Roger Helmer and the MPOC

I was an attendee at the Malaysian Palm Oil Council's recent “Reach & Teach Friends of the Industry: Challenges and Opportunities in 2011”. I work for the world's largest listed producer of palm oil; and am directly involved in green technology projects, focusing mainly on reducing carbon emissions while also being involved in reducing electricity and water consumption and reducing waste.

Throughout the conference, it was pleasing to note that the palm oil industry as a whole is working to lower their carbon footprint and taking environmental concerns seriously. This can be seen in the addition of emission requirements to the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) initiative, renewed focus on environmental protection and engagement with NGOs on social and environment issues. Most palm oil companies are working on carbon mitigation efforts and under the National Key Economic Area (NKEA) palm oil lab, biogas capture has been identified as a key driver of emission reductions.

A puzzling inclusion to the roster of speakers, however, was Mr. Roger Helmer of the United Kingdom, a Conservative Party Member of the European Parliament (MEP). Interestingly, Mr. Helmer is self-described as a 'eurosceptic', working to limit the integration of the UK with the European Union while being an elected MEP.

Mr. Helmer was to speak on “The Global Climate Change Debate and Taxpayer Funded Environmentalism”. In an hour-long speech, he made it clear which side of the debate he was on, finding all evidence of anthraepogenic (human-activity-driven) climate change to be false. He accomplished this with the help of vague unscientific pseudo-facts taken from the propaganda files of climate change deniers. With an audience possessing little encyclopedic knowledge of climate change and its drivers, it was quite clear that he had found the attention he was seeking.

It was quite unfortunate for Mr. Helmer that the debate on climate change is taking place in the 21st century. It would have been much easier for him to propagate his views if information was difficult to come by, but with the existence of 3G Internet on my obsolete cellphone, I was able to dismiss his 'facts' and vitriol towards climate change. Unsurprisingly, his was the only speech made without the backing of presentation slides and data. Perhaps this would have made it too easy for the audience to check his facts. To complete the irony of the hour-long monologue, it so happened that a climate change workshop was taking place right below the conference hall with the attendance of scientists affiliated to the United Nations who have spent years researching the cause and effects of global warming.

That the MPOC would allow a speaker like Mr. Roger Helmer a platform at a highly-visible industry forum without the presence of an unbiased referee and actual scientific facts raises questions on its motives and role in “promoting the market expansion of Malaysian palm oil and its products by enhancing the image of palm oil and creating better acceptance of palm oil through awareness of various technological and economic advantages (techno-economic advantages) and environmental sustainability”. Does the MPOC believe that the industry is throwing money down the drain by implementing emission reduction initiatives? Does the MPOC agree with Mr. Helmer on climate change being pseudo-science driven by thousands of scientists who receive financial gain by asserting that climate change is indeed human-driven? Does the MPOC regard methane capture a foolish endeavour despite its inclusion under the palm oil NKEA?

It must be said that the industry has progressed from a defensive, deny-at-all-cost approach to social and environmental concerns, to an action-driven facts-based approach against the attacks of NGOs and anti-palm lobbyists. Associating with pseudo-science only denigrates real strides the industry is making in addressing those concerns.

Crime and Morality

In discussions concerning Malaysian crime in terms of severity and frequency, an often suggested argument is how morally degraded society has become when seen in context of a rising crime rate. I have always found this argument rather underwhelming, despite having known victims and having been a victim of crime.

It is a fatal flaw to regard crime as a moral indicator. Morality is a relative concept, one that has no static definition and rule. It has no grounds to fall back on when seen in a solitary state, as morality on its own lacks substance. The moral identity of one man bears no significance on the face of another. Even a fundamental rule of thumb; do no harm, is important to many a moral man but is not present in the morally upstanding bodies of other men.

Conversely, crime has shown itself to be an embodiment of moral values in certain instances in humanity. Consider the infamous members of organized crime, the most popular examples being the mafia of Italy and America and the Yakuza of Japan. A common tie between these gangs, which include the Russian mafia and the Chinese secret societies, is that they have evolved and nurtured in mature societies and powerful nations. While these nations may not be at the forefront of development today, it has been noted that the height of organized crime in each of the said examples coincided with the height of development of their respective societies.

Organized crime has shown itself to be a benevolent occupation, one that places morality, albeit with inbred values, above all. Common humanistic virtues, the main one being family ties and support triumph within each criminal organization.

Considering this however, organized crime is more dangerous a specter than common criminal behaviour. In rich countries, flourishing organized crime indicates that people are forgoing opportunities to prosper through legal activities, and instead are turning to crime purely as another business avenue.

To further expound on this idea, a comparison can be made to countries which have a high crime rate. Good examples are South Africa and certain Latin American countries. In these nations, crime is purely a function of available opportunities, i.e. the less opportunity available to a person, the higher his propensity to engage in criminal activity. Which is why there isn't a Zimbabwean Yakuza or Argentinian mafia. The same seems to apply in Malaysia, where crime is most often committed by poor ethnic minorities and immigrants who face discrimination through racism, xenophobia, lack of skills, etc.

Thus it is clear that to lower the crime rate in medium and lower income countries, the simple answer is to increase opportunities, which is a direct consequence of a liberal and open economic policy. The technicalities of what constitutes this type of policy aren't hard to find.

The crux of the issue is that as the reasons behind our high crime rate are clear, it is less frightening than having criminals whose only motives are self-fulfillment. Crime is not a social indicator of morality and thus the Malaysian situation is one that is temporal and relatively insignificant in nature, with the caveat being that economic progress takes place.