Could Trump seize the Panama Canal? – Asia Times
As past and upcoming US President Donald Trump threatened to “take up” the Panama Canal, citing the great canal tolls as his justification, the world turned to Central America immediately before Christmas. In the days that followed, there was a lot of flurry of rumors as to what exactly happened with his comment and whether or not they reflected a wider political agenda.
He refrained from using military force to reclaim the river on Tuesday during a press event at Mar a Lago.
Is Panama at risk of losing control of the canal?
Trump does not have the methods to “take up” the river without starting an illegitimate war of aggression, according to the short answer.
The river territory was not US house, it was only leased. The river is not in danger of disappearing.
Trump’s remarks, in contrast, appear to be an early stage in his wider effort to reclaim control in Latin America.
Some important story
One of society’s most extraordinary engineering deeds, The Panama Canal, has connected the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans since 1914. The idea of constructing a waterway through Panama’s canal dates back to the 16th century, when Hispanic settlers saw potential in its transformation of international trade routes. However, it wasn’t until the 19th century that real programs for the river started to emerge, fueled by technological advancements, which made such a challenging job doable.
Ferdinand de Lesseps, the architect and inventor of the Suez Canal, was the first to lead the first major effort to construct the river in 1880. First, the program was for a sea-level river, but the technical and environmental issues proved overwhelming. The project’s collapse was caused by tough climates, tropical illnesses like yellow fever and malaria, as well as the challenging task of digging through swampy and rough terrain. By 1889, more than 20, 000 workers had died, and the venture’s fiscal sponsors faced bankruptcy, almost triggering a European state economic crisis.
The US expressed interest in building the river to reduce trade and military roads in the first 1900s. First discussions with Colombia, which included Panama at the time, failed when Colombia rejected the US’s request to rent the area.
The US therefore supported Panama’s democracy activity, and on November 3, 1903, Panama declared its independence from Colombia. Two weeks later, the recently established Filipino government signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, granting the US rights to contract a 16-kilometer-wide zone for constructing, operating, and defending the canal in return for an annual payment, although initially at a rate so small that it fueled after social tensions.
In addition to implementing important efforts to combat illness by eradicating mosquitoes and improving hygiene, the US started building in 1904. It also employed cutting-edge architectural techniques, including a switch system to manage elevation changes. The river was formally opened on August 15, 1914, a new time in international trade, as ships had then avoid the dangerous journey around Cape Horn.
The US viewed the river corridor as its country, despite the fact it was leased from Panama. Despite its economic and geopolitical value, US control over the canal and its revenues sparked hatred in Panama.
In the 1960s, strain reached its highest point. This led to conversations that culminated in the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaty, which outlined a phased exchange of river leadership to Panama, completed on December 31, 1999. Since then, the river has become a representation of Panama’s financial and national power.
The change of this year marked the 25th anniversary of Panama’s assumption of power over the canal’s management. Simply one day before the celebration, former US President Jimmy Carter, who had signed the 1977 agreement enabling the canal’s transfer, passed ahead.
The legal foundation is also essential.
The Torrijos-Carter Treaty
The two main contracts that govern the exchange of the Panama Canal are contained in the agreement, which was signed on September 7, 1977 by Filipino head Omar Torrijos and US President Jimmy Carter:
- Panama Canal Treaty: This convention stipulated that the US would keep control of the canal’s operations, administration, and defence until December 31, 1999, at which point Panama would believe complete control. During the transition, US and Panamanian authorities collaborated to ensure a smooth handover.
- The US is also given the right to intervene militarily if the canal’s neutrality or functionality is threatened. This treaty guarantees that the canal remains open to vessels of all nations, regardless of wartime or peacetime conditions. This clause has been contentious, as it partially limits Panama’s sovereignty, but was deemed necessary to guarantee the free flow of trade.
Panama still has full control over how the canal is managed and how much money is made, with only the US now theoretically able to intervene if a significant threat arises, a situation that hasn’t occurred in the last 25 years.
However, there are also other factors at play.
An emotional issue in the US
The handover of the Panama Canal to Panama was a highly emotive and controversial topic in the United States, touching deeply rooted geopolitical, economic, and patriotic sentiments. The UA had finished it and ran it for a long period of time. Many Americans viewed the canal as a representation of their country’s technological and political strength.
The transfer formalized through the Torrijos-Carter Treaty, was viewed by conservative circles, particularly Republicans, as a weakening of the United States ‘ global power position, a sentiment that continues to influence political rhetoric– especially within Donald Trump’s populist narrative.
Further background provides a further justification for why not everyone is willing to accept that the canal’s fate has been decided for the long.
Symbol of American strength
One of the greatest engineering achievements of the US was the construction of the canal, which is a testament to its rise as a global power in the early 20th century. Control over the canal was seen as a strategic advantage, securing US influence in the Western Hemisphere.
Geopolitical significance
The canal was a strategically important asset as well as a significant trade route. It made it easier for the US Navy to move quickly between the Pacific and the Atlantic. The transfer of control to Panama, according to critics of the handover, could compromise the security of the canal and, in turn, global trade routes.
the 1970s political landscape
During the 1970s, the US was grappling with a sense of self-doubt, shaped by the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal and the oil crisis. Many Americans saw the canal handover as another sign of a “retreat” from global leadership. The canal had been constructed with great sacrifice and had been successfully managed for decades, according to republicans, making the handover amounted to a “betrayal.”
Jimmy Carter’s policies
Many Republicans thought Carter was a weak president who failed to adequately defend American interests.
The Torrijos-Carter Treaty, which was perceived as a concession to Panama, a smaller, weaker nation, was viewed as being incongruent with the idea of American national pride.
Donald Trump’s approach to the issue
Donald Trump paints a sentimental image of American dominance through the Panama Canal, which is very well-liked by conservative voters.
Rhetoric on “lost greatness.”
Trump has previously referred to the canal’s handover as an example of the “poor negotiation skills” of prior US administrations. He expands on the idea that such decisions have diminished the United States ‘ standing and strength internationally.
Populist narrative
Trump uses the canal’s history to support his” America First” agenda, presenting the handover as a representation of a time when the US was ruled by “weak” leaders. This rhetoric appeals to voters who long for a return to the days of unquestionable American dominance.
connection between current issues and strategic considerations
Trump makes connections between the handover of the canal and the ongoing trade negotiations or military withdrawals. He emphasizes that, as president, he would never make” such mistakes”, a stance that resonates with both nostalgic and security-conscious voters.
The Panama Canal’s transfer is still seen as a declaration of a perceived loss of American privilege. It represents a fableable surrender of geopolitical power and national honor for many Republicans. Trump uses the 1977 treaty as a prime example of weak political decision-making to further his message of restoring American strength. He mobilizes his political base by framing this emotional legacy.
It is no coincidence that this issue came up less than two weeks before Jimmy Carter’s passing and the 25th anniversary of Panama’s accession to the canal.
Economically significant for both China and the US
Both the United States and China both have significant economic ties to the Panama Canal. About 20 % of the goods transported through China come from or are intended for the US. The Panama Canal accounts for roughly 5 % of global maritime trade. On average, cargo ships pay more than$ 200, 000 in tolls for passage, with significantly higher amounts possible. These figures highlight the importance of the canal in global trade.
Expansion of the canal &, Chinese investments
The expansion of the Panama Canal, completed in 2016 with the introduction of the so-called” New Panama Canal”, marked a pivotal moment in global shipping.
The expansion enabled the transit of neo-Panamax ships, thereby significantly increasing the canal’s efficiency and capacity. The growing scope of global trade, and particularly the expanding flow of goods between Asian and Western markets, required this improvement.
China, as one of Panama’s largest trading partners and a leading global economic power, plays a central role in this context.
In addition, China has made substantial investments in infrastructure around the canal, including ports and logistics centres, further enhancing Panama’s importance as a hub for global trade. These developments highlight China’s growing influence in Latin America, making the Panama Canal a strategic focal point within Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative.
The canal’s expansion was economically vital for Panama, as were the investments from China. However, Panama retains control over the canal.
Does China control the canal?
Trump and others in the US and Europe have been trying to make the impression that China has taken control of the canal, putting its neutrality at risk in recent weeks. This claim, however, is far from reality.
Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino has made it clear that neither the EU, the US, nor China controls the canal—only Panama does. He reaffirmed the canal’s neutrality during the 25th-anniversary celebrations of Panama’s full control. Over the previous 25 years, he emphasized, there has not been a single reason to doubt the canal’s neutrality.
Panama’s national motto,” Pro Mundi Beneficio” (” For the Benefit of the World” ), reflects the canal’s mission of serving global interests, irrespective of the nationality of the ships using it. Panama’s operations are heavily funded by the expansion of the canal, with the tolls being calculated based on the canal’s intrinsic value rather than being included in the original treaties.
Trump has been irritated by Panama’s growing political independence from the US over the years. A nation like Panama prioritizes its own national interests.
During his first presidency, Trump was already dissatisfied with China’s investments in Panama, as well as in Latin America at large, and his current rhetoric echoes a neo-colonial tone.
Trump has no contractual means to influence the canal’s toll structure, which is determined by market principles or by its management. A military intervention, under current conditions ( with neither the canal’s security nor its neutrality threatened ), would constitute an illegal act of aggression under international law.
Trump frequently declares himself to be a peacemaker, so it is likely that his strong words are intended to stifle other economic developments rather than lead to concrete action.
This is especially important in light of potential future infrastructure projects in Panama, such as the Panama City to Costa Rica train project. China might be the main target for upcoming projects.
Trump’s desire to rename the Gulf of Mexico after declaring at Tuesday’s press conference that he wanted to do so has raised a lot of rumors right now. New name: Gulf of America.
MPs call for platform workers, those with less visible disabilities to be included in workplace anti-discrimination law
The first of two expenses on office justice is this one. Later, a second Bill may be introduced that will outline how to file discriminatory office claims for personal employment.  ,
If passed, the policy may be implemented somewhere in 2026 or 2027.
In the discussion, fifteen Members rose up to speak. On Wednesday, Dr. Tan is scheduled to address problems that MPs raised.
Workers ‘ Party ( WP ) chief and Leader of the Opposition Pritam Singh, who was the first to speak in the debate, said the spirit of an anti-discrimination law does “far more” than just support and help workers.
” This Bill sends a basic and effective text”, he said.
It “demonstrates how the condition handles situations where Singaporeans are present at work in their own country. It speaks to how the state recognises multiracialism, especially when immigrants form about 25 per cent of the people” . ,
Given that some Residents fear becoming second-class people in their own country and think that immigrants have better employment hopes, he called the Bill a “powerful message.”
WHY BILL DOES NOT COVER ALL Bias
Additionally, Mr. Singh and another MPs made it clear that there are some limitations to the Bill, which only cover a list of “protected features.”
According to Dr. Tan, the Bill currently includes five protected traits under “broad cultural consensus.” Together, they account for more than 95 per cent of , discrimination complaints received by the Tripartite Alliance for Fair and Progressive Employment Practices ( TAFEP ) and MOM, he said.
Age and ethnicity are the top two factors that are cited as the main causes of prejudice. A second category includes gender, marital status, conception and caregiving obligations, the third covers the characteristics of race, religion and language potential, and the last encompasses disabilities and mental health conditions.
Mr Louis Chua ( WP-Sengkang ) criticised the Bill for limiting legislation to only certain characteristics.
How does we safely say that discrimination at work of any kind should not be tolerated while still some types of discrimination are permitted while others are not? he asked, highlighting some forms of prejudice that will not be covered, such as that based on physical health problems.  ,
Ms Denise Phua ( PAP-Jalan Besar ) called for the broadening of the definition of disability in the Bill, which now covers autism, intellectual disabilities, physical disabilities and sensory disabilities. According to her, this includes people who have conditions like cerebral palsy and multiple sclerosis, as well as learning difficulties like dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD).
Mr Patrick Tay ( PAP-Pioneer ), who is the assistant secretary-general of the National Trades Union Congress (NTUC), said outsourced workers and freelancers, including platform workers, may be an underserved segment of workers.  ,
In the course of their work, I believe they should be protected from bias in the same way.
Ms He Ting Ru ( WP-Sengkang ) said platform workers and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community are “explicitly excluded” from the Bill.
Citing a Singapore investigation which found that gay people experience higher levels of discrimination at the office, she said:” This is troubling, as we should aim to saddle the achievements of all Singaporeans”.
She argued that the government really explain why these actions were taken in detail and that they appeared to be intentional.
” I’m not casting aspersions,” she said,” but I hope that we can understand the thought process and timing behind how the government intends to ensure that these groups are eventually given legal protections against discriminatory behavior.”
PSP’s COE credit system proposal well-intentioned but unlikely to be effective: Amy Khor
SINGAPORE: The proposal by the Progress Singapore Party ( PSP) to set up a certificate of entitlement ( COE ) credit system may be well-intentioned, but is “unlikely to be effective in practice”, said Senior Minister of State for Transport Amy Khor.  ,
She was responding to questions raised by Non-Constituency Member of Parliament Hazel Poa at a motion to adjourn on Tuesday ( Jan 7 ) by PSP on how to create a more equitable COE system for private vehicles.  ,
The proposed Department system may use “COE certificates” instead of money for buying, said Ms Poa.  ,
The government proposed that child Singapore residents and permanent residents receive these credits each month, and the number of credits each person will receive will depend on several factors, including their citizenship, their years, the number of children they have, and whether or not they had any disabilities, among other factors.  ,
Ms. Poa suggested that each child Singapore resident receive 100 credits and each adult PR receive 70. For each child who is a member and a PR, there are an additional 200 credits for each child under the age of 12 and an additional 140 certificates for each child under the age of 14.  ,
Older individuals above the retirement age could get an extra 100 funds, and those who have mobility difficulties, such as those who qualify for Class 1 or Class 2 car park names for the handicapped, could get an extra 200 credits.  ,
These examples are not exhaustive, but they serve as examples of how we can apply this system to consider needs and cultural contributions and lower the cost of ownership for those who have a greater need, she said.  ,
She added that the proposed funds would also be applicable. For example, families may share their COE credits up to bet for a vehicle.  ,
Credits could also be exchanged for higher requests so that those who want to own a car can purchase them.  ,
” Inevitably, those who are financially better off may still be able to get a COE, although it is at least partially ameliorated by distributing COE funds based on needs elements,” said Ms. Poa.  ,
Ms. Poa also suggested that a base fee become collected per COE to lessen the impact of the proposed new COE program on government revenues. Depending on the COE type, this could be a flat rate or a percent of the vehicle’s open market value.  ,
Ms. Poa noted that the state may also lose some money even with the foundation fee.  ,
In reply, Dr Khor noted that under the plan, those who want to own a car you buy COE certificates from those who do not.
The end result may be that those who were willing and able to pay for COEs would still be those, she said.  ,
Their proposal” could possibly drive the price of credits beneath, where the costs of the credits become impenetrable and unknowing consumers are fleeced,” said Dr. Khor.  ,
She added that a COE properly” also cost even more than today” and that a whole new trading and enforcement program may be required to “ultimately cost citizens even more” to prevent black markets for funds.
MOM urges contractors, construction workers to stay alert in busy lead-up to Chinese New Year after worksite death
SINGAPORE: The Ministry of Manpower ( MOM) said on Tuesday ( Jan 7 ) there must be” no compromises” on safety in the lead-up to the Chinese New Year period, following the death of a construction worker last week.
The 29-year-old Indian national was at the Plantation Edge I &, II Build-to-Order ( BTO ) project construction site in Tengah at around 8.40pm on January 2 when he was struck in the chest by the hose of a concrete pump truck.
One of the four outriggers in the truck pierced the practical, causing the hose to hit the man and the machine to bend.
The victim was performing casting repairs, according to both MOM and the Housing and Development Board ( HDB).
The employer was taken to Gleneagles Hospital, where he died. He was employed by Keong Hong Construction, who was awarded , the S$ 293.7 million ( US$ 215.6 million ) tender for main contract works at , Tengah Plantation in January 2024.  ,
The task is expected to be finished in 2027.
With the Chinese New Year quickly approaching, MOM urged contractors and employees to keep call, noting that the time period “typically sees companies facing period pressures to finish projects.”
” During this time, MOM may proceed with our increased police work. There must never be any compromises on the health of the work.
The event is being investigated, it said.
Employers and contractors must make sure that the outriggers of technology are fully extended and sleep on steady, level foundations or basic plates with sufficient strength to maintain stability during operations, the ministry continued.
HDB, which is the job designer, told CNA on Tuesday that it also takes a serious perspective of the dangerous affair, and will provide support and assistance to the murderer’s family.
The tower contractor’s investigation into the union’s death is of utmost importance, the statement read.
” We may continue to collaborate with our business colleagues to improve workplace safety at our workplaces.”
Former Cambodian MP shot dead in Bangkok
Kim Kimya, 73, is renowned for remaining unmoved despite the banishment of some opposition colleagues.
PUBLISHED: 7 Jan 2025 at 21: 47
A bicyclist shot a previous Cambodian opposition MP dying on Tuesday night near Wat Bowonniwet Vihara in Bangkok’s Phra Nakhon region.
Lim Kimya, 73, died at the picture. The Metropolitan Police Bureau’s agents have launched a hunt for the murderer.
A man was seen on surveillance video from the field carrying a reddish Honda Wave 100 bike with the license plate 845, long trousers, and a gray short-sleeved top with a bag across the front. A cannon is thought to have been hidden in the case.
The bereaved, who held Vietnamese and European nationality, had apparently travelled to Bangkok by vehicle from Siem Reap, Cambodia, with his French woman and Thai brother.
According to authorities, the shooting occurred immediately after they arrived at the scene. The culprit rode up on a bike, parked it and got off to take. He then rode away along Phra Sumen Road, passing in front of Wat Bowonniwet, authorities said.
Before the Supreme Court dissolution in November 2017, Lim Kimya was a part of the Cambodia National Rescue Party, which was the country’s main opposition group.
He was one of a few party MPs who remained behind in Cambodia after several people fled into captivity to prevent further persecution by then-prime secretary Hun Sen, despite having a French card and having the ability to simply own resettled.
” I will not give up politicians”, he told reporters at the time.
China’s Metal Storm poised to shred hypersonics – Asia Times
China has developed a hyper-fast device weapon that could improve protection against fast missiles, posing a formidable challenge to conventional missile security systems.
South China Morning Post (SCMP ) reported this month that Chinese scientists are developing a revolutionary machine gun known as the” Metal Storm,” which can fire bullets at a rate of 450, 000 per minute per barrel.
The tool, which could one day be the most potent machine gun in history, has five or more barrels and is designed to stop hypersonic missiles moving at speeds over Jet 7 from the radar.
According to the review, the task, which is being led by Lu Xutao, an associate professor at the North University of China, uses a novel box-type circular firing systems with removable publications filled with biodegradable barrels. This creativity addresses the difficulty of refilling ammunition for a tool that burns thousands of rounds per minute. The electric set program, developed by Lu’s group, uses coils to create a high-energy material jet that ignites the violent, achieving a firing time of only 17.5 microseconds.
The Metal Storm concept was developed in the 1990s by Australian innovator MikeO’Dwyer, but his business went bankrupt in 2012. According to the report, China’s continued investment in this tech aims to beat the Northern design by at least ten times in the fire price, making it crucial for defending territorial waters and aircraft in upcoming issues.
Gun-based defenses such as China’s” Metal Storm” have a key advantage over missile defense systems in the sense that they have faster reaction times – they may begin firing almost quickly at an approaching threat’s basic direction, in contrast to missile-based defenses that take time to identify, identify, track, and join targets.
However, unlike missile defense systems, gun-based defenses have a very short range – just 5 to 9 kilometers in the case of the US Navy’s Phalanx close-in weapons system ( CIWS), limiting their use to point defense scenarios.
When the target must be instantly destroyed, gun-based defenses may perform poorly. There is a chance that a hypersonic missile still hits its target despite suffering multiple bullet hits, with its high velocity guaranteeing heavy damage just by sheer kinetic energy, unlike an interceptor hit that can completely destroy an incoming missile using hit-to-kill methods.
Existing and future defense strategies that face cost, technical, and operational challenges face significant technical and structural challenges.
Hypersonic weapons, which can travel at speeds exceeding Mach 5, have exceptional maneuverability and low-altitude flight, making them difficult to detect with conventional radar and missile defense systems. These flight characteristics make it possible for hypersonic missiles to make use of air defense defense gaps.
Ballistic missiles are targeted by traditional missile defense strategies and technologies at various stages of their flight. A boost phase intercept may have the best chance of intercepting a ballistic missile when its rocket motors are burning to launch it into a high altitude. Positioning interceptor missiles close to the target are required for this strategy. Ballistic missiles also have short boost phases, lasting only 3-5 minutes, providing a tiny time window for interception.
A ballistic missile travels through space in a ballistic arc when it reaches its midpoint. This long phase gives more time for interception. However, within this time frame, it can deploy countermeasures, decoys, and penetration aids to defeat incoming interceptors.
When a ballistic missile re-enters the atmosphere and enters its final phase, defending it against specific targets like cities or military installations is necessary. However, this phase has a very short time window for the interception, and the re-entering missile travels at hypersonic speed, making interception very challenging. An already difficult task would become even more challenging if you hit a maneuvering target like a hypersonic missile.
The SM-6 Dual is the only US interceptor missile with some form of effectiveness against hypersonic threats, according to Asia Times in February 2022, and even then, its range of potential may be minimal.
Cognizant of the SM-6 Dual’s shortcomings, a June 2024 US Congressional Research Service ( CRS ) report mentions that the US is developing interceptors such as the Glide Phase Interceptor ( GPI ) and Glide Breaker projects to defeat hypersonic threats.
However, these interceptors ‘ high costs and protracted production times may make them ineligible against a saturation hypersonic missile attack. Additionally, the number of interceptors that US warships can carry is limited due to the limited magazine depth.
Although directed energy weapons like lasers and microwaves have been hailed as the future of missile defense and have been hailed as the best way to attack missiles with virtually unlimited ammunition at a reasonable price, the technology has not lived up to its promise.
In January 2024, Asia Times noted that key limitations in the US laser weapons program include the need for substantial physical, weight, power, and cooling space, which current US surface combatants lack.
While US initiatives like the HELIOS laser and the ODIN ( Optical Dazzling Interdictor ) systems are continuing efforts, technological maturity issues persist, such as improving beam quality and control. Further, the US Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, already maxed out on upgrade potential, face internal space constraints, limiting the installation of new power generation systems necessary for laser weapons.
Railguns have been looked into as a potential defense against hypersonic weapons, similar to shooting down a bullet with a bullet. They use electromagnetic energy to propel a projectile instead of explosive propellants like traditional guns.
However, as with laser weapons, railguns have substantial physical, weight, power, and cooling space requirements. Further, the current railgun technology only permits a few shots per barrel because the intense heat from firing warps the rails, which are responsible for the projectile’s propellant.
Given the limitations of current and future counter-hypersonic defense systems, it would be possible to go against their kill chains, which include the people, processes, and assets required for a successful hypersonic missile attack.
However, Asia Times pointed out in December 2024 that multi-domain operations ( MDO ) may be the latest military conceptual boondoggle. Most ideas lack a crystal-clear theory of victory, generally frame adversaries, and make exaggerated assumptions about technological prowess, which could reduce the success of inter-service rivalry and whole-of-government strategies.
About 50 lorries have installed mandatory speed limiters since scheme kicked in; TP concerned by low take-up
SINGAPORE: As of end-2024, simply around 50 vehicles with a maximum laden fat between 3, 500 pounds and 12, 000kg have completed the required setup of speed limiters.
In a written parliamentary response on Tuesday ( Jan 7 ), Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam claimed that the traffic police ( TP ) mandated the installation of speed limiters for these lorries in January 2024.
These rate limiters prevent vehicles from traveling at or over the 60 km/h speed limit.
Since a year has passed, Mr. Shanmugam said,” TP is concerned by the small assembly rate.”
He was responding to a question from MP Louis Ng ( PAP-Nee Soon ) regarding the proportion of lorries that have adhered to the requirement of installing speed limiters.  ,
According to Mr. Shanmugam, TP is working with approved machine distributors, the Motor Traders Association of Singapore, and permitted inspection centers to encourage fleet owners to place speed limiters as soon as their vehicles are scheduled for regular maintenance.  ,
He added that TP has even begun sending out SMS messages to bus owners and will do so on a regular basis.
” We urge fleet owners to place rate limiters early, ahead of the compliance timelines, to prevent a barrier at the workshops”, said Mr Shanmugam.
” Older vehicles are required to agree sooner, with heavier vehicles by Jan 1, 2026, and lighter vehicles by Jul 1, 2026″.
Since speed limits for these types of vehicles were never previously available, older vehicles have until 2027 to cooperate.  ,
A lorry that doesn’t follow the installation deadlines will be held accountable for an offense and fail to pass their regular evaluation.
Animal cruelty and welfare cases in Singapore hit 12-year high: SPCA
Owners are also liable for their pets ‘ well-being, according to SPCA, despite the possibility of outsourcing their pets ‘ treatment. Owners are responsible for locating a suitable caretaker, training the caretaker on proper dog attention, monitoring the caregiver’s devotion in carrying out their duty of care, and making sureContinue Reading
Sri Lanka president to visit China ahead of budget
COLOMBO:  , Sri Lanka’s president will travel to the island’s largest bilateral lender China next week ahead of his first national budget, the information minister said on Tuesday ( Jan 7 ). The attend comes one month before President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s first funds, which is expected to describe hisContinue Reading
Nippon Steel and US Steel: One last chance, Mr Trump – Asia Times
Team Biden is doing so many strange things on its way out the door that nobody should have been surprised that President , Joe Biden , ( or whoever calls the shots )  , rejected , Nippon Steel’s bid to buy , US Steel.  ,
The White House stated that the agreement threatened regional stability. However, most of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, known as the CFIUS assessment committee that considered the national safety perspective, didn’t see it that way.
President Biden needs to state in detail what concerns are if there are concerns about national protection with this package.  ,
The pieces of American Pennsylvania and Indiana that will suffer the most from this determination must then be compelled to testify in public before union rooms and local chambers of commerce.
Does they? No.
In south Pennsylvania, both Senator John Fetterman and Governor Josh Shapiro must even appear. They, too, may discuss why this was a good choice.
Does they? No.
Shaking the alliance ,
This decision didn’t send down the , US-Japan ally. But it hurts.  ,
Japan is frequently touted as America’s key ally. The “most significant diplomatic marriage, club none,” as former adviser Mike Mansfield put it.
Immediately, we’ll have Japan to engage in more military action than it has ever done, or even more than it wants to do.
Telling Japan,” We want you to combat China with us but we don’t want you to private US Metal” won’t be well received in Tokyo.  ,
Japan and its businesses have previously been treated this way, starting in the 1980s when it was portrayed as the monetary composite who would put US businesses out of business. Japan, in contrast, exhibited some compassion by jolting the US economy, especially Detroit automakers, into getting its act collectively.
In the , Nippon Steel , situation, the business bent over backward – or, better said, bent over forward in an nearly humiliating style – to show its great faith. It also offered to give the US government a , reject  , over any potential business decisions regarding US Steel production.
A vital allied world’s company should not have to do this.
As for the , regional security , explanation?
Tokyo may find it irksome that it is included in the socialist Chinese. And don’t assume they haven’t noticed that the Biden administration supports the planned , CCP-tied Gotion , power factory in Michigan. A US defense foundation is even close by that location. The citizens don’t want it, but Team Biden does.  ,
However, Nippon Steel poses a greater threat to national security than the US companies whose equipment and technology were officially used in the Chinese spy balloon the Biden management allowed to fly over the country in 2023.
Heartless? A deception? Or both?
Without Nippon Steel’s funding and technology, US Steel did fish and just may collapse. That would endanger people, families, and full towns.
US Steel control, people, and local folks support the deal. Yet the neighborhood organizations do. Top , United Steelworkers , ( USW) leadership, as is often the case with union bosses, don’t seem to care or listen to what rank-and-file members want.
Spend an hour watching this , Hudson Institute , discussion , with US Steel staff and union exercises, as well as a native president.
You’ll get informed ー and moved.
One final possibility is Trump
Generally, business announcements are drab, lifeless jargon.  ,
Not this one.  ,
US Steel President David B Burritt gets it , best.
January 3, 2025– President Biden’s activity today is terrible and dishonest. He gave a political retribution to a union boss out of reach with his associates while harming our company’s potential, our employees, and our national security. He insulted Japan, a crucial alliance for both economic and regional security, and threatened the United States ‘ profitability. Dancers from the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing are taking to the streets. And Biden did it all by refusing to even ask to talk to us about the specifics.
Better is what our staff and societies deserve. We needed a leader who is knowledgeable about how to negotiate the best package for America and work tirelessly to make it happen. Make no mistake: this purchase is what guarantees a great potential for US Steel, our employees, our communities, and our nation. We intend to fight President Biden’s social problem.  ,
Hopefully, after January 20th, CEO Burritt won’t be able to insert” Trump” for” Biden” and re-issue the statement.  ,
Yet, both President-elect , Donald Trump , and Vice President-elect , JD Vance , opposed the deal before the vote.
US Steel workers, and regional union representatives, and additional autoworkers supported Trump anyway. Obviously, they thought that he understood them and only needed to get through the vote.
They stuck their heads up and kept their confidence.  ,
Mr. Trump must backward this pronouncement, or he will leave along with the Vice President and make an apology. If that’s even probable.
You simply get one chance in this region of America when people put their trust in you.
RELATED:
Grant Newsham is a former US minister and former US Marine agent. He is the author of the book” When China Attacks: A Warning To America“.
This article was originally published by JAPAN Forward. It is republished with permission.