Fiscal Review Committee Chairman Richard Naidu says Fiji must confront the deeper social issues underpinning the decline of the sugar industry, arguing that years of financial support alone have failed to deliver lasting solutions.
In a social media post, Naidu said it was significant that “it takes a courageous public servant to tell us what we already know,” adding that the official deserved credit for speaking openly.
“I guess he at least works for a government that, whatever its other flaws, gives him the space to dissent and maybe trigger some honest conversations.”
Naidu said politicians often struggle to speak candidly about difficult national issues because of electoral realities.
“Politics is what it is. We can understand, in a way, why the politicians find it so difficult to tell us what he is telling us. Sitting in our armchairs, we can blast the politicians for lacking this courage, but we are not the ones who have to go out there and look for the votes. Voters are more interested in what is in it for them, not pressing national issues.”
He argued that while the sugar industry’s decline is commonly viewed as an economic problem, the greater challenge lies in its social consequences.
According to Naidu, thousands of small-scale cane farmers remain in the industry not because it is profitable, but because farming allows them to stay on leased land that has been their home for generations.
“The elephant in the room is how, if the industry is phased out, to give security to thousands of small farmers who farm mainly to stay on their leased land because that is the only home they have… They are not making any money from cane farming.”
Naidu said simply increasing financial assistance was not the answer.
“The solutions we have employed for years – just throwing money at everything – are unimaginative.”
He also questioned the effectiveness of the guaranteed cane price, saying it disproportionately benefits larger producers while many smaller farmers earn less than the minimum wage after meeting production costs.
“The guaranteed cane price mainly benefits the big farmers. For the smaller ones, after their costs, it is less than the minimum wage. So why would they stay in cane farming? And if they were given the land security they needed, why wouldn’t they get out?”
Naidu concluded that addressing land security and the broader social concerns facing farming communities would be key to any long-term revival or transition of the industry.
“The economics is obvious. The social side not so much. Find a solution to that and the economics may follow.”
