I haven’t really followed the Vuda debate too closely, just snippets here and there in the media, but something recently caught my attention, and frankly, it worried me.
What I saw was not a discussion about environmental science, policy, or even the merits of the project itself, but something that quickly devolved into tantrums and name-calling on social media.
It was sad to see personal attacks directed at the permanent secretary for Environment and Climate Change, Dr Sivendra Michael. And that, in my view, crosses a line.
Those familiar with Dr Michael’s work would know that he is not a political actor and is highly respected among all walks of life.
More importantly, he is a highly qualified professional tasked with carrying out his duties within the law.
To see his qualifications questioned and his integrity attacked so casually online was disappointing, and frankly, unfair.
Former attorney-general Graham Leung was right to call this behaviour out. He described the attacks as “misplaced,” and that is exactly what they were.
Because what many people seem to be missing in this debate is how the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process in Fiji actually works.
As Leung explained, the process is not driven by any one individual, but is a structured, technical, and legally mandated system under Fijian law. Once an application is properly lodged, authorities are required to process it. It cannot simply be rejected on subjective grounds.
The responsibility for assessing proposals lies with the Director of Environment or the EIA Administrator, who determines whether a project requires a full EIA, oversees the preparation of reports, and ultimately make the decision to approve or reject a project.
That process includes technical review, public consultation, and the opportunity for written submissions within a set timeframe. It is designed to ensure that decisions are based on evidence, expert input, and proper procedure.
The Permanent Secretary does not participate in this decision-making chain at the initial stage. His role arises only where a determination is challenged, at which point he acts as an appellate authority. Beyond that, further appeal mechanisms exist through a tribunal.
In other words, this is a layered, technical, and legally guided process, not a personal decision.
When people misunderstand the process and direct anger at the wrong person, it doesn’t just miss the point; it actively undermines the system.
We are increasingly seeing the rise of what can only be described as trial by social media, where narratives are formed, amplified, and accepted as truth before facts are even established.
This is not unique to Fiji. Around the world, governments, academics, and policymakers have warned about the dangers of misinformation ecosystems, where algorithms reward outrage, not accuracy.
Here, we are seeing a growing number of social media influencers and bloggers who sensationalise complex issues to drive engagement, likes, shares, and comments, without fully understanding the subject matter.
And in doing so, they drag ordinary, well-meaning people into narratives that are often incomplete or outright misleading.
And essentially, it’s very sad to see grown men having tantrums.
This is not how a civilised society is supposed to function.
Debate, yes. Disagreement, absolutely. But personal attacks and emotional outbursts disguised as analysis help no one.
I looked a little deeper into what is actually happening with the Vuda project.
At this stage, the project is going through the EIA process. That means it is being assessed, studied, and reviewed. There are still opportunities for public input, and if people disagree with the eventual decision, there are clear legal avenues to challenge it.
The decision, when it comes, will not be based on Facebook posts or viral opinions. It will be based on science, technical analysis, and the law.
From my very basic online reading, there are claims that facilities such as these can potentially reduce certain forms of pollution and are generally beneficial to the environment; however, they must be managed properly.
But I am not a scientist, and I am not in a position to advocate for or against the project.
And neither, I would argue, are most of the people commenting online.
What matters is that the people tasked with making these decisions do understand the science and the impact it will have.
Dr Michael and his team are trained, qualified, and legally bound to assess these proposals properly. I trust that they will do so.
We can, and should, hold institutions accountable. We should ask questions, demand transparency, and engage in meaningful debate.
But that debate must be grounded in facts, not insults and tantrums.
Because if we allow misinformation, outrage, and personal attacks to take over, we risk not only damaging individuals but weakening the very systems designed to protect us.
And that is a far greater risk than any single development project.
Until next week, take care and be safe.
ARNOLD CHANEL is an investor and business executive with years of tech expertise. He can be contacted on ceo@vanguardtech.pro. The views expressed in this article are his and not of this newspaper
