Since Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos took company in 2022, Manila and Washington, who have long-standing agreement friends, have expanded their participation in the area of defense and begun retaliating against Beijing’s says to the South China Sea. China quickly blasted the acquisition of the program as a “provocative and dangerousContinue Reading
The ISD cautioned against those who intend to use military assault in Singapore or elsewhere.  ,
It was responding to CNA’s question last week regarding whether criminal organizations could use the present situation in Syria to spread their wings, including in Southeast Asia and Singapore.  ,
The Hayat Tahrir al-Sham ( HTS ) rebels seized control of Damascus and other significant Syrian cities on December 7. After nightfall, reports emerged Assad had fled the country for Russia.
The ending of Syria’s 13-year issue, which claimed over 580, 000 lives and displaced 12 million people, came with the fall of Assad.  ,
Units claims to still have connections to any criminal system, but the UN Security Council and many other nations have continued to label it a terrorist organization.
In the midst of Assad’s impeachment, experts told CNA Southeast Asian regulators must be vigilant.
However, some experts believe that Southeast Asia’s current threat of a new wave of fanaticism is comparatively lower.
The ISD warned that it would take legal action against those who intend to use military force in Singapore or elsewhere.
” We will not hesitate to take strong activities against any person who supports, promotes, tries or makes arrangements to engage in military crime, be it in Singapore or overseas”, a spokesperson said.  ,
In the past, the ISD has detained radicalized Singapore who intended to travel to Syria and participate in armed conflict.  ,
In October, a 17-year-old Taiwanese student was arrested less than a quarter before his plan to carry out a terror attack in Singapore’s strongholds. Additionally, the youth intended to use military violence and journey to Syria to meet the Islamic State.  ,
Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam reported in July that two Singaporeans had received limitations requests for supporting violence and armed assault. After Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, they radicalized.
The youngest person ever to receive a restriction order under the Internal Security Act ( ISA ) was a 14-year-old boy, and the other a 33-year-old woman who worked as a manager for a statutory board.
An 18-year-old Singaporean IS follower was detained in December 2022 after considering attacking priorities, including an army tent and a grave at a mosque in Singapore, in February of last year, according to the ISD, who was detained in that regard. The pupil had likewise intended to travel globally, including to Syria, to participate in military assault.  ,
Two additional youth who the student’s student’s student’s online contacts were also given ISA orders for terrorism-related activities.
The ISD urged the general public to stay alert for signs that their neighbors may have resented radicalization and report them to the government. Islamist views that are posted or shared on social media, support or admiration for terrorists or criminal organizations, and the use of violence are potential indicators of radicalization.
Anyone who knows or suspects that a person has been radicalised should contact ISD’s hotline at 1800 2626 473 ( 1800-2626-ISD ), the spokesperson added.
The Arab government’s fall on December 8, 2024 marked a turning point for the Middle East. It is still unclear how the insurgent alliance, which is a diverse group of political and ideological organizations supported by local powers, quickly overpowered government forces.
However, it is obvious that the government’s downfall has been largely caused by the frequent social and economic decay, which has worsened every aspect of Arab life over the past 13 years.
The humanitarian crises that displaced the majority of Syria’s people and destroyed the government’s system also contributed to this deterioration as well as the weaponization of regional and global supply chains through economic restrictions.
Since 2011, numerous tides of sanctions have been imposed on Syria, aimed at draining state money and causing harm to nearly all of the nation’s economic and social activities. The outcomes of the steps were a general deindustrialization and a serious decline in the economy.
It’s still unclear whether Syria, a country of corporate global importance, is on the verge of lasting peace or will experience another prolonged period of instability.
When the Arab Revolution started in 2011, Syria was on a fairly good financial trajectory. Poverty was at about 8 % and the middle class formed about 60 % of the community.
But, economical developments were mostly concentrated in urban facilities, while remote areas — home to most Syrians — lacked social and economic system.
The most attractive business activities in Syria were dominated by government elites, despite the growth of small and medium-sized businesses. Common institutions were rife with corruption and government.
This disparity led to anger, and the rural community eventually emerged as a driving force behind the start of the Arab Revolution. In the end, a series of events that culminated in a difficult international proxy war were the product of the revolution.
On both sides, some people were imprisoned or disappeared, and many others fled to neighboring states or sought shelter in Europe.
The position gotten worse as the battle wore on. In 2024, the United Nations described the Palestinian issue as “one of the country’s most complex situations”. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians feared losing their lives in locations all over the world.
Since 2011, Syria’s GDP has fallen by 87 %, its currency has lost more than 99 % of its value, and its inflation rate has soared above 300 % on basic consumer goods.
Arab corporations have fully been disconnected from regional and global supply chains as a result of the deteriorating economic and social problems in Syria, which have been made worse by increasingly strict restrictions. The majority of companies had to close, and just a small number were able to do so in neighboring nations.
Businesses that were able to succeed have turned into zombie companies, meaning they are no longer commercially viable but are being kept alive by using alternative sources, such as government subsidies.
Improper economic activity flourished, there were uncovered supply chains, and corruption was deeply entrenched within common organizations.
In the midst of the Arab government’s collapse, experts — though positive — remain wary about the country’s future.
Hayat Tahrir al-Sham ( HTS), a former branch of al-Qaida and the principal force in the rebel coalition, is the new ruler in Damascus. Units used to be competent to govern Idlib, a city in northwest Syria, but it now relys on Turkish assistance to provide simple services to its citizens.
Detractors argued the Units authorities in Idlib was “dictatorial” and “authoritarian” enough to flash rally earlier this year. Units requested on December 9 that the Idlib state, which is made up entirely of HTS unionists, continue to rule Syria until March 2025. Beyond that day, the organization has never made any changes.
Idlib, a remote, traditional province in Idlib, is a vastly different thing from managing a complicated nation like Syria. However, despite growing concerns about HTS’s one-party interim state, the party is likely to capitalise on the government’s pleasure at the death of Assad’s regime and the end of 13 years of civil war to create short-term political stability.
Another opposition groups, some with violent histories, appear to support HTS’s short-term program, seeking to discuss their role in the new political arrangement. However, early indications suggest Units, while adopting diverse speech, continues to adhere to an totalitarian and authoritarian style of governance.
HTS’s key backers, Turkey and Qatar, will likely provide financial aid and funds to boost public opinion in the short term. However, long-term political stability in Syria hinges on sustained public support, which is deeply tied to the country’s economic situation. The new rulers in Damascus must tackle the difficult task of reviving the economy.
The de-weaponization of regional and global supply chains, which includes more than removing Syria’s economic sanctions, is a necessary prerequisite for the revival of the country’s economy. It requires revitalizing small and medium-sized businesses and rebuilding public organizations that can support regional and global supply chains.
Small and medium-sized businesses and the middle class have been destroyed over the course of 13 years of civil war, which is easier said than done. Public and private organizations in Syria have already gone through the zombification process, relying heavily on aid to survive.
Zombie firms typically exhibit sub-optimal production performance, low innovation and a negative impact on economic activity. In this context, it’s likely that local organizations are unable to participate in and/or strengthen regional and global value chains. Establishing a robust innovation ecosystem and effective domestic supply chain governance will be necessary to restore these capabilities.
Early signs point to HTS’s desire to rule both social and economic activities in favor of its loyalists. Such an approach risks recreating an Islamic version of Assad’s economic governance, long characterized by a state-directed economy, capital controls and cronyism. Important regional players, Arab nations, and international players have already expressed concerns about working with Syria’s economy under the new Islamic regime.
Throughout the past 13 years, the Assad regime emphasized a winner-takes-all approach — a stance that HTS appears now to adopt. HTS has no choice but to abandon such a mindset in order to revive the Syrian economy and de-weaponize supply chains. Otherwise, the new ruler in Damascus will soon face the same challenges that led to the previous regime’s collapse.
Hassan Wafai is associate professor, Faculty of Management, Royal Roads University
This article was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The next day Donald Trump was US senator, he entered trade war with China and Europe. But despite his bombast and taxes, the US trade deficit did not improve.
In fact, it deteriorated from US$ 195 billion in the first quarter of 2017 to$ 260 billion in the same period of 2021.
A number of selected items were subject to the Trump tariffs, which were set at a maximum of 25 %. However, his current strategy seems to be that the US will impose tariffs of 10 % or 20 % on the majority of imported goods. Taxes in Canada and Mexico could be 25 %, and tariffs on Chinese goods could be 60 %.
This revision appears to be drastically different from the previous one. What are the potential cases for the US, the UK, and the world economy then?
Taking the president-elect’s expression to the email, if Trump stands his ground on across-the-board taxes one effect may be that the US market faces higher costs because of more expensive goods. The desire for US-produced goods may rise, which will probably result in higher domestic wages and a spiraling inflationary trend.
It is not difficult to imagine the US market accelerating. But, there are also opposing causes. Higher taxes and significant US investment are likely to cause the money to rise, resulting in imports becoming less expensive at the frontier before tariffs are imposed. This may eat away at prices.
The common sector’s claim of massive layoffs may also lessen the strain on the job market. Technology advancement, such as the press for autonomous vehicles, might also have an impact.
Lastly, easing environmental laws in the energy industry and potential serenity with Russia and perhaps even the Middle East could increase energy prices.
Donald Trump’s interpersonal elections are well-known. This translates to being unburdened by the foreign regulations that have guided global industry since the Second World War.
This trend is further heightened by the election of Scott Bessent as treasury secretary. In his thoughts, taxes are a” sanctions resource” in wider political and economic game.
In trade for a wide range of possible concessions, the US good dangles somewhat attractive terms to get its business in a good scenario for potential trade relations with the rest of the world. These might include more options for US investment or exports, as well as a stronger political position and significant US investment.
Nevertheless, supply chains could undergo significant restructuring, with imports from the most effective nations being replaced by less efficient ones. This may lower the US’s trade deficit with China while reducing its trade imbalance with the EU, UK, Mexico, and Canada.
May these agreements been extended to China, and likely China accept them? is a looming question. If not, it is possible to see two economical alliances, one centered on China and the other centered on the US.
In a second – undoubtedly doubtful situation, the Chinese government may recognize US demands to adjust their bilateral deal imbalance in the belief that the moment is not yet right to challenge US supremacy.
Maintaining an export-led development design, building power, breaking into international markets and only sitting out the Trump administration may be China’s best plan. The Chinese authorities would have to consent to larger and more quickly purchased American-made goods and services than the previous arrangement between the Trump and Xi governments.
But what about the UK and Europe? UK export to the US may face a 20 % tariff, reducing profits and impacting on those British suppliers exporting goods the US buys, like medicine or equipment, for example. The UK will have to decide whether to fight and impose levies on US products. And if so, at what levels?
The UK’s objectives are not in conflict with the US, but what will happen then will depend on the demands the Trump administration makes. In the event that regional trade blocs emerge as a result of various nations ‘ hostile actions, there is already talk about whether the UK should choose the US or the EU.
Although there will be a significant difference, the consequences may be comparable for the EU. The EU as a whole has a similar-sized business to the US and its own business plan. The EU and US are thus strongly motivated to launch retribution and a business battle.
The UK may find it more difficult if the EU decides to proceed in that direction. In this situation, the English may later need to choose a part. It would have to decide between its unique partnership with the US and a more decline in trade with the EU, which is its closest marketplace. Or it would have to choose to become more politically and economically connected to the EU.
Unfortunately, when countries close their borders to business, they are also – apparently mistakenly – readying themselves for fight.
Agelos Delis is senior teacher in finance, Aston University and Sami Bensassi is audience in trade and development finance, University of Birmingham
This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original content.
SEEOUL – With the death of dismissed President Yoon Suk Yeol weighing a pending Constitutional Court decision, there is a rise in rumors about potential new presidential primaries in South Korea.
South Koreans had cast ballots within 60 days to choose a new national leader if the judge upholds senate’s impeachment motion earlier this month and fully unseats Yoon in the weeks that come.
In that scenario, opposition Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung would be the apparent front-runner at 37 %, according to a Gallup Korea poll conducted between December 17-19 on “future political leader” preferences.
He’s trailed frequently by Han Dong-hoon, the lengthy displaced ruling People Power Party head, and Hong Joon-pyo, the colorful liberal mayor of Daegu, both of whom notched only 5 % on the same Gallup Korea surveys.
While South Korean politics are extremely uncertain, Yoon’s exceedingly good resignation would evidently pave the way to a new communist leader’s election.
New record items in that direction. Following Park Geun-hye’s abrupt demise, communist Moon Jae-in won a significant success in an earlier presidential election in May 2017.
But this time round, Yoon’s right-wing drop is no guarantee of Lee’s left-wing increase. Because criticism head Lee is grappling with legal issues that may pose considerable challenges for a possible presidential bid.
In November, Lee was convicted of violating election rules, a judgement that, if upheld by the Supreme Court before the next presidential election, did bar him from running.
Decisions in the second and third studies of cases of election violations must be rendered within three weeks of the past court statement, per the Public Official Election Act.
This means that the appeals court hearing Lee’s event must rule by November 15 after three months of the test judge’s ruling. The Supreme Court will have three more months to decide Lee’s ultimate fate if he chooses to charm that decision.
Although this timeframe has previously been casually observed, it is anticipated to be more strictly enforced in accordance with the Chief Supreme Court Justice’s order in September.
The Constitutional Court’s decision may cause a presidential vote to take place as early as April or May of next year if Yoon falls. As such, Lee is working to postpone his trial deliberations while maneuvering for Yoon’s court-ordered impeachment.
After two failed attempt, the appeals court eventually served Lee with a observe of receipt of the dispute information on December 18. He then has 20 days to file an appeal against his conviction for violating the election laws.
Lee moved houses, leaving his fresh tackle ambiguous, so the first shipment attempt failed. A second try was ineffective due to the patient’s presence.
Only after the judge dispatched an execution commander to hand-deliver the files to Lee’s Yeouido office, the latest effort was unsuccessful. Without the realize, the appeal process could not continue.
Lee is likewise facing a third-party corruption trial where the presidential hopeful is accused of asking North Korean underwear business Ssangbangwool Group to illegally cone US$ 8 million to North Korea in order to accomplish his planned trip to Pyongyang while serving as governor of Gyeonggi Province.
In connection with the situation, a former deputy government of Gyeonggi Province was given a nine-and-a-half year sentence. Lee was charged that same quarter, and he has since been refrained from doing so because he allegedly purposefully delayed court proceedings.
Lee’s legitimate group filed a motion to recuse courts from presiding in his case earlier this month. Lawyers have criticized the action, warning it may cause “unprecedented difficulties” to the test. An appeals court recently affirmed the ex-deputy president’s criminal conviction.
If Lee is found guilty of third-party corruption, it would severely tarnish his social standing and further tarnish his chances of winning the president, especially given that he is still tangled up in three additional criminal investigations.
While carefully prolonging his own lawful battles, Lee is bidding to quicken Yoon’s prosecution trial—and for good reason. Yoon’s resignation would open the door for him to take control of the ruling People Power Party because his communist enemy, Cho Kuk, is currently imprisoned and the People Power Party is completely disorganized.
Lee and his station are now desperate to fill three seats on the Constitutional Court that were formerly anxious. Now, the court is operating with a six-member board after three of the judges ‘ career expired in October.
With its current structure, it has decided to learn the president’s impeachment case, but Yoon will need to be removed by a majority vote. At least six of nine seats may be required for his resignation if the jury were entirely staffed.  ,  ,
Complicating matters for Lee is that Yoon’s appointee, Justice Cheong Hyungsik, is the presiding and commissioned justice to handle his impeachment case.
Two justices are considered liberal, three lean center-right and Cheong is firmly right-wing. If even one justice rejects parliament’s impeachment motion, Yoon, now suspended from his presidential duties, will be reinstated.
Thus, the three open seats that were put up for election by the parliament have become hot political bargaining chips. By sending two more liberal-leaning justices to the bench, the opposition hopes to boost the chances of Yoon’s removal from office.
The process, however, could take weeks and will require an acting president’s appointment.
To be fair, the opposition’s leader is also one who tactfully stifles his trial. Yoon and his legal team have also employed what critics perceive as a number of judicial “delay tactics” ( ).
Despite the president’s insistence on his innocence and public confidence in facing his legal battles head-on, he has reportedly refused to accept orders and documents from the Constitutional Court.
However, the court’s spokesperson announced on Monday that the trial would continue regardless, with the first hearing against the former public prosecutor general now scheduled for December 27.
South Korea has been jolted by a number of dramatic events in recent weeks, with likely more political shock and awe on the horizon, from Yoon’s short-lived martial law decree to his subsequent impeachment by parliament to Lee’s own colorful legal troubles.
The US social structure was  , designed by its founders , to have a system of checks and balances, so that no individual or organization would have total energy.
But that system was designed with only , government , leaders and , government , institutions in brain — although the founders did care about private individuals controlling the authorities, this wasn’t their primary focus, and they eventually ended up declining to throw institutions in place precisely to guard against financial power.  ,
James Madison believed, for instance, that the governmental system of the US state was protection much against little cabals of rich oligarchs. In recent years, especially in the wake of the Supreme Court ‘s , Citizens United , choice, some have voiced concerns that the US has become an elite, where wealthy people are capable of buying power and influence — either by plan efforts, lobbying, or other means.
These issues came mostly from the liberal left, who , generally claimed , that the US has become an aristocracy. However, many on the right were also concerned about George Soros and other democratic entrepreneurs ‘ effect.
But the studies backing up the “oligarchy” state was  , very uneven and weak , — in reality, most political researchers found that coverage in the US tends to connect strongly with the objectives of the center class. And common problem was vague and scattered — Americans will tell you that their financial program “unfairly favors the strong interests”, but this could mean something, and most Americans , are no concerned , about the prosperity of billionaires.
Yet in the past week, we have witnessed a single wealthy man making important decisions in real time regarding US national government policy. In order for the US federal government to spend money, it has to pass “appropriations” bills. There are always big fights over those bills, so sometimes they just pass a” continuing resolution” to keep spending going.
If the CR doesn’t pass, the government shuts down, and its employees— including the people in the US Military — stop getting paychecks. In a number of instances over the past three decades, the party in charge has threatened to refuse to pass a bill and impose austerity on the government, or worse, to exceed the “debt ceiling,” which prevents the government from borrowing money.
Elon Musk, president Trump’s most significant donor and political ally, and the owner of one of the largest social media networks, had a different take on the most recent CR. Musk , launched an all-out attack , on the resolution:
Musk, who , spent more than US$ 250 million  , getting Trump elected, posted about his opposition to the original spending deal well over 100 times over the past two days, with threats to fund primary challenges to anyone who voted for the plan, which was six weeks in the making.
Any member of the House or Senate who supports this outrageous spending bill should be re-elected in two years! Musk was posted on X on Wednesday afternoon.
Later in the day, Trump himself , came out against it, making it clear the bill was done.
What’s interesting about this is that , everyone , seems to , agree , that it was Musk, not Trump, who torpedoed the CR.  , Fox News reports:
After Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy allegedly engaged in congressional discussions regarding government funding, some House Republicans are privately expressing their anger.
If Elon and Vivek are freelancing and shooting off the hip without working with [President-elect Trump], according to a second GOP lawmaker, they are getting dangerously close to undermining the actual 47th President of the United States.
Overheated rhetoric is common, so we shouldn’t take this as gospel. And it’s also worth noting that Musk , approved , of a modified CR, but that one was torpedoed by conservatives in Congress. Also,  , Musk’s threat , to primary anyone in Congress who voted against the approval of Matt Gaetz wasn’t enough to keep Gaetz from withdrawing. So Musk actually isn’t the all-powerful emperor he’s depicted as in the header image of this post — at least, not yet.
But it’s undeniable that Musk has influence that goes far beyond that of any typical super-rich political influencer. He’s not just the owner of X but its poster-in-chief, who manipulates the platform’s algorithm to , show everyone his own tweets , first and foremost.
Additionally, he is the owner of SpaceX, which the US government largely depends on for its entire space program. And he’s more or less the leader of , a right-wing faction in the tech industry  , that has become a key Republican constituency over the last election cycle.
Therefore, Musk has a lot of extremely powerful tools for directly influencing American policies. He has the authority to threaten to primary any Republican who deviates from his personal goals ( and frequently does ). He has the power to launch right-wing instant mobs on X to attack any Republican who floutes his rules.
He can ( and does ) dump hundreds of millions into elections. He could probably use SpaceX’s government contracts as leverage as well, if he chose. And with Donald Trump, the oldest President ever elected, clearly in his final years, Elon’s energy and activity level frequently make him the ideal stand-in.
It’s clear to both foreign and domestic leaders where the power is in the incoming U.S. regime, but this isn’t just supposition on my part. House Speaker Mike Johnson , called up both Trump and Musk , to try to get a CR passed. And Musk now , regularly accompanies Trump , to his meetings with foreign heads of state. The American public as a whole is now accepting this reality after watching Musk kill the continuing resolution.
What does it mean for the nation to have so much of the government’s power firmly rooted in the hands of a single, unelected private individual? It’s hard to say.
There may be some historical precedents here, as Mark Hanna had a significant influence in the McKinley administration and William Randolph Hearst’s control of the print media terrified politicians over a century ago. Various industrial-age tycoons wielded a lot of influence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Fox News was created by Rupert Murdoch. But Musk’s clout may eclipse them all — X is a new kind of media, Trump is a different kind of President, and so on.
Many in the tech sector I know are enthralled by Elon’s authority. But I believe that this is scary for many regular Americans because they won’t be able to trust Elon to do the right thing, as many other tech professionals do. To see this, let’s do a thought exercise: What if Elon were evil?
In a post back in October, I wrote that America’s future could hinge on whether Elon Musk decides to play the superhero or the supervillain.
Musk’s friends and confidantes expect the former. They probably know him as a reasonable guy — a , Reaganite , conservative who was  , driven to the center-right , by the excesses of wokeness, who loves , free speech , and free enterprise and small government and responsible fiscal and monetary policy and , peace between nations, who wants to bring human civilization to Mars and accelerate tech progress and so on.
Let’s refer to this variation of Elon as” Real Elon.”
However, one might also think of Elon, who lives in the fervent imaginations of his foes. Let us call this” Evil Elon”. Regular people, observing Elon’s actions in the public sphere, can’t always tell the difference between Real Elon and this fantasy supervillain.
Whereas Real Elon opposed the CR because of concerns over government spending and legislative complexity, Evil Elon opposed it because it contained national security provisions that , would have nixed , some of Tesla ‘s , planned investments in China:
Cynics note  that Elon supported’s shorter replacement CR would have actually spent more money than the one Elon killed, with the main difference being that the replacement CR didn’t have restrictions on US investment in China:
Real Elon is a consistent and dedicated ally of the Chinese Communist Party, despite his admiration for individual freedoms and capitalism. When Real Elon calls for Taiwan to become a” special administrative zone” of China, he does it because he likes authoritarian rule and because the Chinese Communist Party has paid him off. Evil Elon does it because he wants to avoid World War 3.
On Ukraine, similar, Real Elon , just wants to end the conflict , and stop more Ukrainians from dying. After all, Russia is strong and determined enough to almost certainly hold onto a piece of Ukraine at the end of the conflict. So why not just trade land for peace and be done with it?
However, Evil Elon, who shares his sympathies with authoritarian rulers in general, wants Putin to succeed. No one is aware of what Elon and Putin discussed in their frequent conversations since 2022. However, Evil Elon’s supporters believe they conspired to smuggle the Russians into the conflict.
Real Elon and Real Elon both accused Vindman of treason and threatened him with” the appropriate penalty” because we all get upset on social media and like to rippling people who criticize us. However, Vindman was right when Evil Elon did it.
When Real Elon , declared his support , for the German far-right party AfD, it was because he saw Germany spinning into , industrial decline , and suffering from an immigration policy that failed to exclude , violent criminals. But Evil Elon did it because he likes that AfD is , vocally pro-Putin , and , pro-CCP.
In fact, believers in Evil Elon suspect that his support for AfD might also be due to the whiff of , Nazi apologia , and , antisemitism , that hang around some of the party’s candidates. Real Elon is a stand-up guy — when he agreed with a tweet about Jewish communities pushing anti-White hatred, he , publicly apologized, declaring it the worst tweet he’s ever done, and declaring himself a “philosemite”. And when Real Elon accidentally endorsed a Tucker Carlson interview with a Hitler apologist, he , quickly deleted the endorsement , once he realized what it actually contained.
However, those who believe in Evil Elon believe that these are just the kind of public relations stunts a supervillain would employ to cover his tracks. They worry that the massive wave of antisemitism that has swept X  since Elon took control is the result of deliberate boosting rather than just the unavoidable result of more indulgent moderation policies combined with the response to the Gaza war. 1 , They do not buy , Real Elon’s protests , that other platforms have even more antisemitism.
And so on. Essentially, Evil Elon is a somewhat cartoonish supervillain, who wants to set himself up as the ruler of one of three great dictatorships, ruling the world with an iron fist alongside his allies Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin — a new , Metternich System , to enshrine right-wing values and crack down on wokeness and progressivism and obstreperous minorities all over the world.
I had Grok draw this new Metternich System for fun, and the end result was pretty good. I feel like I have to share it:
But anyway, the point here is that when normal Americans look at Elon and his words and deeds, they can’t be 100 % certain that he ‘s , not , Evil Elon. A few progressives will be very convinced that he , is , actually evil, but I think most people will simply wonder and be uneasy. Evil Elon will continue to exist in a sort of quantum superposition with Real Elon in their minds — a Schrödinger’s oligarch who will , probably , turn out to have been a good guy all along, but , might , ultimately turn out to have been very bad from day 1.
And that will scare them. In fact, all powerful people have this same property— even some of the people who voted for them didn’t entirely trust Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama, and so on.  , Powerful people are simply inherently untrustworthy, because the consequences of misplacing your trust in them are so grave.
There have been checks and balances on these leaders for the majority of modern American history, which means that if they did prove to be bad, there would be plenty of institutions and opponents in place to limit the damage.
One flaw of the US political system, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, is that there are few mechanisms in place to restrict the political influence of private actors. This is why some people worry about the U. S. becoming an oligarchy, especially in the years after , Citizens United.
Up until now, I believe those worries have been unfounded because powerful figures like the Kochs, Soros, and Murdoch have, of course, had a hand in politics and some sort of canceled out each other. But in the age of X, SpaceX, and Trump, we may be looking at a very different situation.
Musk is a singular figure because he has already demonstrated himself to be the one who can create large, successful new high-tech manufacturing companies in the United States. He might also prove himself to be the one who can successfully convert a vast fortune and a corporate empire into effective dominance of US politics.
So who or what could balance out Elon’s power? Prior to his primary threats and online assaults, Congress appears prostrate. Trump may have fired and denounced him in 2017 as he did Steve Bannon, but that Trump has long since passed away. This Trump is aging, bedeviled, and abandoned by many of his former allies. Democrats are still dealing with the collapse of 2010s-era progressivism, and in a few days they will control zero branches of the federal government.
It’s possible that a bunch of , other super-rich people , will unite to balance out Musk. Although the idea of needing oligarchs to stop other oligarchs is not particularly appealing, it might be preferable. So far, though, even super-rich people who have had rivalries with Musk in the past , seem inclined to bend the knee , and live as best they can under the new regime.
What about the press? Traditional media — newspapers, TV, and radio — has declined steeply,  , replaced by social media. Musk , owns one of America’s main news platforms , ( and a second one, TikTok, is , effectively controlled by the CCP). Meanwhile, more progressive media outlets still seem to be in a state of paralysis over conflicts with their activist staffers and their subscribers over Gaza, trans issues, and general election-related recriminations.
Ultimately, of course, power resides with the American people. Musk’s power comes from his ownership of capital, but the way he exercises it is fundamentally a , democratic , one — if he’s able to primary Congressional Republicans, it’s because his primary challengers are able to win votes, and if he’s able to start a rage-mob on X, it’s because people like what he says.
This means that if enough people get tired of Musk’s attempts to influence American politics, he’ll lose his influence. X is somewhat influential, but even with Musk’s algorithmic changes, it’s not a mind-control device, and it’s also , <a href="https://mashable.com/article/elon-musk-x-declining-user-base-2025″>not actually that widely used. Musk is America’s most successful and successful entrepreneur, but even the most successful of men is powerless if he is turned down by the populace. 2 ,
The fracas over the CR this week have a chance of alienating Musk because the American public has never liked shutdown brinksmanship. If Elon pulls a few more stunts, Trump’s second term could be defined by a protracted backlash against his overreach.
Vox populi, vox dei, as they say.
1. In reality, I have a third theory that claims that Russian and Chinese bots are the primary culprits of antisemitism in order to wedge American society. Right after the election, I’ve noticed that antisemitism largely vanished. This could have been attributable to an Elon crackdown.
2. I wouldn’t bet on it, though, but a few techlords might one day be able to use AI to rule the world in defiance of the vast majority of humanity.
This , article , was first published on Noah Smith’s Noahpinion , Substack and is republished with kind permission. Become a Noahopinion , subscriber , here.
Countries have since improved their earthquake and tsunami planning, including having early warning systems and rigid building codes, according to Earth science professional Don Melgar of the University of Oregon.
“The truth is that with increasing sea levels, tsunami impacts will become progressively deadlier, ” he told CNA’s Asia First on Monday ( Dec 23 ).
“That’s things that we’re starting to take into account when we make arrangements and estimates. ”
There is also greater local engagement, including data posting, he added.
“That’s not something that was happening in 2004,” said Melgar. So that makes it simpler to warn people when quakes occur.
Additionally, it makes it simpler to exchange knowledge and information in the form of computer models, training, and preparations, but that, nevertheless, the whole region can be strengthened and made more resilient than just this or that nation. ”
He cautioned against complacency when preparing for the next big hazard.
“We’re in a better place, but we’re not at our place, ” he said.
“We may think about our kids and our children’s children. That’s the kind of thinking that will enable us to prevent tragedies like the one from 2004 from occurring again. ”
SingPost fired its party executives Vincent Phang, Vincent Yik, and Vincent Yik, the group’s chief financial officer, and Li Yu, the group’s executive in charge of the company’s global business system.  ,
Mr Phang initially joined SingPost in 2019 as the CEO for post service and Singapore, which comprises article, piece and shipping. In September 2021, he was sworn in as the SingPost party CEO.  ,
According to his account on SingPost’s website, the team expanded into Australia under his command and developed its cross-border e-commerce transportation business worldwide.  ,
He previously served as the organization’s deputy president, working for the Workplace Safety and Health Council, and held top management positions at ST Logistics and Toll.  ,
In accordance with his legal responsibilities, Mr. Phang was also asked to retire as a producer of SingPost and all of its related companies as a result of the disciplinary trials.
Before joining SingPost in December 2021, Mr Yik was CFO at OUE Lippo Healthcare.  ,
He recently held a number of important administrative positions, including those at Far East Orchard and Australia Properties of Far East Organization, Sydney, as well as the Singapore unit of Australia &, New Zealand Banking Group. His page on the SingPost website reveals that he also held these positions.
In September 2022, Mr. Li was appointed as the CEO of SingPost’s global business system. He has worked in North America and Shanghai and formerly oversaw international logistics and supply for Asia-Pacific at the United Parcel Service.  ,
Mr Phang and Mr Yik have indicated that they will “vigorously battle” their termination, both on virtues and on the grounds of legal discrimination, said SingPost.  ,
The two stated in a press statement on Monday night that the SingPost board’s decision to terminate them was disappointing and that they disagree with it.  ,
” It is our place that the dismissal is without qualities, and was also randomly unjust”, the statement read.  ,
According to them, the internal audit of the independent group investigates all reporting cases in accordance with company coverage.  ,
They “dutifully presented the case to GIA to check, providing it with the required room and latitude to do its analysis”, said Mr Phang and Mr Yik in their joint declaration.  ,
The table alleged that the case’s “material information” had not been taken into account. The causal relationship and effect were not immediately established, they claimed, because the facts changed over time.
” We had responded to inquiries based on the information that was being sought at the time while keeping the separate research that was being conducted.” We acted quickly after the relationship and effect had been established” . ,
The two men said they” absolutely accept” any suggestion that they had acted improperly, had been acting badly, or had attempted to portray facts.  ,
” We have consistently acted in the best interests of the company and adhered to the highest specifications of leadership and management during our time at SingPost,” the firm said.” We does pursue legal action against any claims the contrary.”
SingPost stated that it would make an announcement regarding the nomination of a new class CEO in due course.  ,
The latest CFO of its Asian company, Mr Isaac Mah, will be the new team CFO.  ,
Board president Simon Israel may “provide more guidance to and training greater supervision of the top management leadership team in the company” in the interim.
Post services will not be affected, SingPost added.  ,
In the midst of a table review, an acting Director will be chosen to lead the international business unit. A fresh chief professional is not being considered at this time, according to SingPost.  ,
A settlement amount in lieu of penalties has also been agreed upon with the buyer who was the subject of the reporting statement and investigation findings.
Following the settlement, the company said that its relationship with the client “has never suffered a significant loss.”  ,
In what a minister called” a fresh approach” to combating corruption, Indonesia plans to forgive graft criminals and suspects who agree to transfer stolen goods to the state.
According to Chief Legal Affairs Minister Yusril Ihza Mahendra, the main goal of the new strategy is to recover stolen goods for public use.
We want legislation enforcement to use the stolen funds to benefit the people by returning them to the state’s funds. What is the advantage of our people if bone criminals are just put in jail? Minister Yusril made the announcement to BTV last Friday ( Dec 20 ).
Some critics have disputed the idea, which President Prabowo Subianto brought up on Wednesday ( 18 December ) during his trip to Egypt ).  ,
Mr. Prabowo said his government does offer ways for graft suspects and convicts to covertly returning what they stole in the coming weeks or months.
I’m allowing them to turn their heads. Hey you corrupters, or those who feel that you have stolen from the people, if you return what you stole, we may pardon you, but please return it”, Prabowo said in a statement at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University that was attended by thousands of Indonesian college students.  ,
The government is working on a presidential order, which will include a date, according to Minister Yusril.
According to Yusril,” The political pardon may be granted if they return the stolen goods by August 1, 2025 at the latest,” according to news outlet Jakarta Globe. The president has the authority to forgive criminals or suspects under Article 14 of the 1945 Constitution, which supersedes legal norms, noted Yusril.
He claimed that the broader program aimed at addressing the nation’s overcrowded prisons is the cause of the proposed forgive of bone criminals.  ,
Earlier this month, it was reported that Prabowo plans to give asylum to over 40, 000 individuals, or about 30 per cent of the region’s prison population. Pharmaceutical criminals, those with mental illnesses, and those imprisoned in Papua province for criticizing the government are among those who may be pardoned.  ,
Without providing figures, Yusril said bone defendants make up only a small percentage of the 44, 000 prisoners who could receive a political pardon.
He said that transplant suspects under investigation who agree to return the stolen funds may be eligible for pardons as well, noting that those who do so won’t face charges and won’t be identified.
According to him,” Those who are being investigated or tried for corruption will get cleared of charges if they return the stolen position assets,” according to the Jakarta Globe.  ,
” After years of focusing on disciplinary measures, it’s obvious that we need a fresh approach to address this enduring issue”, added Yusril, highlighting Indonesia’s “worsening” efficiency in global problem positions.
US President-elect Donald Trump has named most of the people of his suggested case. But, he’s still to reveal important appointees to America’s effective cyber warfare and cleverness institutions.
These positions include those held by the National Security Council’s computer lead, the director of the CISA, and the national security council’s cyber director. These figures may be crucial to ensuring the safety of the United States ‘ computer protection at a crucial time.
For the coming leadership, we think there are three potential trouble spots:
Foreign electronic surveillance and spy actions against the US have reached an all-time large in terms of level of effort and, most importantly, success.
These spy actions have succeeded in capturing:
According to recent reports, the Chinese government has targeted key state systems by utilizing flaws in the country’s aging telecommunications infrastructure.
Hackers from the” Salt Typhoon” organization were able to gain access to the personal contacts of senior officials, including Trump, and to reveal the names of US intelligence agencies both domestically and internationally.
Additionally, it appears that Salt Typhoon has allegedly extorted US telecommunication companies ‘ call data files. These provide a detailed record of all network users ‘ calls and related phone numbers.
These powerful breaches come after years of vicious cyberattacks that have harmed US patents and state secrets involving crucial technologies. These include unnatural knowledge, next-generation plane, biology and power systems.
However, according to research, the majority of Chinese spy operations against the US have been centered on the theft of proprietary information and technologies since 2000.
In addition to this, the US government thinks Beijing is trying to improve its ability to track electronic data on Americans.
A number of steps were taken by the Biden administration to protect America’s tech ecosystem from Chinese-made devices and software that might have hidden security features. The reaction included restrictions and bans on products produced by TikTok, the social media platform, and Hikvision, Dahua, and Hytera.
All of this sets the stage for confrontations between Trump and China, as well as Trump and the technology industry in America.
For instance, the Trump presidency will almost certainly have to convince communications giants AT&, T, Verizon, T-Mobile and others to tackle longstanding deficits in their system. This includes the frequent use of unshielded parts that date back to the 1970s and 1980s.
Together, the individual targeting of Trump, his Cabinet, and senior government officials and their solutions will require a violent reaction to deter potential businesses.
How much will the Trump presidency become willing to do in response to Chinese aggression, though?
President Joe Biden has responded to China by criticizing its semiconductor sector and restricting its ability to access another important systems. Beijing is likely to try to have these steps removed in any conversations between Trump and Taiwanese leader Xi Jinping regarding business and taxes.
If it does, Trump’s wish for a better financial “deal” with China does come into conflict with national safety issues.
Chinese organizations have also been sabotage-infiltrating critical infrastructure in the United States and other countries ( including the cyber security facilities in the” Five Eyes” partners ).
The goal is to install powerful ransomware that can be activated to destroy and destroy necessary systems in order to pre-position themselves in the target sites. This includes in a time of conflict.
The most prominent of these initiatives has come from Volt Typhoon, a Chinese state-sponsored thief party.
These intrusive and destructive measures of destruction of essential equipment are in line with China’s long-standing policy of secret action, which states that “win without fighting”
As we get closer to 2027, these destroy initiatives are commonly anticipated to get worse. This is the most important time when the People’s Liberation Army of China is anticipated to be ready to launch an conquest of Taiwan.
A potential escalation into a military discord between the US and China poses the greatest threat to this electric damage campaign.
If Foreign malware is used to target the events for America’s 250th day in 2026 or the Los Angeles Olympics in 2028, for example, how many restraint had Trump had?
The last point will be one that is congressional.
The US has long been the subject of heated debate about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA ). The majority of this is centered on Area 702, which is the foundation for America’s extensive selection of unusual intelligence.
This section enables US intelligence agencies to catch phone calls, letters, and other electronic communications from non-Americans outside the US.
Congress has mandated these firms to “minimize” the money collection of data on Americans. In practice, but, this has been difficult to achieve in the age of modern secrecy and international challenges.
FISA is viewed as necessary to national protection organizations that are battling to keep America and its allies protected by nonpartisan supporters. The MAGA-aligned House Freedom Caucus, nevertheless, has cast the work in a different light. They think it gives rise to an inexplicable heavy state that wants to spy on regular people.
Trump has, at times, aligned himself with this perspective. He claimed in April of this year that Congress should “kill FISA” because it was suspected of allowing spying on his political campaign for 2020.
If Congress doesn’t pass a new part 702, Section 702 will expire in April 2026. Although there will be Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, the divergent viewpoints within the party do not maintain passage.
The growing threats to national security that a second Trump administration may encounter are even more dangerous. According to intelligence officials, the need for FISA-sourced knowledge has never been greater.
However, outsiders like Tulsi Gabbard ( presumptive director of national intelligence ), Kash Patel ( presumptive FBI director ), Pam Bondi ( presumptive attorney-general ) and Kristi Noem ( presumptive secretary of homeland security ) may oppose re-authorizing the legislation.
However, America’s allies rely greatly on knowledge shared by US companies using FISA warrants.
Trump may want to compel NATO and other allies to spend more money on their own protection, just as he may require that Five Eye and other intelligence organizations also conduct more surveillance.
William A Stoltz is teacher and specialist associate, National Security College, Australian National University and Michael Rogers is older brother and alternative doctor, Kellogg Executive Leadership Institute, Northwestern University
This content was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.