I made my farewell speech to the Hawaii House of Representatives. I am extremely honored to have been a part of this great institution.

Yesterday, Thursday, April 29, 2010, we voted on a number of bills.  In a last move, Representative Blake Oshiro made four motions and I seconded them all to allow the Hawaii House of Representatives to make a vote on allowing civil union contractual rights to all in Hawaii (separate from the marriage law). The final vote was 31 “yes” votes and 20 “no” votes.  Entering any partnership is just like a business partnership, everything is shared: tax liability, tax incentives, privacy, personal property, and real property.  When there is a dissolution of the partnership, everything shared is divided.  The law protects each partner to be fairly treated.

If you are free, come down to my fundraiser for Lt. Governor on Thursday, April 29, 2010 from 5:30 P.M. to 7:30 P.M. at Chai’s Island Bistro in Aloha Tower Market Place, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813. Suggested Donation: $100 (Up to $100 donation from each individual will be matched by the state since we are participating in …the state expenditure limit program). Thank you. 🙂

Representative Jon Riki Karamatsu

Written Remarks for the House Journal

Senate Bill 532, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1, Conference Draft 1

Relating to Limiting Civil Liability

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

58^th Day, Final Reading

Ordinary Calendar

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support.

            Mr. Speaker, under current law, when faced by a threat on one’s life, one does not have a duty to retreat in one’s home or office.  Senate Bill 532, Senate Draft 1, House Draft 1, Conference Draft 1 goes further where an owner of real property or an agent of the owner lawfully on the premises by consent of the owner, shall not be liable to any perpetrator engaged in any of the felonies involving violence as set forth in this bill for any injury or death to the perpetrator that occurs upon that property during the course of or after the commission of such felony, or when a reasonable person would believe that commission of a felony as set forth in this bill is imminent.  However, if a perpetrator is injured, the perpetrator must be charged with the criminal offense and convicted of the criminal offense or of a lesser included felony or misdemeanor.  Further, the limitation of civil liability applies only when the perpetrator’s conduct in furtherance of the commission of a felony specified in the bill proximately or legally causes the injury or death.

            I have to admit that I struggled over this bill for the past two legislative sessions.  I will go over the internal struggle I dealt with and why I came to agree with this conference draft before us.  Last year, this bill stalled in conference since there was a stalemate between my counterpart in the Senate and myself.  I drafted the House Draft 1 as narrow as I could with the intent to prevent any unintended consequences as best as I could.   In the House Draft 1, the limitation of civil liability only applied to the owners.  In contrast, the Senate defined an “owner” to mean owner, the occupant, tenant, or anyone authorized to be on the property by the owner or the occupant, including a guest or a family or household member, employee, or agent of the owner lawfully on the premises.  Second, the House version limited civil liability to only apply when the perpetrator who is injured is convicted of a felony.  It did not apply to when a perpetrator is killed.  In contrast, the Senate version had limited liability for any injury or death to the perpetrator and had no requirement of a criminal conviction of the perpetrator.  Third, the Senate version stated that the owner did not have a duty to warn the perpetrator of the felony and that he or she is armed and ready to cause bodily harm or death.  The House version had no similar language.  Finally, the last substantive difference is the Senate version had an additional subsection that did not limit the liability of an owner for injury or death caused to individuals other than the perpetrator of the felony.

In this conference draft, I agreed to the Senate to not limit civil liability exclusively to owners, or private owners, for a couple of reasons:

1. The owner is not always the person residing on the property or needing to defend it.  For example, a renter or a significant other is not the legal owner of the property, but may rise to his or her own defense while residing there; and
2. Private persons are not the only ones holding title to property.  Government housing projects, for example, are owned by the State and we would not want to prevent lessees of government property to be forbidden from protecting themselves in their own homes.

When I was younger, I trained in Aikido, the Japanese martial art that teaches one to the emphasis on self-defense.  When attacked, one uses the force of one’s attacker to his or her advantage to subdue him, thus avoiding killing him.  However, even with great discipline, under a very difficult situation, one’s self defense force may be too great, which may result in the unintended death of one’s attacker.  Killing another should be avoided at all costs, but even with that train of thought in mind, the death of the perpetrator could still occur.  After much thought and analysis, I agreed to the Senate to limit civil liability for an owner or agent of an owner who injured or killed a perpetrator upon the owner’s property during the course of or after the commission of a felony listed in this bill.  On the other hand, the Senate agreed to the House version requiring a criminal conviction of an injured perpetrator in order to trigger the limitation of civil liability for the owner or agent of the owner.

I agreed to the Senate Draft 1 language, which the House did not have that says that the limitation of liability shall not be affected by the failure of the owner  to warn the perpetrator of the felony and that the owner is armed and ready to cause bodily harm or death.  In my rationale, when one is faced by an imminent threat of harm, one has to make a split decision to save his or her life or the lives of others.  The time it takes one to warn the perpetrator of the felony and that he or she is armed and ready to cause bodily harm or death could result in the owner’s death and the death of those around him or her.

For the last difference between the House and Senate on this bill, the Senate Draft 1 had an additional subsection that did not limit the liability of an owner for injury or death caused to individuals other than the perpetrator of the felony.  I agreed with this safeguard because an owner should still be liable for negligently injuring or killing an innocent third party or a third party of a lesser crime.

Finally, I agreed to this conference draft of Senate Bill 532 because there is a list of criteria an owner or agent of an owner in real property must meet in order to qualify in limiting his or her civil liability.  These safeguards bring balance in protecting the perpetrator.  The following are the criteria needed to limit civil liability for an owner or agent of an owner:

1. The perpetrator must be engaged in one of the following felonies, which are higher level felonies that mostly involves violence:
   1. Murder in the first or second degree;
   2. Attempted murder in the first or second degree;
   3. Any class A felony as provided in the Hawaii Penal Code, including any attempt or conspiracy to commit a crime classified as a class A felony;
   4. Any class B felony involving violence or physical harm as provided in the Hawaii Penal Code;
   5. Any felony punishable by imprisonment for life;
   6. Any other felony in which the person inflicts serious bodily injury on another person; and
   7. Any felony in which the person personally used a firearm or a dangerous or deadly weapon.
2. The limitation on liability applies only when the perpetrator’s conduct in furtherance of the commission of a felony specified in this section proximately or legally causes the injury or death.
3. This section does not limit the liability of an owner that otherwise  exists for:
   1. Willful, wanton, or criminal conduct; or
   2. Willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, or structure; or
   3. Injury or death caused to individuals other than the perpetrator of the felony.

It is for all these reasons that I support this final version of Senate Bill 532.  Thank you.

Representative Jon Riki Karamatsu

Floor Speech

Senate Bill 2897, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 3, Conference Draft 1

Relating to Highway Safety

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

58^th Day, Final Reading

Ordinary Calendar

I rise in support of this measure but with reservations.

The purpose of this bill is to make further amendments to an ignition interlock statute that will come into effect next year.  I agree with making needed corrections to the statute. 

However, the insertion of a criminal sanction against the exercise of a privacy right is beyond “fine tuning” of the statutory provisions for the ignition interlock law.  Criminalizing the refusal to submit to a test infringes upon important personal rights that in the past this legislature has been mindful of protecting.  Under Hawaii case law, unless injury or death is involved, the person being requested to give a breath, blood, or urine sample for a DUI investigation has a right to refuse as set out in statute.  This is clearly set out in the case of State of Hawaii v. Entrekin,   98 Haw. 221 (2002).

Under our implied consent statute, HRS §291E-11 states that a person is deemed to have given consent, subject to this part, to a test or tests approved by the director of health of the person’s breath, blood, or urine for the purpose of determining alcohol concentration or drug content of the person’s breath, blood, or urine.  Why do we have an implied consent for accidents not involving injury or death?  It is because actual consent is lacking.  In light of the fact that actual consent is lacking and no injury or death has occurred, the policy has been set out in statute that a person may withdraw actual consent.  The statute requires that the arrested person be “informed by a law enforcement officer that the person may refuse to submit to the testing.”  However, there are clear sanctions for refusal.  HRS§291E-65 subjects the person refusing to license suspension.  This will be in addition to requirements of the application of the ignition interlock device.  These civil penalties are not sanctions for crimes.

This measure makes criminals of people who exercise their right to refuse.  First, the statute gives the people the right to refuse.  Then, the statute strikes people down for the exercise of their right.

This measure will result in situations where the arrestee is convicted of refusal when the test result would have indicated that the arrestee was not guilty of intoxicated driving.  There is no other criminal law in Hawaii like this.  For these reasons I have grave reservations for this measure. 

Mr. Speaker, I may be the last of a line of Judiciary chairs to oversee the implied consent law.  As mentioned earlier, as chair of the Judiciary committee, my duty to this body is to inform it of any bill’s unintended consequences.  My second duty to is to ensure laws are fairly applied.  Thank you.

Representative Jon Riki Karamatsu

Floor Speech

Senate Bill 1059, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 3, Conference Draft 1

Relating to Fireworks

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

58^th Day, Final Reading

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.

In regards to setting off fireworks in Hawaii, it is unfortunate there are individuals who break the law because their wrong-doings has given a lot of momentum for those in our community who want to ban fireworks completely.  We already have stiff criminal penalties for those who disobey our fireworks laws.  Now, we are going further as there is another bill that would take away real properties of those who violate our illegal fireworks laws comparable to the law that takes away real property of those who manufacture illegal drugs. 

I support the section of the bill that would create an illegal fireworks task force to stop the importation of illegal fireworks and explosives.  This was the original intent of this measure until it was hijacked by a House floor amendment that added another section to the bill that would allow counties to enact ordinances regulating fireworks that are more stringent than state law, which could result in different laws in the various counties making it more difficult to enforce.  It is for this reason that I oppose this measure.  We already had such a law in the past allowing home rule ordinances differing with each other on what fireworks were legal.  Once the fireworks were imported into the state, there was a proliferation of smuggling of fireworks between the counties.  This was the unintended consequences when that law was enacted.  Rather, I believe our fireworks laws should be applied fairly throughout the state.  Besides, criminal law is best enforced uniformly statewide as reflected in our criminal statutes and case law.  As chair of the Judiciary committee, my duty to this body is to inform it of any bill’s unintended consequences.  My second duty is to ensure laws are fairly applied.

I want to note that many of the complaints by Hawaii residents on fireworks are already illegal such as individuals setting off fireworks outside of the times permitted by law.  Currently, fireworks can only be set off from 9:00 p.m. on New Year’s Eve to 1:00 a.m. on New Year’s Day; from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Chinese New Year’s Day; and from 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on the Fourth of July; or from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. as allowed by permit pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes section 132D-10.  Other than theses legal time slots, there is a ban on setting off fireworks.  To resolve this problem of popping fireworks outside of the times permitted by law, we need to work together by abiding by the law, supervising our children and teenagers to do the same, and reporting to law enforcement agencies. 

A second concern for Hawaii residents regarding fireworks is the amount of illegal fireworks being exploded, especially the really loud ones that shake our homes and cars.  The illegal fireworks task force would be mandated to look into ways we can prevent illegal fireworks from entering our state.  And again, we must follow the law, make sure our children do the same, and report to law enforcement agencies on any use of illegal fireworks.

Personally, I enjoy the beauty of fireworks and sharing the experience with my family and friends.  It has been a tradition in Hawaii for many years for families to pop fireworks on New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day for good luck for themselves and their loved ones, to bless their property, and to ward off evil spirits for the New Year.  I believe our current law regarding fireworks is already strong but needs to be followed and better enforced by all of us with the assistance of our law enforcement agencies.  I wish the original bill was left intact with the task force aimed at stopping illegal fireworks, but with the amendment allowing counties to enact more strict standards on fireworks than state law, I cannot support it.

Thank you.

Representative Jon Riki Karamatsu

Floor Speech

Senate Bill 2169, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 2, Conference Draft 1

Relating to Shark Fins

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

58^th Day, Final Reading

Ordinary Calendar

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition.

When the first anti-shark finning bill was passed in Hawaii, ten years ago, it was considered landmark legislation that would lead the country, if not the world, to take the necessary steps towards eradicating the practice of removing the fins of a shark and dumping the body back into the ocean.  Hawaii’s law requires the entire shark to be landed.  This body’s efforts were successful, with Congress later enacting anti-shark finning laws of its own.  

Although conservationists then hailed Hawaii’s shark finning ban as ground-breaking legislation that would save sharks from dying unnecessarily cruel deaths, the intervening ten years have apparently proven that what this body did was not enough to them.

Now, with this bill, conservationists want to go further by banning the possession of shark fins, thus eliminating any consumption of shark fins in the State of Hawaii.  I fully support the intent of this bill; however, I believe that this bill is going too far to the extreme.  As chair of the Judiciary committee, my duty to this body is to inform it of any bill’s unintended consequences.  My second duty is to ensure laws are fairly applied. 

When I passed this bill out of the Judiciary Committee, I told everyone that I would not accept any draft that does not address the concerns of all parties including those presented by the fisherman, business community, researchers, aquariums, and Chinese Community. 

First, the current law prohibiting shark finning is not only the strongest in the world, but it is working.  The fishermen I talked to felt that the current law of landing the entire shark is a good balance because the shark takes up so much space on a boat, thus, very little sharks are harvested.  Plus, when a shark is harvested, the entire shark should be used just like the fish they catch.  Conservationists argue that Hawaii will impact the entire world in regards to shark finning if we ban the possession of shark fins in Hawaii, but such a ban will have a tiny impact on the practice of shark finning in other parts of the world because our consumer market is a speck in this global economy.  Rather, to truly make a global impact on the problem of shark finning in other parts of the world, Hawaii’s ban on shark finning should be replicated in other governments around the world.  Our federal government could try to create international law that bans shark finning through international treaties. 

Second, this bill does not protect our fisherman from unintended catches.  Unlike the ivory poacher who deliberately aims a gun at a rhinoceros or elephant, the recreational or commercial fisherman casts his or her line into the ocean and hopes for the best.  Fishing is just that, “fishing.”  You don’t know what you are going to catch until you pull those lines or nets in.  Sometimes one may pull in a shark that is wounded or has died as it struggled on the line or in the net.  Instead of landing the wounded or dead shark and making use of the entire catch, fishermen will throw back an already dying or dead shark back into the ocean.  Wounded sharks thrown back into the ocean will have a slow and painful death.  In this respect, the breadth of this legislation has caused the attempt to save sharks from cruel and unnecessary deaths to backfire.

Third, according to testimony from the Department of Land and Natural Resources, sharks in Hawaii are currently considered sustainable by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  The conservationists emphasize the importance of the ecosystem, which is the community of organisms and its environment functioning as an ecological unit in nature.  Too little predators in the ocean is bad because it could cause an increase in the population of the large fish that could eat up a lot more of the medium fish.  On the contrary, too many predators in the ocean can cause a problem because they will cause a decrease in the population of the large fish, which could result in an increase in the population of the medium fish that would over-consume the small fish.  Clearly, our current law is working and maintaining a healthy population of sharks in Hawaii.  If sharks in Hawaii were in fact listed as an endangered species, then by all means, there should be a ban of possession of any part of the shark, plus let’s impose all the laws protecting endangered species including our “takings” law that includes mere harassment when an individual gets too close to the shark.

Fourth, repeatedly in our House Judiciary Committee hearing, researchers and aquarium administrators opposed the measure unless there was an exemption for them, however, they emphasized that they did not want a permitting process.  This bill does exactly what they opposed, as it requires individuals to apply for a license or permit from the Department of Land and Natural Resources to be exempt of this law for research or educational purposes.  Further, commercial aquariums will not meet the criteria to be exempted from the law if they do not conduct research or have any educational purpose.

Fifth, this bill will have a negative economic impact on the fishermen, especially to our business community.  In its current form, the bill no longer distinguishes between fins naturally attached to or separated from the body of a shark.  Therefore, it is not possible for any person other than a researcher to possess a whole shark or remove it from the ocean.  This prohibition will effectively kill any shark-fishing operation that sells whole sharks for steaks or any other kind of consumption within the State.

Sixth, I have encountered so many advocates in my eight years in this institution, and time and time again, a good number of them think that negativity can force lawmakers to agree with them through their use of threats and personal attacks rather than an honest debate on policy.  Believe me, I had my share of attacks by people, especially with my tenure as chair of the Judiciary committee, and I consider the conservationists’ attacks as uncalled for except for the Humane Society of the United States, which I enjoy working with.

Seventh, this bill unfairly targets our local Chinese community who has traditions of serving shark fin soup for special occasions such as weddings, important business dinners, New Year’s Day, as well as the medicinal practices.  Outsiders and transplants into Hawaii continue to impose their beliefs upon the multicultural community in Hawaii.  So what is next?  Will they introduce a bill to ban kamaboko in Hawaii if it contains shark meat in it?  For Americans of Japanese ancestry and many locals, the importance of eating ozoni soup on New Year’s Day as our first meal for good luck cannot be comprehended by those who do not understand our culture.  The same goes for the importance of serving shark fin soup for special occasions and the use of shark fin for medicinal purposes.  Many in the Chinese community have brought me in and shared their culture with me because of my openness to learn and practice their culture.  In fact, I am wearing feng shui beads made of rubies to help bring balance within me.  Likewise, as Judiciary chair, I seek to find balance in the laws.

Ten years ago, we passed a law banning shark finning in Hawaii to prevent cruelty to sharks.  Now conservationists want us to stop shark finning around the world by having us go further and ban the possession of shark fins in Hawaii.  Rather, the conservationists need to lobby the rest of the world to replicate our law banning shark finning, which they touted ten years ago as the landmark legislation that would lead the world.

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Representative Jon Riki Karamatsu

Written Remarks (Forgot to stand up on the floor to insert these comments into the House journal)

Senate Bill 2807, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 2, Conference Draft 1

Proposing an Amendment to Article VII, Section 6, of the Hawaii Constitution, Relating to the Tax Rebate Requirement

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

58^th Day, Final Reading

Ordinary Calendar           

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support.

This bill proposes a constitutional amendment to article VII, section 6, of the Hawaii Constitution to authorize the Legislature to determine whether excess funds should be used as tax refunds or tax credits to taxpayers of the State or diverted to one or more funds to serve as temporary supplemental sources of funding for the State in times of an emergency, economic downturn, or unforeseen reduction in revenue.  If this bill passes and is approved by the voters of Hawaii, the Legislature will be able to better prepare for future economic downturns by setting aside more money during the good economic times instead of returning funds to the tax payers through a tax refund or tax credit as required by the current language of our Hawaii Constitution.  It is in my long term goal to make Hawaii a top economy per capita and have a large enough reserve fund to better protect Hawaii in even the worst economic conditions that could occur in the future. 

Thank you.

Representative Jon Riki Karamatsu

Written Remarks for the House Journal

House Bill 2725, House Draft 1, Senate Draft 1, Conference Draft 1

Relating to Animals

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

58^th Day, Final Reading

Consent Calendar

I rise in support.

The purpose of this bill is to revise laws prohibiting the cruel treatment of pet animals by specifying the standards of care that an owner must provide a pet animal, including the type of pet enclosure and under what conditions and when veterinary care must be provided.  The new amendment requires that the area of confinement in a primary pet enclosure must: Provide access to shelter; Be constructed of safe materials to protect the pet animal from injury; Enable the pet animal to be clean, dry, and free from excess waste or other contaminants that could affect the pet animal’s health; Provide the pet animal with a solid surface or resting platform that is large enough for the pet animal to lie upon in a normal manner, or, in the case of a caged bird a perch that is large enough for the bird to perch upon in a normal manner; Provide sufficient space to allow the pet animal to, at minimum, do the following: Easily stand, sit, lie, turn around, and make all other normal body movements in a comfortable manner for the pet animal, without making physical contact with any other animal in the enclosure; and Interact safely with other animals within the enclosure.  Finally, one must provide veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering for the pet animal.

A pet animal is defined under section 711-1100, Hawaii Revised Statutes, as “a dog, cat, domesticated rabbit, guinea pig, domesticated pig, or caged birds (passeriformes, piciformes, and psittaciformes only) so long as not bred for consumption.  Nothing in this bill is intended to apply to animals that are raised for food, such as any livestock or chickens that are raised for consumption or for eggs, nor to any pigs or rabbits that are raised specifically for consumption.

Thank you.

Representative Jon Riki Karamatsu

Senate Bill 2807, Senate Draft 2, House Draft 2

Proposing an Amendment to Article VII, Section 6, of the Hawaii Constitution, Relating to the Tax Rebate Requirement.

3^rd Reading

April 6, 2010

I rise in support.

This bill proposes a constitutional amendment to article VII, section 6, of the Hawaii Constitution to authorize the Legislature to determine whether excess funds should be used as tax refunds or tax credits to taxpayers of the State or diverted to one or more funds to serve as temporary supplemental sources of funding for the State in times of an emergency, economic downturn, or unforeseen reduction in revenue.  If this bill passes and is approved by the voters of Hawaii, the Legislature will be able to better prepare for future economic downturns by setting aside more money during the good economic times instead of returning funds to the tax payers through a tax refund or tax credit as required by the current language of our Hawaii Constitution.  It is in my long term goal to make Hawaii a top economy per capita and have a large enough reserve fund to better protect Hawaii in even the worst economic conditions that could occur in the future.

Thank you.

I will be making my farewell speech to the Hawaii House of Representatives on Thursday, April 29, 2010 from 10:00 a.m. in the Hawaii House of Representatives Chambers.

I consider the House a great political institution in the State of Hawaii because one can master his or her skills.  It is in the House where one must understand the issues quickly, especially controversial issues because one is up for election every other year.  We are tested on our votes constantly.  It is in the House where one masters the art of campaigning, especially grassroots campaigning because one is so close to the community.  I have walked my district ten times in my eight-year career, which is about 65,000 homes. 

Members come and go in the Hawaii House of Representatives.  Political insiders say the average time a member stays in the House is eight years.  Some are voted out, others retire, many go on to better paying jobs, and there are those who leave to run for higher office.  I am running for Lieutenant Governor of Hawaii this year, 2010, the Year of the Tiger.  I had planned on running for statewide office since 1996, thus in 2002, when I was elected into the House, I knew I would only be serving for eight years.

I feel happy that I was able to achieve many of my goals for the State of Hawaii.  Then there are some issues which I pushed that fell short, but rocked Hawaii as people all over the state discussed them.  A few laws I opposed slipped through here and there, but I always gave it my best fight.

I traveled to various states in our country for meetings and foreign countries for trade missions.

I got to meet thousands of people from all walks of life as I attended hundreds of meetings and events a year and campaigned the communities.

I got to meet royalty, politicians, entertainers, and celebrities.

Most important is all the friends I have made; some have passed away.  They are all in my heart.

I will miss the Hawaii House of Representatives, the greatest institution in the State of Hawaii.

Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu Fundraiser for Lt. Governor
Thursday, April 29, 2010
5:30 P.M. to 7:30 P.M.
Chai’s Island Bistro
Aloha Tower Market Place
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Suggested Donation: $100
(Up to $100 donation from each individual will be matched by the state since we are participating in the state expenditure limit program)

Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu Fundraiser for Lt. Governor
Thursday, April 29, 2010
5:30 P.M. to 7:30 P.M.
Chai’s Island Bistro
Aloha Tower Market Place
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Suggested Donation: $100
(Up to $100 donation from each individual will be matched by the state since we are participating in the state expenditure limit program)

On Saturday, March 27, 2010, from 10:00 A.M. to 1:15 P.M., I participated in the Progressive Democrats of Hawaii Candidates Speed Dating where all the candidates for Lieutenant Governor was introduced to the crowd and later the crowd broke down into six smaller groups where each candidate could speak for 11 minutes and answer questions. At the end, each candidate could speak to the entire crowd for a few minutes as a finale. I had a lot of fun!  Above is a video clip showing all six candidates making their final statement to the crowd done by Senator Gary Hooser’s campaign.

Funeral for Eric Maehara

Thursday, April 8, 2010

6:00 P.M.

Iolani School, St. Alban’s Chapel

Obituary

Eric Takashi Maehara

State Representative Jon Riki Karamatsu will be a guest speaker for University of Hawaii at Manoa Students of Urban & Regional Planning (USURP) next Friday, April 9, 2010 from 5:30 to 6:30 PM in Saunders Hall, Room 116.

The topic of his presentation is Agricultural Land Use and Urban Core Intensification (Redevelopment for Housing in the urban land use classification) Legislation, and highlights from the 2010 Legislative Session of the Hawaii State House of Representatives.

Stanford Carr, Eric Maehara, Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu, and Rep. Jerry L. Chang. We, together with his children and friends, surprised Eric for his birthday I believe in 2007.

 Julio Iglesias and Willie Nelson – “To All the Girls I Loved Before” – (This was one of Eric’s favorite karaoke songs that he loved to sing with his good friend Rep. Jerry L. Chang.  They would always rock the crowd!)

Good Memories:

In the last eight years, I am so fortunate I got to spend time with Eric Maehara.  I would visit his office or he would stop by at mine.  We spent a lot of times at Rep. Jerry L. Chang’s office. 

Every so often, Eric Maehara, Rep. Jerry L. Chang, Stanford Carr, and I would hang out.  Beginning in my late twenties up to present time, Eric, Jerry, and Stanford would always joke around how Eric was the oldest brother; Jerry was the baby brother; Stanford was the baby, baby brother; and I was the baby, baby, baby, brother.  I thought, how do I fit in with these handsome, smart, and distinguished gentlemen.  I had so much to learn, and they were good role models for me.  In recent years, Eric would say to me in response to the others’ statements, “I’m too old to be your brother.  I am more like an uncle.”  We would all laugh.

I really enjoyed singing karaoke with Eric.  Eric and Rep. Jerry L. Chang would always sing the Julio Iglesias and Willie Nelson Song, “To All the Girls I loved Before.”  It was funny because the two of them has always had women interested in them in their bachelor life.  If Jerry wasn’t with us, once in awhile, I would have to sing in place of him with Eric.  One night, I sang “Shimauta” by The Boom and he loved it.  He made me sing it everytime, even when I wasn’t in the singing mood.

Eric was very strong like samurai.  He was also so kind and generous.  When people wanted to help him or give him things, he always refused.  Once, Eric, Stacey Hayashi, and I went to the Izuma Taishya Temple to pray for Linda Tengan Kilworth for a successful surgery for her aneurism, as there was a 50/50 chance she could die in the surgery.  Once at a funeral, in front of the picture of a person who passed, he bowed and made a prayer.  When he got cancer, he didn’t want people to worry about him.  One time he was in the hospital, Luella Costales and I visited him and he told us to go back to work and don’t worry about him.  In fact, he wanted to leave and probably go to work despite being told that he had to stay at the hospital.  He even looked at a legal case for our friend Linda while he was in the hospital once.  This year, I tried to take him out to lunch, but last minute he said he had to do some work.  That’s how he was, he put his work for the State of Hawaii at a high level.  More importantly, he placed his family and friends before himself.  Whenever, we parted ways, he would hug me and say, “You know I love you.”  He said that to his friends.  He was so strong like bushido and yet, so caring at the same time.

My friendship with Eric has come full circle as his father Angel Maehara and my grandpa, Maurice Karamatsu were friends, thus, it has been an honor for me.

There are words of support Eric said that I keep close, which gives me so much more energy to blast forward as hard as I can towards my future.

 Frank Mills – “Music Box Dancer”

I have lost a lot of loved ones.  I dedicate this song, “Music Box Dancer” to all my family and friends who passed away.  I miss them so much.  It is the only song that can bring so much joy in my heart, yet so much sadness at the same time.  I will make the most of my life and enjoy my family and friends.  However, when it is my time to die, I look forward to seeing all of my loved ones who passed away before me.

Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu and Eric Maehara at Karamatsu's February 18, 2010 fundraiser at St. Andrew's Priory.

Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu and Eric Maehara Karamatsu's February 18, 2010 fundraiser at St. Andrew's Priory.

“Shimauta” – The Boom:  This is a song Eric Maehara would always have me sing whenever we were at Maru or other karaoke bars.  I sang the Japanese version of this Okinawan song.  I dedicate this song to him.

I am saddened to have lost a friend, Eric Maehara who passed away on Thursday, April 1, 2010.  I got to become friends with him through Representative Jerry L. Chang who is also a friend of mine.  My grandpa Maurice Karamatsu was a friend of his father, Angel Maehara, thus, it was an honor that I became friends with Eric.  He was such a genuine and good person.  He was also a great attorney.  When Eric Maehara and I hung out at the karaoke bars, he would always place a song for me to sing called “Shimauta”.  After I first sang it in front of a crowd, I could tell he liked that song.  I have so many great memories with him.  At my August 26, 2009 fundraiser at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel, he collapsed outside on the lawn towards the ocean.  When I went out to see if he was okay, there were paramedics and several other friends by him.  He told me with tears in his eyes to get back to my fundraiser.  I knelt down on the grass towards him and he used all his effort to hug me even though the paramedics tried to stop him.  He loved politics and being at the state capitol.  No matter how ill he was, he enjoyed working on the many bills for the legislature.  Eric came to my Fundraiser at St. Andrew’s Priory on February 18, 2010.  That was the last time I spoke to him.  I will miss him a lot.