Commentary: How is Budget 2025 preparing Singapore for tomorrow?

By:
On:
In: South-East Asia

A BUDGET TO WITHSTAND FUTURE CHALLENGES

In addition, a lot has been put forth in the Budget for this year to address upcoming challenges and dangers while support is provided to Singaporeans to deal with the latest bread and butter issues.

In his statement, Mr Wong noted that while Singapore’s market expanded by 4.4 per share in 2024, maintaining that rate will be hard. A more achievable goal would be to achieve 2 to 3 percent over the next ten years.

It is apparent that the state is attempting to use measures to ensure Singapore retains a leading place as a global trade and business gateway when combined with the increasingly complex and uncertain global political environment with more countries adopting mercantilist trade policies.

Singapore’s future-ready workplace has been a key pillar to maintaining its attractiveness as a worldwide business place and beautiful hub for multi-national enterprises, and the additions to the SkillsFuture program highlight the importance of developing their skills and capabilities to deal with new industries and sectors that will be the staple of the future economy.

The authorities also launched initiatives to encourage businesses operating in Singapore to use natural products, services, and products like electric vehicles, while also expressing an interest in exploring fresh, sustainable energy sources like nuclear power.

The initiatives to improve the attractiveness of the Singapore Exchange, increase business access, and promote an equitable economy that values the old and the disabled, represent a whole-government strategy for creating a socially and economically feasible nationwide value proposition.

Probably the question we should be asking is not so much whether this week’s Budget is an vote or SG60 Budget, but whether it forms part of the president’s long-term plan to ensure Singapore’s endurance in the next 60 years and beyond.

It’s impossible to foresee how the next six decades may turn out, and glass ball-gazing is an imperfect knowledge at best. However, how Singapore reacts to the volatility in the coming weeks as the second Trump administration continues to alter the US position in the world, US-China opposition rises, and the risk of continuing fight in the Middle East, Ukraine, and other countries will be a good indication of whether Budget 2025 will be a significant step forward in future-proofing the nation.

In a world that is becoming more and more turbulent, it will be crucial to see if Singaporeans are assured that they will be supported in their work to survive and prosper.

If thus, then we can really look forward to the “better tomorrow” highlighted in the style of Mr Wong’s latest Budget conversation.

Previous columnist and Nominated Member of Parliament Nicholas Fang. He serves as the managing director of the corporate consulting firm Black Dot and the director of safety and global matters at the Singapore Institute of International Affairs.

Continue Reading

N Korea missile puts all of US mainland in nuclear attack range – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

North Korea is developing weapon defenses to attack the US island, which could sabotage US forces and raise concerns about a potential strategic shift in the Asian Peninsula’s power balance.

In a statement this month before the US Senate Armed Forces Committee, General Gregory Guillot, head of US Northern Command ( USNORTHCOM) and North American Aerospace Defense Command ( NORAD), said that North Korea’s growing intercontinental ballistic missile ( ICBM ) capabilities pose a direct threat to the US mainland, with its latest solid-propellant Hwasong-19 missile likely capable of delivering a nuclear payload to targets across North America.

The new aircraft’s solid-fuel design drastically reduces release preparation time, complicating proactive recognition and interception efforts.

Guillot warned that if North Korea’s arsenal exceeds present estimates, its rapid change from missile development to sequential production was soon outweigh US ballistic missile defenses.

He even made a point about the potential for modern exchanges between North Korea and Russia, as well as potential quid-for-quo agreements that would support the latter’s highly developed strategic weapons program.

The likelihood of continuous multi-domain threats to the US land is increased by these innovations and wider strategic cooperation between US adversaries, adding even more pressure on already-existing missile security systems.

In reply, Guillot emphasized the immediate need for developing next-generation missile defenses, including the development of NGI-based domain awareness technologies and the prompt deployment of NGI-based NGIs, to combat the threat of more complex adversary missiles.

In a November 2024 article for 38 North, Vann Van Diepen says North Korea’s Hwasong-19 ICBM represents a significant advance in the country’s strategic missile capabilities, likely incorporating a multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle ( MIRV ) system.

Van Diepen states that the larger solid-fuel Hwasong-19, compared to the Hwasong-18, has improved increase capability that increases payload capacity without extending range, as the earlier ICBM can now accomplish the US mainland. He notes that the Hwasong-19’s launch footage shows a probable post-boost vehicle ( PBV), essential for MIRV deployment.

He points out that a successful MIRV-equipped Hwasong-19 may increase the number of missiles per weapon, increase second-strike endurance, and put US missile security at risk. However, additional testing is required to ensure the MIRVs survive atmospheric rehabilitation.

But, Thomas Newdick argues in a The War Zone article from June 2024 that while it may be technically possible for North Korea to place several warheads on a weapon, it is more complicated to put them on many targets.

According to Newdick, it’s unclear whether North Korea has the skill to accurately place a bomb on a goal after it has been detonated from a nuclear weapon.

North Korea might have benefited greatly from the continuing conflict in Ukraine. According to Newsweek’s report from this month, North Korean nuclear missiles launched against Ukraine have increased in correctness since last year, hitting targets 50 to 100 feet away from them, up from their earlier range of 1 to 3 meters.

As North Korea transitions to published ICBM generation, it raises the possibility of overextending the US’s missile threats. After displaying 10-12 Hwasong-17 Squadrons during a nighttime rally in Pyongyang, Polititico reported in February 2023 that North Korea might have more than the US has ships.

Politico notes that if North Korea could meet four weapons on each weapon, those weapons could potentially destroy the US Ground-Based Midcourse Defense ( GMD) system, which has only 44 ships. The GMD has only demonstrated 55 % success in very scripted testing and frequently required three ships to intercept a single weapon, adding to the problem of limited ships.

Cognizant of US missile defense limitations, in January 2025, US President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order to build a US” Iron Dome”, a next-generation missile defense system incorporating space-based interceptors ( SBI ) to defeat hypersonic weapons, ballistic and cruise missiles, and other next-generation aerial attacks.

However, experts have disagreements regarding the US Iron Dome project’s viability and potential impact on instability or deterrence.

Ankit Panda claims in a Breaking Defense article this month that the US Iron Dome does not address the vulnerability issue and merely encourages US adversaries to develop new nuclear weapon delivery techniques, such as fractional orbital bombardment ( FOB ) systems.

In accordance with that, North Korea has developed the” Haeil” nuclear-armed underwater drone that is intended to enter enemy waters and detonate to produce a radioactive tsunami to obliterate enemy ships and ports. However, it is not clear whether North Korea’s Haeil is a real weapon or a propaganda ploy.

Additionally, Jessica West and Victoria Samson make mention for Breaking Defense in which they claim that space-based interceptors could fuel international agreements against the militarization of space.

Todd Harrison claims in a January 2025 American Enterprise Institute ( AEI ) article that while the cost of building a system of 1, 900 SBIs could reach US$ 11-27 billion, such a constellation could only intercept two incoming missiles while all other interceptors would remain out of range.

Harrison cites the absence issue where low-Earth orbit ( LEO ) satellites spend most of their time above the wrong region of the planet. Given the conflict between North Korean nuclear capabilities and US missile defenses, there are also divergent opinions on the latter’s position regarding its nuclear arsenal.

In a December 2024 article in the peer-reviewed Defense &amp, Security Analysis journal, Hwee-rhak Park and Wooyun Jo mention that North Korea has two objectives when developing its nuclear arsenal: first, to break US nuclear extended deterrence ( NED ) in the Korean Peninsula, and second, to reunify the Korean Peninsula under its regime.

Park and Jo mention that North Korea is concerned about its nuclear retaliation against the US mainland and that the US may reverse its NED position on the Korean Peninsula. They assert that the US may use tactical nuclear weapons only as long as North Korea forbids the use of nuclear weapons against South Korean military installations.

In the worst case, Park and Jo claim that North Korea might launch a number of nuclear weapons at South Korean cities to demoralize or cripple those forces before moving ground forces into the latter’s territory to compel their surrender.

They claim that North Korea can attempt to avoid US forces in South Korea while threatening a nuclear attack on them if they launch an offensive and compel the US to leave the Korean Peninsula. They point out, however, that the North Korean government would make the decision to use nuclear weapons against the US or South Korea.

Given those options, Park and Jo advise that the US and South Korea implement stronger nuclear deterrence measures, such as the permanent deployment of US nuclear ballistic missile submarines ( SSBN ) close to the Korean Peninsula, the deployment of nuclear gravity bombs and missiles in Guam, and sign a nuclear-sharing agreement to prepare US and South Korean forces for a nuclear war.

Continue Reading

Time for Europe to get up, stand up – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

America is certainly attempting to conserve Europe at this time.

That is the clear communication of two location statements from the previous year — one by U. S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, the other by Vice President JD Vance. Hegseth stated at a conference in Brussels on February 12 that Europe is no longer America’s top priority for safety:

We’re here presently to declare unequivocally that the United States of America is primarily focused on the security of Europe. The United States is in danger of facing serious threats to our country. We must – and we are – focusing on protection of our own borders… We furthermore face a peer competition in the Communist Chinese with the ability and intention to harm our country and core national hobbies in the Indo-Pacific.

For the sake of all of us, punishment never fail. As the US favors deterring war with China in the Pacific, the US must make the resource compromises that reflect this. [ I put emphasis on mine ]

Hegseth also warned that the US will eventually&nbsp, take its troops out of Europe, and said that Europe may provide the vast majority of aid for Ukraine going forward.

Vance argued two days later at the Munich Security Conference that what he saw as a fallout from the anti-democratic principles was Europe’s biggest risk rather than Russia or China.

The danger from within, the surrender of Europe from some of its most basic values, ideals shared with the United States of America, is the one that worries me the most about. It is not China, it is not any other additional actor.

As evidence of Europe’s retreat from democracy, he cited Romania ‘s&nbsp, cancellation&nbsp, of an election result due to supposed election interference, Sweden ‘s&nbsp, jailing&nbsp, of a rightist activist for burning a Koran, and Britain ‘s&nbsp, arrest&nbsp, of an anti-abortion activist for silently praying near an abortion clinic. He even urged Western governments to spend more on defense and to listen to their members who are upset about current wave after wave of emigration.

Although these statements may be interpreted in two entirely different ways, they both lead to the same fundamental conclusion.

The initial understanding is that Hegseth and Vance are telling Europe hard beliefs that it needs to hear. Even if America wants and needs to be the surety of Western security as it did in the Cold War and World Wars, it can’t, at least not if it wants to be the surety of surveillance in Asia, where its most fearsome foe looms. In terms of manufacturing capacity, China is significantly ahead of America in terms of community and technologies, and it has four instances that of America. Yet with Japan, India, Korea, Australia, and other friends entirely on board, America may be sorely hard-pressed to endure a concerted Chinese attempt to take over Asia.

America is not the democracy’s army anymore, it once was, smothered by decades of underdevelopment and smothered in levels of claims and regulations. There is no choice but to promote because it has. Asia is more economically crucial to the US, and China is a&nbsp, much&nbsp, bigger long-term danger to the US than Russia is. Therefore, it’s just inevitable that America will have to turn away from Europe and the Middle East and instead focus more on Asia.

Vance does make a point about Western values. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights&nbsp, claims to safeguard freedom of expression, as does the UK’s&nbsp, Human Rights Act of 1998. The laws that prohibit burning the Koran and praying near an abortion office certainly seem to violate the right to free speech. And even though Russia allegedly influenced Romania’s vote, canceling it risks creating a dangerous precedent because it’s always relatively simple to claim or manipulate foreign interference if you’re an immoral autocrat.

So it’s probable that Hegseth and Vance are not only being honest, but are giving Europe a needed wake-up visit.

Hegseth and Vance are portrayed as being dishonest in the following sense. According to this tale, the MAGA action respects and has a close relationship with Russia. Trump draws a false social equality between Russia and Ukraine, unfairly&nbsp, laying some of the blame on Ukraine&nbsp, for the battle.

Regardless of whether or not their help has been significantly significant, Trump has a strong preference for those who support him. Russia has always, favored Trump over his rivals. And unlike the Europeans, who they perceive as wicked deracinated socialists, many on the British right mistakenly view Russia as a follower of traditional Christian and muscular values. But perhaps Trump and his folks just want Russia to prevail over Ukraine.

Hegseth is obviously blowing the whistle when he claims that America needs to divert resources to secure its own borders. Even the$ 7.3 billion that America spends on border security ( just$ 7.3 billion in 2024, despite years of significant increases ), would leave it much less than Ukraine aid. And it’s a little pricey for JD Vance to condemn Romania for allowing an vote when he backs Trump’s plan to do something incredibly related in 2020.

In this view, all Trump’s people are saying is simply an extension of right-wing culture-war politics — their problem for free conversation is a fig leaf, they like European far-right parties because they’re anti-immigration, and they want to change America’s foreign policy up to isolationism and the Northern Hemisphere.

Which of these interpretations is correct, in my opinion, is a little agnostic. I believe that Hegseth is being sincere, while Vance is likely exploiting his domestic political base in the US. In addition, the Trump administration likely includes a number of both right-wing isolationists who want America to leave the world and concentrate all of its efforts on internal ideological conflicts, and conservative internationalists who acknowledge the magnitude of the threat from China.

But more importantly, I think that from Europe’s vantage point, &nbsp, it mostly doesn’t matter&nbsp, which interpretation of America’s recent words and actions is more accurate.

Whether America really wants to concentrate on deterring China in Asia or whether it wants to focus on bullying Canada, Panama, and its own minorities is another question that ignores the cold hard reality that America is stepping down as the protector of European security.

Whether or not Trump’s supporters actually believe Russia to be a threat to Europe doesn’t change the fact that Russia is a threat to Europe. And whether Trump’s people truly care about free speech, that doesn’t change the fact that&nbsp, Europe’s people are angry&nbsp, about recent immigration waves, and if that anger isn’t accommodated through the democratic process, Europe’s stability could be in danger.

In other words, both the challenges that Europe faces and the fact that the US is unwilling to assist in those challenges are obvious and obvious. Europe must either retaliate against the threats that confront it or abandon its position.

Fortunately, some of the Europeans may finally be realizing this. Hegseth is essentially correct in his argument that Europe needs to step up and fill the void the US is leaving, which Benjamin Tallis has in an excellent thread. Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, has been&nbsp saying similar things. And France’s President Macron has &nbsp, called an emergency EU summit&nbsp, to discuss America’s withdrawal from the region.

And fortunately, even without America’s assistance, Europe has the fundamental strength it needs to withstand the threats it faces.

Russia can be handled alone by Europe if it so chooses to.

Just as the US is overmatched by China, Russia is overmatched by Europe. I wrote out the fundamental case two years ago along with some pertinent numbers.

Russia and Europe both have significantly more people and industries. The EU and UK together have half a billion people — more than three times as many as Putin’s empire:

UN source

The ratio is even more lopsided when Turkey is included in the mix.

As for industrial output, even after Russia’s big wartime mobilization, Europe still makes far more stuff. Russia would only be the region’s fifth-largest manufacturing nation if it were included in Europe:

Source: World Bank via Wikipedia and Wikipedia

Even the UK manufactures more than Russia!

This is just a rough measure because not all types of manufacturing are equally useful for war. For example, Russia typically produces a lot of tanks and artillery shells, while Europe produces a lot of pharmaceuticals and medical devices.

However, the comparison is so unfair that it is obvious that a united, determined Europe would prevail over Russia in any protracted conventional conflict, even without the iota of American assistance. And Europe has its own nuclear deterrent as well, mostly in the hands of France and the UK.

It’s also fanciful to think that Europe might band together to combat Russia. NATO command can act as a single military force for any and all European efforts against Russia, even if the United States officially withdraws from NATO or simply refuses to come to its aid.

Crucially, NATO also includes Turkey and the UK, who aren’t in the EU, but both of which are rivals of Russia. Without a Trump-led US weighing the alliance down, it might be free to become the pan-European military force that the region requires.

Politically speaking, Europe is more united than it has ever been throughout its history, as evidenced by how the entire region banded together to impose sanctions on Russia in 2022, and how even traditionally neutral nations like Sweden have been a part of NATO.

But even with unity, Europe will still need the will to fight. None of Europe’s largest countries are currently achieving the level of what it would take to contain Russia without American assistance, despite the many bold rhetoric from officials in Germany, France, and the UK.

This is typically expressed in terms of the share of GDP that European nations invest in their militaries. And yes, Russia spends far more of its GDP on its military than the major European countries do:

Changes to this number can also reveal details about a nation’s priorities. Germany, France, and the UK are showing that they aren’t yet taking the Russian threat as seriously as they should, despite the fact that military spending hasn’t increased significantly in those countries. Poland, in contrast, is clearly taking the threat seriously, which is why Hegseth consistently praises Poland.

Of course, because Europe has a much higher GDP than Russia does, even a smaller share of GDP could result in a higher total military spending amount. However, it’s important to keep in mind that the real purchasing power of the military also depends on prices, such as soldiers ‘ salaries and medical expenses, weapons, vehicles, transportation, etc. are cheaper in Russia than in Europe, that means$ 1 of Russian defense spending counts for more than$ 1 of European defense spending.

In reality, Russia sells its military equipment for a a lot  less. Taking this into account, it probably spends about as much money on its military as all of Europe combined:

Russia’s military expenditure is rising so fast that it is outperforming all European countries combined despite their effort to boost budgets and rearm, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies ‘ latest&nbsp, Military Balance report…The think tank said that Russia’s military expenditure last year was forecast at 13.1 trillion rubles ($ 145.9 billion ) …Meanwhile, Europe’s combined 2024 defense spending was$ 457 billion …11.7 percent higher in real terms than the previous year…

The Kremlin’s military expenditure would reach$ 461.6 billion, the IISS said, if its spending is calculated in purchasing power parity terms, which are used in nations like Russia where domestic inputs are significantly less expensive than on the global market.

Russia has about 1.1 million active military personnel, whereas NATO does not have nearly as many, despite having about a quarter of that number. But it’s not clear how many of those troops NATO could actually bring to bear in a fight.

Germany, France, and the UK need to immediately and significantly increase their defense spending. Hegseth is correct in saying that Poland’s goal of 5 % of GDP by 2025 is appropriate and roughly equivalent to what the US spent on its military spending during the 1980s during the peace process.

Furthermore, European countries need to make sure their troops are well-trained and their militaries are well-integrated. And Europe needs to strengthen its nuclear deterrent in order to be less dependent on the ( now likely nonexistent ) US nuclear umbrella. France and the UK need to build more nukes, while Germany and Poland need to obtain their own.

There are essentially two dangers for Europe: a lack of cooperation between nations and a lack of popular will within each nation.

It’s possible that European publics simply don’t worry enough about the Russian threat, or that they’ve become so rich and complacent — or perhaps so infused with leftist ideology — that they hate the very idea of spending money on the military. Elites in Europe, particularly those in Germany, France, and the UK, simply need to persuade the public that a strong, integrated defense is necessary.

If they are unable to do that, the European nations will demonstrate that democracies are inherently weak and incapable of standing up for themselves. In the 20th century, democracies passed the toughness test, sacrificing blood and treasure to crush fascism and contain communism. Perhaps America is failing that test in the twenty-first century. If so, it becomes even more crucial that Europe succeed in the examination.

The other danger is that each European country will look after its own narrow interests, throwing the other countries to the wolves. There is a tendency for each nation to view the countries east of it as buffer states, which is a defense-in-depth way to fend off the Russians. This is a dangerous fantasy.

The more Russia conquers, the more powerful it growth, since it basically enslaves each conquered group into its army to conquer the next group. When the USSR attacked Poland in 1919, it did so with a large number of Ukrainian troops, and when it faced West Europe’s Cold War, Polish troops were used to defend it. And so forth. Europe has to make a stand and put up a hard wall, instead of letting Russia continue to absorb and enslave its people bit by bit.

It might make sense for Europe to actively participate in the conflict, helping the Ukrainians stop Russia from grabbing any more territory, if the US abandons Ukraine entirely to Russia, as it appears to be now.

Europe could send troops to strengthen Ukraine’s defenses and learn how modern warfare operates while they are lacking in manpower and grit. But even if direct intervention doesn’t happen, Europe will need to fortify its borders in the east against continued Russian encroachment.

There is actually a historical precedent for this. The UK and France formed a partnership in 1865-1946 to defend the weakening Ottoman Empire from Russian territorial grabs. The result was the Crimean War, in which the alliance of Britain, France, and Turkey — depicted at the top of this post — defeated the Russians and halted their westward expansion. Over the next 20 years, Europe will be able to defeat the new Russian empire, even if it doesn’t actually fight in Ukraine. If Europe increases defense spending and deploys its forces to its eastern borders.

Europe needs to reform its immigration and economy.

It should also go without saying that Europe needs to fix its economy. Over the past ten and a half, the region has stagnated. Even when comparing purchasing power parity, which is unaffected by exchange rate movements, it is obvious that Europe has been trailing the US:

It’s not just that the U. S. has more immigration, either — Europe ‘s&nbsp, per capita GDP has lagged&nbsp, as well.

Particularly poorly has Germany done in recent years. Before the Ukraine war broke out, Russian gas was cut off, and its industrial production has been declining since long before:

Source: &nbsp, Marginal Revolution

When confronted with these facts, Europeans typically comfort themselves ( or attack their American critics ) by highlighting Europe’s lower levels of inequality, life expectancy, and crime. However, those benefits don’t really help the hundreds of thousands of Russian drones, which make Europe a nice place to live. To build up military-industrial strength, you need higher GDP and you need higher industrial production.

How Europe can obtain those things is a challenging question to answer. There are some obvious policy choices, such as removing internal trade barriers between European nations, general deregulation, and reversing the Danish “flexicurity” system to promote labor mobility. Europe also needs as much cheap energy as it can get, since factories are especially power-hungry.

There is a requirement to restart all mothballed nuclear reactors, and many more should be constructed. Europe should also be generating as much solar power as possible, particularly in Spain, where it’s sunny and sparsely populated, before using high-voltage transmission lines to supply the country’s industrial heartland.

On top of that, Europe needs to build a better software industry. AI and especially software will play an increasingly significant role in manufacturing, and exporting software can also help to boost the economy. Europe already has a lot of talented coders, especially in East Europe, and it also has a lot of capital to invest.

However, the region has been having a really difficult time creating a software ecosystem a la the US. Deregulation should be the first step in this regard, making sure that there are no real obstacles to innovation until laws like GDPR are changed. After that, tweak financial laws to encourage venture capital, and work to harmonize standards and regulations across EU member states so the market isn’t fragmented.

Age is one of Europe’s biggest challenges, and every nation in the world is either dealing with it or will have to deal with it quickly. Unfortunately, effective pro-natalist policies still don’t exist ( mostly because France only experiences passing results with them ) Until recently, robust immigration partially filled Europe’s gap, but there is a huge backlash against the types of immigrants Europe has been absorbing in a flurry of mass for the past ten and a half. Even if you doubt JD Vance’s motives, he’s right that European countries need to accede to the will of their increasingly immigration-skeptical populaces, to do otherwise would risk political instability.

The most obvious move in this situation is to simply restrict the set of source countries, in addition to deporting immigrant criminals so that the populace feels more positively about the entire thing. It would probably be a good idea to take fewer refugees from violent war-torn areas and more skilled or semi-skilled immigrants from stable low-crime nations.

Anyway, I have &nbsp, much&nbsp, more to say about the European economy, but for right now, I just want to point out that although Europe desperately needs a stronger military, countries that pump up their militaries without concomitant increases in their economic output typically don’t fare well.

Instead of waiting for America to intervene and save the day like it did in the 20th century, the Europeans need to think about economics and military power as one big interconnected effort.

This article was originally published on Noah Smith’s Noahpinion&nbsp, Substack, and it is now republished with kind permission. Become a Noahopinion&nbsp, subscriber&nbsp, here.

Continue Reading

Morrison Foerster rehires Scott Jalowayski and appoints HK partner | FinanceAsia

By:
On:
In: Asia, Finance, South-East Asia

Scott Jalowayski is rejoining Morrison Foerster as a partner in the corporate group in its Singapore office. 

 

Jalowayski arrives from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher with over 20 years’ experience advising clients on complex international private equity and M&A transactions, and has practiced in New York, Hong Kong, Japan, and Singapore.

 

At Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Jalowayski was a founding partner of the firm’s Asia private equity practice and served most recently as co-chair of its global private equity practice group. Jalowayski previously practiced at Morrison Foerster, spending three years in the firm’s Japan office and five years in its Hong Kong office, where he made partner before leaving in May 2008. 

 

Jalowayski advises private equity funds, their portfolio companies, and other global and regional investment managers on their investment and M&A transactions in Asia. He has experience across leveraged and unleveraged control acquisitions, minority investments, joint ventures, divestures, and restructurings, and sector, including life sciences and healthcare, interactive and digital media, and technology, alongside real asset and infrastructure enterprises, according to a media release. 

 

“[Scott] strengthens our private equity and M&A capabilities on the ground in Singapore and brings significant, cross-industry experience to Morrison Foerster,” said Paul McKenzie Morrison Foerster mergers & acquisitions partner. 

 

Tabitha Saw co-office managing partner, Singapore at Morrison Foerster, added: “Scott brings to the firm significant private equity and M&A credentials and core relationships in both Southeast Asia and Japan. His presence will deepen our bench in these regions and in industries that are strategic to the firm, including energy transition, renewables, technology, and digital infrastructure.” 

 

In addition, Xiaoxi Lin has joined the firm as a partner in the corporate group based in Hong Kong, brings over 15 years’ experience to Morrison Foerster, with a private equity and M&A practice with established client relationships in the Greater China, Asia, and US markets.

Lin joins Morrison Foerster from Linklaters where he was a partner in its private equity and US public M&A practices. He previously practiced with Kirkland & Ellis and Davis Polk & Wardwell, with experience based in Hong Kong, New York, and Beijing


¬ Haymarket Media Limited. All rights reserved.

Continue Reading

Nominated MPs Raj Joshua Thomas and Syed Harun Alhabsyi resign, fuelling talk of a GE2025 run

By:
On:
In: South-East Asia

SINGAPORE: Syed Harun Taha Alhabsyi and Raj Joshua Thomas, two nominated members of Parliament ( NMPs ), both resigned on Friday ( Feb 14), causing rumors that they might run for office in the upcoming General Election that needs to be held by November.

In a Instagram post, Mr. Thomas expressed gratitude for the pleasure and honor of serving as an NMP for two words.

The attorney stated in his letter of resignation to the Speaker of Parliament Seah Kian Peng that he is still committed to serving Singapore and Singaporeans to the best of his ability. &nbsp,

He wrote,” I’m considering doing it in a different way, where it would be suitable for me to resign as an NMP at this time.” &nbsp,

Dr Syed Harun, a physician, said he is exploring opportunities to serve in a different ability. &nbsp,

Although there are many nominated and elected members who contribute to the political process, their official roles in the legislative procedure are distinct and different, he wrote in his resignation letter.

I believe it would be most suitable for me to step down from my position as Nominated Member of Parliament because I intend to look into opportunities for social service.

Mr. Seah confirmed to CNA that he had received withdrawal words from Dr. Syed Harun and Mr. Thomas on Friday, but he did not address their motivations.

” They both told me they enjoyed and found their time as NMP quite meaningful,” Mr. Seah said.

The NMP program was first introduced in 1990 and became continuous in 2010. The leader elects an NMP to ensure a more diverse range of separate and non-partisan viewpoints in the House. Up to nine NMPs may be appointed in each congress.

An NMP serves a set expression of two-and-a-half times. &nbsp,

In January 2021, Mr. Thomas was initially appointé as an NMP. He was appointed suddenly in July 2023, along with&nbsp, Dr Syed Harun and seven people.

” Schedule IS EVERYTHING”

Separate social observer Felix Tan said he believes no NMP has ever resigned before the end of their term in a comment on the defections.

” It really depends on their personal faith and alternative whether they’ll run in the future votes,” said Dr. Tan.

Eugene Tan, an ex-nMP and Associate Professor of Law at Singapore Management University ( SMU), both concurring that the resignations are unprecedented and that there are indications that the pair might be running for the upcoming General Election.

” Timing is everything”, said Assoc Prof Tan. ” I suppose the only thing that matters is to stay away from any accusations of conflict of interest, especially if they have joined a political gathering,” he said.

” It’s apparent both people are on the threshold of entering political politicians”, he added. ” Time will tell with which group”.

The decision, according to Dr. Felix Tan, may reveal how the NMP method could be seen as a stepping stone into elections if they choose to run in the General Election. &nbsp,

” Essentially, if it’s true ( that they contest in the elections ), does it mean that future NMPs can also consider using the pretext of being an NMP and then participate in an election”? Dr Tan asked.

He claimed that a practice like this would cast doubt on the impartiality of an NMP and the contributions they can render to the social platform and participate in honest policy-making, regardless of their position on the GE.

” One can only hope that such ( possible ) moves do not tarnish the image of NMPs as bringing in unbiased’ alternative views ‘”, said Dr Tan.

He added that if the NMPs decide to battle, it might also serve as a potential spot for talent for celebrations.

” The long-term consequences of this will be damaging to the NMP system”, Dr Tan said. The NMP system was created for a particular reason, not to be merely a “talent area” approach.

Continue Reading

Modi-Trump talks: Five key takeaways

By:
On:
In: Asia
32 hours before
Soutik Biswas and Nikhil Inamdar

BBC News, Delhi

Getty Images Modi and Trump in the White HouseGetty Images

Despite the enthusiasm, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s second visit to Washington under Donald Trump’s subsequent expression was a calm, business-first affair- expected for a working visit, which lacks the pomp of a state visit.

Trump also announced increased oil and gas imports, including F-35 jet, and increased US military sales to India starting in 2025, in order to reduce the trade deficit. A new defense construction will be reached through a business agreement that will be reached by both parties.

He also confirmed the US had approved the extradition of Tahawwur Rana, a Chicago businessman accused of playing a role in the 2008 terror attack in Mumbai.

“That’s a lot of deliverables for an administration less than a month old,” Michael Kugelman of the Wilson Center’s South Asia Institute in Washington told the BBC

” General, both sides seem cozy continuing Biden-era cooperation, especially in technology and military, though many will be rebranded under Trump”.

Nevertheless, significant challenges lie away. Here are the essential restaurants:

India: Did it get the mutual tax bullet?

Trump ordered that US trading partners to pay reciprocal tariffs- tit-for-tat transfer taxes to complement similar duties that those nations have now imposed on American exports. Modi’s visit came as a result of Trump’s visit. He directed experts to create broad-based, fresh tariffs for US business partners, warning that they might go into effect by April 1st.

India has a trade deficit with its main trading partner, the US. India cut average tariffs from 13 % to 11 % in its federal budget in a bid to pre-empt Trump’s tariff moves.

The verdict is still out on whether India appears to have escaped price upsets at this point.

Ajay Srivastava, founder of the Delhi-based think tank Global Trade Research Institute ( GTRI), says he doesn’t see any “problems with tariffs”.

The main reason, he says, is that 75 % of the US exports to India attract import taxes of less than 5 %.

” Trump points to extreme outlier tariffs like 150 % on select items, but that’s not the norm. India “has no reason to worry about reciprocal taxes,” according to Mr. Srivastava.

Abhijit Das, former mind of the Centre for WTO Research at the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, isn’t convinced.

” The devil lies in the details. Mutual taxes didn’t really resemble India’s buy taxes; they will also take into account other variables, he told the BBC.

Trump’s approach could go beyond import duties, factoring in value added tax (VAT ), non-tariff barriers and trade restrictions. While India’s goods and services tax ( GST ) on imported goods aligns with WTO rules, Trump may still use it to justify higher tariffs.

A US government memo on reciprocal tariffs hints at this strategy, citing costs to American businesses from non-tariff barriers, subsidies and burdensome regulations abroad. It also cites VAT and government procurement restrictions as non-tariff barriers.

AFP - Indian and US soldiers rappel from an Indian Air Force helicopter as they participate in the Yudh Abhyas 2012 military exercise at Mahajan in Rajasthan sector, some 150 kms. from Bikaner, on March 13, 2012.AFP

According to Mr. Das, the US is anticipated to drive for gaining access to India’s federal procurement market, which is already protected by WTO regulations.

” This likely hamper India’s ability to prioritise local suppliers, posing a primary concern to the’ Make in India ‘ action. This is undoubtedly never good news for us.”

Mr. Das suggests that India counteract Trump’s mutual tariff theory, particularly in agriculture, where strict non-tariff restrictions on Indian exports, such as rigorous maximum residue limits, are imposed.

He argues that since the US “heavily subsidises” its land business, India should identify these incentives to push up against American states.

Taxes alone may not be sufficient to bridge the two nations ‘ trade gap. According to experts, energy purchases and defense may contribute to reducing the gap.

Doubling US-India trade to$ 500bn by 2030

The new$ 500bn ( £400bn ) trade goal aims to more than double the$ 190bn trade between the two countries in 2023.

By the end of the 2025 fall semester, Modi and Trump will begin to negotiate the initial phase of a business deal. Deals will concentrate on market exposure, price reductions, and supply chain integration across goods and services.

” The statement that the two parties will negotiate a deal deal gives India the opportunity to engage in trade negotiations for lower taxes on both sides. That would be a gift not only for the US-India marriage, but also for an American business that’s sputtered in recent months”, says Mr Kugelman.

What is unclear is what kind of deal agreement both parties intend to pursue.

” What is this business deal? Is it a fully developed free trade agreement or a “reciprocal tax agreement”? magic Mr Srivastava.

Mr. Das thinks that we’ll have to wait for more information about the business deal.

” It doesn’t always mean a free trade package- if that were the situation, it would have been stated directly. It might just include tariff reductions on a few products with common interest.

Priyanka Kishore, principal analyst at the Singapore-based advisory firm, Asia Decoded, says$ 500bn is a” large specific but there are low hanging fruit we can instantly abuse”.

“For instance the US sanctions on Russian shadow fleet are soon going to kick in, so India can easily pivot to the US for more oil. This will not be too difficult.”

Trump stated at the joint press conference that the US would ideally become India’s number one oil and gas supplier.

Multi-billion dollar US defence deals, including fighter jets

India’s defence trade with the US has surged from near zero to$ 20 billion, making the US its third-largest arms supplier.

While Russia remains India’s top source, its share has dropped from 62 % to 34 % ( 2017-2023 ) as India shifts toward US procurement.

Trump made a significant announcement to strengthen defense ties, saying that the US would increase sales of military equipment to India” by many billions of dollars starting this year,” opening the door for the F-35 stealth warplanes.

But this will be easier said than done, say experts.

” This sounds good, but it may be a case of putting the cart before the horse”, says Mr Kugelman.

He claims that bureaucratic constraints and export controls prevent the transfer of sensitive technologies despite rising US arms sales to India. The new defense framework that was announced at the summit may help address these issues.

Also India isn’t” taking the F-35 offer seriously” due to high maintenance demands, says strategic affairs expert Ajai Shukla.

Shukla points out that US arms deals have challenges because private companies place profits preceding long-term partnerships.

Yet with delays and cost overruns affecting some of India’s arms deals with Russia, Delhi’s defence ties with the US look set to deepen.

Reuters Elon Musk meets Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 13, 2025, in this picture obtained from social media.@narendramodi via X/via REUTERS Reuters

Modi meets Musk even as Tesla’s India plans still in limbo

According to the Indian foreign ministry, Modi and Tesla CEO Elon Musk met to talk about AI and emerging technologies.

It’s unclear if they addressed Musk’s stalled plans for Starlink’s India launch or Tesla’s market entry.

Musk has pushed for direct spectrum allocation, clashing with Indian billionaire Mukesh Ambani, who favours auctions. His licence remains under review.

Tesla is also appealing to the Indian government to set up a factory, which will lower automakers ‘ import taxes by$ 500 million and local production by three years. Tesla has not yet made its plans known.

Reuters Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi attends a press conference with US President Donald Trump (not pictured) at the White House, Washington, DC, USA, 13 February 2025.Reuters

Taking questions- a hardly unusual departure for Modi.

In a rare move, Modi and Trump both addressed two questions at a press conference, one relating to the allegations of bribery against the Adani Group and illegal immigration.

Gautam Adani, an Indian billionaire accused of having ties to Modi, was charged with fraud in the US last November in connection with an alleged$ 250 million bribery scheme.

Modi said he hadn’t discussed the issue with Trump. On immigration, he stated India was ready to take back verified illegal Indian migrants.

This was only Modi’s third direct press Q&amp, A in his almost 11-year tenure as India’s prime minister. He has never held a solo press conference. He answered all the questions in 2019 while sat next to Amit Shah, the party’s president, and in 2023 he only asked Joe Biden two questions.

Continue Reading

US-China: ‘Cold War 2’ or something worse – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Most of Washington finally realizes – even if grudgingly– that the People’s Republic of China ( PRC ) is a threat. &nbsp, However, President Trump’s problem resembles that of Ronald Reagan taking over in 1981 from a foolish leadership that allowed America’s primary opponent to get the advantage.

It appears to be another Cold War, similar to the one that the US and the Soviet Union experienced between 1945 and 1991.

If we refer to it as” Cold War 2″?

Often speech matters, and sometimes it doesn’t matter. &nbsp, In this case, it doesn’t. &nbsp,

For example, a big part of the American population&nbsp, wasn’t also born when the Cold War ended in 1989. &nbsp, The manifestation didn’t appeal.

Even more, the Chinese don’t distinguish between” cold” war or any other type of war. To the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), war is war. The absence of shooting ( going “kinetic” ) doesn’t mean it’s not a life-or-death fight. Whatever goes.

The Soviets doesn’t had dared to use fentanyl to shoot well over half a million Americans during the Cold War, as the PRC has done for the past ten years.

When confronted with the proof of their “drug battle” against America, the Taiwanese hardly shrug.

Unlike the Cold War

The US and the USSR battled each other during the Cold War, but this time around, the PRC was at odds with them. &nbsp,

China, unlike Russia, had probably dominate and beat the United States. Probably never tomorrow, but wait a decade or two.

Given the nature of the regime that underlies it and the PRC’s economic clout, the People’s Liberation Army ( PLA ) poses a greater military threat than the Soviet military. &nbsp,

The US did small business with the Soviet Union because it was not a powerful financial strength in any way. &nbsp,

China, on the other hand, is a world power thanks to the US funding and development invested in over the past four decades and the poor PRC’s inclusion in the World Trade Organization.

And, worse, the United States is extremely if not dangerously dependent on Chinese production, proper nutrients, components, pharmaceuticals and much more. &nbsp,

Yet the supply chains of the US military are firmly anchored in the PRC. With the Russians, that would have been impossible, and there was a strict COCOM trade control system to prevent the Soviets from obtaining US and Western technology.

And the US record of the Chinese aristocracy is far worse than something the Russians have always accomplished. How effective? &nbsp, Regard the preceding Chinese-origin fentanyl.

What retribution has Beijing received from Congress or any other government for this widespread death? &nbsp, Nothing. &nbsp, Such is the strength of America’s “donor” group over Capitol Hill.

And then there are Russia’s and China’s regional targets. Russians never truly believed they could fight the US until around the 1970s. China considers it capable.

However, Xi Jinping regards America as the primary barrier to the Chinese’s ascendancy abroad, and as a barrier that needs to be eliminated.

Russia and its supporters are another distinguishing factor between the 1990s and the present. The Eastern Bloc was able to wreak havoc, especially through usurpation and by supporting extremist and rebel parties. However, as long as the US kept its muscle, it never really threatened America or its place in the world. &nbsp,

China, on the other hand, has ties with Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and several other states that taken together can cause significant problems for the US and its companions.

Their corporate goals then coexist, while the United States allowed its economic might and threats to fall after it “won” the second Cold War in 1991.

America’s lovers are in even worse condition.

Regarding the” plane of chaos,” Russia would not have been able to pursue its assault on Ukraine without the assistance of China, Iran, and North Korea as much or as successfully as it has.

And there is a legitimate worry that as North Korea and Russia support the United States ‘ exit from East Asia, they will seize Taiwan.

America’s answer

Trump is aware of the dangers the PRC poses to us, despite his frequent use of constrained language.

His major national security officers, Mike Waltz, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth and another, recognize the PRC risk. &nbsp, They believe in “peace through strength” .&nbsp, &nbsp,

Whether another officials – especially so-called “restrainers” and promoters of &nbsp,” cooperation spirals” with China who are strangely showing up in the administration – will gum up the works is vague and troubling.

The Cold War is now worse than what we currently face. &nbsp, One almost waxes nostalgic.

Instead of pondering the current struggle, it’s more crucial to comprehend and articulate the PRC’s threat and the need to vehemently defend the United States and its interests. &nbsp,

No one has done that, or at least no one has persuaded most Americans to do it well.

And don’t just talk about the problem. Find senior officers who can fight and win wars and strengthen the US military ( including eradicating DEI ). &nbsp,

Instead of spending like drunken sailors and debasing the US currency and global trust in it, restore America’s industrial and manufacturing base, and get America’s finances in order. &nbsp,

Pressure China where it is vulnerable. Xi tells us: &nbsp, Trade, technology, human rights, regime legitimacy, a currency that few people want and high-level corruption – Xi’s included.

Stop providing the technology and convertible currency that have developed the Chinese military and economy. &nbsp,

Wean ourselves away from the China market quickly and without delay. &nbsp,

” Decoupling” is essential. &nbsp, Let the world develop into a “free world” trading bloc alongside another bloc for the’ unfree’ countries.

China is the main enemy. &nbsp, Defang it, and then Russia, Iran and North Korea are relatively easier to handle. &nbsp, In the meantime, apply comprehensive pressure on all of them and don’t let up.

There is no tentative agreement to be reached with the Chinese Communist Party.

What matters is to triumph in the conflict we are currently in. &nbsp,

Lose it, and it will not matter what its name is.

Continue Reading

PAP set to replace branch chair in Aljunied GRC in second reshuffle in 6 months, as it moves closer to finalising GE slate

By:
On:
In: South-East Asia

Independent observer Felix Tan, who has written about Singapore’s social environment, said that it even represents a transition in how the PAP fields its prospects.

They” seek out the floor” to see who are the ones who are really in touch with residents and who they believe can win, such as those with remarkable CVs and qualifications,” he said.

He continued, the PAP faces a brand-new problem in developing its strategy in opposition-held neighborhoods.

” After all, it is a relatively recent development, only three GEs ago that they lost the initial GRC”, he noted.

After gaining enough political experience, he claimed that PAP candidates in opposition-held wards were moved to run for another seats in upcoming elections.

Koh Poh Koon, the latest senior minister of state for labor and sustainability and the environment, lost the Punggol East by-election in 2013. Desmond Choo, a GRC MP from Tampa, even ran clumsily in Hougang for the 2011 General Election and the 2012 by-election.

” If they win, they become the MP. They may have gained tree management experience if they didn’t, argued Dr. Tan, and could have been pushed out of the district in a subsequent election.

Assoc Prof. Tan argued that the party’s personnel changes could also serve as a long-term plan to mobilize its activists there in the wake of upcoming democratic elections.

” It’s the same as what the WP does in the south. They even take long-term decisions. And for these groups, one day the problems may just be proper”, he said.

FIRST GRC WON BY OPPOSITION

The WP defeated a PAP group that included former foreign affairs minister George Yeo and stranger Ong Ye Kung, who is already minister for health, in the first election held by Aljunied GRC.

It had won the second opposition party to win a GRC since the system’s introduction in 1988, winning 54.72 percent of the seats.

The team was led by then-WP secretary-general Low Thia Khiang, who left his long-time enclave of Hougang to challenge the GRC. Pritam Singh, the existing leader of the opposition, Sylvia Lim, Mr. Faisal Abdul Manap, and Chen Show Mao, a stranger, made up the group.

The WP therefore retained Aljunied GRC in the 2015 political competition, with 50.95 per share of the vote. Given the close result, the PAP group applied for a recount, but was later still edged up.

Yeo Guat Kwang, a former four-term MP, and four newcomers, including Mr. Shamsul Kamar, the current president of the Kaki Bukit tree, made up the PAP group.

In his first political campaign since taking over the ropes from Mr. Low in 2018, Mr. Singh led his group to success in the district in the previous General Election in 2020.

Continue Reading

Thai PM orders review of 2-5pm alcohol sale ban

By:
On:
In: South-East Asia

Impact on tourism acknowledged, income restrictions on sacred time could also be reviewed

PUBLISHED: 11 Feb 2025 at 16: 06

Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra speaks to reporters after the cabinet meeting on Tuesday. (Photo: Royal Thai Government)
After the government meeting on Tuesday, Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra addresses writers. ( Photo: Royal Thai Government )

Following firm demands from government agencies, Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra has ordered a review of the restrictions on the sale of alcohol from 2pm to 5pm.

According to Jirayu Houngsub, the excellent secretary ordered a review of the 53-year-old concept to make it more appropriate for the current circumstances.

The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act does not cover the prohibition. It was made known in a decree issued by the Thanom Kittikachorn revolution program in 1972 to address concerns about officials drinking during work hours, and it has never been reversed.

Numerous businesses have urged the government to revoke the moratorium because it is out of date. Their names correspond with legislation to update the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. &nbsp,

The House of Representatives is scheduled to hold its second and third observations of the document revisions because they have already been approved by a House special commission.

Speaking after the regular case meeting, Ms. Paetongtarn claimed that numerous business organizations had complained that restrictions on the sale of alcoholic beverages were a hindrance to the growth of the nation’s economy.

The prime minister claimed to have contacted the important organizations to inquire about the day restrictions and the restrictions on revenue on Buddhist holy days in order to assess their impact on tourism.

Alcohol sales are prohibited on election times in Thailand, starting the night before polls open. &nbsp,

Regulators have also been asked to review the prohibition on liquor selling through electronic means, the limits on the sale of alcohol in designated areas, some regulations passed during the Covid-19 crisis, and any other regulations passed since 1972.

Ms. Paetongtarn argued that safety must be taken into account in order to stop young people from having simple access to adult beverages.

While people are more intelligent, she said, more attention is needed on who has access to alcohol and where, with a emphasis on younger people. ” Not everyone will be able to sell it when]sales of adult drink] are allowed. This is what we had emphasise”, she said.

When a writer inquired about whether the sale of alcoholic beverages may be done on Buddhist divine days, Ms. Paetongtarn said she would request a federal panel to investigate it.

She noted, however, that hospitality would be impacted by foreigners usually not being aware of local divine times or other times when the sale of alcoholic beverages was prohibited.

” We view that this year’s theme is the year of commerce. So, this problem may be considered again”, she said, referring to the president’s recent news of Amazing Thailand Grand Tourism and Sports Time 2025.

Continue Reading

Musk’s hostile takeover about efficiency or empire? – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Elon Musk’s position as the head of the Department of Government Performance, also known as DOGE, appears to be a significant step in an effort to reduce the bureaucracy’s errors. However, a disturbing situation permeates the language of cost-cutting and governmental streamlining.

The White House office, which was formerly known as the US Digital Service and later renamed the US DOGE Service on the first day of President Donald Trump’s subsequent expression, has been given the name” unique government individual.” The Musk team claims to improve efficiency and reduce reliability, but their ultimate objectives are both.

That may sound like a striking proceed toward Silicon Valley-style development in leadership. Nevertheless, the deeper desires driving Musk’s engagement are unlikely to be strictly moral.

Musk has an enormous business empire, passions in artificial intelligence, need for financial strength and a long-standing hatred for state oversight.

His access to sensitive state systems and the thick decision-making that has guided Expand to day have enabled Musk to obtain extraordinary economic and strategic advantages for both himself and his businesses, which include Tesla, the leader of space transportation, and SpaceX.

One specific historic parallel is intriguing. The British East India Company, a shopkeeper shipping firm, established itself as a trading body in the Indian Ocean in 1600 with exclusive rights to do business in the region before gradually gaining quasi-governmental authority and establishing its rule with an iron fist over American territories in Asia, including the majority of what is now India. The business was granted the right to issue money on behalf of the British queen in 1677.

In my forthcoming guide,” Who Elected Big Tech” I‘ll explain how. Similar instances of private companies retaking over state functions are occurring in the US.

However, what took ages during the colonial period is now unfolding at a lightening speed in just a few days thanks to digital means. Real trading posts and personal armies have been replaced by digital financial systems and data access in the twenty-first century. Communications are the key to energy then, rather than brute power.

A man in a uniform and a badge holds out his arms, palms outstretched.
A security official prevents U. S. Sen. Ed Markey, straight, from entering the US Environmental Protection Agency office on February 6, 2025, in an effort to join with DOGE team. Image: Al Drago / Getty Images via The Talk

The information network

When examining his business empire, it becomes clearer to see Musk’s actions as a strength get. He is in charge of several businesses that are subject to government regulations and have national deals.

In industries where government oversight may make or break wealth, SpaceX and Tesla, as well as The Boring Company, The Boring Company, Neuralink, and the artificial intelligence business xAI, all operate in industries.

Musk is direct and possibly demolish the government organizations that have typically hampered his organizations in his new position. Tesla’s Autopilot program has been subject to numerous investigations by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Musk has received punishment from the Securities and Exchange Commission for his market-moving tweets, and SpaceX has been hampered by environmental laws.

All of these monitoring mechanisms could be weakened or eliminated through DOGE, disguised as effectiveness, or both.

But Musk’s unparalleled access to government statistics makes up the most disastrous aspect of his position as CEO of DOGE. Expand employees reportedly have electronic authorization to view data in the US government’s transaction system, which includes bank account information, Social Security numbers and income tax documents. Apparently, they have even seized the ability to change the system’s application, data, transactions and records.

Many media reports suggest that Musk’s staff has already changed the rules governing the processing of payments for Social Security recipients and government contractors to make it simpler to halt payments and keep records of payments that have been blocked, made, or altered.

However, Expand people merely require the ability to create copies of the country’s most sensitive personal information.

A federal prosecutor has forewarned that from happening, at least for the time being. Even so, by transferring the data to Grok, Musk’s xAI-created artificial intelligence program, which is already connected to the Musk-owned X, previously known as Twitter, it would have an unmatched ability to predict economic changes, identify state vulnerabilities, and model vote behavior.

That’s a lot of information and strength for one person, which is disturbing.

A man in a business suit stands at a lectern and gestures.
Donald Trump addresses a significant crypto market conference in July 2024. Photo: AP / Mark Humphrey

Cryptocurrency revolution?

Like Trump himself and many of his closest experts, Musk is likewise deeply involved in bitcoin.

The horizontal development of Trump’s personal crypto and DOGE’s visible alignment with the bitcoin known as Dogecoin suggests more than just coincidence. I think it demonstrates a concerted plan to control American money and economic policy, essentially putting the country in entirely private hands.

The genius – and danger – of this technique lies in the fact that each action might seem justified in isolation: modernizing authorities systems, improving effectiveness, updating payment infrastructure. However, they also act as the framework for the transfer of even more financial power to the already rich.

How he might possess his new powers are reflected in Musk’s autocratic tendencies, which are visible in his violent management of X and his claim that it was against the law to publish the names of those who work for him.

Companies that favor Musk may face unanticipated audits, and governmental bodies that are looking into his businesses may find their budgets cut, and allies may have privileged access to government contracts.

This isn’t debate – it’s the natural expansion of DOGE’s expert combined with Musk’s demonstrated behavior.

Critics describe Musk’s activities at DOGE as a large commercial coup. People just refer to it as a revolution. The opposition movement is gaining momentum in Washington, DC, and around the state, but it’s unlikely that street protests only can prevent what Musk is doing.

Who can successfully look into a team that attempts to eliminate monitoring itself? Prior to the Musk operation’s start, the administration’s improper fire of at least ten inspector general hints at a deliberate attempt to obstruct accountability in the government.

The Republican-led Congress, strongly aligned with Trump, may not want to move in, but even if it did, Musk is moving much faster than Congress actually does.

Destroy the state, create a business nation?

Together, Musk and Trump’s actions form what cryptocurrency investor and entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan refers to as” the network state.”

A digital country does emerge online before establishing any physical appearance. Instead of declaring democracy and fighting for it, the channel state builds community and electronic systems like a technology startup company with its own bitcoin.

Alternatives would be impossible to come by by the time a Musk-aligned cryptocurrency became standard because of the main structure and relationships currently exist.

Converting more of the nation’s economic system to privately held cryptocurrencies do remove federal governments from their own citizens. Musk has now begun this endeavor, making use of his wealth and social media reach to run for office in Germany, as well as several other European nations.

A country that is run by those who could afford to purchase the electronic currency do no longer be run by the people who live in its place. In this situation, I’m concerned that Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, or Palantir, the AI-surveillance conglomerate, will make Congress’s control of government spending and actions useless. Along the way, it may end up removing the ability to keep presidents responsible from the judiciary, Congress, and citizens.

All of this certainly presents a slew of conflict-of-interest issues that are completely unheard of in terms of range and scope.

The question facing Americans, thus, isn’t whether federal needs development – it’s whether they’re willing to sacrifice politics in pursuit of Musk’s edition of effectiveness.

We’re necessarily altering the partnership between personal power and public governance when we give tech leaders immediate control over government functions. I believe we’re undermining American national security, as well as the strength of We, the Citizens.

The most hazardous inadequacy of all may be the Americans ‘ inaction in handling this crisis.

Allison Stanger is Middlebury’s Distinguished Endowed Professor.

The Conversation has republished this post under a Creative Commons license. Read the original post.

Continue Reading