Macau democrat arrested for colluding with foreign forces, police say
HONG KONG - A leading Macau democrat, Au Kam San, has been arrested for collusion with foreign forces to endanger national security, according to a police statement on July 31 in the China-ruled gambling hub.
Au, 68, is one of Macau's most prominent democratic campaigners who served for nearly two decades as a lawmaker.
Macau's police said in a statement that a suspect surnamed Au had been taken from his residence for investigation on July 30.
'The resident has allegedly been in contact with an anti-China organisation abroad since 2022, providing the group with large amounts of false and seditious information, for public exhibitions overseas and online,' the statement said.
The statement added Au had also sought to incite hatred against Beijing, disrupt a 2024 election for Macau's leader and to 'provoke hostile actions by foreign countries against Macau'.
Au and his wife couldn't be immediately reached for comment.
Through the years, Au had championed democratic reforms and helped foster civil society initiatives in the tiny enclave that returned from Portuguese to Chinese rule in 1999 - two years after the neighbouring former British colony of Hong Kong was handed back to China.
Unlike Hong Kong which has seen big social movements challenge Chinese Communist Party rule in 2014 and 2019, the democratic opposition in the China-ruled former Portuguese colony has always existed on the fringes amid tight Chinese control.
Macau's boom into one of the world's biggest gambling hubs, with gaming receipts exceeding Las Vegas, has also been tainted by public corruption cases involving senior officials such as Ao Man Long and Ho Chio Meng.
Through the years, Au had led protests and railed against opaque governance and rising social inequalities even as gambling revenues exploded in the city of around 680,000.
Au was one of the founders of several pro-democracy groups including the New Macau Association, and had worked as a schoolteacher.
This move in Macau comes as authorities in neighbouring Hong Kong continue to crackdown on dissent under two sets of powerful national security laws that have been used to jail activists, shutter media outlets and civil society groups.
While Hong Kong's democrats had actively challenged Beijing's attempts to ratchet up control of the city since its return to Chinese rule, Macau's government has faced far less public scrutiny, with authorities able to enact a sweeping set of national security laws as early as 2009.
This law was amended in 2023, to bring it in line with similar laws in Hong Kong and China and to bolster the prevention of foreign interference. REUTERS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
23 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Trump's deal-making with other elite US schools scrambles Harvard negotiations
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox WASHINGTON – By the start of last week, Harvard University had signalled its readiness to meet President Donald Trump's demand that it spend US$500 million (S$643 million) to settle its damaging, monthslong battle with the administration and restore its crucial research funding. Then, two days after The New York Times reported that Harvard was open to such a financial commitment, the White House announced a far cheaper deal with Brown University: US$50 million, doled out over a decade, to bolster state workforce development programs. The terms stunned officials at Harvard, who marvelled that another Ivy League school got away with paying so little, according to three people familiar with the deliberations. But Harvard officials also bristled over how their university, after months of work to address antisemitism on campus and with a seeming advantage in its court fight against the government, was facing a demand from Mr Trump to pay 10 times more. The people who discussed the deliberations spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing talks that are supposed to remain confidential. White House officials are dismissive of the comparison between Brown and Harvard, arguing that their grievances against Harvard are more far-reaching, including assertions that the school has yet to do enough to ensure the safety of Jewish students and their claim that the school is flouting the Supreme Court's ruling on race-conscious admissions. 'If Harvard wants the Brown deal, then it has to be like Brown, and I just think it's not,' Ms May Mailman, the top White House official under Mr Stephen Miller who has served as the architect of the administration's crusade against top schools, said in an interview in the West Wing last week. Ms Mailman, who graduated from Harvard Law School, pointed out that Brown, unlike Harvard, did not sue the administration. She challenged Harvard to reach an agreement that included terms that would allow the government to more closely scrutinise its behaviour. 'If Harvard feels really good about what it's already doing, then great,' she said. 'Let's sign this deal tomorrow.' Harvard said on Aug 4 that it had no comment. But the White House's recent record of deal-making threatens to complicate the settlement talks, according to the people familiar with the talks. University officials were sensitive to the possibility that a deal with the government – after Harvard spent months waging a public fight against Mr Trump – would be seen as surrendering to the president and offering him a political gift. The terms of the Brown agreement, though, added new complexity to Harvard's internal debates about the size of a potential financial settlement. For many people close to those discussions, spending US$500 million is less of a concern than what forking that money over would signal on the Cambridge, Massachusetts, campus and beyond. For those close to the discussions, Mr Trump's demand is far too large and they argue that acquiescing to it would be seen as the university scrambling to buy its way out of Mr Trump's ire. They contend that Harvard has taken far more aggressive steps than Columbia University – which agreed to a US$200 million fine in July – to combat antisemitism. They also note that Harvard, unlike Brown, did not publicly agree to consider divesting from Israel as a condition of ending campus protests lin 2024. (Brown's board ultimately voted not to divest.) Others at Harvard regard Mr Trump's proposal as a bargain for the school to get back billions of dollars in funding that make much of its society-shaping research possible. Before the Brown deal, Harvard leaders and the school's team were studying settlement structures that could insulate the nation's oldest and wealthiest university from accusations that it caved to Mr Trump. In their stop-and-start talks with the White House, they are expected to maintain their insistence on steps to shield the university's academic freedom. To that end, they are also likely to remain equally resistant to a monitoring arrangement that some fear would invite intrusions and stifle the school's autonomy. But Harvard has been exploring a structure in which any money the university agrees to spend will go to vocational and workforce training programs instead of the federal government, Mr Trump, his presidential library or allies, according to the three people briefed on the matter. Harvard officials believe that such an arrangement would allow them to argue to their students, faculty, alumni and others in academia that the funds would not be used to fill Mr Trump's coffers. Harvard's consideration of putting money toward workforce programmes aligns with some of what Mr Trump has espoused. In a social media post in May, the president talked up the prospect of taking US$3 billion from Harvard and 'giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land. What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!' But no matter the structure, White House officials have made clear that an extraordinary sum will be required to reach a settlement. Last week, after the Times reported the US$500 million figure, a journalist asked Mr Trump whether that amount would be enough to reach a deal. 'Well, it's a lot of money,' he replied. 'We're negotiating with Harvard.' Although Brown and Harvard are among the nation's richest and most prominent universities, the schools have significant differences, especially around their finances. The Trump administration has repeatedly castigated Harvard for its US$53 billion endowment, which is loaded with restrictions that limit how it may be used, but it has made far less fuss about Brown's similarly tied-up US$7 billion fund. Harvard also has much more federal research money at stake. The Trump administration has warned that it could ultimately strip US$9 billion in funding for Harvard; it threatened US$510 million in funding for Brown. One reason the Brown deal has so miffed Harvard officials is that some terms look much like those they expected for themselves. The government agreed, for instance, that it could not use the deal 'to dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech.' Brown avoided a monitoring arrangement, and the university won the right to direct its US$50 million settlement payment toward workforce programmes of its choosing. But Harvard has a more antagonistic relationship with the Trump administration, as the university has sued the administration to stop its retribution campaign against the school. That dynamic has fuelled worries at Harvard that the White House is seeking a far higher financial penalty as a punishment for fighting, not because the school's troubles alone warrant US$500 million. After Harvard refused a list of Trump administration demands in April, the university sued. In July, a federal judge in Boston appeared skeptical of the government's tactics when it blocked billions in research funding from Harvard. Before and after the July 21 hearing, the administration pursued a wide-ranging campaign against the university. In addition to its attack on Harvard's research money, the government has opened investigations, sought to block the school from enrolling international students, demanded thousands of documents and tried to challenge the university's accreditation, which is essential for students to be eligible for federal student aid programmes, such as Pell Grants. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services told Harvard that it had referred the university to the Justice Department 'to initiate appropriate proceedings to address Harvard's antisemitic discrimination.' 'Rather than voluntarily comply with its obligations under Title VI, Harvard has chosen scorched-earth litigation against the federal government,' Ms Paula Stannard, the director of the health department's Office for Civil Rights, wrote on July 31, referring to the section of federal civil rights law that bars discrimination on the basis of race, colour or national origin. 'The parties' several months' engagement has been fruitless.' As Harvard President Alan Garber and other university leaders face the White House's fury, they are also confronting campus-level misgivings about a potential deal with a president many at the school see as bent on authoritarianism. At best, many at Harvard view him as duplicitous and believe it would be risky for the university to enter a long-term arrangement. 'I think even the simplest deals with untrustworthy people can be challenging,' said Professor Oliver Hart, an economics professor at Harvard who won a Nobel Prize for his work on contract theory. 'But a continuing relationship is much, much worse, much harder.' Prof Hart warned that, no matter the written terms of a settlement, the federal government would retain enormous power with effectively limitless financial resources to take on Harvard. Ms Mailman, who recently left the full-time White House staff but remains involved in the administration's higher-education strategy, all but dared Harvard to stay defiant. 'I think there's still a deal to be had, but from our perspective, at the end of the day, Harvard has a US$53 billion endowment,' she said. 'They don't need federal funds. And even if they win a lawsuit, great. But what happens next year? What happens the year after?' NYTIMES
AsiaOne
23 minutes ago
- AsiaOne
Zelenskiy says 'mercenaries' from China, Pakistan and other countries fighting for Russia, World News
KYIV — President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Monday (Aug 4) that Ukrainian troops in northeastern Ukraine were fighting foreign "mercenaries" from various countries including China, Pakistan and parts of Africa, and vowed a response. Zelenskiy has previously accused Moscow of recruiting Chinese fighters for its war effort against Ukraine, charges Beijing denied, while North Korea has also provided thousands of its own troops in Russia's Kursk region. "We spoke with commanders about the frontline situation, the defence of Vovchansk, and the dynamics of the battles," Zelenskiy wrote on X after visiting a frontline area in the northeastern Kharkiv region. "Our warriors in this sector are reporting the participation of mercenaries from China, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and African countries in the war. We will respond." Reuters contacted the embassies of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Pakistan in Kyiv to request comment. Russia did not immediately comment publicly on Zelenskiy's comments. [[nid:720860]]
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Epstein victims express ‘disgust and fear' at handling of files
President Donald Trump has acknowledged a friendship with Epstein, but says it ended years before Epstein's death. A pair of Jeffrey Epstein's victims blasted the Trump administration and the Justice Department for their attempts to unseal grand jury testimony in the criminal case against the late financier, saying government officials have not listened to the voices of people who were harmed by his actions. The two victims, who were not identified, asked in separate letters filed in a Manhattan court on Aug 4, that any files related to Epstein be reviewed to protect their privacy before being released to the public. Epstein died in prison in 2019 as he faced sex-trafficking charges. The request comes amid a controversy sparked by the Trump administration's decision in July not to release documents that could reveal some of Epstein's clients. In the wake of the backlash, Attorney General Pam Bondi asked courts in New York and Florida to unseal grand jury documents relating to the investigation and prosecution of Epstein for sex trafficking. In one of the letters, an Epstein victim said they were writing 'in disdain, disgust and fear' of how the Justice Department has dealt with the promise to release information in the case, saying the situation should have been handled with 'more respect towards and for the victims'. 'I am not some pawn in your political warfare,' said the victim. 'What you have done and continue to do is eating at me day after day as you help to perpetuate this story indefinitely. Why not be completely transparent? Show us all the files with only the necessary redactions! Be done with it and allow me/us to heal. You protect yourself and your powerful and wealthy 'friends' (not enemies) over the victims, why?' The US on July 18 asked US District Judges Richard M. Berman and Mr Paul Engelmayer to release transcripts of the proceedings in the case against Epstein and his associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, and both judges have given victims until Aug 5 to respond to the requests. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Asia What's it like to deal with brutal US tariffs? Ask Malaysia Singapore Singapore launches review of economic strategy to stay ahead of global shifts Singapore A look at the five committees reviewing Singapore's economic strategy Opinion Keeping it alive: How Chinese opera in Singapore is adapting to the age of TikTok Life Glamping in Mandai: Is a luxury stay at Colugo Camp worth the $550 price tag? Sport World Aquatics C'ships in S'pore deemed a success by athletes, fans and officials Singapore Strong S'pore-Australia ties underpinned by bonds that are continually renewed: President Tharman Spokespeople at the Justice Department did not immediately return a request for comment. President Donald Trump has acknowledged a friendship with Epstein, but says it ended years before Epstein's death. Bloomberg News reported last week that the FBI redacted Mr Trump's name and those of other high-profile individuals from government files related to Epstein, citing three people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to discuss the matter publicly. The names were withheld under privacy protections because those individuals, including Mr Trump, were private citizens when the federal investigation into Epstein began in 2006, the people said. The material likely contains information beyond the grand jury testimony sought in the New York and Florida cases. Another victim asked Mr Berman to have a third party review any documents to ensure no victims' names or likenesses are revealed through the process, saying that it appeared the Justice Department's priority is to protect 'wealthy men'. 'To learn that our own president has utilised thousands of agents to protect his identity and these high-profile individuals is monumentally mind-blowing,' the victim wrote. 'That is their focus? Wow!' Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for her role in helping Epstein sexually abuse underage women.
