Criticism is mounting against the recent expansion of Fiji’s Cabinet following the appointment of new ministers and assistant ministers. Dialogue Fiji Executive Director Nilesh Lal has called the situation a “bloated” Cabinet, noting that this period of governmental growth stands in stark contrast to the austerity measures being faced by ordinary Fijians, including a substantial increase in the VAT rate by 66%. Lal argues that such a significant increase in the number of Ministers, which has reached a historic high in relation to Fiji’s population, is unjustifiable.

Lal suggests that a more reasonable Cabinet size would consist of 12 to 15 ministers. The rationale for expanding the Cabinet to its current size appears unclear, particularly regarding the roles and effectiveness of the newly appointed assistant ministers. Questions have been raised about how these positions will benefit governance and whether they align with addressing pressing issues like poverty, high living costs, escalating crime rates, and inadequate healthcare.

Opposition Member of Parliament Premila Kumar has echoed Lal’s sentiments, labeling the reshuffle a “sham” and a political maneuver designed to protect underperforming leaders rather than a genuine attempt to enhance governance. She highlighted that previous promises to reduce government size have been disregarded, further deepening concern over fiscal responsibility, especially amid rising living costs and deteriorating public services.

Despite the criticisms, there is a hopeful outlook that this growing discourse may fuel demands for greater accountability within the government. As citizens continue to voice their concerns about the Cabinet’s size versus the urgent needs of the population, there lies potential for reform. Continuous dialogue about governance priorities offers an opportunity for the government to realign itself with the aspirations of its citizens, thereby fostering an administration that is effective and responsive.

In summary, while the enlargement of Fiji’s Cabinet raises serious governance concerns and questions about prioritizing taxpayer needs, it also opens up pathways for constructive change and opportunities for the administration to improve its relationship with the public.