Social Media

South Korea is grappling with an alarming rise in digital sex crimes, as deepfake pornography rapidly spreads across social media platforms, targeting unsuspecting women and girls. President Yoon Suk Yeol has ordered a comprehensive crackdown on these digital sex crimes, particularly those involving minors, as many of the victims and perpetrators are teenagers. The issue has drawn widespread condemnation, with South Korean media highlighting the pervasive threat that all women face in becoming unknowing victims of this insidious form of exploitation. The crisis has been fueled by the use of platforms like Telegram, where users create and share fake, sexually explicit images and videos, often with devastating consequences for the victims. President Yoon expressed his deep concern over the growing trend during a recent cabinet meeting, emphasizing the need for a swift and aggressive response from law enforcement. “Deepfake videos targeting unspecified individuals have been rapidly spreading through social media,” Yoon stated, calling for a thorough investigation to eradicate these digital sex crimes. He underscored the troubling reality that many victims are minors and that a significant portion of the perpetrators are teenagers themselves. In response, South Korean police have launched a seven-month campaign aimed at aggressively pursuing those who create and disseminate these doctored materials. The campaign, set to begin on Wednesday, will particularly focus on those who exploit children and teenagers, seeking to hold accountable those responsible for perpetuating this growing epidemic. The crackdown marks a significant escalation in South Korea’s efforts to combat digital sex crimes, building on years of struggle against similar offenses such as molka—secretly filmed material of a sexual nature that has plagued the country for years. Statistics from the South Korean police agency reveal the scale of the problem. In the first seven months of the year alone, 297 cases of deepfake crimes of a sexual nature were reported, a stark increase from the 180 cases reported last year and nearly double the number from 2021, when such data was first officially collected. Of the 178 individuals charged in these cases, 113 were teenagers, highlighting the disturbing involvement of youth in both the creation and distribution of these harmful images. However, experts believe that the true extent of the issue is likely much more severe than these figures suggest, as many cases go unreported or undetected. One of the most notorious examples of the deepfake crisis involves a popular Telegram chatroom with approximately 220,000 members. This chatroom has become a hub for the creation and sharing of deepfake images, which are often made by doctoring photographs of women and girls. According to South Korean media, the victims of these deepfakes include a diverse group of individuals, such as university students, teachers, and military personnel. The Centre for Military Human Rights Korea, a counseling organization, reported that photos of female soldiers in uniform have been misused, with perpetrators treating these women solely as sexual objects. The process of creating deepfake pornography often begins on social media platforms such as Instagram, where perpetrators save or capture photos of their victims without their knowledge. These images are then manipulated into sexually explicit content, which is subsequently shared among like-minded individuals in various online communities. A recent analysis by the South Korean newspaper Hankyoreh highlighted the widespread use of Telegram channels to share deepfakes of female university students, as well as high school and middle school students, underscoring the breadth of the crisis. Educational institutions have not been immune to the impact of these crimes. The Korean Teachers and Education Workers Union has reported instances of deepfake pornography involving school students, prompting the union to call on the education ministry to conduct an investigation. This highlights the vulnerability of young people in educational settings and the need for comprehensive measures to protect students from digital exploitation. The investigation into the dissemination of sexually explicit deepfake images is expected to further tarnish Telegram’s reputation in South Korea. The app has already been linked to serious digital crimes in the country, most notably in 2020 when it was used to operate an online sexual blackmail ring. The leader of the ring, Cho Ju-bin, was sentenced to 42 years in prison for his role in blackmailing at least 74 women, including 16 teenagers, into sending degrading and sometimes violent sexual imagery of themselves. Credit: The Guardian 2024-08-29 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

Democrats are riding high with confidence after their convention in Chicago, but Vice President Kamala Harris faces a formidable challenge as she seeks to win the presidency in November. Only once in the past 188 years has a sitting vice president been elected president of the United States. While many vice presidents have ascended to the highest office, their paths have often been unconventional. Joe Biden, for instance, ran successfully after leaving office, while others like Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Gerald Ford assumed the presidency following the death or resignation of their predecessors before securing a full term on their own. Figures like Al Gore and Richard M. Nixon tried and failed to succeed popular two-term presidents, although Nixon eventually returned to win eight years later. The only sitting vice president to win the presidency in the modern era was George H.W. Bush in 1988, who was the first since Martin Van Buren’s election in 1836. For Harris to replicate that rare feat, she will need her own brand of magic. Bush's success was largely due to Americans' desire for a continuation of Ronald Reagan’s policies, effectively a third Reagan term. However, the situation is starkly different for Harris; unlike Reagan, Biden is not riding high in public opinion. Reagan left office with a strong 63 percent approval rating, while Biden currently faces a disapproval rate of 57 percent. When Bush ran, the country was enjoying economic prosperity with inflation under control, capturing the sentiment of “Morning in America.” In contrast, today’s economic landscape is troubled, with historic inflation and high-interest rates weighing on American households. A significant portion of the population is burdened with record credit card debt just to meet basic needs such as groceries. The global context also differs dramatically. In 1988, international tensions were easing: Soviet forces were retreating from Afghanistan, the Berlin Wall was on the verge of collapse, and the Cold War was winding down peacefully. Today, the world is marked by widespread conflict, with wars raging on multiple continents and Iranian-backed militias launching attacks on U.S. forces in the Middle East. Harris's candidacy resembles that of Hubert Humphrey in 1968 more than Bush’s in 1988. Humphrey, who was vice president under the deeply unpopular Lyndon B. Johnson, ran amid economic distress, international unrest, and widespread antiwar protests. Despite these challenges, Johnson was nearly 10 points more popular than Biden is today. Voters ultimately rejected Humphrey’s bid, a scenario Harris is now fighting to avoid. Democrats are banking on the idea that voter dissatisfaction centers more on concerns about Biden’s mental acuity rather than a blanket rejection of his administration’s policies. They hope that removing Biden from the ballot will suffice in addressing their electoral vulnerabilities. However, Harris’s close involvement in crafting those same policies poses a significant challenge. Whether it’s national security, the economy, or immigration, Harris’s fingerprints are all over the current administration’s agenda. Harris’s approach to national security has not won her any favors with progressives who have criticized Biden’s foreign policy decisions. This discontent was on full display during the Chicago convention, where protesters chanted “Genocide Joe” before pivoting to “Killer Kamala.” It’s a reminder that Harris is intrinsically tied to the administration’s decisions on the global stage, for better or worse. Immigration is another thorny issue for Harris. Despite her efforts to distance herself from the role of “border czar,” it is a tacit acknowledgment that the administration’s border policies have been far from successful. Rather than wearing the title proudly, she is effectively trying to erase any association with the administration’s controversial handling of the border crisis. But to set herself apart from Biden’s failures, Harris would need to articulate a different approach, one that she has not clearly defined. In fact, her stance on immigration could be seen as even more extreme; she previously advocated for decriminalizing illegal border crossings and providing taxpayer-funded healthcare for undocumented immigrants, measures that would likely exacerbate current issues rather than resolve them. On economic matters, Harris is seen by many as needing to chart a new course, with 60 percent of Americans believing she should take a different approach from Biden. Yet her record complicates this perception; as president of the Senate, she cast decisive votes for major spending bills that have been criticized for fueling the worst inflation the country has seen in four decades. Harris’s first major economic speech as a presidential candidate did little to quell fears, proposing $2 trillion in new spending alongside socialist-inspired price controls, measures that critics argue would only worsen economic conditions. Harris is attempting an unprecedented strategy by positioning herself as an insurgent, campaigning as though Trump is the incumbent and she is the fresh alternative. This narrative asks voters to overlook her role over the past four years as a key figure in an administration plagued by crises. She is presenting herself as a new face, running against Trump as though she were not already deeply embedded in the current political landscape. However, this framing is detached from reality. Democrats have controlled the White House for 12 of the last 16 years, and for the past three and a half years, they have been fully in charge of the country’s direction. Remarkably, the strategy appears to be resonating with some voters. A recent Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll indicates that 64 percent of respondents believe Harris had little influence over Biden’s economic policies, and 57 percent feel the same about her role in border policy. This disconnect suggests that many voters may not fully associate Harris with the administration’s decisions. For former President Donald Trump, it is crucial to highlight that Harris was not merely a passive participant in the Biden administration but a key architect of its most controversial policies. Trump’s message will likely emphasize that a Harris presidency would effectively represent a continuation of Biden’s tenure. Historical precedent shows that when a sitting vice president runs to succeed a sitting president, the race often becomes a referendum on the incumbent’s record. Harris, therefore, faces the daunting task of convincing the electorate that her leadership would represent a departure rather than an extension of the status quo, a challenge no sitting vice president has successfully navigated in modern times. Credit: W.P. 2024-08-29 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has recently expressed regret over his company’s decision to bow to what he described as pressure from the Biden administration to censor content on Facebook and Instagram during the COVID-19 pandemic. In a letter addressed to Jim Jordan, the chair of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Zuckerberg revealed that Meta, formerly known as Facebook, had removed or demoted certain content, including humor and satire, in response to demands from senior officials in 2021. Zuckerberg’s letter to the House Judiciary Committee, which is currently investigating content moderation on online platforms, offers a rare admission from one of the tech industry’s most influential figures. He acknowledged that the decisions made at the time were indeed those of his company, but he also emphasized that the government’s pressure to moderate content in a particular manner was inappropriate. “We made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn't make today,” Zuckerberg wrote, underscoring the complex and often contentious relationship between social media platforms and government authorities during the pandemic. The White House, however, defended its actions, arguing that it had encouraged responsible measures to protect public health and safety. In a statement to Politico, the administration maintained that it has consistently believed that tech companies and other private entities should consider the impact of their actions on the American public while making independent decisions about the information they distribute. In addition to his reflections on content moderation during the pandemic, Zuckerberg also addressed another contentious issue that has dogged his company: the handling of content related to Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden. Ahead of the 2020 presidential election, Meta briefly demoted content pertaining to Hunter Biden after receiving a warning from the FBI about a potential Russian disinformation operation. The content in question revolved around a laptop that Hunter Biden had allegedly left at a repair shop in Delaware, with emails found on the computer suggesting that his business dealings abroad may have influenced U.S. foreign policy while his father was vice president. The New York Post was the first to report on the laptop, and the story quickly became a major talking point among right-wing circles in the U.S. Some social media platforms, including Meta, initially took steps to limit the spread of the story, concerned that it might be part of a foreign disinformation campaign. However, Zuckerberg acknowledged in his letter that the decision to demote the story was a mistake. “In retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story,” he admitted, adding that Meta has since changed its policies and processes to prevent similar occurrences in the future. Zuckerberg’s letter also touched on another issue that has drawn criticism from various quarters: his financial contributions to support electoral infrastructure during the 2020 election. Through his philanthropic organization, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Zuckerberg donated $400 million to help government offices conduct the election amid the challenges posed by the pandemic. While these donations were intended to be non-partisan, they sparked a wave of misinformation on social media, with some accusing Zuckerberg of using a loophole to bypass maximum donation limits in an effort to sway the election in favor of Joe Biden. Addressing this controversy, Zuckerberg reiterated that his donations were meant to be neutral and not to benefit any particular political party. “Still, despite the analyses I’ve seen showing otherwise, I know that some people believe this work benefited one party over the other,” he acknowledged. To avoid any appearance of partisanship in the future, Zuckerberg stated that he does not plan to make similar contributions in the upcoming election cycle. “My goal is to be neutral and not play a role one way or another—or to even appear to be playing a role,” he emphasized. Zuckerberg’s candid reflections in his letter to the House Judiciary Committee represent a significant moment in the ongoing debate over the role of social media platforms in shaping public discourse and influencing democratic processes. His admission of regret over certain decisions made during the pandemic and the 2020 election highlights the complex challenges faced by tech companies in navigating the delicate balance between free speech and the need to protect public health and the integrity of elections. As Meta prepares to confront similar challenges in the future, Zuckerberg has signaled that his company will be more resistant to external pressures that may compromise its commitment to neutrality and free expression. “We and Meta would be ready to ‘push back’ if something similar happened in the future,” he wrote, underscoring the importance of maintaining independence in content moderation decisions. For Zuckerberg and Meta, the lessons learned from the pandemic and the 2020 election will likely shape their approach to content moderation and political engagement in the years to come. Credit: BBC 2024-08-29 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

Following a brief delay, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz stood together at their respective lecterns, setting the stage for a pivotal moment in UK-Germany relations. Scholz began by extending his congratulations to Starmer on becoming Prime Minister and emphasized the strong bond between the two nations. He described the UK and Germany as "good friends" and "trusted allies," underscoring a commitment to strengthening this relationship. The two leaders discussed plans for a new and unprecedented treaty that would encompass a wide range of bilateral relations—something that, according to Scholz, has never been formalized between the two countries before. Scholz elaborated on the shared vision for deeper cooperation through government-to-government consultations, a process that both countries have already been closely coordinating. He highlighted the importance of enhancing the European pillar within NATO and emphasized the need for closer cooperation on security issues, a partnership that is increasingly vital in the current geopolitical landscape. In a firm stance of solidarity, Scholz asserted, "We stand firmly by Ukraine's side." Scholz reaffirmed the joint stance of the UK and Germany on supporting Ukraine amid ongoing conflict. He announced a significant €4 billion draft budget in bilateral aid, supplementing the G7's $50 billion loan aimed at providing reliable financial support to Ukraine. Scholz noted that the two nations had "dealt with a situation in Ukraine today," reiterating that both the UK and Germany stand "firmly by their side." He then transitioned to a broader discussion on diplomatic relations between the UK and Germany, expressing his satisfaction with Starmer's desire for a reset in relations between the two countries. The German Chancellor highlighted that the UK has always been an "indispensable partner," a status that remains unchanged despite Brexit. Scholz remarked that social contact between the two countries had diminished following Brexit and the Covid pandemic, expressing a desire to reverse this trend and rebuild stronger connections. When it was Starmer's turn to speak, he began by extending his condolences for the tragic stabbing incident in Solingen, Germany, where three people lost their lives. Starmer then outlined what he described as a "new UK-Germany treaty," which he called a "once-in-a-generation chance to deliver for working people." He emphasized that the treaty reflects the depth and potential of the relationship between the two countries, suggesting that it could serve as a catalyst for growth in various sectors, including science, technology, development, trade, and business. "Growth is the number one mission of my government," Starmer declared. Starmer also spoke about plans for the UK and Germany to deepen cooperation on shared social challenges, such as immigration. He stressed that the UK could not tackle smuggling gangs and illegal migration without the help of its partners. To this end, both countries have agreed to develop a joint action plan to address illegal migration, which would include enhancing intelligence on organized immigration. Addressing global conflicts, Starmer turned his attention to the war in Ukraine, which he said was a significant topic of discussion during his meeting with Scholz. He reiterated the commitment of both the UK and Germany to stand with Ukraine. Starmer also commented on the situation in Gaza, expressing support for Israel's right to defend itself, the release of hostages, and the pursuit of a ceasefire in the region. Starmer emphasized that the new treaty between the UK and Germany is part of a broader effort to reset relations, not just between the two nations but with Europe as a whole. He expressed hope that the treaty would be finalized by the end of the year. However, he was "absolutely clear" that the reset with the EU does not mean reversing Brexit or re-entering the single market or Customs Union. Although there are no current plans for a youth mobility scheme, he mentioned that there are plans for "a closer relationship." A member of the German media inquired about how Starmer plans to bridge the capability gap in Ukraine, a question referring to the shortfalls in Ukraine's ability to combat Russian aggression, particularly regarding the supply of weapons, equipment, and ammunition. Starmer responded by stating that the UK, along with key allies, already provides substantial support and weaponry to Ukraine. He added that there had been no change in the UK's position on capability, and that its contribution remains consistent with levels before the election. When asked if US objections were preventing Ukraine from using longer-range missiles to strike targets in Russia, and what discussions he had with Scholz regarding lifting restrictions on the use of weapons in Russia, Starmer maintained that he would not delve into tactical issues related to weapon use. He clarified that no new decisions had been taken by his government on the matter. Scholz echoed this sentiment, affirming that Germany would continue its support for Ukraine and stating that his government had not made any new decisions regarding the supply of weapons. Addressing the recent tragic attack in Solingen, Chancellor Scholz stated that he "can't go back to daily business" after such a fatal event. He noted that efforts to contain irregular migration into Germany were ongoing and revealed that the perpetrator of the knife attack was supposed to have been deported to Bulgaria. He acknowledged that investigations were continuing to determine why this deportation did not occur. Scholz also pointed out that immigration is essential to Germany's economy and society, describing the successful integration of 20 million people into the country as a "success story." Starmer agreed that irregular migration is a pressing concern and emphasized his priority to "take down the gangs running the vile trade putting people in dangerous situations." He reiterated the importance of the UK "taking back control" of its borders. To this end, he announced that a joint action plan focusing on data intelligence sharing had been agreed upon during the day's meeting. The dialogue between Starmer and Scholz marks a significant step towards reshaping UK-Germany relations in the post-Brexit era. With the prospect of a new and comprehensive treaty on the horizon, both leaders have shown a willingness to cooperate on a range of issues—from global security to immigration—while reaffirming their commitment to a united Europe. As the year progresses, the world will watch closely to see if this ambitious reset of relations between the UK and Germany comes to fruition, potentially setting a new standard for collaboration in an evolving geopolitical landscape. Credit: BBC 2024-08-29 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

A recent analysis by the Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates that former President Donald Trump’s proposed economic plans, including major tax cuts and spending initiatives, could add over $4 trillion to the U.S. national deficit over the next decade. The analysis, released on Monday, provides a detailed look at the potential impact of Trump’s proposed extensions of his 2017 tax reforms, elimination of taxes on Social Security benefits, and reductions in corporate income tax rates. These proposals, if implemented, are projected to significantly widen the nation’s budget deficits from 2025 to 2034. According to the analysis, Trump’s proposals could increase primary deficits by $5.8 trillion on a conventional basis over the ten-year period. When factoring in economic feedback effects—adjustments that consider how the proposals might influence overall economic performance—the projected increase is slightly lower, at $4.1 trillion. The report underscores the substantial fiscal impact of the proposed measures, which seek to expand the tax cuts that were central to Trump’s economic policies during his presidency. A major contributor to the projected deficit increase is the proposal to extend expiring individual income tax provisions from Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). This extension alone is estimated to add $3.4 trillion to the deficit before accounting for interest costs over the next decade. The analysis explains that this figure represents the single largest cost among Trump’s proposals, reflecting the high expense of maintaining the lower tax rates and other benefits introduced in 2017. Additionally, the report points to another significant cost arising from the proposed restoration of the original TCJA regime for taxing business investments. This move is expected to add an additional $623 billion to the deficit, bringing the total cost of the TCJA extension to over $4 trillion. This estimate highlights the long-term fiscal impact of the tax reforms, which were initially designed to be temporary but are now being positioned as permanent features of Trump’s economic platform. The elimination of taxes on Social Security benefits is another key component of Trump’s economic agenda, with analysts projecting that this policy could cost as much as $1.2 trillion over the next ten years. This proposal is particularly targeted at easing the financial burden on retirees, but its implementation would significantly reduce federal revenue, adding further strain to the national budget. Trump’s plan to reduce the corporate income tax rate to 15 percent—a sharp drop from the current rate—also features prominently in the analysis. This reduction is estimated to cost $595 billion over the same period. While the move is intended to stimulate business investment and economic growth, it would also lead to substantial revenue losses, adding to the overall deficit impact of Trump’s proposals. Despite the staggering costs associated with these measures, the analysis indicates that households across all income levels—low, middle, and high—would generally benefit from the proposed tax changes on a conventional basis in the years 2026 and 2034. However, the report cautions that these apparent gains do not factor in the additional debt burden that future generations will face as a result of the increased deficits. The analysis warns that the benefits seen in the short term may be outweighed by the long-term fiscal challenges posed by rising national debt. The Penn Wharton Budget Model’s findings also include an evaluation of economic proposals put forward by Vice President Kamala Harris. In a separate analysis, the group assessed Harris’s plans to expand social welfare programs, such as the Child Tax Credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit, and to provide increased support for first-time homebuyers. Harris also proposes raising the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, a stark contrast to Trump’s plan to lower it. The analysis projects that Harris’s proposals would lead to a spending increase of $2.3 trillion over ten years, with tax revenue rising by $1.1 trillion, resulting in a net increase in primary deficits of $1.2 trillion. When accounting for economic feedback effects, the projected deficit increase rises to $2 trillion. However, the analysts noted some uncertainties regarding Harris’s proposals, particularly concerning her stance on tax provisions outlined in President Joe Biden’s fiscal 2025 budget request. While Harris’s campaign confirmed to NBC News that she supports Biden’s revenue proposals aimed at reducing the deficit by $3 trillion over the next decade through tax increases on the wealthy, it remains unclear whether she endorses all the spending measures included in the FY 2025 budget. Notably, both Trump’s and Harris’s plans include proposals that involve the non-taxation of tips earned by service workers, a controversial issue with potentially significant fiscal implications. The analysis highlights the complexities of this policy, noting that reclassifying income as tips could lead to substantial changes in revenue collection. “The ability to reclassify income is often a major source of revenue response in conventional tax scoring,” the report stated, emphasizing that a more detailed examination would be necessary to accurately estimate the budgetary impact of this provision. As the 2024 presidential campaign season progresses, these competing economic visions underscore the divergent approaches to fiscal policy and deficit management between the candidates. Trump’s proposals largely continue the tax-cutting and deregulatory themes of his first term, emphasizing immediate economic growth and household benefits, while critics argue they risk ballooning the national debt. On the other hand, Harris’s plans focus on bolstering social safety nets and increasing taxes on corporations and high earners to finance new spending initiatives, though her proposals are not without their own deficit concerns. The Penn Wharton Budget Model’s analysis serves as a critical tool for voters and policymakers alike, providing a clearer picture of the potential economic and fiscal consequences of these contrasting agendas. As debates over the future of U.S. economic policy continue to unfold, the findings underscore the complex trade-offs inherent in shaping a sustainable and equitable fiscal future for the country. Credit: The Hill 2024-08-29 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

Muhammad Zain Ul Abideen Rasheed, a sexual predator who impersonated a teenage YouTube star to exploit and blackmail hundreds of children into performing sexual acts, has been sentenced to 17 years in prison. Judge Amanda Burrows of the District Court of Western Australia delivered the sentence on Tuesday, describing the magnitude of Rasheed's offenses as unprecedented, stating, "There is no comparable case … I can find in Australia." Rasheed, 29, employed a calculated method to target children both within Australia and internationally by posing as a 15-year-old social media influencer with a significant following. He approached children online under this guise, using pictures of the online star and starting conversations with seemingly harmless questions to earn their trust. Once the trust was established, Rasheed's tactics escalated to sexually explicit "fantasies" that he encouraged the children to approve of, followed by demands for pictures of themselves that he could "rate." The demands quickly became more "humiliating," with Rasheed threatening to expose screenshots of the children's responses to their friends and family unless they complied with his increasingly extreme demands. These demands included acts involving family pets and, in some cases, other young siblings or children in the home. Judge Burrows described these offenses as "of a degrading, humiliating nature," emphasizing that the conduct involving a family pet was "particularly abhorrent." Rasheed's methods involved setting a "countdown" timer to coerce compliance, threatening to distribute the children's responses and additional images he had manipulated if they did not obey his commands. Judge Burrows pointed out that Rasheed's offenses were further aggravated by his involvement with groups of other adults, including other pedophiles, who watched live streams of the distressing acts he directed the children to perform. In several cases, despite the children's "obvious distress" and "extreme fear," with some even expressing suicidal thoughts, Rasheed continued his campaign of bullying and coercion. Over an 11-month period, Rasheed committed a staggering 665 offenses involving 286 victims. His crimes came to light when the Australian Federal Police charged him in 2021 after being alerted by Interpol and U.S. authorities, who had identified an individual, believed to be in Australia, targeting young girls via social media. Rasheed is already serving a five-year prison term for a separate crime involving the sexual abuse of a 14-year-old child in his car on two separate occasions at a Perth park. Notably, this abuse occurred during the same period he was carrying out his online offenses. During sentencing, Judge Burrows noted the high risk of Rasheed reoffending, even though he had spent hundreds of hours participating in a sex offenders treatment program while in prison. A psychiatric evaluation presented in court indicated that Rasheed remains at a "well above average risk" of reoffending. This assessment was attributed to a persistent sexual interest in pubescent children, referred to as "hebephilia," and a diagnosis of "coercive sexual sadism disorder." The court heard that Rasheed's background involved moving to Australia from Pakistan at a young age. His upbringing in a "traditional, conservative and strict" household and his attendance at an all-boys private school, where he and his brothers were the only Muslim students, led to feelings of social isolation. Rasheed's criminal behavior began in 2018 when he started accessing child exploitation material, which eventually escalated to direct offending with children in 2019, after the initial material "lost its effect." The court also heard that Rasheed's distorted views on women posed a significant barrier to his rehabilitation. Prior to his imprisonment, he had been actively engaged with misogynistic "incel" online communities, which promote the demeaning belief that women are inferior and owe men sex. The report presented in court stated, "You began to see women and girls as objects of gratification rather than people. These ideas were amplified in the forums … you visited." The report further elaborated that Rasheed's "sexual gratification did not come from the images … but from the dynamic in which you had power and could assert your will." In determining Rasheed's sentence, Judge Burrows acknowledged his youth, his participation in a sexual treatment program in prison, and his early plea. However, she emphasized that these factors needed to be weighed against the necessity of sending a strong message of deterrence and considering the vulnerability of the victims. She noted, "The victims will forever live with the fear that the recordings you made of them will be [further] disseminated." Rasheed will be eligible to apply for parole in August of 2033, when he'll be 38 years old. Credit: ABC News 2024-08-29 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

Off topic video removed, the topic here happens to be: The Shadow of Revenge: Putin's Inevitable Turn Toward Britain

Update: Israel’s Daring Rescue: Bedouin Hostage Freed from Hamas in Gaza The Israeli military announced the successful rescue of a Bedouin Arab hostage, Kaid Farhan Elkadi, from an underground tunnel in Gaza. Elkadi, a 52-year-old father of eleven, was abducted by Hamas during their brutal attack on Israel on October 7. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF), in conjunction with the Shin Bet domestic security service, executed the rescue operation in the southern Gaza Strip, bringing Elkadi back to safety. The rescue mission, described as a "complex operation," has not been detailed extensively due to concerns for the safety of other hostages and the security of the forces involved. Nevertheless, the mission's success marks a significant moment in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, as Elkadi is the eighth hostage to be freed since the war's onset. After his rescue, Elkadi was taken to Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba, where he is reportedly in stable condition, undergoing medical examinations. A senior Israeli military official confirmed that Elkadi was found alone in the tunnel, which was part of a "complex underground system where hostages were suspected to be held." The official noted that the operation's success was a result of meticulous planning and the dedication of the troops involved. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally congratulated Elkadi via telephone, expressing the collective relief and joy of the Israeli people. “We are working relentlessly to return all of our hostages,” Netanyahu said, emphasizing that the strategy involves both negotiations and rescue operations. “The two of these together require our military presence on the ground, and constant military pressure.” The Hostages and Missing Families Forum, which has been at the forefront of advocating for the release of all hostages, described Elkadi's rescue as "miraculous." However, the forum cautioned that military operations alone may not be sufficient to free the remaining hostages, who have endured over 326 days of captivity. "A negotiated deal is the only way forward," the forum stressed, calling on the international community to maintain pressure on Hamas to accept a proposed deal that would lead to the release of all hostages. Elkadi's rescue brings a glimmer of hope to the families of other hostages, particularly within the Bedouin community, which has also been deeply affected by the conflict. Among those still in captivity are Yousef Zyadna and his son, Hamza, while the body of another Bedouin, Mhamad el-Atrash, remains in Hamas's custody. Another Bedouin, Hisham al-Sayed, has been held captive in Gaza since 2015, highlighting the longstanding and painful ordeal faced by many families in the region. As the conflict continues, the successful rescue of Kaid Farhan Elkadi stands as a testament to the resilience and determination of those working to bring hostages home. Credit: BBC 2024-08-28 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

A shocking case has emerged from Austria, where a surgeon is accused of allowing his teenage daughter to participate in a critical surgical procedure on a patient. The incident, which has drawn significant attention and outrage, reportedly occurred in January following a severe accident in a forest. The 33-year-old male patient had been involved in a forestry accident and was airlifted to Graz University Hospital in Styria, southeastern Austria, with serious head injuries. Due to the severity of his condition, the patient required immediate emergency surgery. However, what unfolded in the operating room that day is the subject of an ongoing investigation by the Graz public prosecutor's office. According to Kronen Zeitung, an Austrian newspaper, the surgeon allegedly permitted his 13-year-old daughter to take part in the surgery, a procedure that should have been performed by trained and qualified professionals only. The newspaper reported that the teenage girl even drilled a hole in the patient's skull, a task that demands precision, expertise, and a profound understanding of human anatomy. Although the operation reportedly proceeded without any immediate complications, the ramifications have been far-reaching. The patient, who has been left unable to work since the incident, only became aware of the situation months later. The victim was initially oblivious to the fact that a teenage girl had been involved in his surgery. It wasn't until April that an anonymous complaint was lodged with the public prosecutor's office, bringing the allegations to light. Shockingly, it took until July for the patient to be informed by police that he was the individual involved in the case. The gravity of the situation has led to the dismissal of the surgeon and another employee, a specialist who was present during the operation. The decision to allow an unqualified individual, particularly a minor, to participate in such a critical medical procedure has sparked widespread condemnation. The alleged victim’s lawyer, Peter Freiberger, expressed his client's disbelief and outrage over the situation. "You lie there. Unwilling, unconscious, and become guinea pigs. There's probably no other way to put it... that's not possible. You can't do that," Freiberger stated, reflecting the deep sense of violation felt by the patient. He emphasized that responsibility for this incident extends to everyone present during the surgery, pointing out that the hospital has not reached out to the patient following these revelations. "There was no contact, no explanation or apology, nothing. That is simply undignified," Freiberger added, highlighting the hospital's lack of accountability and communication. Medical professionals have also voiced their disbelief at the situation. Manfred Bogner, a specialist in trauma surgery, expressed his astonishment that a child was allowed to perform such a delicate and dangerous procedure. "An operating theatre belongs to people who have a job to do there and no one else," Bogner said, stressing the sanctity and professionalism required in a surgical environment. He further remarked, "And a child should not be given a drill and allowed to drill away at the bone of a seriously injured person." The case has raised serious questions about medical ethics, patient safety, and the responsibilities of healthcare professionals. The fact that the alleged victim had to learn about his own involvement in such a case through the media and later through police notification underscores the gravity of the breach of trust. The ongoing investigation by the public prosecutor's office is expected to shed more light on how such an egregious lapse in judgment could occur and what systemic failures may have contributed to it. Graz University Hospital, where the incident took place, has yet to issue a public statement regarding the allegations. The lack of communication from the hospital has further fueled public concern and anger, as many question how such an incident could have been allowed to happen in a reputable medical institution. As the investigation continues, the medical community and the public at large are left grappling with the implications of this disturbing case. The involvement of a minor in a surgical procedure raises profound ethical questions and highlights the need for strict adherence to professional standards in healthcare. The outcome of this case may well set a precedent for how similar situations are handled in the future, and it underscores the importance of protecting patients' rights and safety above all else. Credit: Sky News 2024-08-28 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

When Vice President Kamala Harris confidently declared, “you can always trust me to put country above party,” during a recent speech in Chicago, her words struck a chord not just in the United States but across the Atlantic in Britain. The sentiment echoed the rhetoric that Britain's Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, employed throughout his successful bid to lead the Labour Party to power earlier this summer. This shared approach is more than a coincidence; it reflects deeper parallels between the two leaders—both former public prosecutors who transitioned into the political arena, each with a steadfast commitment to the rule of law. Starmer and Harris have both softened or moderated some of their earlier political stances as they seek to broaden the appeal of their respective parties. Starmer, now at the helm of Britain’s Labour Party, faced a volatile political environment shortly after his victory, marked by anti-immigrant riots triggered by a deadly knife attack at a children’s dance class. The incident, exacerbated by false claims spread by far-right groups that the assailant was a Muslim asylum seeker, tested Starmer’s ability to maintain law and order. In reality, the attacker was born in Britain to Rwandan Christian parents, a fact that underscored the dangerous misinformation that can fuel unrest. Similarly, Harris may encounter significant challenges if she defeats former President Donald Trump in a close race, particularly if Trump or his supporters dispute the election results. “These are different countries with different political systems, but there often seem to be parallels in their political trajectories,” noted Steven Fielding, an emeritus professor of political history at the University of Nottingham, drawing attention to the similar paths these two leaders are navigating. Labour's recent electoral victory in Britain has been closely studied by political strategists in the United States, particularly within the Democratic Party. Labour and the Democrats have a history of exchanging strategies, a tradition dating back to the era of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. At the Democratic National Convention, members of Starmer’s political brain trust, including Jonathan Ashworth, Morgan McSweeney, and Matthew Doyle, were in high demand, sharing insights from Labour’s successful campaign. Ashworth, a close ally of Starmer and a former Labour member of Parliament, was part of the British delegation that provided key takeaways, emphasizing both the successes and the pitfalls Labour encountered. Ashworth’s experience also served as a cautionary tale. He unexpectedly lost his seat due to backlash over Labour’s handling of the Gaza conflict, with critics arguing that the party was too slow in condemning the killing of Palestinian civilians. Drawing from his experience, Ashworth warned Democrats against complacency, particularly in light of the Gaza protests in Chicago, which, although not as disruptive as anticipated, still carried significant political implications. “The anger was not captured in the polling; it wasn’t really captured in my street campaigning until the last few days,” Ashworth explained, underscoring the importance of vigilance in the face of unexpected voter sentiment. “They’ve got to make sure people don’t stay home because of Gaza.” On a more positive note, Ashworth observed similarities in how Starmer and Harris have addressed immigration, both emphasizing the importance of cracking down on criminal gangs that exploit and traffic migrants. Democratic pollster Geoff Garin, who advises Harris, pointed out that while there are common threads in voter behavior between the British and American elections, the strategies employed by Harris and Starmer have been organic to their respective campaigns. “The way Vice President Harris is meeting the moment is totally organic to her,” Garin said, “and I’m sure that is true of Prime Minister Starmer as well.” The last time Britain and the United States appeared to be aligned in their political rhythms was in 2016 when the Brexit vote in June foreshadowed Trump’s election that November. This year, the calendar similarly aligns, with Britons going to the polls in July, just five months before the U.S. presidential election. However, until President Biden’s unexpected withdrawal from the race last month, the political outcomes in the two countries seemed to be diverging. Now, with Harris's swift rise, political analysts are speculating whether the left-of-center victory in Britain could signal a similar outcome in the United States. There are, however, significant differences between the two political landscapes. Trump is polling neck and neck with Harris, both nationally and in several key swing states. In contrast, Labour held a consistent double-digit lead over the incumbent Conservative Party for 18 months before the British election. Starmer ran as a challenger against a deeply unpopular government, whereas Harris, though she represents the Biden administration, faces a polarizing challenger who has also served in the White House. Professor Fielding highlighted the contrast between Britain’s winner-takes-all system, which amplified Labour's majority, and America’s electoral college. “Harris could get a majority of the popular vote and still lose,” he noted, pointing to the complexities of the U.S. electoral system. Despite the different mechanics of their political races, both Labour and the Democratic Party have resonated with similar themes. The “country above party” rhetoric is designed to challenge the traditional claim of Conservatives and Republicans to patriotism. Labour’s decision to open its conference in Liverpool last October by singing the national anthem, “God Save the King,” marked a significant moment in British politics, mirroring the patriotic display in Chicago where American flags dominated the scene, a spectacle typically associated with the GOP. Both Starmer and Harris have also shown a willingness to shift their political stances. Starmer, who campaigned for the Labour leadership in 2020 on a more left-wing platform, adopted a more centrist approach during the recent election campaign. This included suspending Labour ministers who opposed his decision not to abolish a cap on child welfare payments. Similarly, Harris has toughened her stance on border policy and reversed her opposition to fracking as she seeks to appeal to a broader electorate. Both leaders have been cautious campaigners, steering clear of divisive issues. In Britain, this approach is known as the “Ming vase strategy,” a term coined to describe Tony Blair’s careful handling of his lead before the 1997 vote, likening him to a man carrying a priceless Ming vase across a highly polished floor. However, there is no clear blueprint for Harris to counter Trump’s populist message, which bears similarities to the rhetoric of Nigel Farage and Britain’s hard-right Reform U.K. party. Reform U.K. garnered over four million votes, fueled by anti-immigrant sentiments, which in Britain culminated in violent riots. Observers are now questioning how Harris, given her background as a prosecutor, would handle post-election unrest, particularly if it mirrors the challenges faced by Starmer. Encouraged by Starmer, British authorities responded to the riots with mass arrests, detaining over 1,000 individuals and charging more than 700. Harris, who shares Starmer’s left-of-center instincts, has positioned herself as a staunch defender of the rule of law, accusing Trump of inciting the January 6th insurrection and portraying him as a repeat lawbreaker. “What if, instead of another Jan. 6, we have a series of right-wing riots around immigration?” pondered Harold Hongju Koh, a Yale Law School professor and former legal official in the Obama administration, who has also taught at Oxford. “It’s really about what Kamala Harris would do.” As both Harris and Starmer navigate their respective political landscapes, the parallels in their journeys offer a fascinating glimpse into the challenges and strategies of modern leadership. Their shared backgrounds as prosecutors, coupled with their commitment to law and order, underscore the complex and often volatile nature of contemporary politics. Whether Harris can draw inspiration from Starmer’s recent victory remains to be seen, but their similar trajectories suggest that the lessons learned in one political arena may well resonate in another. Credit: NYT 2024-08-28 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

In a powerful statement underscoring the growing tension in Southeast Asia, the Philippine Defense Secretary, Gilberto Teodoro, has labeled China as the "biggest disruptor" of peace in the region. This accusation comes amidst escalating confrontations between Manila and Beijing over the contested reefs and waters of the South China Sea. Teodoro's comments were made at a conference hosted by the US Indo-Pacific Command, where he highlighted the increasing frequency of encounters between Philippine and Chinese vessels over the past year. The South China Sea, a critical maritime route and resource-rich area, has long been the subject of conflicting territorial claims. However, Beijing's assertive stance, which dismisses the claims of other nations, including the Philippines, and disregards an international ruling that invalidates its claims, has exacerbated tensions in the region. China’s expansive claims over the South China Sea encompass areas well within the Philippines' Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which stretches approximately 370 kilometers from its coastline. Despite the Philippines’ legal rights to these areas, China has continued to assert control, sending patrol boats and constructing artificial islands, which it has subsequently militarized to reinforce its dominance. Teodoro minced no words as he declared, "China ... is the biggest disruptor of international peace in the ASEAN region." His reference to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) highlights the broader implications of China’s actions, which extend beyond just the Philippines to impact regional stability as a whole. The militarization of the artificial islands and the aggressive patrolling of the waters serve as daily reminders of the ongoing dispute and the potential for further escalation. In a call to action, Teodoro urged the international community to denounce China’s "illegal acts" and exert pressure on Beijing to cease its aggressive maneuvers. "We need a collective consensus and a strong call out against China," he stated, emphasizing the need for a unified response to what he termed as a struggle "against a more powerful adversary." The plea for collective action underscores the asymmetry in power between the Philippines and China, with the latter possessing far greater military and economic resources. Teodoro's remarks came on the heels of yet another incident in the disputed waters, where China claimed to have taken "control measures" against two Philippine Coast Guard vessels near Sabina Shoal in the Spratly Islands. The Philippine Coast Guard had dispatched the ships to resupply another vessel stationed at the reef, but they were compelled to abort the mission due to China's overwhelming deployment of ships and adverse sea conditions. Commodore Jay Tarriela, a spokesman for the Philippine Coast Guard, recounted the event, describing China’s actions as "excessive" and indicative of its determination to assert control over the area. Sabina Shoal, situated 140 kilometers west of the Philippine island of Palawan and roughly 1,200 kilometers from China’s Hainan island, has become a focal point of recent confrontations. Both the Philippines and China have stationed coast guard vessels in the vicinity, heightening fears in Manila that Beijing may be preparing to construct another artificial island, as it has done in other parts of the South China Sea. The construction of such an island would not only solidify China’s physical presence in the area but also further complicate the already volatile situation. Relations between the Philippines and China have continued to deteriorate under the administration of Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who has taken a more assertive stance against Chinese actions in the disputed waters. The increasing friction has led to a series of confrontations, the most notable of which occurred in June when a Philippine sailor lost a thumb during an altercation with Chinese coast guard forces. The incident, which took place near Second Thomas Shoal, another contested area in the Spratlys, also saw Chinese forces confiscate or destroy Philippine equipment, including firearms. These developments illustrate the precarious nature of the situation in the South China Sea, where the potential for conflict looms large. The actions of China, as perceived by the Philippines, are not just violations of international law but are also viewed as direct threats to the sovereignty and security of Southeast Asian nations. The repeated confrontations and the aggressive posturing by Beijing have not only strained diplomatic relations but have also raised the stakes in an already complex geopolitical environment. Teodoro’s characterization of China as the primary disruptor of peace in the ASEAN region is likely to resonate with other countries that have similar grievances against Beijing’s assertive tactics. The call for a collective response is a strategic move, aiming to galvanize international support and apply diplomatic pressure on China to alter its course. However, the path to achieving such a consensus remains fraught with challenges, given China’s significant influence and the varying degrees of dependence and relations other ASEAN countries have with Beijing. As the situation continues to evolve, the world watches closely, aware that the South China Sea is not just a regional issue but one with global implications. The outcome of this ongoing dispute will likely set a precedent for how similar conflicts are managed in the future, particularly in areas where international law and power dynamics intersect. The Philippines, under Teodoro's guidance, appears determined to stand its ground, but the road ahead is uncertain, and the potential for further disruption remains a serious concern. Credit: CNA 2024-08-28 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

In a high-stakes legal battle, Special Counsel Jack Smith has called on an appeals court to revive the classified documents case against former U.S. President Donald Trump. This case, which centers around allegations that Trump unlawfully retained sensitive government documents at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida, was previously dismissed by a federal judge, sparking significant legal debate. The controversy began when Trump was accused of improperly holding onto classified documents, including those from the Pentagon and CIA, after leaving office. These documents were allegedly kept unsecured at Mar-a-Lago, and Trump was accused of obstructing efforts by the government to recover them. The charges against Trump were severe, with 31 counts of "willful retention of national defense information," each carrying a potential sentence of up to 10 years in prison. Additional charges included conspiracy to obstruct justice and making false statements. However, the case took a dramatic turn when District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, dismissed the charges last month. Judge Cannon's ruling was based on the argument that Jack Smith, who was appointed by President Joe Biden's Attorney General Merrick Garland, had been unlawfully appointed, thereby overstepping the role of Congress. This decision by Judge Cannon, a surprise to many, hinged on the belief that Smith's appointment did not adhere to legal standards, potentially undermining the legitimacy of the case against Trump. In response to this ruling, Special Counsel Smith filed an appeal with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. On Monday, Smith submitted a detailed 60-page brief arguing against Judge Cannon's decision. In his brief, Smith emphasized that the practice of appointing special counsels has a long history in the United States, one that has been consistently endorsed by both attorneys general and Congress. Smith wrote, "The district court's contrary view conflicts with an otherwise unbroken course of decisions... and it is at odds with widespread and long-standing appointment practices in the Department of Justice and across the government." Smith's brief also highlighted the broader implications of Judge Cannon's ruling, suggesting that it could call into question the legitimacy of numerous appointments across various federal departments. "The district court's rationale would likewise raise questions about hundreds of appointments throughout the Executive Branch, including in the Departments of Defense, State, Treasury, and Labor," Smith argued. This point underscored the potential for widespread disruption within the federal government if the decision were to stand. The appeal by Smith has set the stage for a crucial legal showdown, with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals now tasked with determining the validity of the case against Trump. However, the court's calendar suggests that a resolution may not be reached before the upcoming November presidential election, where Trump is the leading candidate for the Republican Party. This timing adds another layer of complexity to the case, as Trump continues to face multiple legal challenges while campaigning for a return to the White House. Trump's legal team now has 30 days to respond to Smith's brief, after which Smith will have 21 days to reply. This back-and-forth is expected to further prolong the proceedings, with the potential for the case to drag on well into the 2024 election cycle. Adding to the intrigue is the broader legal context in which this case is unfolding. Judge Cannon's ruling came on the heels of a Supreme Court opinion that former presidents enjoy broad immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken during their time in office. This opinion has played a significant role in Trump's strategy to delay his various legal trials until after the November 5 election. The implications of this legal doctrine are far-reaching, as it could potentially shield Trump from prosecution for actions taken while he was president. Beyond the Mar-a-Lago documents case, Trump is also facing charges in Washington, D.C., and Georgia. These charges, which are also being pursued by Special Counsel Smith, relate to Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to Joe Biden. These cases have further complicated Trump's legal situation as he seeks to regain the presidency, raising questions about the intersection of law and politics in the United States. As the legal battles continue, the outcome of the appeals court's decision on the Mar-a-Lago documents case will be closely watched. The case not only has significant implications for Trump but also for the broader legal principles surrounding the appointment of special counsels and the accountability of former presidents. With the stakes so high, the coming months are likely to see intense legal maneuvering as both sides prepare for what could be a landmark ruling. Credit: ABC News 2024-08-28 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

The rising threat of climate change has reached an alarming point, and the world is being urged to act before it is too late. During a visit to Tonga, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres issued a dire warning: Pacific island nations are in "grave danger" from rising sea levels, and the world must "answer the SOS before it is too late." His visit comes at a critical time, as these small island developing states face an existential threat from the relentless advance of the ocean. Guterres' call to action was made on the sidelines of the Pacific Islands Forum, the region’s most significant annual political gathering. He emphasized the urgency of the situation, imploring the world to “look to the Pacific and listen to the science.” His remarks were accompanied by the release of two new reports highlighting the accelerating dangers posed by climate change, particularly in the Pacific region. One of the reports, compiled by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), paints a grim picture. It reveals that sea-surface temperatures in the southwest Pacific have risen three times faster than the global average since 1980. This dramatic increase has had devastating consequences. The report also indicates that marine heatwaves in the region have doubled in frequency since 1980 and have become more intense and longer-lasting. Last year alone, the southwest Pacific experienced 34 hydrometeorological hazard events, such as storms and floods, which led to over 200 deaths and affected more than 25 million people. The second report, titled *Surging Seas in a Warming World*, was published by the UN's climate action team. It warns that the climate crisis and sea-level rise are "no longer distant threats," especially for the Pacific's vulnerable island nations. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had already concluded in 2021 that the global mean sea level was rising at rates unprecedented in at least the last 3,000 years due to human-induced global warming. However, the new UN report raises even more alarm, suggesting that future sea-level rise could be larger and occur sooner than previously anticipated. This concern is rooted in emerging research on climate "tipping points" and the dynamics of ice sheets. Sea-level rise is driven primarily by the melting of land ice and the expansion of seawater as it warms. Guterres stressed the destructive potential of this phenomenon, warning that it has "unparalleled power to cause havoc to coastal cities and ravage coastal economies." He highlighted the unique vulnerability of Pacific islands, where 90% of the population lives within 5 kilometers of the coast, and about 50% of infrastructure is located within 500 meters of the sea. If global temperatures rise to 3°C above preindustrial levels—a scenario that is likely under current policies—Pacific islands could face at least 15 centimeters of additional sea-level rise by mid-century, along with more than 30 days of coastal flooding per year in some locations. "I am in Tonga to issue a global SOS—Save Our Seas—on rising sea levels," Guterres declared, emphasizing the unprecedented and human-driven nature of the crisis. "This is a crazy situation. Rising seas are a crisis entirely of humanity’s making, a crisis that will soon swell to an almost unimaginable scale, with no lifeboat to take us back to safety. But if we save the Pacific, we also save ourselves." In the lead-up to the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan this November, Guterres is working to build momentum for significant global action. He called on world leaders to drastically cut global emissions and pursue a "fast and fair" phase-out of fossil fuels. Additionally, he emphasized the need for a "massive" increase in financial support for vulnerable countries, stressing that "we need a surge in funds to deal with surging seas." Climate finance is expected to be a key topic at COP29, especially as the previous commitment by wealthy nations to mobilize $100 billion in climate finance annually is set to expire. On Tuesday, an alliance of civil society groups urged Australia to "step up and support our Pacific neighbors on the frontlines of the climate crisis." These groups, including ActionAid Australia and Oxfam Australia, called on the Australian government to endorse a new $1 trillion global climate finance goal, arguing that this could encourage other wealthy nations to increase their contributions. "Australia and New Zealand’s climate finance contributions are falling short of need," the organizations stated in a report titled *Seizing the Moment: A New Climate Finance Goal that Delivers for the Pacific*. The report noted that while Australia has committed to providing $3 billion over five years, this is "well short of its estimated fair share of the $100 billion goal," which would require about A$4 billion annually. Rufino Varea, the regional director of the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network, highlighted the stark inequities faced by Pacific communities, stating that they are "enduring some of the world’s worst climate impacts despite contributing the least to the crisis." Michelle Higelin, the executive director of ActionAid Australia, added that "we can’t tinker around the edges when it comes to climate finance. The climate crisis is already pushing Pacific countries into excruciating debt and deepening gender inequality." The urgency of these issues is underscored by the timing of Guterres' visit. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is also due to arrive in Tonga for the Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting, where the issue of climate finance will likely be at the forefront of discussions. The forum, which brings together Australia, New Zealand, and 16 other Pacific nations, provides a crucial opportunity for regional leaders to address the pressing challenges posed by climate change and to push for stronger global action. As the world inches closer to the tipping points outlined in the latest scientific reports, the warnings from the UN chief serve as a sobering reminder of the stakes involved. The Pacific islands, with their unique vulnerabilities, are a stark example of the urgent need for a coordinated global response to climate change. The decisions made in the coming months and years will not only determine the future of these small island nations but will also have profound implications for the entire planet. Credit: The Guardian 2024-08-28 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

In recent years, a troubling trend has emerged within the British criminal justice system, one that has sparked growing concern among law enforcement officials, politicians, and the public alike. Increasingly, individuals accused of serious crimes, including knife-related offenses and sexual misconduct, are being let off with community resolutions—essentially a slap on the wrist—if they simply apologize for their actions. This practice, which has seen a significant rise, allows offenders to avoid prosecution and the accompanying criminal record, raising questions about the efficacy and fairness of the justice system. The Telegraph has uncovered that over 147,000 people accused of various crimes, including sexual offenses, violent acts, and weapons possession, were handed community resolutions in the year leading up to March. These resolutions, which are at the discretion of individual police officers, do not result in a criminal record, effectively allowing offenders to escape the traditional consequences of their actions. This marks a sharp increase from previous years, with a 40 percent rise in community resolutions since 2019, when 102,574 such cases were recorded. The alarming trend reveals that community resolutions are now nearly twice as common as criminal charges. Community resolutions were initially intended for minor, low-level crimes, with offenders required to apologize to their victims, accept responsibility for their actions, and offer some form of recompense. However, the significant rise in their use, particularly for more serious offenses, has raised red flags within the criminal justice system. The surge in community resolutions comes at a time when the system is already grappling with a deepening crisis. Prisons are overcrowded to the point that the government is considering releasing thousands of criminals early next month in response to recent riots. Law enforcement officials have expressed concerns that worsening overcrowding could hinder their ability to make arrests, further complicating the situation. Jess Phillips, the Home Office minister responsible for safeguarding, has taken notice of this troubling trend and has ordered a review of the police response to "non-contact" sexual offenses. This issue was brought to the forefront by the inquiry into the rape and murder of Sarah Everard by Police Constable Wayne Couzens, who had a history of exposing himself to women. Ms. Phillips emphasized the seriousness of the situation, stating, "This Government has been clear that violence against women and girls is a national emergency, and we expect police to treat all sexual offenses with the seriousness it warrants." The statistics paint a stark picture of the growing reliance on community resolutions for serious crimes. Since 2019, the number of community resolutions issued for robbery has increased by a staggering 127 percent, rising from 175 cases to 397. The number of resolutions for sex offenses has also seen a significant uptick, increasing by 29 percent from 482 to 621. Offenses involving violence against individuals have seen a 57 percent rise, from 29,188 to 45,845, while those related to weapons possession have jumped by 77 percent, from 1,590 to 2,821. These figures are particularly concerning given the current climate, as knife crime approaches record levels in the UK. The increase in knife crime has prompted leaders like Sir Keir Starmer to vow to halve the incidence of such crimes within a decade. However, recent events, such as the stabbings at the Notting Hill Carnival, highlight the ongoing challenges. Four people were stabbed during the carnival, including a mother who was attending the event with her young child. Police expressed their frustration, with officers stating they had become "tired" of seeing the same scenes repeat themselves year after year. Dame Vera Baird, the former victims' commissioner for England and Wales, who has advised the Labour Party on tackling low charging rates, voiced her concerns about the use of community resolutions for serious offenses. She pointed out that issuing a community resolution for a crime that should be considered serious means that there is no formal record of the offender's criminal behavior. "Police have historically seriously undervalued the potential danger for small sexual offenses which can look like a nuisance that you could laugh at but are very intrusive to women and young men as well," Dame Vera explained. She warned that failing to document such behaviors could allow repeat offenders to escape detection and potentially pose a threat to others. "The real problem is that someone who has a propensity to impose their sexuality on someone else, if they don’t get stopped at the beginning either in terms of some treatment or being given a record, then we have no record that person behaved in that way or any way of keeping a lookout for them to protect other people," she added. Dame Vera also highlighted the risk that offenders could accumulate multiple community resolutions across different areas and still have no official record of their actions. "They could have six community resolutions in different areas because they move around and then apply for a job at a nursery, and there would be no record," she warned. The use of community resolutions for knife offenses is another area of significant concern. Rory Geoghegan, a former adviser to No 10 and a former police officer, expressed his worries about the increase in knife-related crimes and the implications of using community resolutions for such offenses. Knife crime reached record highs in eight police forces in the year leading up to March, with the Metropolitan Police among those affected. The Met recorded 14,961 knife-related offenses, up from the previous high of 14,680 in 2020. The West Midlands also saw a rise in knife crime, with 5,266 offenses recorded, up from 5,192 the previous year. Mr. Geoghegan, who is also the founder of the Public Safety Foundation, stressed the importance of using community resolutions appropriately. "It’s vital that community resolutions are used appropriately. When misused they represent a missed opportunity to bring an offender to justice and to prevent future criminality," he said. He noted that the use of community resolutions for offenses involving weapons possession is particularly concerning given the toll that knife crime has taken on communities across the country. "The use of community resolutions for offenses involving the possession of a weapon will cause particular concern when we see knife crime exact such a heavy roll on neighborhoods across the country," Mr. Geoghegan said. He praised the efforts of some police forces that have banned or strongly discouraged the use of community resolutions for certain offenses and called for further work to ensure that these resolutions are being used properly. "The fact that some forces ban or strongly discourage the use of community resolutions for some of these offenses should be commended, and there is certainly work to be done to assure the public that they are being used properly," he concluded. The issue of knife crime remains a significant concern, and efforts to combat it continue. On Monday, a new "zombie knife" compensation scheme was launched, offering payments to individuals who hand over their weapons to the police before a ban on such weapons comes into effect on September 24, under legislation passed by the Conservative government. However, the ongoing violence at events like the Notting Hill Carnival underscores the challenges that law enforcement faces in tackling knife crime. It was revealed on Monday that one of the four people stabbed at the carnival was a woman attending the event with her child. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Ade Adelekan, who oversaw the policing operation for the event, expressed his frustration with the recurring violence. "We are tired of seeing crime scenes" at the street party, he said. "We are tired of saying the same words every year. We are tired of telling families that their loved ones are seriously injured, or worse." The National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) has sought to clarify the use of community resolutions, particularly in relation to sex offenses. The NPCC has stated that sex offenses where community resolutions are issued typically involve children sharing inappropriate images or cases of consensual sex between under-aged children. They have emphasized that police guidelines are clear in limiting community resolutions to "low-level" offenses involving weapons, violence, and robbery. Officers are guided by the "gravity matrix," a tool that helps determine whether children should be considered for out-of-court disposals, such as community resolutions. Dr. Alison Heydari, the Police Chiefs' Council lead for Out of Court Resolutions, reiterated this stance, saying, "We have made it clear that out-of-court disposals are not to be used in serious cases. Officers take into consideration all circumstances of a case, with victims’ wishes at the center of our decision-making." The rise in the use of community resolutions for serious offenses raises significant questions about the direction of the criminal justice system in the UK. As the debate continues, it remains to be seen whether these resolutions are truly an effective tool for maintaining public safety or if they are merely allowing offenders to escape justice. The need for a balanced and fair approach to justice is more critical than ever, particularly in a time when public trust in the system is already under strain. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-08-28 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

In the stillness of an October night in 2022, a covert operation unfolded within the sacred confines of St Catherine’s Cathedral in Kherson. Russian specialist troops and officials, acting under orders from Vladimir Putin, exhumed the remains of Grigory Potemkin, a revered 18th-century Russian commander closely associated with Empress Catherine the Great. Potemkin's legacy is deeply intertwined with the annexation of Crimea in 1783, and his remains were spirited away to an undisclosed location—perhaps Moscow or Crimea. This seemingly symbolic act reveals a profound insight into the motivations of the Russian president. It is a stark reminder that Putin’s actions are deeply rooted in history and in Russia’s perceived place within it. Throughout the years leading up to the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, I found myself repeatedly challenging the national security establishment’s understanding of Putin. Despite the intelligence reports and the assurances of seasoned experts, I argued that Putin was not guided by rationality or a desire to transform Russia into a modern, outward-looking nation. Instead, he is driven by a complex blend of revenge, legacy, and romanticism. The former KGB officer, along with his inner circle of Siloviki—comprising current and former members of Russia’s security services—harbors a deep-seated belief that the West is responsible for the Soviet Union's downfall. In their view, they are not the architects of the Soviet Union’s demise but rather its victims, ensnared by a Western conspiracy. This belief distorts their perception of history, leading them to assert that, if not for the West's influence, Russia would have emerged as the sole victor of World War II. Moreover, they contend that the Cold War need never have occurred because Eastern Europe, including East Germany and Poland, would have willingly remained under Moscow’s control. This revisionist narrative is prominently featured in a peculiar essay penned by Putin in June 2021, titled *The Real Lessons of the 75th Anniversary of World War II*. The essay is a masterclass in historical distortion, presenting a version of events that glorifies Russia as the world’s savior. Putin goes so far as to claim that the Nazi-Soviet pact, which facilitated the invasion and partition of Poland, somehow benefited the United Kingdom. In his attempt to recast Russia's role in the Second World War, Putin places the blame squarely on Britain and France, while conveniently ignoring the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact’s true implications. He omits crucial historical atrocities, such as the 1940 Katyn massacre, in which the Red Army and Soviet secret police executed approximately 20,000 Polish nationals. Furthermore, he glosses over the fact that, prior to the invasion of Poland, the Soviet Union had engaged in joint military exercises with the Wehrmacht and supplied tanks to Nazi Germany. This essay, while offering little in terms of factual accuracy, provides invaluable insight into Putin’s worldview and the historical grievances that fuel his actions. Almost a year later, in July 2022, Putin authored another essay, *On the Historical Unity of Russia and Ukrainians*. This piece combines elements of ethnic nationalism and historical romanticism, reminiscent of both *Mein Kampf* and a Walter Scott novel. It would be easy to dismiss this essay as the ravings of a leader disconnected from reality, but to do so would be to overlook its significance. Within its pages lie the clues to Putin’s next moves and the ideological underpinnings of his aggressive foreign policy. Unfortunately, many so-called “Russian experts” within the Foreign Office, the Quai d’Orsay, and the US State Department failed to grasp the importance of these writings. The shadow of the Iraq War had rendered intelligence services overly cautious, with analysis often diluted by bureaucratic processes that removed the crucial “human factor.” As a result, key insights from mid-level intelligence officers, those who had spent decades studying the enemy, were often sidelined, depriving decision-makers of the nuanced understanding needed to anticipate Putin’s actions. The 2016 Chilcot Report on the Iraq War highlighted the pitfalls of over-reliance on sanitized intelligence, warning of the dangers of assessing adversaries through a lens shaped by our own motivations rather than theirs. But it is not just the job of intelligence analysts to understand the adversary; politicians, too, must possess the ability to read people and comprehend their motives. Leaders who fail to “feel” the currents of international relations are ill-suited for the responsibilities they bear. My own experience meeting with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and General Valery Gerasimov in the days leading up to the invasion of Ukraine reaffirmed the importance of this human understanding. I did not go to Moscow to merely deliver a prepared script; I went to gauge the character and intentions of my adversaries. I sought to uncover the extent of their deceptions, the size of their egos, and the dynamics within their inner circle. As I departed, I remarked to General Gerasimov that I had noticed a shift in Russian military doctrine, one that prioritized readiness and mobilization over sheer numbers. In response, another Russian general leaned in and added, “and ruthless intimidation.” In that moment, the mask slipped, revealing the true nature of the regime I was dealing with. The most telling exchange occurred as General Gerasimov walked me to the hallway and remarked, “Never again will we be humiliated. We used to be the fourth army in the world, now we are the first or second. It is us and the Americans.” These words encapsulate the mindset of Russia’s leadership—a leadership intent on rewriting history to erase the humiliations they associate with the end of the Cold War. For them, settling scores that have festered for centuries is not just a matter of national pride but a mission to restore Russia’s rightful place in the world. Yet, as Russia’s ongoing actions continue to isolate and degrade it on the international stage, it is clear that the regime’s efforts are only serving to further humiliate itself. However, in Putin’s distorted worldview, Britain, not the United States, stands at the heart of Russia’s perceived failures. From the Crimean War to the defeat of the Czars, from the rise of Hitler to the end of the Soviet Union, Britain is seen as the architect of Russia’s misfortunes. A senior member of the Russian Siloviki even went so far as to claim that “we know Britain is behind the invasion of Kursk”—a baseless assertion that nonetheless illustrates the extent of the paranoia that pervades the Kremlin. Make no mistake: Putin has set his sights on Britain. His belief that we are responsible for Russia’s historical grievances places us squarely in his crosshairs. The Kremlin’s war machine, driven by a desire for revenge and a twisted interpretation of history, will eventually turn its focus on us. We must be prepared for the inevitable. The signs are all there, and it would be a grave mistake to ignore them. As Putin continues to rewrite history, we must remain vigilant, ready to counter his moves and protect our nation from the threats that lie ahead. Rt Hon Ben Wallace is a former UK secretary of state for defence Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-08-28 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

China is on the brink of a new technological milestone that could have far-reaching implications for global internet governance. With the launch of the first satellites for its G60 mega-constellation on August 5, 2024, China is preparing to offer global satellite internet services. This initiative, spearheaded by Shanghai Spacecom Satellite Technology and supported by the Shanghai Municipal Government, is a direct challenge to SpaceX's Starlink in the commercial satellite internet market. The G60 aims to provide regional coverage by 2025 and global coverage by 2027, positioning China as a significant player in the satellite internet domain. The G60 is just one of three mega-constellations that China is planning. The other two, the Guowang project and the Honghu-3 constellation, are backed by state-owned China Satellite Services and Shanghai Lanjian Hongqing Technology Company, respectively. These projects are part of China's broader strategy to enhance its commercial space sector and rapidly expand its satellite internet capabilities. This year alone, China has made notable strides, including launching the world's first 6G test satellite into low-Earth orbit (LEO) and deploying satellite internet services in Thailand, marking the first time Chinese LEO satellite internet has been used abroad. In June, the company OneLinQ launched China’s first civilian domestic satellite internet service, with plans to expand to countries participating in China's Belt and Road Initiative. However, China’s ambitions in the satellite internet market extend far beyond commercial competition. Central to Beijing's strategy is the concept of cyber sovereignty, which asserts that each nation has the right to control its digital environment. In practice, China has used this principle to establish a heavily censored and surveilled internet system that bolsters the Chinese Communist Party’s power. This system, often referred to as the "Great Firewall," is widely criticized for violating human rights. By exporting its satellite internet services, China is not only securing its position in the global market but also potentially spreading its model of digital authoritarianism to other nations. Satellite internet, by its nature, is more susceptible to state control than traditional internet infrastructure. The centralization of satellite internet—where data is funneled through a limited number of ground stations or gateways—makes it easier for governments to monitor, block, and filter content. This contrasts with the decentralized nature of traditional internet infrastructure, which relies on a network of sub-sea cables and terrestrial connections managed by multiple stakeholders. This decentralization has historically made it difficult for any single entity to exert complete control over the internet. However, with satellite internet, countries using China's services could more easily replicate the Great Firewall, controlling what information their citizens can access, monitoring user activity, or even shutting down the internet during periods of unrest. While satellite internet has often been hailed as a tool for dissidents and activists to bypass restrictive regimes, the reality under China's model could be starkly different. Under this model, satellite internet could become a tool for authoritarian governments to tighten their grip on information flow, thereby curtailing freedom of speech and other human rights. China’s export of its digital authoritarianism is already evident in its Digital Silk Road initiative, which provides other countries with technologies and governance models that enable censorship, surveillance, and social control. The adoption of Chinese satellite internet services would likely accelerate this trend, empowering more governments to implement similar controls and further eroding global human rights. Beyond facilitating digital control, offering satellite internet on a global scale has other strategic benefits for Beijing. Countries that rely on China’s infrastructure for their internet connectivity may find themselves vulnerable to political pressure from Beijing. This could manifest in demands to censor content critical of China, share sensitive data, or suppress domestic dissent to align with China’s interests. For example, a journalist in a country dependent on Chinese satellite internet services might find their connection disrupted or severed when attempting to report on human rights abuses in China. Additionally, the centralized nature of satellite internet could make countries more susceptible to cyber espionage by the Chinese government or other malicious actors. Chinese satellite providers, like other companies operating under Chinese law, are subject to data localization policies such as the Cybersecurity Law, which mandates that data be stored within China and be accessible to the Chinese government. This raises the possibility that data transmitted through Chinese satellite internet services—ranging from communications and location data to internet activity—could be accessed by Chinese authorities, even if the users are outside of China. Although the global deployment of China's satellite internet services is still in its early stages and faces significant challenges, the implications are profound. If these services are widely adopted, the world could see the emergence of a new digital Iron Curtain extending from space, dividing the free flow of information and imposing state control on a global scale. This development would not only reshape the global internet landscape but also have far-reaching consequences for the future of digital freedom and human rights worldwide. Credit: Real Clear Defense 2024-08-28 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

Canada has announced a significant policy shift by imposing a 100% import tariff on electric vehicles (EVs) manufactured in China, following the lead of the United States and the European Union. This decision marks a pivotal moment in the global trade landscape, particularly concerning the automotive industry, as Western nations respond to what they perceive as unfair trade practices by China. The Canadian government also plans to introduce a 25% duty on Chinese steel and aluminum imports, further escalating trade tensions. These measures reflect broader concerns shared by Canada and its Western allies, who accuse China of heavily subsidizing its EV industry. These subsidies, they argue, provide Chinese car manufacturers with an undue advantage in the global market, undermining fair competition. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau emphasized the strategic importance of this move for Canada's future in the automotive sector. "We are transforming Canada's automotive sector to be a global leader in building the vehicles of tomorrow, but actors like China have chosen to give themselves an unfair advantage in the global marketplace," Trudeau stated. His remarks underscore Canada's determination to protect and promote its domestic industries in the face of what it views as aggressive and unfair economic practices by China. China, unsurprisingly, has strongly criticized Canada's decision, labeling it as "trade protectionism" and asserting that it violates World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. This response from China highlights the broader geopolitical and economic implications of such trade disputes, as countries grapple with the complexities of maintaining fair trade while protecting their national interests. The new tariffs on Chinese EVs are scheduled to take effect on October 1, while the duties on steel and aluminum will be implemented two weeks later, on October 15. This timeline gives Canadian importers and consumers some time to adjust to the impending changes, although the long-term impact on the market remains uncertain. This move by Canada follows closely on the heels of similar actions by the United States, which announced in May that it would quadruple its tariffs on Chinese EV imports, raising them to 100%. The European Union also joined the fray, revealing plans to impose duties of up to 36.3% on EVs manufactured in China. These coordinated actions by major Western economies signal a unified front against what they perceive as China's unfair trade practices, particularly in the rapidly growing and strategically important EV sector. Among the vehicles affected by Canada's new tariffs are those produced by Tesla at its Shanghai factory, a significant development given Tesla's prominent role in the global EV market. The inclusion of Tesla's Shanghai-made vehicles in the tariff measures indicates that Canada's policy is broad-reaching, targeting all Chinese-made EVs regardless of the brand's global standing. Despite these developments, Chinese car brands are still relatively rare in the Canadian market. However, companies like BYD, one of China's leading EV manufacturers, have made initial moves to enter the Canadian market. The imposition of these tariffs could complicate these efforts, potentially delaying or altering the strategies of Chinese automakers looking to expand their presence in Canada. The broader implications of this trade dispute are still unfolding, but it is clear that the global automotive industry is entering a new phase of competition, marked by increased protectionism and geopolitical tensions. As countries like Canada, the United States, and the European Union take steps to safeguard their industries from what they see as unfair competition, the future of global trade in the EV sector will likely be shaped by these and similar measures. Credit: BBC 2024-08-28 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

Another unatributed and unappoved graphic image from RT has been removed from the same poster, any more and it will be more than just the post removed.

The ongoing conflict in Gaza has ignited a fierce internal dispute within the Scottish National Party (SNP), a party already grappling with significant challenges as it strives to realize its long-held goal of Scottish independence. The latest crisis centers around a meeting between Angus Robertson, the SNP-led Scottish government’s minister for external affairs, and Daniela Grudsky, Israel’s deputy ambassador to the U.K. The encounter has enraged the party’s pro-Palestinian base, exposing deep divisions within a party that has prided itself on its progressive credentials. The controversy began on August 8, when Robertson met with Grudsky in Edinburgh at the request of the Israeli government. The meeting, which was sanctioned by Scottish First Minister John Swinney, might have passed without incident if not for a photo posted by Grudsky on the social media platform X. The image, showing Robertson with a restrained smile alongside Grudsky, quickly went viral, setting off a storm of criticism from within the SNP. The party’s pro-Palestinian members and supporters were incensed, viewing the meeting as a betrayal of the SNP’s stance on the Gaza conflict. Robertson’s meeting with Grudsky could not have come at a more sensitive time. The Gaza conflict has deeply polarized opinion around the world, with governments and political parties struggling to navigate the complex and emotionally charged situation. In Scotland, where the SNP has long positioned itself as a champion of Palestinian rights, the timing of the meeting was particularly problematic. The party has consistently called for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza, a position that stands in stark contrast to the more measured approach taken by the U.K. government under Prime Minister Keir Starmer. The fallout from the meeting has been swift and severe. Robertson has been widely criticized by fellow SNP members, senior officials, and the party’s vocal grassroots base. He has been accused of undermining the party’s pro-Gaza stance and betraying the trust of those who have supported the SNP’s position on the conflict. The backlash has been intense, with some members even calling for Robertson’s resignation. The controversy surrounding Robertson’s meeting with Grudsky also highlights the broader dilemma facing the SNP as it seeks to position itself as a serious contender on the international stage. While the party’s leadership has sought to engage with other nations and project itself as a future independent government, the backlash from its base over the Gaza conflict underscores the difficulties in balancing these aspirations with the expectations of its supporters. As the SNP’s annual conference approaches, the party faces a critical juncture. The internal divisions and public backlash over the Gaza conflict could have lasting implications for the party’s future. For those within the SNP who advocate for a more mature and pragmatic approach to foreign policy, the episode has been frustrating. One senior SNP politician, speaking anonymously, described the situation as “illustrative of the way the party needs to sharpen up its act,” lamenting the “sloppiness” and “laziness” in handling the controversy. The Gaza conflict has also underscored the broader challenges facing progressive governments in balancing public sentiment with the demands of diplomacy. As Evie Aspinall, chair of the British Foreign Policy Group, noted, the British public tends to hold strong views on foreign policy issues like Gaza, often seeing them in starkly black and white terms. This can make it difficult for politicians to navigate the nuances of diplomacy and maintain public support. For the SNP, the Gaza controversy has exposed deep-seated divisions that will be difficult to reconcile. As the party continues to grapple with its internal challenges and declining electoral fortunes, the fallout from Robertson’s meeting with Grudsky may be just the beginning of a broader crisis within Scotland’s independence movement. The party’s ability to navigate these challenges will be critical in determining its future as it seeks to achieve its ultimate goal of making Scotland an independent nation. Credit: Politico 2024-08-28 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

Troll post and unattributed image to an unapproved source removed @frank83628

Ukraine experienced one of the most extensive air attacks since the beginning of the Russian invasion. According to Mykola Oleshchuk, the head of Ukraine's air force, Russia launched a massive barrage of missiles and drones, marking a grim chapter in the ongoing conflict. "The most massive aerial attack" is how Oleshchuk described the assault, as 127 missiles and 109 attack drones targeted more than half of Ukraine's regions. Despite the scale of the attack, Ukraine's air defense forces managed to shoot down 102 missiles and 99 drones, showcasing their resilience amidst an onslaught designed to cripple the nation. At least six people were killed, and dozens more were wounded in the wake of these strikes. The attacks, which began overnight and continued into the morning, caused significant damage to Ukraine's power infrastructure, leading to widespread blackouts. The entire country was placed under air raid alert, with citizens urged to seek shelter. Russia confirmed the attacks, stating that it had targeted Ukraine's energy infrastructure—a long-term tactic aimed at debilitating the nation's critical systems. "All designated targets were hit," claimed the Russian defense ministry, boasting about the resulting power outages and disruption to the rail transport of weapons and ammunition to Ukraine's front lines. The scale of the attack not only aimed at physical destruction but also seemed to target the morale of the Ukrainian people. The recent successful incursion by Ukrainian forces into the Russian region of Kursk had boosted the spirits of the Ukrainian populace. However, with Monday's strikes, Russia sought to remind Ukraine and its Western allies of its capacity to inflict misery whenever it chose. The message from Moscow was clear: despite setbacks on the battlefield, Russia still holds the power to make life unbearable for ordinary Ukrainians. This devastating attack saw 15 regions of Ukraine targeted, with weapons ranging from drones to cruise missiles and supersonic missiles. Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmygal confirmed the widespread damage, stating on Telegram, "There are wounded and dead." Among the victims were a 69-year-old man and a 47-year-old man, both killed in separate attacks in the Dnipropetrovsk region. The regional governor, Sergiy Lysak, reported that several others were injured, including a 14-year-old girl. In the Zaporizhzhia region, a man lost his life when his house was struck by a missile. The mayor of Lutsk reported that one person was killed when an "infrastructure facility" was hit, leaving five others wounded and most of the city without running water. In Izyum, located in the Kharkiv region, another man was killed in a missile strike, and in the Zhytomyr region in western Ukraine, a woman died after homes and infrastructure were hit by missiles. The damage to Ukraine's infrastructure was severe, with power outages reported in many cities, including the capital, Kyiv, and water supplies disrupted. Among the targets was one of the remaining power stations, a hydroelectric plant north of Kyiv. The full extent of the damage to the plant and other facilities was still being assessed. The systematic targeting of Ukraine's energy infrastructure has been a consistent strategy for Russia since its full-scale invasion began in February 2022. In recent months, this campaign has intensified, with Russia focusing on Ukraine's power grid, leading to frequent and widespread blackouts across the country. In June, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky revealed that Russia had destroyed half of Ukraine's electricity-generating capacity since it began its concentrated attacks on energy facilities in late March. As a result, Ukraine has been forced to buy energy from the European Union, although this supply is insufficient to meet the nation's needs. Consequently, Ukraine has implemented planned nationwide blackouts to prioritize critical services such as hospitals and military installations. The recent attack not only highlights the ongoing struggles Ukraine faces in maintaining its energy infrastructure but also underscores the broader challenges it faces in the conflict. Over the past year, Ukraine has faced numerous setbacks on the battlefield, particularly in the eastern Donbas region, where Russia has made steady gains. There have been reports of issues with Ukrainian mobilization and concerns about a dwindling supply of manpower. However, Ukraine's recent incursion into the Kursk region provided a much-needed morale boost. Videos of Ukrainian soldiers raising their flag over captured Russian villages circulated widely, demonstrating Kyiv's capability to execute complex and successful military operations. These actions also sent a message to Western allies that Ukraine remains a formidable force capable of striking deep into Russian territory. Yet, the recent Russian air assault serves as a stark reminder of the challenges that lie ahead. In response to the latest wave of attacks, President Zelensky called on Western allies, including Britain, the United States, and France, to amend their rules and allow Ukraine to use their weapons to strike deeper inside Russia. Currently, Ukraine is permitted to use some Western-supplied weapons to target locations within Russia, but not long-range weapons. Zelensky emphasized that if European air forces collaborated more closely with Ukraine's air defense, "we could do much more to protect lives." The conflict is not limited to Ukraine's borders. During the attack, NATO member Poland reported that an "object," likely a drone, entered its territory. Polish army spokesman Jacek Goryszewski stated, "Most likely it was a drone and we assume so, because the trajectory of the flight and the speed indicate that it was definitely not a missile." NATO spokesperson Farah Dakhlallah condemned the Russian attacks on Ukraine, labeling any breach of NATO airspace by Russia as "irresponsible and potentially dangerous." The situation remains tense, with reports that Ukraine attempted to attack an oil refinery in Yaroslavl, a city northeast of Moscow, on Monday. The regional governor reported no casualties or damage from the attempted strike. Additionally, Russia's defense ministry claimed to have destroyed nine drones over its Saratov region, located some 560 miles from the Ukrainian border. As the conflict drags on, the human cost continues to mount, with both sides engaged in a brutal struggle for control and survival. Monday's air assault on Ukraine is a grim reminder of the destructive power Russia still wields and the precarious position Ukraine finds itself in as it continues to defend its sovereignty and the lives of its people. Credit: BBC 2024-08-27 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

The BBC has come under intense scrutiny following its description of Hamas suicide bomb attacks, which claimed the lives of dozens of civilians in Israel, as "military operations." This characterization, particularly by the BBC’s Arabic channel, has led to accusations of whitewashing the actions of Hamas and lacking impartiality in its coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict. The controversy erupted after the BBC Arabic channel reported that Mohammed Deif, a senior military leader of Hamas, had orchestrated a series of "military operations" against Israel, culminating in an attack on October 7th. Critics, including Camera (the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis), argue that the BBC's reporting implied that these attacks were directed primarily at Israeli soldiers rather than civilians, thereby diminishing the severity of the actions and their impact on non-combatants. Camera pointed out that the death toll from the attacks planned by Deif was 93, with a staggering 80 of those victims being civilians, ranging in age from 13 to 83. Only 13 of the deceased were soldiers or other security personnel. This stark contrast between civilian and military casualties has fueled accusations that the BBC Arabic’s terminology effectively whitewashes the true nature of Hamas's actions. In its reporting on Deif's assassination by Israeli forces, BBC Arabic noted that he had been wanted for years by the Israeli government for his involvement in terrorist activities. However, the channel repeatedly referred to these actions as "military operations" rather than labeling them as terror attacks. This language, critics argue, obscures the reality of the violence and its impact on civilians. In a background story about Deif’s death, BBC Arabic’s website stated, "For approximately 30 years, [Deif] took part in several military operations against Israel, starting from kidnapping soldiers and rocket attacks, passing through military operations and culminating in the October 7th, 2023 attack." This description, which fails to explicitly condemn the targeting of civilians, has been a focal point for those accusing the BBC of bias. Camera, which advocates for balanced media coverage of Israel, has been particularly vocal in its criticism. The organization stated, "Downplaying Palestinian groups’ responsibility for targeting innocent civilians as mere ‘accusations’, which only Israel and the US supposedly aim at them, has been a BBC Arabic habit for years. Even when the Palestinian groups themselves boast about similar murders, BBC Arabic reporters would often use their own voice to falsely describe them as ‘military operations’ carried out against ‘soldiers’ or ‘gunmen’." Mohammed Deif’s legacy as a Hamas military leader is marked by a history of violence, including the killing of at least 70 civilians in suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv during the 1990s. Additional fatalities occurred in Israeli settlements within the Gaza Strip throughout the 2000s. Despite this, when BBC Arabic reported on Deif’s death in an Israeli strike on a refugee camp in southern Gaza on July 14, the coverage included images of the bus bomb attacks and other violent acts organized by Deif, yet still referred to his actions as "military operations." The BBC has defended its coverage amid the backlash. A spokesperson for the corporation told The Telegraph, "BBC News Arabic has made clear throughout our coverage that Muhammad Deif was listed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist by the US and the EU. We quoted the Israeli military describing Deif as a terrorist and that they hold him responsible for the murder of Israelis, and we referenced the serious accusations he faced around the 1996 attacks. Our audiences were in no doubt about Deif’s actions and the fact that he had been called a terrorist, including by Israel." The BBC’s defense highlights its effort to maintain what it views as a balanced approach in its reporting. However, the choice of language in such sensitive contexts continues to spark debate about the role of media in shaping public perception of global conflicts. The accusations against the BBC underscore the broader challenges that media organizations face in covering contentious issues, where word choice can carry significant weight in influencing public understanding and sentiment. As the situation evolves, the BBC may continue to face scrutiny over its coverage, particularly as the Israel-Hamas conflict remains a highly charged and polarizing issue. The debate over how media outlets describe and contextualize acts of violence by groups like Hamas is likely to persist, with significant implications for both journalistic integrity and public perception. Credit: Daily Telegraph 2024-08-27 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

In cybersecurity, a penetration test mimics an actual attack on a system's defenses, employing the very tactics and tools that a real adversary would use. This method is commonly used by governments and corporations alike, with banks, for instance, routinely hiring experts to breach their systems, steal login credentials, and transfer funds illicitly. Upon completion, these experts report their findings, offering solutions to strengthen security. This decade, humanity itself faced a massive, real-world penetration test: the COVID-19 pandemic. This virus, an unthinking enemy, exposed the world's vulnerabilities in combating new pathogens. By the time the virus had run its course, it was painfully evident that humanity had failed the test. COVID-19 infiltrated every corner of the globe, from remote Antarctic research outposts to isolated Amazonian tribes, wreaking havoc in nursing homes, military vessels, and among both the powerless and the powerful—striking down frontline workers and heads of state alike. The harsh lockdowns enforced by autocracies and the rapid development of vaccines in democracies managed to slow the virus's spread but could not stop it. By the end of 2022, a staggering three-quarters of Americans had been infected at least once, and when China finally abandoned its “zero COVID” policy in December, over one billion of its citizens were infected within six weeks. The relatively low mortality rate of the pandemic was not due to successful containment efforts but rather because the virus was only moderately lethal. In the end, COVID-19 primarily burned itself out. This failure against COVID-19 serves as a sobering reminder of the growing biological threats that the world faces, both natural and human-made. While some threats, like avian flu, arise from nature, others emerge from the rapid advancements in science. Over the past 60 years, scientists have gained profound insights into both molecular and human biology, leading to the development of highly lethal and effective pathogens. They have mastered techniques to create viruses that can evade immunity, engineer them to spread more efficiently through the air, and even increase their deadliness. Although the origins of COVID-19 remain uncertain—whether from a lab or wildlife—it is clear that modern biological technology, now enhanced by artificial intelligence, has made it easier than ever to produce devastating diseases. Should a synthetic pathogen escape or be deliberately released, the consequences could be catastrophic, potentially killing far more people and causing greater economic damage than COVID-19. In the worst-case scenario, such a pathogen could claim more lives than the Black Death, which decimated one-third of Europe’s population. To prevent such a disaster, world leaders must prioritize the strengthening of defenses against human-made pathogens. This task is as complex as managing nuclear weapons and addressing climate change, two of the early Anthropocene's other grand challenges. To combat this danger, nations will need to fortify their societies against synthetic pathogens. This includes developing early-warning systems capable of detecting engineered diseases, ramping up the production of personal protective equipment, and significantly improving its effectiveness. They will also need to reduce the time required to develop and distribute vaccines and antiviral drugs from months to mere days. Furthermore, there is an urgent need to regulate the technologies used to create and manipulate viruses. And all of this must happen quickly. The Double-Edged Sword of Biological Progress For more than a century, biology has been viewed as a force for progress. By the early 21st century, vaccines had eradicated smallpox and rinderpest and nearly eliminated polio. While many infectious diseases remain incurable, and total eradication of pathogens is rare, the advances have been undeniable. The qualified nature of humanity's accomplishments is perhaps best exemplified by the HIV pandemic. Once a near-certain death sentence, HIV now infects millions annually, but thanks to scientific innovation, it has been transformed into a manageable condition through antiretroviral drugs that prevent viral replication. This kind of medical progress depends on distinct yet loosely coordinated efforts in healthcare delivery, public health management, and scientific research. However, this progress is not without its dangers. The same scientific understanding of microbiology that has led to remarkable advances in human health has also enabled efforts to undermine it. During World War I, the Allies explored the use of bacterial weapons, and German military intelligence used such pathogens to attack animals used by the Allies for transport. These efforts included infecting horses and mules in France and Romania, and in Norway, attempting to infect reindeer that were used by the Sami to deliver weapons to Russian forces. German operatives even managed to infect stables in the United States filled with animals destined for Europe. By World War II, these initiatives had evolved into weapons intended to kill humans. In Japanese-occupied Manchuria, military officer Shiro Ishii oversaw Unit 731, a nightmarish facility where biological weapons were tested on human subjects. Thousands of prisoners were killed through exposure to anthrax, typhoid, glanders, dysentery, and the bubonic plague. Toward the end of the war, Ishii proposed a large-scale biological warfare operation, codenamed "Cherry Blossoms at Night," which involved dispersing plague-infested fleas over major U.S. West Coast cities. However, the plan was vetoed by Japan’s army chief of staff, who feared that such an operation would escalate the war to a never-ending battle between humanity and bacteria. Despite this caution, other nations continued to develop biological weapons. In the 1960s, the U.S. Department of Defense launched Project 112, experimenting with ways to mass-distribute pathogens. The U.S. military dispersed spores in the New York City subway tunnels, released bacteria from boats in San Francisco Bay, and sprayed chemicals from aircraft over vast areas, from the Rockies to the Atlantic and from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. These weapons were intended as a backup plan in case of a Soviet nuclear strike, providing a means to retaliate with biological devastation. By the mid-1960s, government scientists were producing significant quantities of lethal bacteria and toxins designed to "confound diagnosis and frustrate treatment," according to microbiologist Riley Housewright. These developments alarmed civilian researchers, who successfully lobbied against Washington's plans. President Richard Nixon, influenced by these concerns, halted the U.S. biological weapons program in 1969 and called for an international treaty to ban such weapons. Nobel Prize-winning biologist Joshua Lederberg supported this move, warning Congress that biological weapons could be as deadly as nuclear ones but easier to develop. Unlike nuclear weapons, which had been monopolized by the great powers and sustained a balance of deterrence, "germ power will work just the other way," Lederberg cautioned. However, the Soviet Union remained unconvinced. In 1971, as negotiations for a treaty were underway, the Soviets released a weaponized strain of the smallpox virus on an island in the Aral Sea, causing an outbreak in present-day Kazakhstan. The outbreak was contained due to the region's sparse population and widespread vaccination, but it highlighted the dangers of biological weapons. Later that year, the Soviet Union and the United States agreed to the Biological Weapons Convention, a treaty banning biological weapons, which was widely praised and signed in 1972. Despite this, the Soviets continued their biological weapons program in secret until the collapse of the Soviet Union, with some 60,000 people employed at its peak. Credit: Foreign Affairs 2024-08-27 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

As the war in Gaza dominates global headlines, another conflict—less visible but equally significant—continues to unfold behind closed doors. This is the quiet war waged over cutting off Hezbollah, the powerful Shiite militia, from the lifeblood that sustains its operations: Iranian petrodollars. While the world’s gaze is fixed on Gaza and the escalating skirmishes between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, diplomats are increasingly alarmed that this tension could spark a wider conflict. Simultaneously, a battle over Iranian terror financing has been simmering in the shadows, poised to reach a critical juncture in the coming weeks. This conflict, involving several Arab nations, Europe, and the U.S., centers on whether Lebanon will be penalized for its role in facilitating Hezbollah’s financial operations. This pivotal decision lies in the hands of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global body dedicated to combating money laundering. Founded by the G7 in 1989, FATF has grown to include numerous member countries worldwide. While FATF lacks formal enforcement power, its evaluations carry significant weight in international finance, potentially crippling a nation’s ability to operate within the global financial system. As FATF prepares to place Lebanon on its “gray list” of jurisdictions with weak anti-money laundering measures, the world is watching closely. Lebanon could face severe consequences if it fails to implement necessary reforms, potentially moving from the gray list to the dreaded “blacklist,” a designation that would further isolate the country financially. The recent Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7 served as a harsh reminder of the dangers posed by unchecked financial flows to terrorist organizations. Israel, the U.S., and other Western governments have previously tolerated the millions of dollars flowing to groups like Hamas from Qatar and Iran, believing that such funds would help stabilize Gaza. However, this strategy has backfired, prompting Western security officials to push for a more stringent approach to combating money laundering and terror financing in Lebanon, particularly those involving Hezbollah-affiliated entities. Sources familiar with FATF’s investigation suggest that the case against Lebanon is straightforward, given the overwhelming evidence of money laundering and terror financing within the country. However, the situation is complicated by Hezbollah’s deep-rooted influence over Lebanon’s institutions, which hampers the government’s ability to enforce international financial norms. Adding to the complexity, several regional players, including Bahrain and Libya, have aligned themselves with Lebanon, resisting international efforts to crack down on Hezbollah’s illicit financial activities. FATF’s current deliberations are not focused on whether Lebanon should be placed on the gray list but rather on the conditions Lebanon must meet to be removed from the list after a two-year review period. Central to this discussion is the role of Hezbollah in Lebanon’s banking system, which poses significant challenges to reform efforts. Hezbollah’s financial operations are heavily supported by Iran, a relationship that dates back to the 1980s. Iran’s financial backing has enabled Hezbollah to establish a powerful “state within a state” in Lebanon, positioning the group as a formidable adversary to Israel. Despite Hezbollah’s dominance in Lebanon’s political and economic landscape, the organization remains heavily reliant on Iranian funding. A significant portion of this funding is funneled through a Hezbollah-controlled financial entity known as the al-Qard al-Hasan Association (AQAH). AQAH functions like a bank, despite lacking a banking license and operating outside of regulatory oversight. It is a vital instrument for Hezbollah, enabling the group to pay its fighters and officials and provide financial services to local communities. Amid the political and economic turmoil that has plagued Lebanon in recent years, AQAH has expanded its operations, becoming one of the country’s largest financial institutions, with deposits reportedly reaching billions of dollars. What sets AQAH apart from other Lebanese banks is its designation as a non-profit organization by the Lebanese government. This status exempts AQAH from paying taxes, further entrenching its role in Hezbollah’s financial ecosystem. The U.S. government, which sanctioned AQAH in 2007, describes the organization as “a cover to manage [Hezbollah’s] financial activities and gain access to the international financial system.” Despite these sanctions, AQAH has continued to thrive, conducting its operations with little difficulty in Lebanon and across the broader Middle East. In fact, AQAH’s cross-border activities may become even easier following the Arab League’s decision in June to stop labeling Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. This shift in the Arab League’s stance has sparked controversy, particularly within FATF, where the question of Hezbollah’s terror designation remains a contentious issue. The debate over Hezbollah’s classification contributed to a significant delay in FATF’s report on Lebanon, which was finally published in December. Instead of directly naming Hezbollah, the report referred to the group as “a major local paramilitary organization with a well-documented track record of committing terrorist acts.” The report urged Lebanon to assess the risks of money laundering and terror financing associated with this organization and to implement measures to mitigate these risks. Hezbollah has been responsible for numerous terrorist attacks since the 1980s, including car bombings, suicide attacks, and drone strikes that have claimed hundreds of lives, including those of Americans, Israelis, and other civilians. Today, Hezbollah is considered one of the world’s largest private armies, with an estimated 50,000 fighters. The U.S., the European Union, and numerous other countries have designated Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, largely due to its ties to Iran. Western diplomats argue that a strong stance by FATF is essential to curbing Hezbollah’s financial activities. Without such a stance, Lebanon is unlikely to crack down on AQAH, allowing Iranian funds to continue flowing to Hezbollah unchecked. Moreover, these diplomats contend that a tougher evaluation by FATF could serve as a catalyst for reform within Lebanon, potentially attracting the foreign investment the country desperately needs. However, without assurances that Lebanon is not a haven for money laundering and terror financing, international investors are likely to stay away. One Western diplomat emphasized the potential benefits of a rigorous evaluation, stating, “A tough evaluation would actually help the Lebanese get out of this situation.” This sentiment reflects the broader hope among Western diplomats that FATF’s actions could help stabilize Lebanon’s economy by curbing Hezbollah’s influence and restoring confidence in the country’s financial system. As the global community awaits FATF’s decision, the outcome will have far-reaching implications not only for Lebanon but for the broader Middle East. The battle against Iran’s terror financing is not just a regional issue; it is a global one, with stakes that extend far beyond the borders of Lebanon. The decisions made in the coming weeks could either tighten the financial noose around Hezbollah or allow the group to continue its operations unabated, with consequences that could reverberate across the region and beyond. Credit: Politico 2024-08-27 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe

Jermaine Jenas, a former Premier League footballer and BBC presenter, has issued a heartfelt apology to his female colleagues after being dismissed from his roles at the broadcaster. The 41-year-old, who had been a familiar face on programs like "Match of the Day" and "The One Show," was let go after a female colleague raised concerns about inappropriate messages he had sent. In the aftermath of his dismissal, Jenas initially expressed his regret, describing himself as "ashamed" and "deeply sorry" for his actions. However, he has now taken the opportunity to directly address the women involved, acknowledging the impact of his behavior. "I always thought it was consensual and a two-way thing," Jenas said in an interview with The Sun on Sunday. Despite his belief at the time that the interactions were mutual, he has since come to realize the gravity of his actions and the distress they caused. Jenas has strongly denied any criminal wrongdoing but expressed frustration at being unable to apologize to the women personally due to legal constraints. "When it was all unfolding and I knew I was losing my job, I asked HR if I could contact the two women directly and apologize to both of them," he explained. "But because of the legal process, I wasn't allowed. I didn't get the opportunity to say sorry to them at that particular point when I really wanted to apologize." His regret is evident as he continued, "I really want to apologize from the bottom of my heart in terms of what I've put them through." Addressing the women directly, Jenas said, "I'm genuinely sorry for what I've done to you. I always thought it was consensual and a two-way thing." These words highlight his struggle to reconcile his perception of the interactions with the reality of the pain he caused. Jenas, who has been married to model Ellie Penfold for 13 years and is a father of four, revealed that he is currently receiving therapy to address what he describes as a "self-destructive streak" in his relationships. He admitted, "I'm not proud of what I wrote and what I said. And I do consider it cheating, yes, although nothing physical ever happened." He acknowledged his responsibility as a public figure and a representative of the BBC, stating, "This is all on me and I fully accept there is a level of responsibility that needs to be upheld when you're a member of the BBC. And I fell below those standards. I must take the responsibility." The BBC confirmed Jenas's departure, with a spokesperson stating, "We can confirm that he is no longer part of our presenting line-up." However, Jenas has expressed dissatisfaction with the way the BBC handled his sacking and indicated that he would be consulting with his lawyers regarding the situation. Official figures published last year showed that Jenas earned between £190,000 to £194,999 for his work on programs like the FA Cup, "Match of the Day," and the World Cup. His salary for "The One Show," produced by BBC Studios, was not publicly disclosed. The situation has added to the challenges facing the BBC, which is still dealing with the fallout from other recent scandals. The broadcaster has been under scrutiny following allegations of abuse on the set of one of its biggest shows, "Strictly Come Dancing," and the controversy surrounding former newsreader Huw Edwards. In another candid interview with The Sun, Jenas shared that his wife Ellie was "raging" after he informed her of his dismissal due to the messages. He also revealed that he had to have "difficult conversations" with his two eldest children, aged 11 and 16, about the situation. "They’re obviously of an age where they’re aware of social media... that’s been hard," he said, acknowledging the wider impact of his actions on his family. "I’ve let everyone down," Jenas admitted. "Even my dog looked at me disappointed." This moment of vulnerability underscores the depth of his remorse. He recognized that it was "time to own" his mistakes, adding, "I have been behaving in a certain way that’s just not been acceptable within our marriage. Ellie is completely innocent within all this. All she’s doing is at home, working her heart out, looking after my children." As he reflected on the consequences of his actions, Jenas concluded, "The overriding factor is just how sorry I am to everybody." His apology, while perhaps belated, is a clear attempt to make amends for the pain he has caused, not only to the women involved but also to his family and those who looked up to him as a public figure. Credit: The Independent 2024-08-27 Get the ASEAN NOW daily NEWSLETTER - Click HERE to subscribe