Recommendations On Samoa Questioned

Northern Advocate, 4 December 1947, Page 5

Recommendations On Samoa Questioned

LAKE SUCCESS, Thu. (12.30 pan.) When the Trusteeship Council began today consideration of the report of the United Nations Mission on greater powers of self-government for Western Samoa M. Awni K'nalidy (Irak) said the report evidently was thorough and sincere, but he questioned some recommendations.

He singled out for special criticism recommendations which would provide for European residents of Western Samoa a disproportionate representation in the Government, and the right of Europeans to trial by the European Chief Judge or Commissioner.

M. Khalidy also sought clarification of the exact powers for the proposed High Commissioner. If these powers included veto over money bills Samoans would be left with very little self-government. Mr George Laking. of the New Zealand Government’s Samoan administration, attended the session to answer questions. M. Pierre Ryckmans (Belgium), replying on behalf of the mission to M. Khalidy’s criticism, said Europeans in Western Samoa had played a part in the economic development of the country out of all proportion to their numbers. WEIGHTED REPRESENTATION The mission felt that this should be recognised by granting them “weighted” representation in the Government. This decision would benefit Europeans and Samoans. M. Rychmans added that Samoan judges were competent in Samoan law but their knowledge of European law was too limited to warrant their using judicial power under its provisions. Mr Laking explained that Samoan coui’ts consisted of both European and Samoan officials, and the New Zealand Government was making a study of adjusting problems created by the different traditions and practices of the two sections of the population. Senor Arturo Morales (Costa Rica) said the report should give a more detailed explanation of the measures intended to advance the Samoans to complete self-government.

It was evident that facilities for health and education now were inadequate and there would have to be specific proposals for improvements. Senor Morales said there appeared to be little difference between the role of Administrator as it now existed under New Zealand’s trusteeship and a High Commissioner as envisaged in the mission’s report. NOT N.Z. OFFICIAL M. Ryckmans replied that the essential difference was that the Administrator derived power directly and exclusively from the New Zealand Government, whereas a High Commissioner would derive power from his office of President of the Council of State of Samoa. The High Commissioner would, therefore, be in essence a Samoan, not a New Zealand official. The High Commissioner-would have power shared by Samoan representatives, whereas the Administrator is the sole authority. The Council made no decision and the discussion will be continued tomorrow.