In an emergency low fuel situation coming down to 200 ft at Funafuti would be no biggie if flown accurately, because the highest tree is only about 50ft. Cyclones usually knock them over if they try to grow any higher.
Groping around at 200 ft at Norfolk, at night, would probably be terminal for the occupants of any aeroplane so foolishly flown. For all that he got so wrong, finally coming to the conclusion that he had to ditch (even if it was in the wrong place) was proper. All on board owe their lives to that decision rather than the alternative of attempting a landing with no visual contact with the runway.
The weather at NLK is tricky. They can be calling it below minima from the ground yet sometimes the approach and landing can be completed without busting any limits. On other occasions - and sometimes even within a few minutes of being OK - it is just impossible to see anything at the minima - or even a bee's dick below minima (altimeter error, honest it was).
Given the way the weather was coming through in waves on this occasion, I certainly would have tried as many approaches as I had fuel for - up to the point of being able to divert to NOU. But being at NLK with no diversion fuel - not done that since the Bae 146 did the run, when PNR was at top of descent. But then we had to be absolutely sure it was OK to continue. One crew nearly got caught out once and gave themselves a good fright, and I am sure there were others less publicised.
Then, praise be, the rules changed to require an alternate for RPT and charter. Obviously paying passengers' lives are more important than patients flying courtesy of insurance (don't get me started on double standards in aviation!)
This ditching appears to be the direct result of inexperience being exploited by a loophole in the regulations. Poor judgement being the by-product of inexperience. Loophole in the regulations being the by-product of an incompetent regulator.