Asiatic Labour for the Solomons

A Resident’s Protest

To the Editor.

Sir, —Nothing is more characteristic, at the present time, than the ardent desire to “burst forth into literary song” at the slightest pro vocation—with probably the ulterior motive of receiving recompense for the trouble, or com mendation from friends or those in authority, with a lower status of mentality than the author of the article.

The article signed “A. Olsen” and appear ing in The P.I.M. dated November 23, 1931, is certainly open to criticism, and although it is advisable to avoid criticism of certain specific faiths, one feels justified in not recon ciling statements of the nature made by A. Olsen, notwithstanding his 26 years of residence in this group.

I suggest that a highly important manipu lation of political and racial business requires careful consideration, and the facts of the article are too highly suggestive of theories and inferences, which seem to reach the ul timate limits of speculations and nothing but the bracing mental discipline of racial study in its broadest aspect will protect the mind addressed to the consideration of facts from conclusions, which shows same to be erro neous.

I should have thought that the comprehen sive articles appearing in The P.I.M. during 1931, dealing with the racial question (troubles in Samoa, New Hebrides, etc.) would have been sufficient to convince Mr. A. Olsen, or any other advocate of imported labour, that same was not advisable, and thus unconscious assertions could have been avoided.

There is one firm in this Group—to wit.

Levers—who are advocating the importation of Asiatic labour (Chinese) and it certainly seems an obsession with them. It would be interesting to know why, during 1931, this firm paid off hundreds of partly time-expired indentured labourers, yet they immediately commenced recruiting again, notwithstanding that each indentured labourer costs a con

siderable sum to recruit. I suggest that no well conducted business firm, dependent upon native labour. could tolerate such a policy, yet they are the firm advocating the impor tation of Asiatic labour.

We of the Solomons have been complaining of the hard times, and asking the Govern ment, through the Advisory Council, to eco nomise in every respect: (1) A cut in native wages. (2) A percentage reduction in official sal aries. (3) The deletion of certain Government positions. (4) The importation of Asiatic labour. (Lever’s request.) What a foolish request the latter seems.

Surely it points to minds that work in in verse ratio. If this was granted it would undoubtedly mean; fl) Increase of Government staff (consid erable) ; (2) increase of wages to Asiatics; (3) increase .of indenture fees; (4) increase brought into this Group on a large scale, ten are additional enlightening facts of con of returning fees;(s) importation of Asiatic diseases (yellow fever, for instance).

If imported labour (especially Asiatic) is brought into the Group on a large scale, those who have been advocating such impor tation will soon have ample opportunity of proving that, instead of the “sick ewe lamb” (copra) mentioned in Mr. Olsen’s article, remaining sick, owing to the shortage of island labour, the Solomon Islands’ planters and settlers will look and feel more like “cryptorchid billy-goats.” Mr. Olsen’s ver sion may receive the consideration and com mendation of “general opinion,” but I hon estly think it will not influence the small planter and genuine recruiter, or the major ity of genuine planters.—I am. etc.

H.C.S.

B.S.I., 10th January, 1932.