An intense exchange in Parliament today revealed contrasting perspectives on disaster resilience and rural development in Fiji, highlighted by Minister for Rural Development and Disaster Management Sakiasi Ditoka and Opposition Leader Inia Seruiratu. Minister Ditoka strongly defended the coalition government’s performance, presenting statistics to support his claim that under Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, the construction of evacuation centers has significantly outpaced that of the previous administration.
In his remarks, Ditoka stated, “Mister Speaker, sir, when we compare program delivery rates over time, the data clearly shows that the coalition government, within just three years, has completed 65 evacuation centers. That’s compared to the previous government’s 60 centers over a 10-year period.” His assertion emphasized not only the sheer number of facilities constructed but also a community-focused approach to disaster management.
The Minister’s comments ignited a swift rebuttal from Seruiratu, who labeled the comparison as misleading and politically motivated. He clarified, “We constructed 60 over a 10-year period because of a deliberate policy decision—to slow down on evacuation centers and community halls, and to focus more on schools and other key projects in rural areas.” This response indicates a strategic approach to resource allocation under his administration, prioritizing education over temporary disaster shelters.
These discussions occurred against the backdrop of recent challenges faced by communities dealing with the aftermath of natural disasters, such as Tropical Cyclone Rae. Minister Ditoka has previously expressed a commitment to support those affected by the cyclone, affirming the government’s ongoing relief and recovery efforts. This includes mobilizing teams to assess damage and ensure timely distribution of essential supplies—demonstrating responsiveness to community needs.
The Minister’s focus on building disaster resilience aligns with past legislative efforts, specifically the National Disaster Risk Management Act, which aims to incorporate sustainable development strategies into disaster response initiatives. Such legislation reflects a growing recognition of the importance of strengthening infrastructure to withstand future climatic adversities.
As both sides continue to express their positions in parliament, there remains hope that constructive dialogue can foster a more collaborative approach to addressing Fiji’s disaster management strategies. A unified response could enhance the effectiveness of initiatives designed to protect vulnerable communities against the impacts of climate change and natural disasters. The political discourse surrounding this issue signifies an active engagement in governance, where accountability and strategic planning are crucial for the nation’s development and resilience.