អ្នកលេងទម្ងន់ជើង សេន ប៊ុនថេនបានអោយដឹងថា សម្រាប់កីឡាករវាយក្នុងប្រទេសទម្ងន់ធ្ងន់ ទាល់តែហ្វឹកហាត់អោយដិតដល់ទើបកម្រនឹងសន្លប់ ប៉ុន្តែបើហ្វឹកហាត់មិនដល់ទេងាយសន្លប់ណាស់ ។ កីឡាជើងចាស់និងសំបូរបទពិសោធន៍ សេន ប៊ុនថេន បានអោយដឹងថា សម្រាប់កីឡាករដែលប្រកួតក្នុងប្រភេទទម្ងន់ត្រូវតែហាត់អោយដល់និងទទួលទានអាហារអោយគ្រប់គ្រាន់ទើបឡើងប្រកួតទៅមិនសូវសន្លប់របស់ដៃគូ។ ធម្មតាកីឡាករទម្ងន់ធ្ងន់ពេលចេញអាវុធណាមួយ ធ្ងន់ៗណាស់ដែលងាយធ្វើអោយដៃគូឆាប់សន្លប់ ប្រសិនបើដៃគូហ្វឹកមិនដិតដល់និងមិនសូវស៊ូទ្រាំនឹងទម្ងន់។ សេន ប៉ុនថេន រាល់ការប្រកួតមានការប្រុងប្រយ័ត្នខ្ពស់។ ប្រយ័ត្នរាល់ការចេញដៃរឺជើងរបស់ដៃគូ ព្រោះវានឹងមានបញ្ហាពេលដែលកីឡាករខ្លួនឯងផ្ទាល់ការពារមិនទាន់រឺគេចមិនផុតពីការវ៉ៃរបស់។ ម៉្យាងទៀតបើសិនកីឡាករខ្លួនឯងខ្លាំងក្បាច់អ្វីត្រូវហាត់ស្នៀតនោះអោយខ្លាំងដើម្បីផ្តួលដៃគូព្រោះកីឡាករខ្លួនឯងផ្ទាល់ក៏មានទម្ងន់ដូចគេដែរ។ សេន ប៊ុនថន ជាជើងខ្លាំងទម្ងន់ធ្ងន់សម្រាប់ប្រដាល់គុនខ្មែរ។ យូរៗម្តងកីឡាករជើងចាស់រូបនេះឡើងបញ្ហាញក្បាច់កុនរបស់ខ្លួនអោយអ្នកគាំទ្រខ្លួនបានឃើញផងដែរ។ បើទោះជាមិនសូវឡើងប្រកួតក៏ដោយតែជើងខ្លាំងម្នាក់នេះជាគ្រូបង្វឹកប្រដាល់គុនខ្មែរនៅក្លឹប Prokout Fitness & Fight Center។ ប្រកួតចុងក្រោយរបស់ សេន ប៉ុនថេន ផ្តួលកីឡាករថៃអោយសន្លប់ក្នុងទឹកទី១នៅសង្វៀន CNC៕
Friday, October 28, 2016
Waiting to tap rubber’s rebound
Waiting to tap rubber’s rebound
The large-scale rubber plantations that arrived in force in Cambodia a decade ago as global rubber prices moved to historic peaks are facing sober prospects as trees they planted before the commodity’s prices headed south begin to reach maturity.
While international rubber prices have been slowly rising on a slight pick-up in demand from China, the world’s top consumer, a plantation owner said yesterday that the current $1,450 per tonne is not enough for large-scale producers to recoup their massive capital investment. He said that until rubber passes the $2,000 per tonne mark, it did not make economic sense to begin large-scale production.
Jef Boedt, general manager of Socfin Cambodia, the local arm of a French agro company with rubber plantations spread across Africa and Indonesia, said the first batch of rubber trees that the company has planted on 7,500 hectares in Cambodia since 2009 reached maturity earlier this year. However, this first tapping season has been limited, both at Socfin’s plantations in Mondulkiri province, and at others like it across the country.
“Right now, all the plantations that started planting six or seven years ago should be tappable today,” he said. “However, because the price and demand is not strong we are only tapping around 700 hectares when it should be around 1,500 to 2,000 hectares.”
He said limited tapping operations were yielding about 1.2 to 1.5 tonnes of rubber per hectare, whereas the standard business model is closer to 2 tonnes per hectare. So far, the company has produced around 1,000 tonnes of natural rubber this year, he added.
Boedt previously told the Post the company had invested $80 million into its Cambodia operations. Having waited seven years already to begin recouping this investment, its decision to press ahead with tapping aims at covering overheads, ensuring that workers are paid, and funding further infrastructure expansion.
But he said that large-scale producers were likely to wait until prices improve before scaling up their production.
“Because rubber plantations are a long-term investment, and take years to grow, investors need to be patient and wait for the prices to eventually rise,” he said.
“The goal for our company to start seeing major profits is [to wait until] prices reach $2,000 or $2,500 per tonne.”
Boedt added that he expects global rubber prices to begin rising sharply in 2018.He urged rubber plantation owners to hold on for long-term earnings from rubber, instead of cutting down trees and replacing them with other cash crops like cassava or pepper that can earn short-term gains.
Rising global rubber prices in the early 2000s fuelled a rush to scale-up production and cultivate new plantations. World rubber prices peaked in 2011 at $4,850 per tonne, before falling precipitously on a glut of supply and slower demand from China.
Pol Sopha, deputy director-general the rubber department at the Ministry of Agriculture, said that this year was already proving to be one of the best in recent times, and predicted that prices would continue to steadily increase.
“Prices continued to drop from 2011 until the end of 2015,” he said. “Now we are starting to see real increases.”
Sopha said the market price of rubber, which rose from $1,100 per tonne at the start of the year to $1,450 per tonne in September, had now reached $1,580 per tonne. This was a positive sign for producers, as the ministry’s calculations showed the breakeven point for large plantations was at somewhere between $1,350 and $1,450 per tonne.
He added that the Kingdom had planted rubber on around 400,000 hectares, with 130,000 hectares mature enough for cultivation.
“Cambodia still has a lot of potential for natural rubber cultivation and a lot of what has been planted is still not ready to be tapped,” Sopha said, adding that the country was primed for a future surplus of natural rubber.
Men Sopheak, vice president of the Cambodian Rubber Association, said that rubber prices had stabilised in recent months, and that small-scale rubber farmers were finally turning a profit.
“The current rubber price is allowing for small farmers to actually earn a profit, while larger plantations are deciding to just break even,” he said.
“Even if large plantations cannot make large profits yet, they are still tapping and producing in order to keep the company operational.”
While he projected that global trends could see rubber increase to $2,000 per tonne next year, he still believed that large-scale plantations would struggle to recoup the large capital costs associated with production, labour and domestically processing for export.
“However, these plantations are just waiting for when the price is better and then they can start to fully tap their trees,” he said, adding that a typical rubber tree, if managed properly, had a lifespan of 25 years. “Global prices don’t guarantee that rubber will make a profit all the time, but overall the potential is still there,” he added.
UN looks to outlaw nuclear weapons: Could it happen?
UN looks to outlaw nuclear weapons: Could it happen?
UN member countries voted Thursday to prepare a treaty that would ban nuclear weapons. The problem: all nine nuclear powers are united in opposing the resolution.
The United Nations says it’s time to take another look at eliminating nuclear weapons. But the countries that have them are united by one thing: their desire to keep the weapons.
On Thursday, UN member states voted on a resolution that would create a pathway to banning nuclear weapons. There was substantial support for the measure, with 123 countries voting in favor. All nine countries that have nuclear weapons, however, opposed the potential ban.
A split this early in the process highlights the challenges inherent in eliminating nuclear capability. Nations like the United States, Russia, and China see maintaining nuclear capabilities as essential to securing their citizens – and their allies – against outside threats. But supporters of the ban say that, even if it started out without universal adherence, a treaty would create international pressure on nuclear countries to draw down and destroy their stockpiles.
“Given the tremendous humanitarian consequences of any nuclear explosion, we have to take action,” explained Thomas Hajnoczi, Austria’s ambassador to the UN, according to Bloomberg. “Nuclear weapons states always say it’s too early for such a treaty but we think the time is right to create legal norms to ban weapons of mass destruction.” Austria was one of the sponsors of Thursday’s resolution.
The nuclear nonproliferation treaty already helps prevent non-nuclear countries from acquiring the weapons and limits the production of new nuclear weapons. The United States also has a bilateral treaty with Russia, signed in 2011, to mutually draw down their stockpiles to 1,550 warheads. The new resolution also comes one year after the deal curbing Iran’s nuclear program.
But for countries with nuclear weapons, those sorts of measures are about as far as they are willing to go. A “ban treaty runs the risk of undermining regional security,” said Robert Wood, US special representative to the UN Conference on Disarmament, on October 14. He said that the US would refuse to participate in any conference that aimed to eliminate nuclear weapons completely.
Current tensions between the US and Russia, as well as Chinese aggression in the South China Sea, and the uncertainties surrounding the advancing North Korean nuclear program, may contribute to the sense that now is not a good time to try for a ban. That’s a position supported by some allies of nuclear weapons powers, such as Australia.
Yet the UN resolution suggested that mistrust and simmering conflict between the powers mean that this is exactly the moment to act. Recent comments by a US presidential candidate have also raised international concerns that the United States might soon consider using its nuclear arsenal.
“The current international climate makes increased political attention to disarmament and non-proliferation issues, the promotion of multilateral disarmament and the achievement of a world without nuclear weapons all the more urgent,” it reads.
Proponents of the treaty note that nuclear weapons are the only weapons of mass destruction not currently banned. They point to the success of a treaty banning landmines as evidence that the international community can pressure countries to stop using certain weapons, even if these countries are not part of the initial treaty-elaboration process.
“Today’s vote demonstrates very clearly that a majority of the world’s nations consider the prohibition of nuclear weapons to be necessary, feasible and urgent. They view it as the most viable option for achieving real progress on disarmament,” said Beatrice Fihn, executive director of ICAN, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.
Since the resolution passed, it will go to a General Assembly vote in December. If that is successful, a UN conference will convene in March to start work on a treaty to ban nuclear weapons.
Large display monitors show the result of voting from member states during a meeting of the UN General Assembly, Wednesday, at UN headquarters. Bebeto Matthews/AP |
The United Nations says it’s time to take another look at eliminating nuclear weapons. But the countries that have them are united by one thing: their desire to keep the weapons.
On Thursday, UN member states voted on a resolution that would create a pathway to banning nuclear weapons. There was substantial support for the measure, with 123 countries voting in favor. All nine countries that have nuclear weapons, however, opposed the potential ban.
A split this early in the process highlights the challenges inherent in eliminating nuclear capability. Nations like the United States, Russia, and China see maintaining nuclear capabilities as essential to securing their citizens – and their allies – against outside threats. But supporters of the ban say that, even if it started out without universal adherence, a treaty would create international pressure on nuclear countries to draw down and destroy their stockpiles.
“Given the tremendous humanitarian consequences of any nuclear explosion, we have to take action,” explained Thomas Hajnoczi, Austria’s ambassador to the UN, according to Bloomberg. “Nuclear weapons states always say it’s too early for such a treaty but we think the time is right to create legal norms to ban weapons of mass destruction.” Austria was one of the sponsors of Thursday’s resolution.
The nuclear nonproliferation treaty already helps prevent non-nuclear countries from acquiring the weapons and limits the production of new nuclear weapons. The United States also has a bilateral treaty with Russia, signed in 2011, to mutually draw down their stockpiles to 1,550 warheads. The new resolution also comes one year after the deal curbing Iran’s nuclear program.
But for countries with nuclear weapons, those sorts of measures are about as far as they are willing to go. A “ban treaty runs the risk of undermining regional security,” said Robert Wood, US special representative to the UN Conference on Disarmament, on October 14. He said that the US would refuse to participate in any conference that aimed to eliminate nuclear weapons completely.
Current tensions between the US and Russia, as well as Chinese aggression in the South China Sea, and the uncertainties surrounding the advancing North Korean nuclear program, may contribute to the sense that now is not a good time to try for a ban. That’s a position supported by some allies of nuclear weapons powers, such as Australia.
Yet the UN resolution suggested that mistrust and simmering conflict between the powers mean that this is exactly the moment to act. Recent comments by a US presidential candidate have also raised international concerns that the United States might soon consider using its nuclear arsenal.
“The current international climate makes increased political attention to disarmament and non-proliferation issues, the promotion of multilateral disarmament and the achievement of a world without nuclear weapons all the more urgent,” it reads.
Proponents of the treaty note that nuclear weapons are the only weapons of mass destruction not currently banned. They point to the success of a treaty banning landmines as evidence that the international community can pressure countries to stop using certain weapons, even if these countries are not part of the initial treaty-elaboration process.
“Today’s vote demonstrates very clearly that a majority of the world’s nations consider the prohibition of nuclear weapons to be necessary, feasible and urgent. They view it as the most viable option for achieving real progress on disarmament,” said Beatrice Fihn, executive director of ICAN, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.
Since the resolution passed, it will go to a General Assembly vote in December. If that is successful, a UN conference will convene in March to start work on a treaty to ban nuclear weapons.
Caught between rubble and a hard place
Caught between rubble and a hard place
Soth Tha and his wife, Dus San, wake up every day before dawn in a tent fashioned out of green tarpaulin and a few metal poles. The construction workers are never late to work. Like many, they live on-site.
Tha and San are two of dozens of Cambodian workers building a 25-storey luxury condominium just a stone’s throw from Tuol Tompoung market. They moved to the capital 10 months ago, leaving behind two young sons in Prey Veng province to stay in school.
The parents see their two older sons, who work at a bakery in Tuol Kork, but San is constantly worried about the the ones back home, who come to visit when they can, like this week.
“Whenever we call them, we cry because they are young and have to cook for themselves,” she said. The decision to split up the family wasn’t an easy one, but one born out of desperation.
Like many working in construction, San has to pay off a debt accrued back home in the countryside. It’s a debt that isn’t even hers. “We were cheated by my wife’s brother, who asked us to borrow money for him from the bank. He ran away,” Tha explains.
San’s brother ran a bakery in Phnom Penh, and asked her to co-sign a $5,000 loan two years ago. Three months later, he sold the bakery and disappeared. “We are not happy to live and work here, but we have no choice,” Tha says. “We have to pay the bank.”
In his makeshift home, the only thing that separates Tha from the gravel that litters the floor are a few planks of wood that he and his wife use as a bed.
On the other side
Living on-site is an experience common to many of the capital’s 100,000 Cambodian construction workers.
But not all of those working in the capital’s booming property market are locals. On most international projects, skilled Chinese and Vietnamese nationals work side by side with Cambodians.
While the tasks performed by foreign construction workers and their Cambodian counterparts are much the same, their experiences are distinct, with each shouldering their own hardships.
By the time Tha and San clock in at 7am, Chinese national Cai Sheng Jie has already put in an hour’s work at one of the many Chinese-run construction sites peppered around Phnom Penh.
The tattooed Sheng Jie, 29, moved to Phnom Penh in August with a Chinese subcontractor to work on a large residential and commercial real estate project in Chamkarmon district.
Each morning he wakes at 5, eats a $1 breakfast at 5:30, leaves his residence and walks across the street to start another day of laying floor slabs.
Sheng Jie lives in dormitory-style, pre-fabricated housing. Rows of the matchbox-style structures lined with tiny windows are a hallmark of foreign-run construction sites.
The Chinese worker says the large room he lives in is enough for his eight roommates. “Yes, they are boxes. But they are actually comfortable. There is everything we need,” he says.
While the company provides them with the “box” and a blanket, they have to use spare wood to make their beds. For the first four hours of his shift, Sheng Jie says he looks forward to the best part of his job: the three-hour lunch break.
“I like it here, because when I work here I get to nap every day for up to two hours,” he says gleefully.
But that’s not the only reason for the toothy smile on his face. It is also the only time he gets to talk to his 5-year-old-son, the primary motivation for the gruelling work, he says.
“I have to tell you that I especially miss him,” Sheng Jie says. “After I clock out, I eat my meal, take a shower and immediately call him.”
Treated like ‘animals’
The construction sector has become one of the fastest growth engines of Cambodia’s fledgling economy over the past three years. Worksites with towering cranes have mushroomed in Phnom Penh, with residents unable to escape the steady din of jackhammers.
The rapid pace of on-paper investments in the sector has seen it outpace traditional moneymakers for the Kingdom, like tourism and agriculture. As of May this year, investments in the construction sector were estimated at $6.5 billion. In 2015, investments reached just $3.3 billion in total.
Records from the Ministry of Land Management show more than 200,000 Cambodian workers employed in the sector, with half of those in Phnom Penh. While wages vary based on skill level, those at the lower end receive about $6 a day, earnings only slightly better than that of Cambodia’s garment and footwear workers.
Tha and San make about $240 and $160 a month, respectively. But given his better skill profile and status as a foreign worker, Sheng Jie gets around $1,000 monthly with a $300 allowance.
There are many factors pushing Cambodians into the construction workforce despite the meagre wages, says Moeun Tola, director of labour rights group Central. The garment sector prefers women; debts are rising; and job opportunities in the provinces are few.
He says that many local workers come into the workforce relatively raw, but if firms invest in on-the-job training, Cambodians can perform better than their foreign coworkers.
But many are still treated like “animals”, Tola says, and live in squalid conditions. They are rarely given the option of staying in housing arranged by the company. So they set up their shack-like structures on-site, where access to running water is limited. The sites are rarely secure, endangering female workers especially, he says.
“Cambodian workers are always looked at as labourers and not skilled,” Tola says. “Their working and living conditions are completely different from Chinese and Vietnamese workers.”
Even at work, they have little protection. Despite having nearly a third of the number of employees in the garment industry, the construction sector has abysmally low worker representation.
The country’s 750,000 garment and footwear workers have more than 3,000 unions acting on their behalf. Construction workers have less than a handful.
“I think there are only four construction worker unions registered with the Ministry of Labour,” says Sok Kin, deputy president of the Building and Wood Workers Trade Union Federation of Cambodia.
He says that the dearth of adequate representation and regulatory oversight had led to workers being underpaid or cheated of their salaries, a lack of safety equipment and no social security net.
“We have had to create our own policies and inform the workers,” says Kin. “It still isn’t enough, because we don’t have enough members to spread the word.”
Working in the capital’s booming construction trade was not Tha and San’s first choice. Like many in the provinces, Tha first tried his luck across the border when a recruiter snuck him into Thailand to work for a Bangkok construction firm. San soon followed.
The daily 350 baht (about $10) that Tha earned in Thailand was far more than he could have made back in Prey Veng. But he had to share a stuffy room with other Cambodian workers, and San fell ill. They returned. Faced with ballooning debt, San made the decision to venture to Phnom Penh with Tha.
“I was not going to stay home without helping to earn money for our family, so I came with my husband,” San said.
Their plight is common. In May, the Cambodian Microfinance Association reported nearly $3 billion worth of outstanding micro-loans in Cambodia, with the average loan size about $1,400.
By the time San and Tha moved to the capital, they owed nearly $7,000, including interest.
Paying back the loan has come with sacrifices. Meals consist of the basics – rice and vegetable soup. Trips home are rare, and even the small pleasures of a beer after work had to be halted.
“We cannot have fun like other young workers, because we have to save the money,” San says.
The skill gap
Sitting in a local Chinese eatery near Koh Pich, Sheng Jie explains that uneducated workers have only two career choices in China: agriculture and construction. “And farming is just not my thing,” he says.
Having worked in the sector for 10 years, he didn’t hesitate to move to Cambodia when his firm was contracted to provide skilled workers.
“Honestly, when you are working for a firm and they have a new project, it is not nice to not go with them,” Sheng Jie says. “For us Chinese, we value trust and loyalty the most.”
Speaking with Sheng Jie, a tension between foreign workers and Cambodians becomes evident. He says he sees that sort of motivation and loyalty somewhat lacking in his domestic coworkers. “If you’re talking about local Cambodian workers, yes, their conditions are definitely worse than ours,” he says. “But that is because they are not as hard working as us.”
Sheng Jie says that there are opportunities for his Cambodian coworkers to learn on the job and pick up new skills, but there is a lack of interest. Tha disagrees. If local workers were provided training on how to use heavy equipment and machinery, they could be equally productive, he says.
But San adds that even if workers wanted to push for better working and living conditions, there is almost no help for them, and no unions. “We don’t see any union coming to help us with anything,” she says.
In their tiny home, Tha’s 10-year-old son, Reaksmey, plays with a toy motorcycle. Tha says he worries about his safety at the construction site, as well as when he is back in Prey Veng.
“I am concerned about him, because there is no one to watch over him,” he says. “I am afraid he will fall down or something will smash him.”
Desperate to get out of their predicament, Tha estimates that he and San can save enough money over the next year to be debt-free. But there is doubt written all over their faces.
“If we get a small piece of land for farming, the income will not be comparable, but at least we can live as a family together,” Tha says. “But who knows if we will ever be able to go back home.”
San cuts in. “Once we pay back the bank, I want to have a bakery [in Prey Veng] and my sons can help me run it,” she says.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)