Why Is Lynda Tabuya Suddenly in the PM Sitiveni Rabuka's Departure Lounge?
In a country wrestling with a rising cost of living, fragile public services, and eroding trust in government, Fiji’s taxpayers could be forgiven for asking a simple question: Why does the Minister for Information, Lynda Tabuya, seem to have a permanent seat suddenly on Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s overseas entourage?
There are few portfolios in government less tethered to foreign travel than Information. Fiji has a Ministry of Foreign Affairs for diplomacy, a Ministry of Trade for commerce, a Ministry of Climate for global negotiations. But somehow, when the PM packs his bags, the Minister of Information is now checked in and cleared for boarding.
Is it a new doctrine of governance? Or just the old perks of power with better hashtags?
What Exactly Is “Information” Doing Abroad?
No one begrudges the Prime Minister his overseas trips. Diplomacy is necessary. Regional summits matter. But ministerial travel is supposed to be purpose-driven.
No official rationale has ever been published, leaving taxpayers to draw their own conclusions — and none of them flattering.
The Optics: Boardrooms Abroad, Silence at Home
Meanwhile, back home, the Ministry of Information has a demanding job:
And yet, whenever Rabuka jets off, the portfolio’s lead communicator vanishes from Suva’s corridors. If Cabinet wanted to reassure the public that information flows are a top priority, this is not how you’d stage-manage it.
Governance by Frequent Flyer Points
What makes the situation even murkier is the lack of transparency about costs:
Rabuka's coalition government swept to power promising accountability, openness, and an end to the perception of entitlement. So far, the silence on this particular issue speaks louder than any press release.
An Unspoken Hierarchy
Repeated appearances in the Prime Minister’s orbit send signals within Cabinet. When one minister becomes a constant fixture on the PM’s international stage, while others stay home, it creates a hierarchy of proximity to power. It feeds resentment. It breeds factionalism.
For a fragile coalition government, that’s a dangerous game.
Parliament Deserves Answers
Taxpayers are not unreasonable. If Lynda Tabuya’s travel has a strategic purpose and if Fiji is, say, shaping regional media pacts or negotiating Pacific information-sharing agreements, show us the evidence.
Without answers, the optics remain: boardroom selfies abroad, muted accountability at home.
In a country wrestling with a rising cost of living, fragile public services, and eroding trust in government, Fiji’s taxpayers could be forgiven for asking a simple question: Why does the Minister for Information, Lynda Tabuya, seem to have a permanent seat suddenly on Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s overseas entourage?
There are few portfolios in government less tethered to foreign travel than Information. Fiji has a Ministry of Foreign Affairs for diplomacy, a Ministry of Trade for commerce, a Ministry of Climate for global negotiations. But somehow, when the PM packs his bags, the Minister of Information is now checked in and cleared for boarding.
Is it a new doctrine of governance? Or just the old perks of power with better hashtags?
What Exactly Is “Information” Doing Abroad?
No one begrudges the Prime Minister his overseas trips. Diplomacy is necessary. Regional summits matter. But ministerial travel is supposed to be purpose-driven.
- Is there a regional “Minister of Information” summit we haven’t heard about?
- Are we signing global treaties on “strategic messaging” at every stop?
- Is the PM’s briefing folder so light on facts that he needs a dedicated “information handler” on standby at 38,000 feet?
No official rationale has ever been published, leaving taxpayers to draw their own conclusions — and none of them flattering.
The Optics: Boardrooms Abroad, Silence at Home
Meanwhile, back home, the Ministry of Information has a demanding job:
- Overseeing state communications strategy.
- Ensuring government transparency and public access to information.
- Supporting state broadcasters and managing crisis messaging.
And yet, whenever Rabuka jets off, the portfolio’s lead communicator vanishes from Suva’s corridors. If Cabinet wanted to reassure the public that information flows are a top priority, this is not how you’d stage-manage it.
Governance by Frequent Flyer Points
What makes the situation even murkier is the lack of transparency about costs:
- What does it cost taxpayers to have Tabuya on each of these trips: flights, accommodation, allowances, security?
- How are these entourage lists decided?
- Is Cabinet formally signing off on these itineraries, or is this just “Rabuka’s call, Rabuka’s rules”?
Rabuka's coalition government swept to power promising accountability, openness, and an end to the perception of entitlement. So far, the silence on this particular issue speaks louder than any press release.
An Unspoken Hierarchy
Repeated appearances in the Prime Minister’s orbit send signals within Cabinet. When one minister becomes a constant fixture on the PM’s international stage, while others stay home, it creates a hierarchy of proximity to power. It feeds resentment. It breeds factionalism.
For a fragile coalition government, that’s a dangerous game.
Parliament Deserves Answers
Taxpayers are not unreasonable. If Lynda Tabuya’s travel has a strategic purpose and if Fiji is, say, shaping regional media pacts or negotiating Pacific information-sharing agreements, show us the evidence.
- Where are the reports on outcomes?
- What agreements have been signed?
- What tangible benefits have these trips delivered to Fiji’s citizens?
Without answers, the optics remain: boardroom selfies abroad, muted accountability at home.
Pareti Two For the Price Of One: Overlap Without Purpose
Under Fiji’s government structure, the Director of Information, Samisoni Pareti, is the technical head of the Ministry and already tasked with:
If those responsibilities require overseas representation, the Director, not the Minister, would ordinarily handle them, because the Director is the technical specialist. The Minister’s role is to set policy and hold the portfolio politically accountable, not to act as a roving spokesperson.
International Precedent
In most Westminster-style systems, which Fiji follows, ministers do not automatically accompany prime ministers on foreign tours unless:
For information-related matters, unless there’s a specific multilateral media or communications summit, it’s standard practice for the Director or relevant communications officers to represent the ministry.
The Optics Problem
By starting to accompanying Rabuka while core domestic responsibilities like government communications, transparency, and managing state broadcasters are handled by the Director of Information in her absence, Tabuya risks looking less like a minister advancing policy and more like a political ornament in the PM’s entourage.
For a government elected on promises of accountability and efficient use of public funds, the optics are damaging:
Apparently, Fiji’s government communications are so complex they require both a Director of Information and the Minister herself on standby at 38,000 feet. Forget cost-cutting. Forget Cabinet priorities. Fiji’s taxpayers are now subsidising parallel portfolios for parallel photo-ops.
In any functional Westminster-style government, the Director would represent the ministry when required internationally, leaving the Minister to focus on domestic transparency, media strategy, and policy oversight. Instead, Tabuya’s appearances abroad create the perception of political tourism at public expense.
It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Minister’s role on these trips is less about information policy and more about proximity to power. Soon, she is heading to Israel.
Under Fiji’s government structure, the Director of Information, Samisoni Pareti, is the technical head of the Ministry and already tasked with:
- Managing official government communications,
- Coordinating state broadcasters and press briefings,
- Liaising with international media when necessary.
If those responsibilities require overseas representation, the Director, not the Minister, would ordinarily handle them, because the Director is the technical specialist. The Minister’s role is to set policy and hold the portfolio politically accountable, not to act as a roving spokesperson.
International Precedent
In most Westminster-style systems, which Fiji follows, ministers do not automatically accompany prime ministers on foreign tours unless:
- Their portfolio is directly related to the purpose of the trip (e.g. Trade Minister on a trade mission, Foreign Minister on bilateral summits), or
- They are leading their own delegation to parallel talks.
For information-related matters, unless there’s a specific multilateral media or communications summit, it’s standard practice for the Director or relevant communications officers to represent the ministry.
The Optics Problem
By starting to accompanying Rabuka while core domestic responsibilities like government communications, transparency, and managing state broadcasters are handled by the Director of Information in her absence, Tabuya risks looking less like a minister advancing policy and more like a political ornament in the PM’s entourage.
For a government elected on promises of accountability and efficient use of public funds, the optics are damaging:
- Taxpayers foot the bill for extra tickets and allowances.
- Meanwhile, Fiji already pays a Director of Information to perform the same functions.
- It suggests either ministerial vanity or proximity politics, not necessity.
Apparently, Fiji’s government communications are so complex they require both a Director of Information and the Minister herself on standby at 38,000 feet. Forget cost-cutting. Forget Cabinet priorities. Fiji’s taxpayers are now subsidising parallel portfolios for parallel photo-ops.
In any functional Westminster-style government, the Director would represent the ministry when required internationally, leaving the Minister to focus on domestic transparency, media strategy, and policy oversight. Instead, Tabuya’s appearances abroad create the perception of political tourism at public expense.
It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Minister’s role on these trips is less about information policy and more about proximity to power. Soon, she is heading to Israel.
FAITH, Politics & Photo Ops: Lynda Tabuya and Samisoni Pareti Off to Israel with Rabuka and his entourage for Fiji's Embassy Opening in Disputed West Jerusalem, 17-18 September
Ministry of Foreign Affairs or Clan Affairs? Fiji’s Israel Delegation Raises Eyebrows
Apparently, diversity has gone the way of the dodo at Fiji’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The official delegation list for Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s upcoming state visit to Israel (17–19 September 2025) reads less like a cross-section of a multi-ethnic nation and more like a well-curated club guest list. Indians? None. Zero. Vanished.
For a ministry supposedly representing all of Fiji, it’s quite something when the entire delegation, seventeen handpicked representatives, manages to avoid including a single Indo-Fijian diplomat, policy officer, or even a junior attaché.
But perhaps this is the “new normal” under a government that talks reconciliation while practising exclusion.
One might have thought, given the historic ties between Indo-Fijian communities and broader Middle Eastern diplomacy, that someone, anyone, from Fiji’s substantial Indo-Fijian diplomatic corps would make the cut. Instead, the delegation looks more like a carefully managed “old boys’ club,” padded with Rabuka loyalists, military brass, media handlers, and personal protection officers.
If the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is aiming for the Guinness World Record for “Most Homogenous Delegation Representing a Multicultural Nation,” they’re well on track.
What makes this all the more ironic is that the Ministry is invoking the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in its note to Israel. The convention, among other things, is meant to facilitate inclusive representation of a state abroad. Fiji’s version, however, seems to mean:
So, while Sitiveni Rabuka, Pio Tikoduadua, Lynda Tabuya, Jone Kalouniwai, and their entourage of “policy officers” sip fine wine in Jerusalem, Indo-Fijian diplomats back home might want to check if they’re still employed, or if “Fiji First” has been quietly replaced by “Fiji Few".
Because, judging by this list, for some people in the corridors of power, Fiji’s diversity is just a talking point.
For a country that never tires of boasting about its “multicultural democracy,” Fiji seems to have mastered the art of governing like a private club. The official delegation list for Rabuka’s upcoming state visit to Israel is a case study in exclusion.
Seventeen names. Not one Indo-Fijian.
That’s right, In a Ministry of Foreign Affairs supposedly representing all of Fiji, Indo-Fijians appear to have been surgically erased from Rabuka’s historic trip to Israel. No Indo-Fijian diplomat. No Indo-Fijian policy officer. Not even a junior attaché.
And here’s the real kicker: Fiji has an Indo-Fijian ambassador in the Middle East, Faizal Koya, a former NFP candidate, now conveniently serving as Fiji’s representative in the region. You’d think that if anyone ought to be on this delegation, it would be him. But no, apparently even the man officially stationed closest to Israel isn’t useful enough for Rabuka’s inner circle.
Which raises the obvious question: why the silence from Finance Minister Biman Prasad and the National Federation Party (NFP)? This is the same NFP that wraps itself in the rhetoric of multiculturalism, “equal citizenry,” and protecting Indo-Fijian interests. Yet when it comes to Rabuka’s diplomacy, NFP’s leadership is apparently content to sit quietly in the corner, watching Indo-Fijians being airbrushed out of Fiji’s international representation.
Is this the coalition deal Indo-Fijians voted for in 2022, a silent partnership where Rabuka decides who represents Fiji abroad, while NFP looks the other way?
Perhaps Fiji’s multiculturalism has a new working definition: “we’ll mention you in speeches, but not on the plane.”
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs may want to consider a rebrand. “Clan Affairs” has a much more honest ring to it.
Apparently, diversity has gone the way of the dodo at Fiji’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The official delegation list for Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s upcoming state visit to Israel (17–19 September 2025) reads less like a cross-section of a multi-ethnic nation and more like a well-curated club guest list. Indians? None. Zero. Vanished.
For a ministry supposedly representing all of Fiji, it’s quite something when the entire delegation, seventeen handpicked representatives, manages to avoid including a single Indo-Fijian diplomat, policy officer, or even a junior attaché.
But perhaps this is the “new normal” under a government that talks reconciliation while practising exclusion.
One might have thought, given the historic ties between Indo-Fijian communities and broader Middle Eastern diplomacy, that someone, anyone, from Fiji’s substantial Indo-Fijian diplomatic corps would make the cut. Instead, the delegation looks more like a carefully managed “old boys’ club,” padded with Rabuka loyalists, military brass, media handlers, and personal protection officers.
If the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is aiming for the Guinness World Record for “Most Homogenous Delegation Representing a Multicultural Nation,” they’re well on track.
What makes this all the more ironic is that the Ministry is invoking the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in its note to Israel. The convention, among other things, is meant to facilitate inclusive representation of a state abroad. Fiji’s version, however, seems to mean:
- Represent only your friends,
- Reward your allies,
- And pretend the rest of the country doesn’t exist.
So, while Sitiveni Rabuka, Pio Tikoduadua, Lynda Tabuya, Jone Kalouniwai, and their entourage of “policy officers” sip fine wine in Jerusalem, Indo-Fijian diplomats back home might want to check if they’re still employed, or if “Fiji First” has been quietly replaced by “Fiji Few".
Because, judging by this list, for some people in the corridors of power, Fiji’s diversity is just a talking point.
For a country that never tires of boasting about its “multicultural democracy,” Fiji seems to have mastered the art of governing like a private club. The official delegation list for Rabuka’s upcoming state visit to Israel is a case study in exclusion.
Seventeen names. Not one Indo-Fijian.
That’s right, In a Ministry of Foreign Affairs supposedly representing all of Fiji, Indo-Fijians appear to have been surgically erased from Rabuka’s historic trip to Israel. No Indo-Fijian diplomat. No Indo-Fijian policy officer. Not even a junior attaché.
And here’s the real kicker: Fiji has an Indo-Fijian ambassador in the Middle East, Faizal Koya, a former NFP candidate, now conveniently serving as Fiji’s representative in the region. You’d think that if anyone ought to be on this delegation, it would be him. But no, apparently even the man officially stationed closest to Israel isn’t useful enough for Rabuka’s inner circle.
Which raises the obvious question: why the silence from Finance Minister Biman Prasad and the National Federation Party (NFP)? This is the same NFP that wraps itself in the rhetoric of multiculturalism, “equal citizenry,” and protecting Indo-Fijian interests. Yet when it comes to Rabuka’s diplomacy, NFP’s leadership is apparently content to sit quietly in the corner, watching Indo-Fijians being airbrushed out of Fiji’s international representation.
Is this the coalition deal Indo-Fijians voted for in 2022, a silent partnership where Rabuka decides who represents Fiji abroad, while NFP looks the other way?
Perhaps Fiji’s multiculturalism has a new working definition: “we’ll mention you in speeches, but not on the plane.”
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs may want to consider a rebrand. “Clan Affairs” has a much more honest ring to it.
