MALAYSIA should stop apologising for making palm oil a mainstay of its economy.
Cultivation of this crop not only helps sustain the country’s socio-economic development but also ensures its self-same survival in an increasingly competitive world.
The latest anti-palm oil lobby takes the form of a Bill, pushing for mandatory labelling of palm oil. It was proposed by Australian Independent Senator Nick Xenophon.
The Malaysian Palm Oil Council has strongly criticised the move. Its chief executive Tan Sri Dr Yusof Basiron, giving evidence before an Australian Senate Committee, said the “truth in labelling should be driven by health issues, not politicalexpediency which is behind some of the campaigns surrounding this Bill.”
He stressed environmentalists failed to understand the need to alleviate poverty in Malaysia or the role of the palm oil industry in eradicating indigence in the country. Over half a million Malaysians are employed by the industry with thousands more relying on it for their livelihood.
The antics of the likes of Xenophon should be seen for what they are – radical vendettas motivated by economic domination of developing countries.
The focus should be on the “formal policy” of the Australian government and the Department of Foreign Affairs to support the development of Asean and Apec economies through the promotion and facilitation of economic growth, trade and investments. And Malaysia is among countries in the region to have endorsed such a policy.
It’s about time Malaysia takes a strong stand against vociferous environmentalists for continuing to run down its palm oil industry under the pretext of public health protection and environmental conservation.
These activists are recycling the same old story that palm oil is dangerous to health and responsible for deforestation.
On the contrary, research has shown that palm oil contains abundant anti-oxidants and other health benefits, making it not only a safe but also a healthful product.
The claim that palm oil cultivation ruins the environment is a deliberate lie spread by groups with vested interests to advance their docket of economic hegemony.
The deforestation charge has also been debunked by studies showing that a palm oil plantation can be set up on legitimate agricultural land without any need to clear the forests because of its high output.
This is especially true of Malaysia which still has a forest cover of nearly 70 per cent despite being one of the largest palm oil producers.
In terms of global warming, palm oil is the most benign as the net carbon dioxide in its lifespan balances the original forest cover – unlike corn, soya and other plants that require additional inputs just to facilitate growth and production, resulting in a perpetual CO2 plus.
It is pertinent to point out that certain foreign TV stations, subservient to the anti-palm oil lobby, are casting a negative light on the palm oil industry. For them, it’s the norm to project a picture of abject environmental degradation and pin the blame on palm oil cultivation in so-called third world countries.
The uninitiated may be hoodwinked but people familiar with the methods of presenting news with a slant, know it’s possible to blow a situation out of proportion by using camera tricks.
Through such manipulative techniques (with the help of the zoom lens), a situation can be made to look more serious on the TV screen than it actually is. To make their story seem real, the clip and text are skewed to cover up what is essentially an optical illusion. It’s an old trick used to propagandise a self-serving agenda – in this instance, against the palm oil industry.
Other oil producing plants require subsidised water in quantity but not palm oil.
As a letter writer to a national daily explained, the use of subsidised water (to plant its oil producing crops) has had a dramatic impact on Australia.
The Murray Darling (river), he noted, does not flow to the sea, causing untold environmental damage.
The writer further explained marginal lands brought under cultivation in Western Australian, about 10 times the size of Singapore, are forever ruined due to rising salt that has turned them into vast salt pans.
“Over time, the soil loss for these oil producing plants is much greater than palm oil as every replanting in the year requires ploughing with soil lost as dust and with runoff. These and other factors make the alternatives to palm oil always more expensive,” he elaborated.
Malaysia, on its part, should not lose sight of the need to continue committing its palm oil industry to sustainable management and growth. This is important because non-sustainability, as rightly pointed out by Dr Yusof, will inhibit the industry’s growth.
So long as Malaysia proceeds along this line, it should be well-equipped to counter the bugaboos of the anti-palm oil lobby.