Land tenure

In a letter to the editor of the Solomon Star News on 25 April 2006, one writer writes that,

"I have been predicting for a long, long time the events of the last few days. Solomon Islanders as a whole are a passive and peaceful people, but even their patience has been stretched to the breaking point.
...

Let’s look at the situation here. ... Yes, we have an elected government, but Asian money is running this country and dictating the terms. Any Asian, who wants land – just ask for it and there is one of our corrupt leaders to give it to him (see Kukum labour line and below the Catholic Cathedral). This goes to the point that every square inch of land between Henderson and White River is owned by Asians, with no room left for the owners of this country, Solomon Islanders. Their rapacious appetite has no boundaries. ..."

Land in Solomon Islands is held according to custom. As is the case elsewhere in the Pacific (indeed, much of the world, including the indigenous inhabitants of Australia) land in Solomon Islands is not merely an economic asset, but has religious, political and social significance. Most of the customary rules relating to the use and transfer or customary land are closely associated with the religious beliefs of the people. Leadership and interests in land are passed on by inheritance, and land tenure is governed by the histories of the ancestors, preserved in genealogies and in the landscape of the places they belonged to. Understanding the intimate connection between land an identity enables one to see why the ownership of land by Asians would be seen as so outrageous.

Furthermore, land in Solomon Islands is held by kin groups, which comprise a number of families that claim descent from the first settlers of the land. Under the Land and Titles Act, transactions of customary land must be made according to the current customary usage applicable to the land concerned (NB: I'm not aware of the extent to which land in and around Honiara is regulated according to custom or another system). Historically, various people could have different rights to the same piece of land. While there are competing interpretations of kastom, there is no doubt that the advent of the cash economy has encouraged misinterpretations of land tenure emphasising exclusivity of land rights. The individualisation of tenure has resulted in some rights being extended beyond their traditional extent and scope at the expense of others. As a result, there is much controversy about who has acquired land legitimately and who hasn't - this was a key cause of the anger directed towards Malaitans during the Tensions, and the letter above suggests it plays a role in the anger now directed towards the Chinese.