change each other's views at this stage of the process.
  • Taxi-Womw, anything is possible and looking at Chuuk Commission's persistence on this issue, obviously the passion to secede is there.

    I just cant help to visualize the situation where, Chuuk to Micronesia will be like Cuba is to the the US. LOL! No offense. Please move forward. Only the good Lord knows the outcome.
  • Taxi-Womw,

    Your brainwashing effort is commendable but seriously???? using Kosovo in comparison to Chuuk is arrogantky disrespectful to the thousands of lives lost in that conflict.

  • biz e, link not working. whats your source so i can look-see. tks
  • edited January 30

    Please excuse me. My name is Otis Aisek. I am a member of TFB-Micronesia ( We have been described as a "news aggregate" website for our region. We also create original content and give Micronesians a platform to share their works.

    The above interview with former president Haglelgam was a collaborative work that involved a goodly number of people. It is part of a series that we have been working on since early December. We also collected, rewrote and emailed pro-independence questions to significant members of the independence movement. But have yet to receive responses. We believe that the emails we were given may no longer be in use.

    For the sake of discussion, and because these questions do not belong to us at TFB but the people of Chuuk. I'll post the questions here in the hopes that I can reach pro-independence members.

    For any interested, such as arm-chair politicians like myself, we welcome the dialogue.

    tirow, kinisou, omwusano tipisin okurang.

    Pro-Independence question:

    1. How much does the state of Chuuk receive from compact funds annually?

    2. Please explain the formation of the Chuuk State Compact Funds Control Commission (CFCC).
    - Was this a requirement under the Compact 2 agreement?
    - Does any other State in the FSM have a CFCC?

    3. Since its formation, the Chuuk State legislature has approved large sums of money for the Commission ($600,000 in 2014-2015; $50,000 for 2018). How much has been given to the CPSC in total? Where is this money coming from and what is it for?

    4. Does the secession movement have economic and legal advisors?
    - Who are they?
    - How are they being paid?
    - When will these advisors issue a report of their assessments?
    - Will they be a part of the Education for Self Governance (ESG)?

    5. By 2023, compact funding is expected to expire. CPSC members have stated that there will be a $20 million budgetary shortfall for the State of Chuuk. This has been the primary reason behind the secession movement. The FSM government has put together an “Action Plan” in preparation. Does the CPSC have a similar “Action Plan” for an independent Chuuk?

    6. Another major argument for independence is inequality. For example, Chuuk has over 50% of the FSM’s population but it receives under 50% of the funds. It also has the least amount of congressmen for its population. Why not focus on changing these inequalities rather than seceding?

    7. Please explain CPSC arguments about fishing licenses.

    8. Former President, Manny Mori, suggested downsizing the state government to save money? Do you agree with his suggestion? What would you downsize?

    9. The CPSC reviewed other political statuses (commonwealth; US territory; US statehood; status quo) before deciding independence was the best option. Why were the citizens of Chuuk excluded from reviewing or voting on these other options?

    10. Many Chuukese citizens do not want to leave the Compact with the USA. Would it not be in the CPSC’s best interest to word the vote so it specifies, “Independence with a COFA with the USA”, rather than a general, “Independence”?

    11. Please respond to former president John Haglelgam’s claim that the formation of the Chuuk Political Status Commission is an illegal act because it violates the constitutional idea of “unity”?

    12. Pro Independence members have dismissed James Stovall’s “warnings”, calling them “scare tactics”. Why would Stovall have an interest in “scare tactics”?

    13. The FSM Department of Justice has already stated a legal pathway to independence with a constitutional amendment. Instead of risking future litigation, why not work with Chuuk congressmen on a constitutional amendment for independence?

    14. There seems to be a division between Chuuk’s State and National leadership. Are both groups working well together?
    - Why, for the most part, are there no Chuukese congressmen speaking openly in favor of secession?

    15. If the citizens of Chuuk vote “no” to secession, what assurances do they have that the CPSC will stop the independence movement?
    - Will a vote of “no” end the CPSC? Or will the commission continue to exist?

    16. Will an independent Chuuk have access to their share of the FSM trust fund?

    17. An independent Chuuk will have to compete with Yap and Pohnpei for resources, tourism, and territory. How much resources and territory can Chuuk lose to Yap and Pohnpei?

    18. CPSC members have stated that agriculture, fisheries and tourism would improve if independent. What is the reasoning behind these claims and why can’t they be improved as a State in the FSM?

    19. Other than independence, what other options are available for improving Chuuk’s economy?

    20. CPSC members have made arguments to suggest that Chuuk can be an independent nation like Palau or Nauru. However, Palau and Nauru have resource and location advantages. What resources and other economic advantages does an independent Chuuk have? And will it be enough?

    21. Other neighbors (Guam, Palau, RMI, CNMI) have given land and entire islands to the US military in exchange for aid. Does an independent Chuuk plan on similar pacts?

    22. Former president, Manny Mori, stated that if Chuuk becomes independent Faichuuk and other districts may try to secede from Chuuk. What is your response?
    - Should an independent Chuuk create a pathway for secession in their new constitution?

    23. Will Chuukese citizens have the option to become FSM Nationals if they do not wish to join an independent Chuuk?

    24. would CPSC members be open to a public debate or discussion with anti-independence members?

    ***Public questions***

    - Chuuk has been described as lawless and corrupt. Are you concerned that an independent Chuuk will have no outside national government to keep it under control?

    - Members of the CPSC have asked for faith and trust rather than evidence, statistics, and data to bolster support for the independence movement.

    - If Chuuk becomes independent It would need, among other things, more office buildings and land. Where will the money come from to construct and purchase these?

    - The independence vote has been postponed several times. How can they expect to lead a nation when they can’t even schedule a vote?

    - Instead of an independent Chuuk. Chuuk leaders should try to relocate the FSM capital to Chuuk. It involves less work and it is not unconstitutional. It would also solve most of Chuuk’s economic problems.

    - With compact funding expected to end, should Chuuk State leadership focus on renegotiating a funding extension with the FSM first, then worry about secession afterwards?

    - What would happen to FSM companies and companies that work with the FSM like PetroCorp, Telecom, Matson, United etc.?
  • There is no other way around the projected $20 million shortfall other than downsizing both Health and Education sectors. All non-essential personnel whose salaries are funded by Compact grants will most likely get cut from the payroll. The same thing will most likely happen to non-essential personnel whose salaries are funded by local revenue.

    If someone has access to the FSM National Government's contingency plan for post 2023, please post it here so we can review and discuss. Thanks
  • oaisek,

    First off, I am neither a Chuuk pro-independence, nor an anti-independence member. I am outside either camp. The questions you posed are very useful to the voters of Chuuk to make informed and prudent decisions when they go to the polls to cast their ballots on the question before them.

    In addition to the questions you listed, I feel it will be in the best interest of the Chuukese to know why their legislature is so big, especially in a time when public funds are so scarce. In Guam, which has more than double the population of Chuuk and with hundreds of millions of dollars at their governments disposal, the legislature has far fewer embers that the Chuuk State Legislature's 39 members.

    Why does everything has to be big even if they are not affordable?
  • Why can't the chuuk political commission do their job? Why are they only talking about the good that chuuk will come about if the state seceed? The commission is only after what benefit they will get at the end but not the hardship that the state and its people will endure due to the political motives of the commission. The commission is so bend on secession that they no longer see the relevant issues of keeping the FSM together and moving forward. They (commission) talk about doing what was asked of them by the chuuk state legislature. Now the real question is did the chuuk state legislature really ask the commission to seek for independence? Or did the legislature ask the commission to look and the pros and cons of secession?

    The commission is basking (traveling and such) in the little funding that is has received from the state to do its so called mandated duties that has no real relevat issues with the well being of the state now. Why are our legislators saying that the state is not receiving enought funds from the national government when infact the state is abusing such? Now our leaders have put the issue of secession on the ballot for 2019, why can't they seperate the secession vote if it is so important? They say chuuk has no funding but if its that important then why not spend what is available if the secession is so important? Notice how they tie the secession vote to 2019 when there is no gubernatorial election? Hehehe its all politics my friend, purely politics the chuukese way (OIC).
Sign In or Register to comment.