Category World News

A district judge in the United States has overturned a president’s executive order that targeted Perkins Coie for its handling of Hillary Clinton, the attorney firm’s Democratic presidential rival.

Judge Beryl A. Howell declared the executive order unconstitutional on Friday in a five-page order issued in Washington, DC.

According to Howell, “Executive Order 14230 is unlawful, null, and void in its entirety, and should not be disregarded.”

One of the executive orders Trump has issued against a law firm is permanently invalid with the ruling. His administration is anticipated to file an appeal.

The Trump administration must resume its “ordinary course of business” with the government in accordance with Judge Howell’s order, which also requires the government to end any investigations into Perkins Coie.

Judge Howell outlined her justification in her full 102-page decision, stating that Trump’s executive order was an “unprecedented attack” on the country’s “foundational principles.”

In her opening statement, she said, “No American President has ever issued executive orders like the one that is in this lawsuit.” This action is inspired by a playbook as old as Shakespeare, which says, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

She continued, “Let’s kill the lawyers I don’t like,” in a fresh way by Trump’s executive order.

On March 6, Trump published Executive Order 14230 with the title “Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP.”

The executive order, which cited the law firm’s cooperation with Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign, placed restrictions on its access to government buildings, and mandated that organizations abide by Perkins Coie’s contract terminations whenever possible.

Executive orders also targeted a number of other law firms, including Jenner & Block, Paul Weiss, and WilmerHale. Many of the people had worked for Trump-affiliated organizations or had directly endorsed his policies.

However, it was questioned whether those orders were constitutional because the president had the power to revoke services, security clearances, and even building access because he had a disagreement with one law firm.

Critics argued that the US Constitution’s First Amendment shields individuals and businesses from being subject to reprisals for their free speech. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments, in contrast, safeguard the right to legal counsel from law offices like Perkins Coie.

Many of the clients of the law firm had cases with deep ties to the government’s internal operations. In its filings, Perkins Coie even stated that its attorneys “necessarily interact with the federal government on behalf of their clients.”

In light of the restrictions imposed by the executive order, some of its clients began to consider working with Perkins Coie.

More than 500 law firms signed an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie in April, arguing that Trump’s actions “would threaten the survival of any law firm” and “would scare away clients.

Judge Howell’s ruling supported those concerns, stating that the law firm had “shown monetary harm sufficient to establish irreparable harm.” She referred to the executive order as an “overt attempt to suppress and punish certain viewpoints.”

However, several well-known law firms made the decision to break with the White House in order to avoid such punitive action.

Paul Weiss, who reportedly offered the administration $40 million in pro bono legal services, was the first to strike a deal. Following suit, firms Skadden, Milbank, and Willkie Farr & Gallagher each agreed to provide free legal services worth $100 million.

Judge Howell argued in her ruling that Trump’s executive orders against law firms could have a chilling impact on the entire field and were equivalent to a power grab.

She wrote that removing lawyers as the body of law’s guardians removes a significant barrier to gaining more authority.

According to her, the Constitution requires that the government “repairs” disputed speech or ideas with “tolerance, not coercion” in response.

Singapore – David Wee has spent the majority of his life living in the same terraced house with his family in the east of Singapore.

But over more than 40 years, the Wee family have been a part of five different electoral constituencies.

Government critics have accused the Singaporean government of gerrymandering, which is deliberately bending constituency boundaries to favor a particular political party, since the election changes that took place shortly before every general election.

According to Singapore’s Elections Department, which is overseen by the Prime Minister’s Office, the latest boundary changes – the most extensive in years – were driven by voter growth and future housing developments.

The People’s Action Party (PAP) will take control of Singapore on Saturday despite criticism, which is expected to result in the election of 2.76 million voters.

The PAP has won every election in this prosperous global financial centre since declaring independence in 1965.

Elections in this country are seen as a test of public opinion of the ruling party, despite the PAP’s low chances of losing. This election is also seen as a referendum on Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, who took over from former premier Lee Hsien Loong last year.

Voting is also compulsory in Singapore – where elections are held every five years, and though modelled after the United Kingdom’s Westminster parliamentary system, one of the quirks of Singapore is that voters are either part of a single-member voting constituency or a Group Representation Constituency (GRC).

People in a GRC cast ballots for teams of up to five politicians rather than just for one candidate. Within each team, at least one candidate must be from a minority ethnic group.

The team vote is supposed to ensure minority representation in the city-state’s parliament, but critics claim it is a group-to-group parachute maneuver.

The vote will see 97 members of parliament elected in 33 constituencies made up of 15 single-member constituencies and 18 GRCs. The PAP has already won a walkover for a five-member team, so only 92 seats will be contested today because one of the GRCs has no contest.

For David Wee, constituency boundaries are not really an issue.

He told Al Jazeera, “It’s something that can happen to anyone, especially if you live in a Single Member Constituency, which can be easily absorbed” into a GRC.

What is an issue though, he says, is the rising cost of living, inflation, and other concerns around life and work in one of the world’s richest nations.

He continued, “I will support anyone I believe can best serve the residents,” noting that Singapore’s voters are now more selective and shouldn’t be taken for granted.

“Our voters have become more educated”, he said.

After all, he continued, “Singapore is a developed country, not a developing country.”

Singapore bling

Singapore is one of the world’s most expensive cities, with some of the highest living standards globally.

It has the most expensive cars in the world, along with a top-notch public transportation system, along with congestion pricing, road tax, and other costs. This is because owners must pay thousands of dollars for a vehicle’s ownership.

“If you can’t afford it, you can’t afford it”, said Lim Meng Wee, 57, a consultant in the local real estate capital field who has owned several cars over the years.

“A car is a very expensive luxury,” says one author. It eats into your balance sheet and you will have to keep working harder. He said, “I know of people who bought cars and returned to public transportation after two to three years.

Singapore’s economic success, generally low crime and expectation of personal safety for citizens has come in tandem with a low tolerance for dissent.

That has been put into practice by a number of laws, including those that prohibit racial and religious feelings from being hurt, as well as detention without trial. Labour strikes are outlawed too, and a permit is required for demonstrations, which is strictly observed.

In an effort to make a point about the administration of justice, a prominent dissident was fined for assembly in 2020 for upholding a cardboard sign with a smiley face outside the State Courts.

In February, six people in their 20s were questioned by police and had their electronic devices seized over a protest at a local university against Israel’s war on Gaza.

Critics and media outlets have been the subject of defamation lawsuits by government ministers, while many politicians and activists were imprisoned from the 1960s into the 1980s.

In addition, the majority of the media is unwaveringly pro-establishment, despite the country’s 123rd-placed status as the world’s second-largest press freedom. All media outlets must tread carefully with a government accustomed to taking matters to court when unhappy with coverage.

A defamation lawsuit against Bloomberg News, which is ongoing, was brought by two ministers over a report on multimillion dollar real estate transactions in the nation.

Singapore at 60 – the social compact going strong

This island nation, which has about six million people and is multicultural and multilingual, celebrates its 60th anniversary in August.

It turns 60 as an economic heavyweight, and one of the cleanest, safest, least corrupt places in the world. In 1965, the GDP per person was about $500. Last year, figures from the International Monetary Fund showed the figure was about $93, 000.

All of this has been accomplished under the leadership of Singapore under the leadership of the PAP, which Lee Kuan Yew co-founded and is still the only governing body that the country has ever had a history with.

Over those six decades, Singapore’s version of the social compact has seen its citizens accepting fewer freedoms in exchange for the PAP ensuring stable economic growth and the availability of good jobs. However, it seems to be changing.

The PAP has held a parliamentary supermajority for decades, though the 10 opposition politicians elected at the last election in 2020 represented an all-time high in parliament and forced some soul-searching among the governing party’s leadership.

Political analyst and former newspaper editor PN Balji said, “Lee Kuan Yew’s generation delivered everything that we see here in Singapore.”

“He was a great statesman”, he told Al Jazeera.

However, increasingly, Singaporean voters want a greater say in governance and eschew the “fist in velvet glove” approach to government, along with the authorities ‘ willingness to intervene in citizens ‘ lives, leading to the label of “nanny state”.

Social housing, according to Balji, is an illustration of the PAP’s gloved-fist strategy.

For years, the PAP openly told voters that their residential public housing properties would not be prioritised for upgrading if they voted for the opposition.

All of these policies were put in place when the leadership’s attitude was to “we’ll just push it through.” You don’t vote PAP, you don’t get upgrading? Let’s try this right away, Balji said.

Social media has emboldened Singaporeans to the point where the “fear factor” no longer exists, he said.

In high-tech Singapore, bread-and-butter issues are also dominant, along with the long-standing argument that more opposition voices are required.

Cost-of-living concerns, exacerbated by a two-step rise in a goods and services tax (GST) – now at 9 percent – since 2023, have dominated the political debate.

In response to a $4.9 billion fiscal surplus for 2024, authorities have already allocated just under $1 billion in handouts and rebates to help cover the cost of daily expenses.

But the larger-than-expected surplus led many to question the government’s need for the GST hike, with the main opposition Workers ‘ Party (WP) asserting that it had “turbocharged” inflation.

United States-imposed tariffs have also heightened economic unease.

The PAP has less frequently cited the claim of Singaporean exceptionalism, according to former WP lawmaker Leon Perera, as a result of slower economic growth in recent years.

“Three generations of Singaporeans grew up with an exceptional leadership that delivered outcomes of a higher standard than other developed countries”, Perera said.

He claimed that other developed nations are increasingly becoming aware of the issues that we face, whether it be inflation, sluggish real wage growth, or high levels of inequality.

“The PAP is at an inflection point because it is the transition to the new prime minister that I think is a catalyst for voters”, he added.

Inderjit Singh, a former PAP lawmaker who served in parliament for almost 20 years, claimed that prior to that time, people “saw their lives improve enormously” and that they “were willing to allow the government to play a dominant role” in their lives.

But Singh acknowledged that the cracks have been showing, with a cross-section of Singaporeans who feel they are “sliding backwards” in terms of the cost of living and the affordability of public housing.

According to Singh, “the younger Singaporeans have had a good life, and they think the future will be more difficult than the present.”

He also pointed to the “huge surge” of new immigrants at a rapid pace that has diluted national identity.

He remarked that all Singaporeans should take pride in the fact that the country has always had a cohesion and prosperity.

Singapore’s ‘ 4G ‘ generation v the founding fathers

Neophyte Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, who took office in May, is a member of the “4G” leadership, which still reigns in Lee Kuan Yew’s shadow.

“One of the biggest issues for Singapore at 60 is leadership”, said Balji, who believes the current PAP leaders cannot be compared with Lee’s generation.

Many Singaporeans appear to agree with online chatter, based on the conversation.

A long-running public dispute between Lee’s children, including Wong’s predecessor as PM Lee Hsien Loong, also continues to divide Singaporeans and generate international headlines. A former transport minister was imprisoned in a high-profile corruption case, which hasn’t improved things.

Another point of contention for many: Singapore has the highest-paid ministers in the world, thanks to the PAP’s insistence that competitive salaries were essential for guarding against corruption.

Wong is the highest-paid global leader with a salary of almost $ 1.69 million annually. A junior minister gets about $845, 000 while a backbencher is paid about $148, 000.

Wong co-chairs the government’s COVID task force, despite not being Lee’s replacement as finance minister.

While the 52-year-old has enjoyed high approval ratings and there is little danger of the PAP losing power in this election, he is expected to improve on or maintain the party’s vote share of more than 61 percent from the last election in 2020 – which was one of its worst performances ever.

A slate of young, highly qualified WP candidates is also facing resurgent opposition, and the ruling party has appeared agitated and vulnerable during the campaign.

The former PAP lawmaker Singh said that while Singapore’s management of the COVID pandemic was exemplary compared with many other countries, the jury is still out on Wong and his peers.

“I believe the 4G leaders haven’t yet demonstrated their ability to solve these problems to Singaporeans’ satisfaction,” he said. Some of the trust in the PAP has eroded in the last 10 years or so”, he said.

He said, “Simply saying, “Feel me,” will not suffice; it will be important to present a compelling plan that people can believe will be successful.

“If the PAP can do it, they should be able to win a good mandate. If not, we can anticipate even more voter eroding.

The United States has issued terrorist designations against criminal organizations in Latin America following a trend under President Donald Trump to refer to the Viv Ansanm and Gran Grif gangs in Haiti as “foreign terrorist organizations.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained that the two gangs have created chaos and violence in Haiti, where armed groups have a significant influence over Port-au-Prince, the capital, as part of the announcement on Friday.

In a news release, Rubio declared, “The time is over for those supporting violence in Haiti.”

The Viv Ansanm coalition and Gran Grif are Haiti’s main contributors to instability and violence, according to the report. They directly threaten US interests in our region’s security.

The Trump administration has frequently linked efforts to preventing illegal immigration and drug trafficking to domestic priorities like a tough line against criminal organizations in Latin America.

In addition to gangs like Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13), Tren de Aragua, and several Mexican drug cartels, the US also designated eight drug-trafficking and criminal organizations as terrorist organizations in February.

Experts have typically distinguished between these groups and traditional “terrorist” organizations, which typically have explicit political objectives, even though these groups commit violent and intimidatory acts.

Any member of a particular group is declared inadmissible for entering the US because of the designation of a “foreign terrorist organization.”

Additionally, it forbids providing “material support or resources” to the organization, which could unintentionally lead to legal ambiguity in areas where gangs are deeply embedded in local politics and administration.

Trump and his allies have fought back against cartels and criminal organizations, blaming them for the flow of illegal immigrants and drug traffickers into the US.

He and other Republican leaders have previously suggested that the US might launch military strikes against nations like Mexico to combat the threat of gangs, raising concerns about potential territorial sovereignty violations.

Critics worry that aggressive actions, including the designation of Mexican cartels as terrorists, could undermine cooperation as the two nations address organized crime, despite the strong US-Mexico relationship.

The threat of gangs is widespread in Haiti. For instance, according to estimates, the Viv Ansanm coalition, known as “Live Together,” has control over up to 85% of Port-au-Prince, preventing commercial flights from arriving and limiting essential supplies like food and medicine.

Critics worry that the new designation will make it even more difficult to send necessary supplies to the nation because many Haitian civilians are currently suffering from hunger, displacement, and violence.

The only thing stopping Haiti from starving is, according to Romain Le Cour, an expert with the Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, “the first effects will be on the humanitarian and international cooperation,” Le Cour said.

Experts point out that gangs frequently impose fees on their territory for their movements. Payment could become a criminal offense under the “terrorist” designation in the US.

Jake Johnston, the Center for Economic and Policy Research’s international research director in Washington, said, “It could function as a de facto embargo.”

He continued, “The gangs have a lot of control over the country’s commerce.” “Doing business with Haiti or elsewhere in Haiti will involve a lot greater risk.”

In recent years, gangs have grown more and more powerful in Haiti, particularly with Jovenel Moise’s assassination in 2021. No federal elections have been held since his death, causing a power vacuum that has since undermined public trust in state institutions.

That vacuum has been used by the gangs to maintain control. The violence has caused more than one million people to flee their homes, and according to the UN, almost half of the nation’s population does not have enough food to eat.

A UN-backed international security mission has been established in Kenya to assist local police in their fight against gangs. However, Trump has frozen some of the funding that has been used for that mission since taking office.

One of the Kenyan police officers was shot and killed as part of the mission in February, marking their first known death. This task force has struggled to make an impact so far.

Given the  long and disastrous history of foreign interventions in Haiti, including those by the US, skeptics have also raised questions about the effectiveness of the international organization.