Chuuk Secession



  • edited November 2017

    Good day to you. I've been following this thread and I wanted to jump in to share my 2 cents.

    First, Brexit is not the same thing here. The EU, if I'm correct, is not the same as a country. It is a collection of countries and I am not aware they are under one constitution. The Brexit situation is not "secession" but only a formal withdrawal from the collective effort to operate under one umbrella. I can be wrong but that is how I understand it now.

    Second, it is important to understand the separation of powers and checks and balance and how the three branches of government work as a unit under our constitution, as pointed out by Sarem Chuuk. The way it works is the Congress writes laws, the executive have limited power to also make laws through executive orders but its main function is to execute and enforce the laws (Dept. of Justice is under this branch), and the Judicial branch interprets those laws, which then become laws in themselves.

    With that said, the courts under our constitution cannot make an opinion without the issue being brought before them by a party. The DOJ can, but not courts. To do so would undermine the very foundation upon which it stands (blind justice) and it will allow political influence, that's not good. It needs to come to the table unbiased and neutral in order for the opinion to be fair and just. That was the very reason why the idea of check and balance and separation of powers came about.

    Now, the secession issue has not been brought up in any court including the Supreme Court, thus they cannot give opinion on the matter. The DOJ have already issued statement regarding the secession argument because it can as an organ of the executive branch. The Supreme Court is silent NOT because the constitution does not explicitly prohibit secession (as you argued) but because no one has brought it before them to allow them to render an opinion. Don't get me wrong, the Justices may have their own personal opinion but they cannot issue official statements in their capacity under current laws and traditions.

    I hope this helps. With the issue though, there is no doubt about right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for all citizens including Chuukese, that includes the right to self-determination. But there is that concept called DUE PROCESS that needs to be played out.


  • Upwe fosun Chuuk pun repwe fakkun weweochuti.. Nge tirow womi ami chon won ei neni..

    Mei eoch sipwe mut ngeni nouch kei mweno non ar repwe kutta met nonomuochun Chuuk nesor, sia kuna met FSM mei fori ngeni Chuuk non ekkei fansoun, Chuuk ese kofich, ita merech Chuuk epwe eochuno non fansoun pusin rechuuk ir mi emweni FSM, rese anisi pwe refen fiiei chioren Chuuk pun epwe fen pekunokununo.. Pwata repwe ngeni Pohnpei ewe mwesinen Dialysis nge chommong chon Chuuk ir mi need ewe mwesin, peeno onowe Governor pun e wisen angei blame ren, Nge ewe Contraction seni Marshall itan PII.. Pwata ese tawe ar ewe fori ewe al Chuuk? Pwan peeno chok onowe Governor pun apwan blame chok.. RUU chok mwo.. Nge met chok mwo NAMOTAN oupwe pesei aramas ar resap tipe ew ngeni ei anapanapen umuno.? Nge pusin popu seni kemi ami ekiekin nieno Chuuk..Esap ouwa nom non title-un an Freddy Fender ewe Kol " WASTE THE DAY AND WASTE THE NIGHT ".

    Kepwan Efich
    Kepwan Oput
  • Not the first time this issue has been on the table, like then and now the supreme court was silent. Manny morri who was against this was not against it on grounds related to the constitution but on the economic side of it. Manny who was the President didn't opposed this because it was illegal but because of economic and he mentioned the in some YouTube video about how america is adamant about its cofa funding deadline.
  • Manny i believe consulted the supreme and when the supreme didn't say it was illegal he opposed on the economic side. If the supreme would have said it was illegal it would have advised the president and he would have said it then but he didn't.
  • IronYouth, it seems like you are dead set on your opinions and there is no way to dissuade you from them even though you have been provided relevant facts.

  • A lot of good points have been made. I don't want to interrupt the focus of these good threads/points; so let me just add a short recommendation for Taxi and the Commission to consider along with their current secession strategy.

    I would suggest that the Commission, in addition to the straight talk of secession, establish another strategic front. It's purpose: to try to achieve the same result but using a less disruptive, and in my opinion, would be more productive; and could achieve what the Commission is trying to do.

    I think the Commission should set up a sub-Committee to focus on political and financial/economic "decentralization" of the FSM; which will be consistent with the FSM Constitution. Ultimately, new "decentralization" efforts will result in the following:

    a) inherent sovereignty of each state is recognized and promoted; extra efforts are provided by the national government to recognize the value of each state;

    b) shift more funding from then national budget to the States' budget;

    c) recognize that each of the FSM states had already been in existence for ages; and have their own unique culture, language and traditional ways; and thus can continue to do so, even if each of the States had delegated its "inherent sovereignty" under the FSM Constitution;

    d) treat each of the four states with similar recognition and deference as the FSM is now doing to ROP and RMI;

    I think that if these principles of the "Micronesian essence" are recognized, it is hoped that the National Congress will be able to enact laws--budget or regulatory--to promote these concepts as they promote "decentralization" tendencies.

    Lastly, if this approach is taken, I think it'll be easier for US to recommend to the FSM National government to shift more benefits of the Compact to the states.

    No messy referendum; delay further the chance of Chuukese voters to shot down the "independence" push for now; and allowing the "decentralization" to work out first before secession or independence are considered. Just some wish.
  • We thank you all for your concerns about our desire to secede the federation. Just give us time to consult our people first before we nikitino won pertinent aspects of the movement.
  • kinen, sorry for my comments--if it sounds like I came out too intrusive. Yes, I'll stop saying anything about this subject matter for now with the hope that the movement will not have any negative impact on others--the non-Chuukese and other FSM states and the US. Who knows? Let's hope it'll work out in the end. Good luck.
  • marc, I wouldn't think of it as intrusive just that sometimes I think we are unfairly rushing the issue.
  • Chuukese who keep blaming the National Government for Chuuk's present situation, pwata iei ,sia chok tipingeni FSM National Government met ei sia osupwang ren?

    Met, NG e wisen finienong tupwuch kewe non congress, ekkei ra chok asonopano mwoni non namotongaw? Ekkewe fite fite million ra fen katou ngeni public projects, ra fet ikenai? Ikkefa ekkewe fishing market, farmers market sia rong me rong pwe ina met kewe ekkewe mwoni re tou ngeni? Ika fakkun sie tumunu ekkewe minionun mwoni, iei siaachok fakkun sokopen non mwoni.

    Ion e kotongaw ngeni nounoun ekkei mwoni me non fonuwach ei Chuuk, National Goverment? Pwata chok ekkei fitu kukkunun company re tongeni manaw, pwe sap re fakkun sine tumunun nour mwoni, repwan sinei ammarin nour mwoni. Mei wor re suki ar business won tens of thousands only, ikenai ra hundreds of thousands ika fen millions in less than twenty years. In fact there a couple I know they've only existed for ten or little over ten years and they've already reached millions in inventory alone. Cash capital almost million and other tangible assets such as lands in the millions. For example, Island Mart started from scratch. Look at it now.
  • Secession will not be any good if the same breed of leadership take on the future of Chuuk. Same kind of hearts and hands. For too long Chuuk has been screwed, and screwed big time.

    So if you want Chuuk's secession to succeed and move Chuuk forward, choose the leadership with sanity and respect in all honesty. No use intelligence if the intelligence will only be good for selected few's benefit and not giving a crap about all else.

    I strongly suggest we look at the potential and future leadership first and target a group that will be able and care to move the islands forward and start grooming them NOW!

    Otherwise, UTTI AAAPW FACHA!
  • Ese namot sipwe anini anini won legality an Chuuk epwe tou seni FSM, ion e pwung me ion e chonomwas won ar defense ika argument won ei issue, ika pwe sise ochu fengenni ach ekiek non ennetin wenecharen netipach me chungun ekiekin Chuuk me aramasen Chuuk non ennetin ach tong, ese namot ach sipwe imwuno pwun ennet upwe kapas wenechar ngeni kemi, pwan peeno chok kich, nge epwe fen ngaweseni ikenai.

    Mwaken ai kei fos?
  • Ita en io kopwe amwakena nge men pwisin kuna nge men ennet
  • Tirow womi meinisin ren osounnam
  • Ewer mwakenom mwa pwipwi sinbad. Island Mart e mwökut pun i chok ese puan pöunong ren ekoch. Ngang use ekieki pue money is the foremost reason for separation. I, for one, see the degree of irresponsible dealings at the national government especially toward Chuuk St. as the main and #1 reason. I don't believe Chuuk will ever get its fair deal at the national government. The FSM set up was orchestrated to suppress the development of Chuuk. The only remedy is for Chuuk to separate. Bold it may be but what choice does she have.
  • edited December 2017
    Kopwe chechmeni pwe kich men represented me non na National Governent, unless ke ura nge kich na si pukun ochochoto me ananie. Ina pwun use nuku met na ke ura ita nge ka tipimwan ngeni National Government men deliberate ar anganga met Chuuk epwe iei esin ren.

    Ina wewen anoi na, u ura nge u tipingeni leadership. Ewin, kich pwisin chon Chuuk me non na Congress. Pwan pwisin kich chon Chuuk me nepwunun Chuuk. Sise amari met men kawor ngeni kich non ennetin anganga.]

    Ai na awewe ren Island Mart. Men tumwun pwun men chung me netip. Kich chon Chuuk ika noun Chuuk kewe nouwis, ikkenair ekkewe Hersin Ruben repwe pwan chunguw nonnomun Island Mart, in this case, Chuuk State well being.
    Separate Chuuk from FSM with the same attitude and mindset, Chuuk remains the same or worse if not worst.

    Menni ke nukuw nge kich si nom non ikenai?
    1. "Enaano kana taka iei chok atunufich."

    2. "Eni Ruuw, nge pwan fatukatiw ruuw."
  • Ina pwun upwe fen ura nge mwakenom mwa pwipwi kinen, omusano ach sia sakkofesen mwo me eia
  • One issue that has always come up with previous discussions of Chuuk independents is this: Faichuk will want to talk next about its independence from Chuuk. I don't know what is the latest on this sentiment which had always exhibited itself even leading up to the FSM Constitution referendum--way back when. I hope it is no longer an issue; so that the independence movement can move along as proposed.
  • Marc, I believe the Chuukese have learned the lessons, having listened to these state leaders this time around.

    First, they believe Chuuk got the worst part of the FSM Federation Deal.

    Second, they believe the FSM Constitution, because it was based on compromises for the interests of other former TTPI districts, knowingly left the question of future secession vague to try to assure the former districts to change their minds at a later date. (Based on the Chuuk Commission's research of the 1975 FSM ConCon Journals, Prohibition of Secession was actually raised and debated in the relevant committee, but then was scratched at the last minute from making it into the text. We take that as a conscious act of leaving the ultimate question open).

    Third, from the Second lesson, the Chuuk Commission and the Faichuk representatives now are aware that if there is going to be an Independent Chuuk, its Constitution will definitely answer that future secession question with explicit prohibition. No part of Chuuk would seek secession in the future on the rationale that exclusive Chuuk Independence and Unity is the ultimate self-determination the Chuukese people aspire to, not with other states or cultural or linguistically different groups which will impose further restriction on a Chuuk independence.

    Fourth, the Commission and other state leaders are aware that part of the desires to separate from the FSM is economic, like Faichuk's earlier drive to become a separate state so it could receive the same amount of attention for economic development assistance as the four major states have been receiving. A Chuuk independence is based on the commitment for equal economic development distribution to all the four remaining regions of Chuuk, outside of Weno. In fact, at the present, while Secession is being debated in Chuuk, the Chuuk State IDP Plan has identified priority infrastructure projects in the remaining regions, and foreign investors negotiating with Chuuk state for investments, have been directed to the regions outside of Weno to assess viability in projects such as aqua-culture, resorts, seaports and sustainable energy generations.

    To make it short, the lesson is learned that to sustain viability of an independent Chuuk, the needs of the various regions must be addressed sincerely.

    On your suggestion for "Decentralization of functions and resources in the FSM National Government," remember that idea actually came up in the Kosrae State-National Leadership last year: for the states and national government to first consult on priorities for national appropriatons of development funding. For some reason, it did not come up again in the recent FSM-states Leadership Conference held in Chuuk last month.

    Such suggestions for "Decentralization" is not new, but it also depends to a great extent on the willingness of the National Government to bind itself to such ideas without definite constitutional mandates. I think Sinbad has partly pointed out part of the problem with such "decentralization" suggestion in his post above on the congressional pork barrel system.

    For example, it is no secret the National Government has attained financial self-sufficiency since a couple of years back through the fishing license fees and now the new foreign business corporate taxes through the MRA agency. We now understand the FSM steadily realized national revenues close to $100 million annually.

    Since they attained such financial sufficiency, they started (1) putting money into the FSM Trust Fund, (2) legislated to assign the national government's share of the Compact funds to the states, (3) reduce their shares of local revenue in favor of the states, (4) started providing direct grants to the states about $4 million to Chuuk State (the largest state) starting from about two years ago.

    However, on the other hand, our Congress has also steadily increased the amount of its pork barrel public project system as a result of this favorable increase in national revenues. This year alone, we understand the members of congress would be distributing close to $1 million project funds each, (so far $900,000 each) appropriated.

    So, "decentralization" would be preferable, but would that be mandatory to safeguard against future changes of hearts at the national level during changed circumstances? And how much "decentralization" by the FSM National Government would be sufficient for each state's respective financial circumstances once we all hit the 2023 Cliff, and at the same time when the impact of the Trump-Republican $1.5 trillion Tax Cut has started hampering the US' future ability to assist with financial assistance at around that time??

    If we are to take the Republicans' rationale for their Tax Cut, "it is to give more money back to American businesses so they can create more businesses and jobs for the American people.!" That is surprisingly a commendable, benevolent Republican act since Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves! But that is very far from assuring excess revenues for the US Treasury to subsidize Micronesian governments' budgetary shortfalls after 2023.

  • Thank you Sabino. Let's hope and pray that IDP can be attained within the remaining years of the COFA or not long after termination of the funding provision.

    Kinisou pwun sia pwan kuna ekkoch ekiek epwe tongeni anisi ewe Independent Chuuk.
  • Taxi-Womw, thank you for taking the time to explain, describe and elaborate on some of the topics that have been raised regarding the on-going secession efforts--especially questions in the minds of people not familiar with the Chuuk's history of the quest for independence.

    If it's okay with you, I will print a copy of this (your) post; and share it with people and friends who are questioning the motives and the current thinking of the new Chuuk leadership. It shows that the current efforts are not based simply on emotions but based on real identifiable and quantifiable issues--as you have described.

    Clearly, you and the Commission have taken into account the lessons you and others have learned about Chuuk's history of struggle for your state's independence even prior to the joining in the FSM Constitutional experiment. I get the feeling that you are saying that in hindsight, Chuuk should have rejected the FSM Constitution along with ROP and RMI; and should have used all these years and its own COFA to develop Chuuk that is for Chuukese. Sorry, if I am not saying it right.

    Lastly, I agree that "decentralization" can only work if the FSM national leadership were to do their part. Good luck to all. Peace.
  • Who owns the projected shortfall of $21 mil comes post 2023.. Chuuk or FSM..or joint?!

    Time for this commission to recommend to Chuuks lawmakers to table this secession movement and seek statutory protection and means to focus on the financial challenge. Time to earn some serious credibility points ...and stabilize Chuuks economy first. Rebuild trust.., reignite that Chuukese pride, then unleash...
  • "A moruk nöht" Saka. A precise surgical intervention is the only means now.
  • Arguments aside, there is another question that should be in the mind of every voter and citizen of Chuuk: If the voters reject the movement to secede the FSM, then what next? The "Commission" should be honest with the people, after all it is their money which is being spent on this effort,

    kinen, I hope you are not offended by my comments.
  • But, Truth, the answer is there: If the chuukese people rejects secession at the plebiscite, chuuk remains in the FSM Federation. Like an unwanted partner, I would presume.

    Saka, the $21 million shortfall would be for Chuuk alone (in annual budgets after 2023 based on current state budgets). I do not recall the projections for the other states. For practical purposes, if Chuuk were to become independent, they would add on more functions as a national entity like foreign affairs and maritime surveillance, which would require more revenues. The last time I saw the FSM Foreign Affairs operations budget layouts, it was about $3 million + a year. Chuuk would need to start with at least $40 million operations budget ($31 million currently plus $10 million to cover foreign affairs, surveillance, others), in addition to infrastructure and economic development funds.

    Marc, if you think any of our Microforum posts would be of any help, each of us is welcome to use each other's postings.
  • Do you mean the distinguished Chuuk commission and her members are dishonest to their beloved constituents? NOT nice.
    Truth, that is never a question in the Chuukese minds. We knew the answer all along.
    I would think that that is your personal wonder Truth.
    It's not nice to pick other people's minds.
    Wish you a blessed holiday season.
  • Taxi-Womw,

    That is good to know. What you have shared may help to allay some of the fears people might have.


    Many Chuukese are very much concerned about public funds and how they are used, or misused. Even the proponents of the secession movement have so much as point to the way the FSM is distributing public funds as one of the compelling reason for them to advocate separation from the federation so Chuuk can have more funds and the sole say in how the funds are spent.

    Comments by Chuukese in this forum have highlighted the facts that some of the leaders in Chuuk are not trusted with public funds. There has been concerns as posted by Chuukese questioning if the effort is a waste of taxpayers' money.

    I am only posing a question. I am sorry if I have gotten under your skin. But here is no point in getting personal about this public issue. Peace to you in this season of glad tidings and love for mankind.
  • I'm not dead set on this I'm just seeing it for what it is. Manny mori never once said this was illegal. If this is what they vote for then ill support it if not then ill support that too.
  • I think that sort of sums up what Taxi has been posting: the Commission will be pushing for its secession strategy but if the Chuuk voters don't give a majority approval, the Commission is okay with continuing on under the FSM Constitution.
  • 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!!
Sign In or Register to comment.