By Joshua Chiang

The nature lodge that my girlfriend and I were staying at for our long weekend getaway was – like many of the settlements along the Tatai river in Koh Kong province, Cambodia – only accessible by boat. This region is still relatively untouched by urbanization, making it an ideal place of sorts for the burgeoning eco-tourism industry in the Kingdom. Here you might still see hornbills, crocodiles, sun bears, and, judging by the road signs along the highway to the province, elephants. Of course these are animals are notoriously shy and the only wild creature that I saw bigger than my hand was a 20-cm long black snake.

And yes, leeches. Lots of them. But you don’t really get to pick and choose which sort of nature you want to get to close when you opt for a holiday in a nature reserve.

On the second day, we trekked – with the help of a machet-happy jungle guide – through a thick bamboo forest to the mighty Tatai Waterfall and then went for a swim further downstream. The following day, we took the canoe out to some of the smaller waterfalls along the river. Anyone with some time to spare while holidaying in Cambodia, and sick of the usual Phnom Penh/Siem Reap circuit should seriously consider a trip down to the Tatai, that is provided you don’t mind leeches.

1374912_10151649935621024_61088238_n
Dawn on the Tatai. (view from my lodge)
1378330_10151649936266024_283609105_n
The mighty Tatai waterfall

But this isn’t really a review meant for TripAdvisor. This is about something more sobering.

During the last evening of our stay, we spoke at length to the owner of the lodge. Turned out he wasn’t the one who built the lodge; he took over the business from a previous owner who started the lodge as a way to help the local community. (When you receive your bill, you will be asked if you want to make donation to some of the ongoing community projects in the region that’s mostly got to do with children’s education and helping keep the livelihood of the people – more on that later).

The current owner also revealed that chief among the problems threatening the local community and their way of life is the issue of sand-dredging. The main culprit was someone who called himself the “King of Koh Kong”. The damage to the environment is pretty significant; over the last ten years, the mangrove forests along the river have retreated by as much as 300 metres – this has impacted the river life as well; fish stock which was plentiful had been greatly reduced. And that it took place within a protected nature reserve made it all the more, well, depressing.

What about the locals, did they simply take it lying down? Apparently not. The previous owner kicked up enough fuss to make the “King of Koh Kong” sign a contract stating that his company would cease sand-dredging activities in the area. It was a Pyrrhic victory. Within a few months, the ‘King’ shut down his company… and started a new one and it was business as usual. Among the reasons why the previous owner sold the lodge, exhaustion from fighting the ongoing sand-dredging is one of them.

1234523_10151649937176024_1042356103_n
Evidence of Sand dredging along the river
1379492_10151649937786024_906245687_n
Possible evidence of sand dredging along the river

Now this probably sounds like the usual story you here so often about Cambodia – crooked politicians whose hands can be easily greased, nasty businessmen who couldn’t care less they had broken some laws… what has it got to with you, that is, if you are a Singaporean.

Actually lots. See, Singapore is the main importer of sand from Cambodia, according to this extensive report by Global Witness. (click here)

Now that in itself wouldn’t be a problem, because the sand necessary for all that (over) building on our crowded little island has to come from somewhere. And after we’ve exhausted our sand supplies back in the Sixties, and later, when Malaysia and Indonesia decided to ban sand export to Singapore because we’re stealing their beaches and charging exorbitant prices for a glass of Long Island Tea to patrons of Siloso Beach, where else can we get our sand?

The problem is that there is compelling evidence to suggest that most of Cambodian sands exported to Singapore came from PROTECTED AREAS.  Areas like Koh Kong province. In response to queries from Global Witness, the Singapore Government wrote in 2010 that

“the import of sand to Singapore is done on a commercial basis. The Singapore government is not a party to any agreement or contract for the import of sand.”

I shall not go into details how that is a flimsy defense; Page 29-30 of the report pretty much shows the Singapore Government is culpable. The irony is of course the Government Singapore has ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS).xxvi These give the Singapore government and its nationals the same responsibilities as Cambodia to protect marine ecosystems and prevent against environmental degradation in its national waters, as well as the wider marine environment – such as dredging in Cambodia’s waters.

Our massive carbon footprint doesn’t just end there. The recent haze that choked Singapore might not have been due to the actions of palm oil company CTP Holdings, a Cargill-Temesak Holdings joint venture, but there are enough evidences to suggest that their claims of ethical practices in southern Indonesia is nothing but a glossy spin. (Google “Cargill’s Problem with Palm Oil’) The impact of their activities isn’t just environmental; it wrecks havoc on the lives of the indigenous people.

(On a side note, it would be highly ironic that a company partly owned by Singapore through Temasek Holdings could eventually be responsible for the disappearance of Ah Meng’s cousins in the wild. (link) (Ah Meng, for the uninformed, was a female orangutan whom, until her death was the public face of the acclaimed Singapore Zoological Gardens))

In response to a question on work-life balance on a televised show a few nights ago, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said, “If you look at other countries: Vietnam, China, even in India, they’re not talking about work-life balance; they are hungry, anxious, about to steal your lunch.”

I wonder if he realized the actions of companies linked to his government aren’t merely stealing lunches from the people in neighboring countries.

They’re robbing livelihoods outright.

This article was first appeared on Joshua Chiang’s note.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

旧机场路小贩申诉 社企接管后洗碗碟费涨40巴仙

位于旧机场路小贩中心,数名小贩申诉,自职总富食客接管以来,小贩们的碗碟清理费就增长了40巴仙,达到每月580元。 目前,全国114座小贩中心,其中13座由五大社会企业管理:肥雄、职总富食客、Timbre集团、Hawker Management和OTMH。 其中,职总富食客就从环境局手上接管了五座小贩中心,旧机场路小贩中心就是其中之一。 上月,本社报导也是由职总富食客管理的巴西立中路小贩中心,近10名小贩因为客流量不足、不堪负荷近两千元的附加费用,选择退出。 其中一名经营清真汉堡摊位的小贩贾哈鲁丁也反映,他向职总富食客反映了几次,摊位的排气罩有漏气问题,但是至今都没有解决。 许多小贩反对社企管理手法 许多小贩在社企接管后,面对许多原本在环境局管理下不会面对的问题,渐渐对社企管理模式感到不满。 其中一些社企设下的规定,就包括要向管理层请假修业;不能自行调整十五价格,以及终止租约还要赔“违约金”。 成功跻身新加坡米其林必比登美食指南的鱼缘美食摊主黄正勇,就直言有些小贩中心被当成私人食阁来经营,租金起了、提早退出又拿不回押金,难怪小贩会不满。 在牛车水大厦美食中心经营精致啤酒的Daniel Goh,提到他和一些有抱负的餐饮业者交谈,原本这些人有意当小贩,但发现一个月薪超过2千元的酒店厨师赚得可能必小贩还多,就打消了念头。小贩有很大部分利润都被社企征收的种种高昂费用削掉了。…

Zuji新加坡裁员和关闭 背后疑与海航集团撤出OTA市场有关

线上旅游中介Zuji新加坡,疑因无法偿还航空公司机票费用,而被国际航空运输协会(IATA)取消中介资格,不得透过该协会中央机票管理服务发售计票。 根据《海峡时报》报导,Zuji新加坡也面临裁员和关闭的命运,但香港Zuji仍继续运作不受影响。 消费者目前也无法访问Zuji新加坡的官方网站。 相信未来Zuji将专注在香港的业务。事实上,网络旅游中介平台Zuji 的业务分布澳大利亚、香港、新西兰、印度和新加坡。 2012年年底,澳大利亚在线预订网站Webjet以2500万美元收购了Zuji。 香港优利2016年购得Zuji港、新业务 2016年,又以5600万澳元的价格,将Zuji香港和新加坡的业务,出售给了香港旅行技术集团—优利航空投资控股(Uriel Aviation Holding)。 优利公司也被外界质疑,背后实则由海航集团(HNA group)操纵。而Zuji…

General manager of PAP town council removed from duties and placed under CPIB investigations

Straits Times on the early morning of Friday released the news of the…

证券投资者协会抛23问题质问凯发集团

新加坡证券投资者协会(SIAS)代表证券投资者,向凯发集团(Hyflux)董事会致函,对该集团的运营、估值和董事会信用责任问题表达严正关注,罗列23道问题,以让证券持有人知情并作出明智决定。 在由该协会主席大卫杰乐署名的信函提到,债权人和投资者们们整理出一些问题,要求凯发集团董事会回答,包括几乎所有凯发资产都存在严重缺陷,例如在阿曼 Qurayyat和Magtaa的海水淡化厂有运作缺陷,无法达到营运容量;大泉水电厂和天津大港新泉海水淡化厂蒙受亏损,以及Tuasone和阿尔及利亚的Tlemsen项目无法完成。 投资者质问凯发董事会,究竟对这些主要资产进行了怎样的监管?为何这些严重缺陷却没有在年报上公布? “凯发筹集了五亿新元的永久债券和四亿元的优先股,这些资金要如何使用?对比招股说明书的实际使用情况又是如何?”债权人也质问,来自股东500万元的贷款如何使用在大泉水电厂上。 负现金流仍支付股息 与此同时,凯发集团自2009年以来就呈现负运营现金流。但有没有把这种情况告知债权人和股东?何以在负现金流下仍能继续支付股息,至累积更多债务?在2017年前每年都报告盈利而非亏损,令投资者直问:这怎么可能? 协会也要求凯发出示大泉水电厂的现金储备和现有市值,并且质疑它的14亿元账面价值被高估了。”事实上,在2018年,凯发曾接受比马银行五亿元债务耕地的脱售献议,故此至少高估了九亿元。“再者,投资者们也不认为电价低是导致该厂亏损的原因。 亏损时总裁仍获高额薪酬 与此同时,协会也质疑当股东和债权人都在蒙受投资亏损时,总裁林爱莲仍能从34巴仙普通股权中获得6千万元的股息。在2017年的薪酬和分红分别达到75万元和1百万元。同年,凯发却亏损高达1亿1560万元。在这不久的五个月后,凯发集团就因为亏损巨额资金和建筑项目,向法庭申请保护令。 ”敢问林爱莲在凯发重组中扮演的角色?何以在重组过程中她没有将其所得收益贡献出来?“ 协会的信函也提到,在2017年凯发年报,支付给凯发关键领导层的总薪酬高达265万元。何以该集团可以在当下艰难财务环境下,仍能继续支付高额薪酬?这些公司领导理应清楚公司面对的情况,也要负上很大的责任。