Rubber rebound? Still waiting for the bounce
I never tapped a tree or dreamt of latex. But someone tossed me a glove and asked, 'What about rubber?'
I hesitated – until I remembered my roots. My mother was a rubber tapper. As a child, I trailed her in misty dawns, watching her draw life from trees with silent grit.
That memory reshaped my view: rubber isn't just a fading commodity – it's a legacy. One cut, one cup, one unseen hero at a time.
While policymakers debate if rubber belongs in the 'sunset' file, I see dawns - of nation-building, of quiet progress carved without slogans.
Yes, rubber now faces twilight confusion. But what it needs isn't nostalgia – it's clarity. It deserves honest reckoning, not romanticism.
We must ask: What does this legacy crop still mean – and what could it become if given its rightful due?
Tapping into a shared responsibility
The Plantation and Commodities Ministry has taken a positive step: proposing the consolidation of rubber smallholders as a national agenda under the budget.
It's a promising move – though, as always, good ideas must queue behind competing priorities at the Finance Ministry.
This renewed focus responds to a growing concern: over 420,000 ha of mature rubber trees – nearly half the size of Selangor – remain untapped.
Labour shortages and ageing trees are part of the story, but deeper structural issues also hold back progress.
Rubber smallholdings are fragmented and scattered, making them hard to manage and uneconomical to tap.
It's a challenge we're also seeing in oil palm – suggesting broader systemic reform may be needed.
Malaysia excels in downstream rubber, particularly gloves, which generate over RM12bil in exports (est. 2024). But the upstream segment continues to struggle. Though the government has opened quotas for foreign labour, uptake has been limited.
There's growing consensus that modernising and consolidating smallholdings could offer a path forward. Clustering has been discussed for years, and it's encouraging to see traction at the policy level.
Still, successful implementation will require more than intent – it needs coordination, strong institutional support and trust from smallholders.
Other countries have addressed similar challenges. The US Farm Bill and the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy offer models of land consolidation and strategic public support.
While Malaysia's context is unique, there's value in adapting lessons from elsewhere. This is a complex, political issue that demands resources and courage.
Too often, we default to short-term subsidies that offer relief but no structural change.
The real question is: will there be the will to take one bold step – difficult in the short term, but transformative in the long run?
Ultimately, we share a common goal: to ensure the rubber sector remains resilient, inclusive and sustainable.
With the right structures and collaboration, today's untapped potential can become tomorrow's opportunity.
One tree, many stakeholders
The governance of Malaysia's rubber sector reflects a rich institutional legacy shaped by different mandates and regional needs.
In Peninsular Malaysia, about 90% to 95% of rubber is cultivated by smallholders supported by Risda, under the Rural and Regional Development Ministry.
Broader commodity matters – such as research and development, upstream and downstream development – fall under the Malaysian Rubber Board, which reports to the Plantation and Commodities Ministry.
In Sabah and Sarawak, there are also state-level agencies like Lembaga Industri Getah Sabah and Sarawak Rubber Industry Board.
While this structure reflects Malaysia's federal and developmental history, it can also create challenges in coordination, especially where mandates overlap or where multiple agencies share responsibility across the value chain.
This complexity can sometimes make it harder to align efforts, allocate resources efficiently and maintain clear accountability.
As the sector adapts to evolving global trends – from market volatility to sustainability pressures – it may be timely to explore whether the current institutional setup best supports the future.
Clarifying roles, enhancing inter-agency coordination or even streamlining oversight could help improve implementation on the ground – particularly for the smallholders who form the backbone of the industry.
Rather than a call for wholesale change, this is an invitation to reflect: Are there ways to strengthen alignment across institutions to better support growth, innovation and resilience in the rubber sector?
Leadership continuity
One of the less discussed yet impactful challenges in the plantation sector is the frequent ministerial turnover.
Between 2018 and 2023, the Plantation and Commodities Ministry saw
five different Ministers. While driven by broader political shifts, this level of churn creates undeniable instability.
Sectors like rubber and oil palm depend on long economic and biological cycles, tied to global trade and rural livelihoods. They don't thrive under short-term planning or inconsistent leadership.
What's needed is policy consistency, institutional memory, and long-term engagement – hard to achieve with revolving-door leadership.
This raises a larger question: is such volatility circumstantial, or does it reflect a deeper structural gap in how we steward strategic commodity sectors?
Elevating the Ministry from a stop-gap appointment to a central pillar of national development could foster the stability essential for meaningful, lasting progress in agriculture and beyond.
Rubber's reality check: Tapping out or stepping up?
If rubber is to stay relevant, structural reforms and targeted research and development are essential.
Let's face the rubbery truth with smallholders. They aren't bouncing back anytime soon if we keep slathering short-term subsidies like balm on a broken limb.
For decades, price supports have been our reflex band-aid, yet the bleeding continues. Why? Because the real wound is technological stagnation.
We talk big about latex premiums - especially with glove manufacturers importing truckloads from Thailand – yet most of our smallholders still produce low-value cup lumps. Why? Because they're ageing.
Their kids have traded in tapping knives for TikTok and city jobs. Rubber tapping, once noble and dependable, is now a retirement endeavour for the over-60s.
And can we blame them? Tapping latex is laborious. Labour-intensive tapping, often done before sunrise, deters new workers and risks bark damage. These are sustainability red flags.
Cup lumps, on the other hand, are lazy-friendly – tap today, collect next week.
But that convenience comes at a cost: low prices, zero premiums and economic limbo during market dips.
Research into latex extraction, especially chemical stimulation for consistent yield, must accelerate. With synthetic alternatives rising, only bold, integrated research and development will secure natural rubber's future.
So what's the real bounce-back plan? Stop cushioning decline with feel-good subsidies. Start investing in upstream tech adoption, rejuvenate interest through viable models for younger rural entrepreneurs, and don't forget the sleeper hit - rubberwood.
If we treat those old trees as dual-income assets for latex and timber, maybe, just maybe, Malaysia's rubber story won't go the way of the dodo – or worse, get Thai-jacked.
Coherence in the rubber roadmap
This isn't a criticism. It's a call for clarity, coherence and long-term direction.
The plantation sector, rubber included, needs more than fragmented solutions and overlapping mandates.
It deserves a unified, data-driven vision aligned with national goals and grounded in the realities of smallholders.
Leadership continuity is equally critical. Structural reforms in perennial crops need time and consistency.
Current efforts, though well-meaning, may not match today's challenges.
Rubber offers a simple truth: trees are either tapped – or they're not. The sector either advances or it falls further behind.
Joseph Tek Choon Yee has over 30 years experience in the plantation industry, with a strong background in oil palm research and development, C-suite leadership and industry advocacy. The views expressed here are the writer's own.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
5 hours ago
- New Straits Times
Brexit's parallels with Trump tariffs tell a tale
In figuring out why the United States tariff shock hasn't sent the economy or financial world into a tailspin, Britain's exit from the European Union trade bloc provides something of a playbook — and without a particularly happy ending. Aside from vast differences in economic scale and global reach, the two episodes bear some comparison in how they upended years of deeply integrated free trade and possibly in how business, the economy at large and financial markets reacted. The 2016 Brexit referendum and Trump's tariffs this year were each widely billed as economic shocks that would send the financial world into paroxysms. They didn't, at least not at the outset. To be sure, both were followed by dramatic downward lurches in the two countries' currencies. But, to some extent, the steep drop in sterling after the referendum vote and the dollar's plunge on President Donald Trump's tariff plan this year helped offset some of the wider impact, at least on stock markets that are loaded with global firms with outsized foreign revenue. More broadly, however, the difficulty in isolating their immediate net impact means no "big bang" economic crisis unfolds to prove critics right, even if their enduring legacy turns out to be a slow burn of economic potential and lost output, often obscured by multiple other crosswinds. In Britain's case, the seismic effects of the Covid-19 pandemic distorted any attempt to easily assess Brexit when it actually happened. Tortuous negotiations with the EU meant the UK's departure eventually occurred on the eve of the health crisis in 2020 and the new trade rules did not come into force until a year later. But in the four years between the referendum surprise and the pandemic, the UK economy never entered a recession nor recorded a negative quarterly GDP print — confounding pro-EU supporters at the time and bolstering the Brexit lobby. Emerging from the twin hits, however, the economy has almost flatlined since. What's more, it's taken more than eight years for the pound's effective exchange rate to recover its pre-referendum levels. Few mainstream economists now doubt that Brexit has taken a serious toll on the UK economy. One academic study by a number of Bank of England economists earlier this year concluded that uncertainty following the referendum resulted in little change in goods exports and imports before the exit was finalised. But after the new rules hit, UK imports fell three per cent and overall exports fell 6.4 per cent, largely because of the 13 per cent hit in exports to the EU. While this slump seems relatively modest compared with the official forecasts of the longer-term hit, the pain has been borne disproportionately by small businesses. And the cumulative damage to London and the service sector over the next 10 years continues to worry the City. The US tariff story is of a completely different order, of course, as it will reverberate across the world economy. But there are some parallels, not least in certain aspects of the market reactions and the initial resilience. Economists estimate that the tariffs could lop anywhere from 0.5 per cent to one per cent off US gross domestic product over time. That's a US$150 billion to US$300 billion hit, which, though painful, would not be an instant crisis for an economy that's growing at a roughly two per cent annualised rate, where imported goods represent just 11 per cent of GDP and where tech and AI trends are generating considerable tailwinds. But as former White House economic adviser Jason Furman said in a New York Times essay last week, the tariff damage is likely not a one-off hit. The loss of 0.5 per cent of GDP, he argued, is "the equivalent of every household in America taking around US$1,000 and lighting it on fire, then doing it again every year. Forever." In the end, the main point of the British comparison is to show how extreme partisan arguments on the pros or cons of such giant economic policy changes don't necessarily get resolved cleanly in adaptive, hardy and hyper-complex economies. The latest YouGov opinion poll shows 56 per cent of Britons now think it was wrong to leave the EU, some nine years after their narrow vote to leave. The jury on Trump's tariffs is still out.
The Star
8 hours ago
- The Star
India accuses EU, US of double standard over Russian trade
FILE PHOTO: Russian President Vladimir Putin shakes hands with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi during their meeting on the sidelines of the BRICS Summit in Kazan, Russia October 22, 2024. Alexander Zemlianichenko/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo NEW DELHI (Reuters) -India has sharply criticised the United States and the European Union, saying it is being unfairly singled out by them over its Russian oil purchases when they both trade extensively with Moscow despite the war in Ukraine. India's criticism followed a renewed threat by U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday to raise tariffs on goods from India over its Russian oil purchases, deepening the trade rift between the two countries. In a rare show of unity, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the main opposition Congress on Tuesday condemned Trump's repeated criticism of New Delhi. India's Foreign Ministry said in a statement issued late on Monday that "it is revealing that the very nations criticising India are themselves indulging in trade with Russia". "It is unjustified to single out India," the ministry said. It said the EU conducted 67.5 billion euros ($78.02 billion) in trade with Russia in 2024, including record imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) reaching 16.5 million metric tons. The United States, the statement said, continues to import Russian uranium hexafluoride for use in its nuclear power industry, palladium, fertilisers and chemicals. It did not give a source for the export information. The U.S. embassy and the EU's delegation in New Delhi did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Both the United States and EU have sharply scaled back their trade ties with Russia since it launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. In 2021, Russia was the EU's fifth-largest trading partner, with goods exchange worth 258 billion euros, according to the EU executive European Commission. SUDDEN RIFT The sudden rift between India and the U.S. has been deepening since July 31, when Trump announced a 25% tariff on Indian goods being shipped to the U.S. and for the first time threatened unspecified penalties for buying Russian oil. India is one of the biggest buyers of crude from Russia, importing about 1.75 million barrels per day from January to June this year, up 1% from a year ago. Indian refiner Nayara Energy, a major buyer of Russian oil which is majority owned by Russian entities including oil major Rosneft, was subjected to European Union sanctions targeting Russia's oil and energy industry in July. India has said it does not support "unilateral sanctions" by the EU. Trade experts say Trump's tariff could badly hurt India's economy. Ajay Srivastava of the New Delhi-based Global Trade Research Initiative said he expected Indian goods exports to the U.S. to fall 30% in the current fiscal year ending March 31, to $60.6 billion from $86.5 billion in the 2025 fiscal year. India's equity benchmarks fell after Trump's renewed threat of harsh tariffs on goods from India. Manish Tewari, a member of parliament and Congress leader, said Trump's "disparaging remarks hurt the dignity and self-respect of Indians". "The time has come to call out this constant bullying and hectoring," he added. BJP Vice President Baijayant Jay Panda quoted Henry Kissinger - the most powerful U.S. diplomat of the Cold War era - in a post on X: "To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal." (Reporting by Aftab Ahmed and Nidhi Verma;Editing by Helen Popper)
The Sun
8 hours ago
- The Sun
EU braces for US trade turbulence despite tariff deal
BRUSSELS: The European Union anticipates further turbulence in trade relations with the United States but views its recent tariff agreement as a protective measure. Under the deal, most EU exports to the US will face a maximum 15% tariff, providing a buffer against potential disputes. A senior EU official confirmed that executive orders to reduce tariffs on specific goods, including cars and car parts, are expected soon. 'We do expect further turbulence, but we have a clear insurance policy—the 15% tariff across the board. If the U.S. administration does not stick to that, we have the means to react,' the official said. While the agreement covers most sectors, key industries like wine and spirits remain unresolved. Gabriel Picard, head of France's wine and spirits exporters federation, expressed cautious optimism. 'We are 48 hours away from a decision, and we have not lost hope that wines and spirits can be exempted,' he said. The EU is also negotiating exemptions for essential products, aiming for a zero-tariff arrangement. However, discussions on steel and other sensitive sectors are taking longer due to volume-related complexities. Despite the deal, business sentiment in the euro zone has dipped, reflecting concerns over unresolved trade issues. German engineering orders fell 5% in June, highlighting economic uncertainty. France and Germany have called for a stronger EU stance in future trade talks. - Reuters
