THE move to table a motion to allow Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s speech at the UN Assembly on September 29 as a basis for Malaysia’s foreign policy is to be lauded. The speech that was against warfare of all kinds, encouraged mutual respect among nations and a “prosper-thy-neighbour” attitude, and espoused the principles of truth, human rights, the rule of law, justice, fairness, responsibilities and accountability, as well as sustainability is in accordance with the norms of peace and social justice that all right thinking leaders should abide by.

In general the speech is excellent, but there are some shortcomings.

The best kind of warfare from the perspective of the aggressor is to conquer a country without having to send any troops. The lesser known is the employment of economic hitmen to countries to wreak havoc in lands stricken with bad governance and rampant corruption. These countries are vulnerable to suggestions of remedies – economic aid with strings attached, sale of national assets, privatisation of profitable utility corporations, and taking of loans barely affordable. These often result in a crippling debt burden and therefore leave the countries at the mercy of the powers behind the employment of the economic hitmen.

Nations that have fallen prey to such warfare are Greece, Portugal, Romania, Iceland, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, and Iran, according to John Perkins as mentioned in his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Criticised by some as a conspiracy theorist, Perkins describes well the reality of how national assets were being sold to the lenders to the victim nations.

The UN, IMF and the World Bank cannot pretend that such warfare does not exist. Besides conventional warfare, where troops, armaments, depleted uranium munitions are deployed and nations and corporations profit from wars; there is also economic warfare aimed at bankrupting nations.

Agriculture is another area where subtle warfare is being launched. Taking the cue from Henry Kissinger’s remark in 1970, “control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people”, multinational conglomerates and world elites have been behind the push towards controlling global food supplies through genetically modified food (GM food). An effective way is by means of supplying monopolised GM seeds worldwide, to serve the interest of a small minority of elites and widen the gap between the rich and poor of both the industrialised and developing countries. Ultimately it is for the big corporations to control food and people, and to rule the world.

These are undeniable non-conventional warfare methods waged against humanity, the inclusion of which could have made the speech at the UN more comprehensive on the subject of warfare.

The use of such subtle warfare is unjust; disrupts economies, causes societal upheaval and lingering human sufferings. All these fit into the neo-colonialist economic doctrine, to drive globalisation forward and ultimately for a one-world government.

Our prime minister also made mention of palm oil and the unfair and hypocritical criticism from lobbyists of the west. It appears that Malaysia is fighting a perpetual war against the American edible oil industry. For decades our Malaysian Palm Oil Council (MPOC) has been battling criticism against deforestation, trans fats, and saturated fats laden palm oil, and winning the war seems elusive.

On deforestation, videos, simple write-ups and good PR campaigns could easily shut up the critics. On trans fat, MPOC seems to have done an about turn, first trying to support trans fat (because a large quantity of palm oil goes into margarine production), which is scientifically indefensible; and later not defend it after Codex Alimentarius (the Commission under FAO-WHO for regulating food) decided that it is not a healthy food.

Officials at the MPOC seem to be haunted by the study of Vega-Lopez and colleagues in 2006. Fifteen elderly subjects were analysed for their plasma lipid profiles after consuming palm, partially hydrogenated soybean, soybean and canola oils. The study observed that after consuming palm oil the serum LDL cholesterol was significantly higher compared to other oils. It also observed that “no significant difference in lipoprotein(a) concentrations… were observed as a result of consumption of diets enriched in palm, partially hydrogenated soybean, and soybean oils”. As lipoprotein(a) cholesterol is the actual risk factor for atherosclerosis, not LDL, this alone implies little or no difference among all the oils in question.

Vega-Lopez and colleagues observed raised LDL cholesterol levels among subjects after consumption of palm oil and this led them to surmise that the oil may not be a good substitute for use in the food industry. The conclusion of this study became an attack weapon for critics towards palm oil which our MPOC has no answer to.

The study has several flaws: in the design, the sequential use of multiple types of oils, no control for wash out period, the use of elderly post-menopausal subjects who are very prone to cardiovascular disease, among others. No inference is permitted in an observational study. Like many others, the authors do not seem to understand the physiological role of LDL cholesterol and the role of lipoprotein(a) cholesterol in pathology.

Space does not allow for technical explanation, but a follow up to this piece for a more critical appraisal of the study to explain the types of cholesterol and the health benefits of palm oil is in place. For now, it suffices to conclude that LDL is not the cholesterol to be feared. – October 18, 2018.

* Captain Dr Wong Ang Peng is a researcher with an interest in economics, politics, and health issues. He has a burning desire to do anything within his means to promote national harmony. Captain Wong is also a member of the National Patriots Association.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.