_3.jpg%3Fitok%3DxA6GL2kf&w=3840&q=100)
Deep Dive - GE2025: Are independent candidates a new force to be reckoned with?
Play
For the first time in 53 years, an independent candidate received more than 35 per cent of vote share, performing better than some smaller opposition parties. Jeremy Tan, who ran in Mountbatten SMC, and Darryl Lo who contested in Radin Mas SMC, join Steven Chia and Otelli Edwards to talk about lessons learnt from their campaigning and their future after GE2025.
Deep Dive - GE2025: Are independent candidates a new force to be reckoned with?
For the first time in 53 years, an independent candidate received more than 35 per cent of vote share, performing better than some smaller opposition parties. Jeremy Tan, who ran in Mountbatten SMC, and Darryl Lo who contested in Radin Mas SMC, join Steven Chia and Otelli Edwards to talk about lessons learnt from their campaigning and their future after GE2025.
21 mins
Deep Dive - GE2025 results: A closer look at the strong PAP mandate and the opposition strategy
Voters gave the People's Action Party and Prime Minister Lawrence Wong a clear mandate in GE2025. What accounted for the result and why couldn't the opposition parties make good on gains from the last election? Steven Chia and Otelli Edwards speak to Associate Professor Eugene Tan from the Singapore Management University and Dr Reuben Ng from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.
23 mins
Deep Dive - WP's Jasper Kuan on the 3-hour chat with former chief Low Thia Khiang that convinced him to run for GE2025
East Coast GRC candidate for the Workers' Party Jasper Kuan admits this may not be the right 'season' for him to jump into politics because of his three young children. But he tells Steven Chia how a three-hour conversation with Low Thia Khiang changed his mind and why as a former Gifted Education Programme teacher, he believes the education system needs structural changes.
20 mins
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
9 hours ago
- CNA
Wealth Wise - Crisis Management: Do you know what to do when things go wrong?
Lance Alexander speaks with Sheryl Chua, Deputy Head (Public Safety and Security Programme), SUSS, about crisis management and how it can help to mitigate the impact of unexpected and potentially damaging events.
Independent Singapore
11 hours ago
- Independent Singapore
Jho Low believed to be hiding out in China
Jho Low FB SINGAPORE: Rumours are circulating that Malaysian businessman Jho Low, a fugitive who was involved in the 1MDB scandal, is currently hiding out in China. The American reporters who broke the 1MDB story, Tom Wright and Bradley Hope, uploaded a video on YouTube last Friday (July 18) and claimed that Low is currently residing in Green Hill, an upscale residential estate in Shanghai. The reporters added that Low may be using a forged Australian passport to conceal his identity. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs has since confirmed that investigators are assessing the allegations that Low could be holding a fake Australian passport. A spokesperson for the department added that those found guilty could face a maximum penalty of ten years in prison, a fine, or both. Malaysia is also expected to investigate the latest allegations. Prior to the release of Friday's video, Bernama had quoted Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim as saying that the country has not received any information about Low's whereabouts. See also China tests entire city for virus as WHO slams herd immunity idea () => { const trigger = if ('IntersectionObserver' in window && trigger) { const observer = new IntersectionObserver((entries, observer) => { => { if ( { lazyLoader(); // You should define lazyLoader() elsewhere or inline here // Run once } }); }, { rootMargin: '800px', threshold: 0.1 }); } else { // Fallback setTimeout(lazyLoader, 3000); } });
Straits Times
18 hours ago
- Straits Times
ICJ climate ruling: Five things to watch for
Find out what's new on ST website and app. The advisory opinion will be read out from 1300 GMT (9pm Singapore time). THE HAGUE - The International Court of Justice is preparing to hand down its first-ever opinion on climate change on July 23, seen by many as a historic moment in international law. The advisory opinion will be read out from 1300 GMT (9pm Singapore time). Judges have waded through tens of thousands of pages of written submissions and heard two weeks of oral arguments during the ICJ's biggest-ever case. Its own 'advisory opinion' is expected to run to several hundred pages, as it clarifies nations' obligations to prevent climate change and the consequences for polluters that have failed to do so. Here are some of the key things to watch for: What legal framework? This is the crux of the matter and speaks to the first question put to the court on countries' responsibilities to tackle climate change. ICJ judges will seek to pull together different strands of environmental law into one definitive international standard. Top polluters say this is unnecessary, and that the legal provisions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are sufficient. But opponents argue the ICJ should adopt a broader yardstick, including human rights law and the laws of the sea. Vanuatu urged judges to consider 'the entire corpus of international law' in its opinion, arguing the ICJ was uniquely placed to do so. The ICJ is 'the only international jurisdiction with a general competence over all areas of international law, which allows it to provide such an answer,' said Vanuatu. And the consequences? This is the more controversial second question the judges will consider: what are the legal repercussions – if any – for countries who significantly contribute to the climate crisis? The United States, the world's biggest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, and other top polluters referred the court to the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement, which does not explicitly provide for direct compensation for past damage. Issues around liability are highly sensitive in climate negotiations, but at UN talks in 2022 wealthy nations did agree to create a fund to help vulnerable countries deal with current impacts caused by past pollution. Many top polluters also say it is impossible to assign blame to individual countries for a global phenomenon with unequal effects. Those on the other side of the debate point to a basic principle of international law – 'ubi jus, ubi remedium' – roughly speaking, where there's blame, there's a claim. In legal jargon, this should result in cessation, non-repetition and reparations, argue the climate-vulnerable nations. They want the ICJ to propose a stop to fossil fuel subsidies, a drastic reduction in emissions, and a formal commitment and timeline for decarbonisation. They also demand monetary reparations, as well as increased support for adapting to the devastating future effects of climate change. Harm or no harm? Another key point is the issue of 'transboundary' law, often known as the 'no-harm' rule. Put simply, this key tenet of international law means one state should not permit activities on its territory that could cause damage to another. The question ICJ judges will have to consider is: does this apply to greenhouse gas emissions that have contributed to climate change? Major polluters argue this law does not apply to climate change as there is no single, specific source that can be identified as damaging another state. Others say that climate change should not be an exception. Other major international judicial decisions in recent months have looked to increasing scientific precision in the link between human-caused climate change and severe impacts like extreme weather, nature loss and sea level rise. When did they know? A fundamental debating point in the oral hearings was: when did governments become aware greenhouse gas emissions were harming the planet? The late 1980s, according to the United States. Switzerland said no one could have linked emissions to rising temperatures before scientific studies in that decade. Rubbish, say climate-vulnerable countries, who point to research in developed nations as early as the 1960s. This could have an impact on when potential reparations kick in. 'Future generations' The concept of 'intergenerational equity' is another fundamental demand of the young climate justice campaigners who helped bring this case to the world's highest court. 'The impact of climate change is not bounded by time,' argued Namibia, with the worst effects hitting people decades or maybe centuries later. But developed countries counter that the rights of as-yet-unborn people have no force in international law. 'Human beings alive now cannot claim rights on behalf of future generations,' argued Germany. AFP
