Permanent Secretary for Finance Shri Gounder has reignited a debate that we have avoided for far too long.
His warning that reviving the sugar industry could require billions of taxpayer dollars presents a harsh reality.
Those funds, he argues, could be directed towards hospitals, roads and other essential public services.
He also raises another uncomfortable issue of many cane farmers been sustained by years of false hope and unfulfilled promises.
Speaking at the Dialogue Fiji National Budget Forum in Nadi on Saturday, Mr Gounder suggested that it would become a difficult challenge to revive the sugar industry. That was a powerful statement. But it also prompts an important question: if not sugar, then what? Let us face it. Sugar was once the backbone of our economy. It helped build modern Fiji.
Thousands of families depended on it, and many still do today. We must also consider that many rural economies continue to revolve around sugarcane and walking away from the industry may not be as simple as shutting the doors of a business.
The industry’s decline did not happen overnight, nor can it be blamed on farmers alone. We say political interference, expiring land leases, inconsistent policies, ageing infrastructure and a lack of long-term planning have all played a role in bringing the industry to where it is today.
Mr Gounder believes Fiji needs a carefully managed transition that helps farmers diversify over time.
He also pointed out that the Fiji Sugar Corporation has survived through substantial taxpayer support. Government debt guarantees, debt write-offs and financial assistance have kept the corporation operating, with taxpayers ultimately carrying the burden. The write-off of $200 million in FSC debt is a reminder of the scale of that support.
Yes, we cannot ignore these realities.
Public resources are limited, and Government must balance competing priorities. Could we suggest that the choice should not be framed as one between endless subsidies and abandoning sugar?
Could we consider this a moment to pursue meaningful reform?
Modernising mills, improving productivity, diversifying products, attracting younger farmers, strengthening governance, encouraging private investment and creating broader opportunities in rural communities have all been identified as part of the solution.
We accept that every public dollar invested must produce measurable returns. Cane farmers deserve honesty.
Taxpayers deserve responsible stewardship of public money. We say the challenge before us is to chart a path that neither abandons communities nor throws good money after bad.
Our nation cannot afford sentimental politics, nor to prematurely write off an industry that has sustained generations.
Perhaps the real debate should not be about whether sugar should be saved or abandoned.
Maybe it could be about whether we have the courage to embrace the reforms, leadership and long-term vision needed to secure a sustainable future for the industry and the communities that depend on it?
