Editor’S Mailbag

'Two-Faced' In The Solomons

I am a retired US Marine who, as a young man, nearly laid down my life fighting the Japanese in the Guadalcanal Campaign.

Times were rough then and the Solomon Islanders were mighty glad to see my ship in their waters. I came back, with memories of the beautiful islands and the friendly people I knew drawing me like a magnet over the years. I came in my own sailboat so I could enjoy my retirement years cruising among the South Sea Is lands.

When I got to the Solomons with my family I was told I had to post a cash bond of $3O 000 for my vessel and also pay $lOO for a “light fee”.

Well, nobody has that kind of money on hand and what other country has ever asked for such a ridiculous amount of money just to visit their country? I planned on staying awhile in the Solomons and thought I’d get my boat hauled and the bottom fixed.

I expected to spend a lot of money there over my stay but my cash comes in over a monthly basis. I wouldn’t come up with a bond for my boat anyway. If I did sell my boat the guy who bought it would have to pay the duty, not me. Also, who in the Solomons has got a 100 000 bucks to pay for my boat?

Also, I had no intention of selling my boat and still don’t. As for the $lOO light fee, I wouldn’t pay that either as I was told I had to pay it even if I were just passing through and spending four days in the Solomons. What other country makes a tourist pay $lOO just to stop by on the way to somewhere else?

I left, angered by the idea that I could not visit my friends I had not seen since the war. I sailed across the Pacific to come back to the Solomons and the Solomons treated me worse than any other country Eve ever sailed to.

Well, I thought the light fee and bond harassment were the ridiculous effects of British col onialism, in particular. I also heard that the head of Customs was British and that he set the whole thing up. I

wasn’t mad at the Solomon Islan ders as I thought they were simply unaware of what the British were doing. I wondered how the British had managed to provoke a situation that was obviously against the best interest of the Solomon people.

Then, after I had flown home, leaving the yachting life to my son, I received a copy of PIM from him in which the Chief Minister of the Solomons defended the light fee. (PIM, Mar. p2l).

The Solomon Islanders are, ac cording to the Chief Minister, re sponsible for the anti-yacht (anti visitor) law.

I don’t mind telling you I am really angry now. Of all the coun tries in the world, I never expected the Solomons to be so two-faced.

They welcomed the US in 1944 when their necks were on the Japanese chopping blocks and today they pass a law which will not even let me visit their islands. Well, I won’t be going back. I’m sorry now for the bullet that nearly killed me in 1944.

I’ve never regretted it until now.

Sincerely,

Lawrence O’Brien

Florida, USA.

More!

When abominating words such as “racism”, “whitie”, “anti-whitie” and “black pantherism” are read, one invariably has to adjust one’s lenses before reading on. The time it takes to do this would be sufficient to make a liar or otherwise of the reader. As for the writer, “with the fulness of the heart the mouth

speaks!”

So it was interesting to read (PIM, June, p 22) of an ardent yachtie who,

after some personal disappointment

with Hilda, his wife (or husband), a fish hook or some nonsensical troop, ventured to set himself up as judge supreme and accused the Solomons of being “racist” and “anti-whitie”.

His point is taken, and I am glad to suppose that Klaus Schaffer does not own a group of lovely islands

with clean waters and unspoiled sur roundings, or we will have cause to see (if not already), enlarged on mile-high notices (and backed by the Gestapo), what’s written deep in his heart; “No Black Bathers”; “Yachts With White Crews, Pass”.

If Quint’s “very friendly and helpful people” should put up a “SIOO light fee”, how much more would the Schaffers demand with their snug friendliness?

I am not saying that the Slugged Yachtie brothers are not justified in their grievances, but if yachties with only their “sailor’s-privilege” right should complain, how much more right would the Solomons’ authori ties have in making a ruling and in setting a fee they consider proper on free-bounty-seekers who bring nothing to the Solomons but their whitie smiles?

PIM had this to say of the ESCAPADE (May, pB9) . after two months cruising . . the men went diving .. . but said they saw only two anchors”.

Are we to believe that yachties only go diving once, and that they leave their 10 fingers tucked away in their cabins before they drive in?

Perhaps Schaffer would say that it’s a tourist’s right too to be a “finder

keeper”?

I don’t know if Mr Kenilorea is “reading up Idi Amin’s tourist poli cies ...”, but I for one, would like to read up Foster’s tourist policies.

Could you send me a copy Mr Schaffer? Please send me a copy of your own country’s tourist policies too.

It’s amusing to see that Schaffer tried to group his HILDA and other yachts with “the small inter-island boats that come from Bougainville Can you say that a boat of human cargo from a nuclear polluted zone and a boat of con sumer goods from a nuclear-free zone are classified as the same?

Bougainvilleans are in the

Chief Minister Mr Peter Kenilorea...he defended the light fee.

SOLOMONS, and there’s no fear of epidemics or unauthorised non medicinal cure-seekers coming from there. Remember, restrictions are put up only because of tear, not because of the number of gold teeth the other has.

I am reminded of a poem by the Cook Island poet, M. Tognia: Yet long ago you saw me as no different from the smell you throw.

Now you pretend not to remember

Why?

Let me assure Schaffer that the Solomons waters are not fenced.

Sail through. But remember, if you stop over, you are no longer in your own front yard.

Charles Galamuri

Honiara.

And More!

I wish to add a few comments on the subject of the $100 fee now im posed on yachts visiting the Solomon Islands. It is well known in Honiara that this tax was initiated by Mr John Green, an adviser to Customs and formerly Chief Customs Officer. This was done, not as an act of the legislature, but sim ply by the broader application of an existing regulation designed for large commercial ships.

Ostensibly, this tax is a light duty which serves to obtain funds for the maintainence of aids to navigation from those who benefit from them.

In fact the money collected does not go into a fund for such purposes but simply into general government revenue.

The actual aids to navigation in the Solomons are few and far be tween as well as poorly maintained.

That this tax is discriminatory against yachts is clearly apparent.

Local vessels, which make the most use of the aids to navigation, such as they are. pay no light dues nor are visitors arriving by other modes of transport similarly taxed.

The initiation of this tax by Mr Green was not surprising. For a number of years as head of Customs he would arbitrarily require visiting yachts to post a bond for 30% of the value of the vessel. Supposedly, this was to prevent sale of the vessel lo cally without paying duty. The Solomon Islands are hardly a market for yachts and with the tiny number of locally-owned private

yachts it would be impossible for a resident to buy one without every one’s knowledge. In any case it is the obligation of the buyer who imports it, not the seller to pay duty. The real purpose of the bond was to harass yachties whom Mr Green did not like the look of.

Mr Green’s personal dislike for yachties is part of a broader picture.

For many years the colonial civil servants in the Solomons have regarded the Protectorate as their own private club and have actively discouraged tourism, anthro pologists and other visitors whom they felt might intrude in their pri vate domain. It was most surprising to see Mr Kenilorea’s personal let ter responding to such tourism and even more so to see him defend it.

Apparently, the colonialists have done an effective brainwashing job for they now have a Melanesian de fending blatantly colonialist poli cies. It was equally surprising to see Mr Kenilorea’s thinly-veiled sar casm towards ’globe trotters’ and his attitude that such visitors should be happy to pay such a tax because it helps the people of the Solomons.

The ‘Globe Trotters’, whom Mr Kenilorea deprecates, are simply human beings responding to the quite admirable urge to experience, understand and appreciate the world in which they live. To dis criminate against such persons is not only contrary to basic human rights but contrary to the wishes of the people of the Solomon Islands who, outside Honiara, are most happy to see the occasional visiting yacht.

Asa yachtsman myself I pay my own way and have no objection to reasonable fees for services ren dered. I do, however, object to a discriminatory rip-off totally out of line with international standards.

Finally the benefit to the people of the Solomons is highly questiona ble. The Government of the Solomon Islands utilises almost all of its resources to maintain its own existence. The village people who consititute 90% of the population receive so little from the govern ment they would hardly be aware if it ceased to exist. As it is the Government of the Solomons owes its existence to international charity and as a taxpayer of one of the con tributing nations I feel I have more than done my part.

I am not happy to pay SIOO sim ply to enter the Solomons in my boat and I am sure Mr Kenilorea would not have been either had he been charged a similar amount upon en tering New Zealand to receive his education.

The light dues for yachts entering the Solomon Islands is a harsh, dis criminating and unjust tax and should be abolished. If the Govern ment of the Solomons is incapable of perceiving this then outside advice on how to run their country is ob viously in order.

M. J. Swinburn

Oliveh, Auckland, NZ.

More letters on p. 35

The Tourist's

Rarotonga

Ned Avary’s article (PIM, May, pp 42-44) on Rarotonga is typical of the usual tourist brochure’s bullshit.

It reflected a perpetuator of the hap py-go-lucky South Sea Islander’s myth. One would have expected such chauvinistic and patronising articles as something of the yesteryears. But it seems that the Noble savage myth, which has cap tured the imagination of many Papa’a (Europeans) for the last two centuries will continue doing so for some time yet.

Firstly, there is no such line claiming Michener’s choice of Rarotonga as his paradise on page 80 in his book Return to Paradise.

In fact nothing on that page came anywhere near to a mention of Rarotonga, because the page as it was, was part of a story set in Papeete.

Secondly, Papeiha the Tahitian missionary did not swim up from his London Missionary Society vessel at Black Rock but further up about three miles east at Avarua harbour.

It is obvious that Ned is simply pub licising Black Rock as a popular swimming venue. Black Rock known by its maori name as Tuoro was believed by Rarotongans as the place where the spirit of a dead per son bids farewell and leaps into Avaiki — their ancestral homeland.

Thirdly it is not that “... no one thinks of selling ...” (p 43) the “abundant” fish and fruits, because some do but more because the local and overseas markets and prices are unattractive to encourage intensive exploitation. Further, there is in sufficient real capital necessary for the development of such on a profitable level. These are only some of the many factors that dis courage commercial exploitation of the above resources, and that which indicates a fully-aware Rarotongan of an industrial country’s economic system. It does not in any way reflect the “unspoiled native” of Ned Av ary’s perception.

Fourthly, the Rarotongan is an ordinary human being. Apart from his smiles, the waving and many kia orana, are the petty politicking, jealousy, gossip and urutoe (bagjj>biting). Then there are the land tenure problems, of who should have more right to plant on which

land section, or build a house site, or who should succeed to the tradi tional titles of ariki for example.

If Ned had asked Napa about his investitute ceremony, he would have learnt of the serious conflicts of in terest between two major groups from the same clan. Both groups did not reconcile their grievances, and thus invested their nominees to the ariki title independent of the other.

For the first time in the oral and written history of the Tinomana kingly/chiefly line has this been the case the creation of two Tinomana.

Finally, as an amateur archaeologist, I am interested to find out how Ted arrived at his figure of 5 000 Maoris (43) that he reckoned helped Toi (if it was him at all) construct the ara-metua.

Certainly, a substantial population would have been involved, but as to exactly how many, the Canterbury Museum archaeological team led by Dr Roger Duff, who excavated a portion of it in 1962, 63 and 1964 could not determine at all.

I raise these points to rectify the pikika'a (lies) that Ned Avary covered in your respectable magazine.

Makiuti Tongia

(Rarotongan Student) University of the South Pacific, Suva, Fiji.

In Defence Of

Albert Ellis

I have just read The Banabans Story Told by an Insider (PIM, April, p 30) and 1 just cannot let it pass without comment.

It is an incredible story but also it

proves again that history is only what a writer wishes to make it.

Quite obviously, the author has read, or at least reproduced, only what he wanted to to support one point of view.

He quotes some small parts of Judge Megarry’s judgment taken out of their context and without the Judge’s qualifications such tactics are less than fair. By this method it is possible to support any view one wishes to take.

But what to me was the final straw as showing undeniable bias were his remarks about Albert Ellis. As writ ten the inference is that Albert Ellis procured the rights to mine phosphate on Ocean Island by “en tertaining” the Banabans with whis ky (“Johnny Walker”) and gin (“Gordons”).

I was privileged to know Albert Ellis from my youngest days until his death and any such suggestion is a complete travesty. Albert Ellis was a deeply-religious and strict living man of the highest integrity who never touched alcohol and would not under any circumstances have used it for the purposes sug gested.

He had a deep love of the Banaban people. I spoke to him shortly after he had returned from Ocean Island following the Japanese capitulation in 1945. When de scribing how his beloved Banabans had been treated he could hardly keep the tears from his eyes. I am saddened to think that a younger generation, for political ends, has seen fit to denigrate a great man who all his life had the Banabans’ welfare at heart.

It is all very well to judge the worth of the phosphate deposits by today’s prices but a significant fact remains that although Britain had the right to upwards of 40% of such deposits, at no time did she take up more than a fraction of her entitle ment for the simple reason that it was more economic to procure phosphate from North Africa.

As far as replanting was concern ed this was tried but after several abortive attempts (due to the unpredictable Ocean Island cli mate) it was considered a rather futile exercise. Perhaps, had it been tried again, it might have succeeded but that is now history and for this failure the Banabans will receive

compensation.

Wnile finding it necessary to state

Makiuti Tongia... typical bullshit

the above I am genuinely pleased that the United Kingdom.

Australian and New Zealand governments are making a further payment to the Banabans and I feel sure that if he were alive today Sir Albert Ellis would have been the first to express his pleasure. I am also sure that had the present generation of Banabans known Sir Albert personally they would have appreciated him for the very fair, kindly and lovable man that he really was.

Glen B. Johnston

Herne Bay,

The Intrepid Eka

It was with considerable interest that I read the article by Jane Gregor Intrepid was the Word for 'Eka\ Author of At Home in Fiji (PIM, June, p 52).

I am one of Eka’s grand-nieces. I too have a great love of the Pacific Islands, and, as you can see from my address, I live on one. Like Eka, my sister in New Zealand, (Mrs) N. B.

Gardner, is gifted with the paintbrush. Now that her family is grown up, she does many oils of the NZ bushland. In particular, she paints the famous NZ kauri trees, and landscapes of the early Kauri milling days.

We are the granddaughters of the late William Gordon-Cumming. one of Eka’s “travelling brothers”, and still have letters written to the family in NZ from Scotland, and of course some of her books. They were a great source of interest to us as children, and I still enjoy reading them. I often wish I had the same ability to record my impressions of the Islands today.

Our mother inherited many of Eka’s qualities, and instilled in us a great love of nature, art, writing and reading. I frequently read modern stories of the Pacific Islands in which the authors refer to Eka’s books, which are still a well of infor mation. They are difficult to obtain, but occasionally one turns up in the secondhand bookshops in Sydney.

But one pays for them dearly!

I always read and enjoy PIM, finding it interesting and infor mative. I hope it will continue to be unbiased in its views of the emerging independent Islands.

(Mrs) E. Cahill

Port Vila, New Hebrides.