Rubber Production Drops 20.3% MoM In March
Malaysia's Natural Rubber production decreased by 20.3 per cent in March 2025 as compared to February 2025 according to the latest report by Department of Statistics.
On a Year-on-year comparison, it showed that the production of NR increased by 6.5 percent while production was mainly contributed by the smallholders sector (90.9%) as compared to the estates sector (9.1%).
DOSM noted that total stocks increased by 4.1 percent to 215,054 tonnes as compared to 206,665 tonnes in February 2025. Rubber Processors Factory contributed 87.6 percent of the stocks, followed by Rubber Consumers Factory (12.3%) and rubber estates (0.1%).
Exports amounted to 52,573 tonnes in March, a decrease of 4.1 percent as against February 2025 (54,847 tonnes). China remained the main destination for NR exports, which accounted for 47.7 percent of total exports in March 2025, followed by Germany (8.0%), %), the United States of America (7.4%), the United Arab Emirates (6.3%) and Egypt (3.3%).
The exports performance was contributed by NR-based product such as gloves, tyre, tubes and rubber thread. Gloves were the main exports of rubber-based products with a value of RM1.3 billion in March 2025, an increase of 9.5 per cent as compared to February 2025 (RM1.2 billion).
Analysis of the average monthly price showed that Concentrated Latex recorded an increase of 0.4 per cent (March 2025: 696.05 sen per kg; February 2025: 693.13 sen per kg) while Scrap decreased by 1.1 per cent (March 2025: 761.92 sen per kg; February 2025: 770.44 sen per kg).
Trend of prices for all Standard Malaysian Rubber (S.M.R) is mixed between increased 0.4 per cent and decreased 1.9 per cent. Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
a day ago
- The Star
Is there a 'right' retirement age?
Here we go again. Yet another round of viewpoints regarding increasing the retirement age. This came after Minister in the Prime Minister's Department (Law and Institutional Reform) Datuk Seri Azalina Othman Said suggested that the government consider raising the retirement age to 65. It was her personal opinion but it opened the flood gates of debate from the public on whether this was a good or bad idea. My view on this? Neither good nor bad, but unavoidable, inevitable. The number of countries opting to raise their retirement age is growing. In the majority of countries in Europe, the retirement age is 65 and above, with Denmark and Norway leading at 67. What about Asia? Singapore is following suit. It plans to raise the statutory retirement age from 63 to 65 and the re-employment age from 68 to 70 in 2026. For Japan, it's 65. For Korea, India, Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand, it's 60 but it will likely be raised in the coming years. China is also joining the lineup. For decades since 1950, the retirement age in China has remained at 50. It recently raised retirement age for the first time from 50 to 55 for women in blue-collar jobs, and from 55 to 58 for those in white-collar jobs. For men it will be increased from 60 to 63. Two sides of the coin The main argument against increasing the retirement age is that it deprives young job seekers of employment. While this may be true to a certain extent, it's primarily technology and mechanisation, not older workers, that is taking away jobs. Let's not forget AI. It is already replacing workers in white-collar jobs. All this has nothing to do with the retirement age. Based on DOSM figures, the unemployment rate stands at 3.1% for May 2025. The government is committed to ensuring unemployment is kept low. It does this by taking on the role as employer of last resort. Malaysia has the largest civil service in the world in terms of ratio of civil service workforce to population: Over 1.6 million-strong to serve its 34.1 million population. The government will not be able to continue paying pension to an ever-growing number of pensioners. Currently there are an estimated 930,000 pensioners from the civil service, judges, former servicemen and senators. The government is finding it a huge challenge to keep up with pension payments despite raising the retirement age from 55 to 60 in 2013. Hence the moveaway from pensions to EPF contributions. The family structure has changed so drastically that parents can no longer expect their adult children to support them in their old age. Family size has shrunk, and with the grown children moving out to work or settle elsewhere, retired couples are often left to fend for themselves. It's a good idea to sit down at the family table and have a heart-to-heart discussion about the future scenario for the family 20 years down the road. What would it look like? Here's a very likely scenario: The adult children are now in their late 30s. Their parents are retirees in their early 60s, and their grandparents are in their early 80s. The adult children have to see their teenage children through further education, and still have to support their retired parents as well as their elderly grandparents. Three-four generation families are becoming common. The longer life expectancy is both a boon and a bane. What this means is that the adult children have to support their parents as well as grandparents. Multiply that by two. They mustn't leave out parents-in-laws and grandparents-in-law. In total, the couple has to support eight older persons on top of supporting their own children! To top it, they have fewer siblings to share the cost of caring for the elderly family members. This is already happening in many families now. It's not a future reality. Our fertility rate is declining, as in most countries. Young people are delaying marriage. When they do, they delay starting a family. When they are finally ready to have children, they want only one or two. The result – fewer siblings to share the heavy financial responsibility of supporting six to eight elderly family members. Faced with such a reality, perhaps those in the 30s and 40s will not protest against increasing the retirement age. Their parents will be able to work longer and be self-supporting. With their salary, they will be able to contribute financially towards supporting the family members, both young and old. Thanks to better education and awareness of staying active and healthy, a growing number of those in their 60s, (and even 70s) are still hale and hearty. They are capable of working another five years or more. Give them the option to do so. Some may want to retire, let them. Some may need to continue working as their adult children are unable to support them, or they may need to help their adult children who are unable to find a job, or keep up with their financial commitments. Stop gap solution This is a temporary stop gap solution. No one wants to work indefinitely. Who doesn't want to enjoy freedom from work, to have time to pursue their personal interests and not be at the beck and call of their boss. What it comes down to is that family life and work life as we know it have changed drastically. This has impacted every aspect of our existence. We have to adjust, adapt and accept. This is one way of looking at progress. Or survival. Quite similar to how we now look at the digital world. Adapt or be left behind while the rest of the world marches on. This is the message to both young and old alike. And to countries too. Governments simply can't afford pension payouts when the older population keeps growing due to longer life expectancy and the younger population keeps shrinking due to lower fertility rate. Demographic changes have a huge impact on the economy, indeed on all aspects of life, and also on the family support system. China abandoned their 1979 one-child policy in 2015 when they realised the adverse implications it had on support for the growing older population. Whether we want to or not, whether we like it or not, the retirement age will continue to be raised. We don't have to work till we drop dead, but at least allow older workers to continue working for as long as the retirement age allows them to. They will know best whether they are physically and mentally fit enough to continue working. Employers also have the option to offer early retirement or not hire workers who do not satisfy the health requirements for the job. Let's not forget the social benefits of working longer. There are retirees who miss the social connections at work. When they stop working, life can become lonely. They miss their former colleagues. They miss the daily chat, the company outings and social functions. Isolation and loneliness can affect the mental health and wellbeing of older people. If these retirees were your parents, wouldn't you want them to continue working a few years longer and to remain independent longer? For young people who oppose raising the retirement age, be thankful that your working parents are self-supporting, and not a financial burden to you. Regardless of whether the retirement age is 60, 65 or 70, everyone reaches that age one day. Everyone has parents and grandparents. Think of them when you think of whether to support the proposal to raise the retirement age. We need to look at the issue both objectively and subjectively, from the government's point of view, from the employers' stand and also from the perspective of both the young and the old. Perhaps then we can have a clearer picture of whether raising the retirement age is a 'good or bad' idea. We know what the answer is. Lily Fu is a gerontologist who advocates for seniors. She is founder of SeniorsAloud, an online platform for seniors to connect and enjoy social activities for ageing well.
Malaysiakini
3 days ago
- Malaysiakini
Gambling with Islamic funds
Good morning. Here's what you should know today. Key Highlights Gambling with Islamic funds Umno balik kampung London One less job for Zafrul Gambling with Islamic funds The MACC believes that more than RM20 million raised through sukuk funds for a highway project may have been misused for gambling. They've also uncovered more than 300 bottles of fancy booze worth RM3 million in a storage facility. This was uncovered as part of an MACC probe into false claims filed in the RM1.3 billion highway project. One of the suspects is a Tan Sri. HIGHLIGHTS Umno balik kampung London Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi is in the UK for a working visit. The trip is also becoming an Umno getaway of sorts, with at least 12 party leaders - including three of Zahid's aides - also in London. However, Zahid's political secretary Megat Zulkarnain Omardin said that those not linked to the deputy premier's office all paid for the trip out of their own pockets. HIGHLIGHTS One less job for Zafrul There has been a lot of speculation about what's in store for Tengku Zafrul Abdul Aziz once his final term as senator expires at the end of the year. However, one job option is now off the table. The government has appointed a career diplomat to become the next US ambassador. Zafrul's chances of becoming Selangor menteri besar is also in question, with current office holder Amirudin Shari seemingly reluctant to let go and get promoted to Putrajaya. HIGHLIGHTS Views that matter In case you missed it
New Straits Times
4 days ago
- New Straits Times
TNB ordered to pay RM1.3mil in late interest to landowner
PUTRAJAYA: Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) has been ordered to pay RM1.3 million in late payment interest to a company for delays in compensating it for land used in a transmission line project. A three-member Court of Appeal panel led by Federal Court judge Datuk Lee Swee Seng said the national utility giant must pay the sum to Lambang Kelana Sdn Bhd after finding that the company had been unfairly deprived of its money for over five years due to administrative delays. Other members of the bench were Court of Appeal judges Datuk Azimah Omar and Datuk Wong Kian Kheong. According to court documents, in 2007, TNB had prematurely entered Lambang Kelana's land without due compliance with wayleave procedures under Section 11 of the Electricity Supply Act to install electrical infrastructure. The section stipulates that utility companies must follow specific procedures before entering private land to install or build electrical infrastructure, including giving formal notice to landowners and paying full compensation for any disturbance or loss of use of the land. Lambang Kelana was neither served the statutory notice nor paid proper compensation for the loss of the portion of land acquired as wayleave for TNB. The dispute led to a protracted legal battle, and TNB only paid RM2.1 million in compensation in 2020. However, the payment did not include any interest for the long delay. In 2021, the Negri Sembilan State Authority decided that Lambang Kelana should receive RM1,369,332.95 in late payment interest for the delay in compensation from October 2015 to December 2020. However, TNB filed a judicial review to challenge the decision in the High Court and succeeded in getting it overturned. Azimah, who delivered the unanimous decision in dismissing the lower court's ruling, said the trial judge had misinterpreted the law by adopting a narrow and literal reading of the relevant provisions. "To deprive the appellant of its rightful late payment charges would certainly transgress upon the appellant's constitutional rights safeguarded under Article 13(2) of the Federal Constitution. "Despite the delay caused by the Land Administrator, TNB was still unjustly enriched by being able to utilise and earn interest on the monies that were supposed to be paid to Lambang Kelana for the entire duration of the delay," she said. The appellate court said any interpretation of the law that allows government authorities or licensees to delay compensation with impunity would be unjust. "We are certain that no statute ever legislated within our nation would promote a statutory authority to delay justice with impunity at the expense of unjust losses incurred against innocent landowners. "If that be the case, then TNB would stand to unjustly benefit by holding onto monies that should have been paid to landowners, courtesy of delays by the Land Administrator. "In the meantime, the Land Administrator would not suffer a single sen for the entire duration of the delay. The only party to suffer losses would be the landowner. "Such an interpretation would truly be absurd and unjust," the court added. The court also did not make any order for costs.
