Criticism has emerged regarding the recent expansion of Fiji’s Cabinet, following the appointment of new ministers and assistant ministers. Nilesh Lal, the Executive Director of Dialogue Fiji, has described this development as a “bloated” Cabinet. He notes that the proportion of Members of Parliament serving as ministers underlines a significant mismatch with Fiji’s size and the challenges its citizens are facing, particularly in light of austerity measures including a substantial increase in the VAT rate by 66%.

Lal advocates for a more reasonable Cabinet size of 12 to 15 ministers, arguing that the current high number of ministers is unjustifiable. He questions the rationale behind this expansion, particularly regarding the roles and effectiveness of the newly appointed assistant ministers. This critique reflects broader sentiments echoed by other political figures, including Opposition MP Premila Kumar, who has labeled the reshuffle a “sham.” She argues that the Cabinet expansion serves as a safety net for underperforming officials, diverting attention from pressing issues such as poverty, high living costs, and inadequate public services.

Both Lal and Kumar have emphasized that the government’s focus on expanding its executive ranks appears misguided at a time when critical socioeconomic challenges require urgent attention and resources. Former Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry also condemned the enlargement as financially irresponsible.

On a hopeful note, the ongoing criticism and public discourse around the Cabinet’s size may pressure the administration to reassess its commitment to accountability and effective governance. As citizens continue to voice their concerns, there is potential for the government to align itself closer to the needs of the populace, paving the way for reforms that prioritize essential services and enhance public engagement.

In summary, while the recent expansion of Fiji’s Cabinet has sparked significant debate about governance priorities, it also opens up pathways for constructive change. The government’s ability to respond to these concerns could lead to stronger leadership that genuinely prioritizes the well-being of its citizens.