Sinagpore
Reuters
 — 

Singapore is holding an election on Saturday almost certain to perpetuate the unbroken rule of the People’s Action Party, in a test of public approval for its new prime minister as the city-state braces for economic turbulence from a global trade war.

The election is a bellwether for the popularity of the PAP, which has ruled since before Singapore’s 1965 independence, with attention on whether the opposition can challenge the ruling party’s tight grip on power and make further inroads after small but unprecedented gains in the last contest.

Though the PAP has consistently won in landslides with about 90% of seats, its share of the popular vote is closely watched as a measure of the strength of its mandate, with premier Lawrence Wong keen to improve on the PAP’s 60.1% in the 2020 election – one of its worst performances on record.

Wong, 52, became the Asian financial hub’s fourth prime minister last year, promising continuity, new blood and to lead Singapore his own way.

He took over at the end of the two-decade premiership of Lee Hsien Loong, the son of former leader Lee Kuan Yew, the founder of modern Singapore.

Polls opened at 8 a.m. and will close at 8 p.m. (8 a.m. ET), with a result expected in the early hours of Sunday.

Living costs and housing availability in one of the world’s most expensive cities are key issues for the 2.76 million voters and a continued challenge for Wong, whose government has warned of recession if the trade-dependent economy becomes collateral damage in the war over steep U.S. tariffs.

The PAP has long had the upper hand in politics, with a big membership to draw from, influence in state institutions and far greater resources than its untested opponents, which are each running in only a small number of constituencies.

The election will be a lopsided affair, with 46% of all candidates representing the PAP, which is contesting all 97 seats compared to 26 for its biggest rival, the Workers’ Party, which won 10 last time, the most by an opposition party.

But though a PAP defeat is extremely unlikely, some analysts say the election could alter the dynamic of Singapore politics in the years ahead if the opposition can make more headway, with younger voters keen to see alternative voices, greater scrutiny and more robust debate.

“It is to be expected that (its) overall electoral support will gradually, gradually dip from general election to general election,” said National University of Singapore political scientist Lam Peng Er.

“Would Singaporeans be that surprised if the PAP’s electoral support were to dip to 57% or 58%? It will surprise nobody. I don’t think it will even surprise the PAP at all.”

The PAP for its part is keen to avoid upsets and warned voters of the consequences of seat losses for key cabinet members, whom Wong said were critical to balancing ties between the United States and China and navigating Singapore’s highly exposed economy through potentially choppy waters.

“I have backups … sure. But everyone knows that the team cannot function at the same level,” Wong told the 1.4 million-strong labor union on Thursday.

CNN
 — 

Earthquakes are devastating for those who have lost loved ones, homes and livelihoods, but for military dictators clinging to power, such disasters can also bring opportunity.

Myanmar’s military rulers have spent the past four years waging a brutal civil war across the Southeast Asian country, sending columns of troops on bloody rampages, torching and bombing villages, massacring residents, jailing opponents and forcing young men and women to join the army.

The junta is headed by a widely reviled army chief who overthrew the democratically elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi and installed himself as leader.

But like with most aspiring strongmen, Sen. Gen. Min Aung Hlaing’s rule is precarious. He and his cronies have been sanctioned and spurned internationally, the economy is in tatters, and his military is losing significant territory in a grinding, multi-front war against a determined resistance.

By some accounts, he barely controls 30% of the country.

So when a powerful 7.7-magnitude earthquake struck central Myanmar on March 28, killing more than 3,700 people and causing widespread devastation, the general moved rapidly to bolster his position with a rare plea for international help.

“Min Aung Hlaing is leveraging the earthquake for regional engagement and electoral legitimacy,” said Kyaw Hsan Hlaing, a PhD student in political science at Cornell University.

“The humanitarian crisis gives him a pretext to open channels he’d long shut.”

Those openings included a face-to-face meeting last month between the junta leader and Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim of Malaysia, which currently holds the rotating chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The regional bloc had shunned high-level talks with Myanmar since the coup, to avoid legitimizing the junta.

Following the meeting in the Thai capital Bangkok, Anwar said he had a “frank and constructive discussion” with the general, focused on humanitarian assistance for quake-hit communities and the extension of a military-declared ceasefire to facilitate aid deliveries.

“For Min Aung Hlaing, securing even a veneer of regional legitimacy now lays political groundwork: He can argue ‘Look, neighbors trust me enough to talk,’ even as democratic leaders and exile groups remain excluded from the table,” said Kyaw Hsan Hlaing.

Some say now is the time for countries to engage with Myanmar’s military rulers, to push for dialogue and peace.

Four years of war has ravaged the country; 3 million people have been displaced by the fighting and the earthquake has only deepened an already dire humanitarian crisis in which at least 20 million people need aid.

“The main concern is the humanitarian situation. Sometimes, when we have this kind of crisis, it’s an opportunity for all the parties to try to come together, to think of the interests of the people… maybe it could lead to some kind of dialogue process,” said Sihasak Phuangketkeow, a former deputy foreign affairs minister of Thailand who has been part of his country’s efforts to engage the State Administration Council, the junta’s official name.

In recent months, Min Aung Hlaing has enjoyed a series of diplomatic engagements.

As bodies were still being pulled from the rubble of the quake, the general was shaking hands with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the sidelines of a regional meeting in Bangkok.

Rights groups and civil society organizations said his presence at the BIMSTEC summit amounted to the gathering lending legitimacy to a war criminal.

India said its bilateral meeting, set up to facilitate disaster relief, provided an opportunity to push the junta for “inclusive dialogue” and underline that there could be “no military solution to the conflict.”

That meeting came a month after Min Aung Hlaing’s high-profile state visit to Russia to boost cooperation with President Vladimir Putin, his longtime ally and main arms supplier.

Above all for the junta leader, domestic legitimacy is key in order to maintain his regime. And regional support for his planned elections, slated to be held later this year, is the first step in securing that.

Since seizing power, Min Aung Hlaing has repeatedly promised elections.

But with most of the democratic camp in exile or jail, Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy dissolved, and the military’s widespread repression of the people, such a vote would never be considered free or fair, observers say.

Min Aung Hlaing’s March invitation to election observers from Belarus – Europe’s last dictatorship – appeared to underscore their point.

“We have to make it very clear that for the election to be credible, it has to have inclusive dialogue,” said Sihasak, who is now secretary-general of the Asian Peace and Reconciliation Council.

“It is not a blank check,” he added. “It’s an opportunity for us to engage, but not engage in a way that supports legitimacy, but to impress upon the regime that they have to also make concessions.”

Some observers say the junta cannot be trusted to make concessions, when the military’s history is littered with false promises masking an unending stream of atrocities.

Even as Malaysia’s Anwar was touting the military’s so-called ceasefire to help quake-hit communities, the junta was restricting aid and intensifying its deadly campaign with airstrikes in opposition areas that have reportedly killed dozens of civilians.

Analysts warn that the military will use greater engagement as a pretext to normalize diplomatic ties and entrench its authoritarian rule.

“If you negotiate with the devil without red lines, that is complicity,” said Adelina Kamal, an independent analyst and member of the Southeast Asian Women Peace Mediators network.

Kamal said the international community risks being “deceived into the military’s stage performance,” where elections would be “an illusion of democratic transition.”

In 2008, when parts of the country were ravaged by powerful Cyclone Nargis, the military regime at the time pushed ahead with a constitutional referendum that paved the way for a semi-civilian government but cemented the military’s influence on the country’s politics.

With a new military-drafted constitution in place, the regime – called the State Peace and Development Council – held elections in 2010 widely regarded as a sham.

Today’s junta is “taking a page from the SPDC’s playbook to assert and retain its political role,” said Moe Thuzar, coordinator of the Myanmar studies program at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.

“The people of Myanmar have made it amply clear since 2021 about their mistrust in the military’s statements about elections, and view elections in the current situation as potentially leading to more violence.”

Those who have firsthand experience of that violence say actions speak louder than words.

“Talking to Min Aung Hlaing will not bring any political solution and satisfy what the majority of people want,” said Khun Bedu, chairman of the Karenni Nationalities Defense Force, which is fighting the military in the country’s southeast.

The Karen National Union, which has been fighting the military since independence from Britain more than 70 years ago, said inclusive dialogue cannot happen without first a ceasefire and the delivery of humanitarian assistance.

“Before all people can sit together and solve the problem, Min Aung Hlaing needs to stop all of the violence in the country. Without that we cannot accept any dialogue,” KNU spokesperson Saw Taw Nee told CNN.

There is hope, however, from some quarters that progress could be made this year.

Following his talks with the junta leader, Malaysia’s Anwar also held a widely praised virtual meeting with Mahn Win Khaing Than, prime minister of the National Unity Government, in ASEAN’s first public face-to-face with Myanmar’s shadow administration of lawmakers deposed in the coup.

The NUG, which considers itself the legitimate government of Myanmar, has repeatedly insisted on engaging all stakeholders to solve the crisis.

“I see 2025 as the year, with the election coming in and with this crisis, that we can either win the peace or we can lose the peace,” said Sihasak, the former Thai minister.

To get there, international partners should “tie any dialogue to verifiable steps” including “genuine humanitarian corridors, release of political prisoners, and binding guarantees of inclusive talks,” said Kyaw Hsan Hlaing at Cornell.

“Otherwise, engagement simply extends the junta’s lifeline at the expense of the Burmese people’s aspirations for democracy,” he said.

CNN
 — 

The United States is stepping up pressure on India and Pakistan to avoid conflict in Kashmir after a tourist massacre in an Indian-administered area of the divided territory last week.

US Vice President JD Vance said Thursday that Washington hopes Pakistan will help hunt down the militants behind the attack, who are based in Pakistan-controlled territory.

And Vance urged India, which has accused Pakistan of being involved in the attack, to act with restraint so tensions do not explode into a war between the nuclear-armed neighbors.

“Our hope here is that India responds to this terrorist attack in a way that doesn’t lead to a broader regional conflict,” Vance said in an interview on Fox News’ “Special Report with Bret Baier.”

“And we hope, frankly, that Pakistan, to the extent that they’re responsible, cooperates with India to make sure that the terrorists sometimes operating in their territory are hunted down and dealt with.”

Vance’s comments echoed those of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who on Wednesday spoke with top Pakistani and Indian officials and called on the two rivals to work with each other to “de-escalate tensions,” according to State Department readouts of the two calls.

Rubio “expressed his sorrow for the lives lost in the horrific terrorist attack in Pahalgam, and reaffirmed the United States’ commitment to cooperation with India against terrorism,” in his call with Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar.

In his call with Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Rubio “spoke of the need to condemn the terror attack on April 22,” and urged Pakistani officials’ cooperation in the investigation.

“Both leaders reaffirmed their continued commitment to holding terrorists accountable for their heinous acts of violence,” the readout said.

Fears of a broader conflict increased earlier this week when Pakistani Information Minister Attaullah Tarar said his country had “credible intelligence that India intends carrying out military action against Pakistan in the next 24-36 hours.”

That timeframe has now passed.

Militants on April 22 massacred 26 civilians, the vast majority tourists, in the mountainous town of Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir, a rampage that has sparked widespread outrage.

India and Pakistan have since engaged in tit-for-tat hostilities.

India closed its airspace to commercial flights from Pakistan on Tuesday, matching Islamabad’s ban on flights from India, which was imposed last week in response to New Delhi’s cancelation of visas for Pakistani nationals and suspension of a key water sharing treaty.

This week, New Delhi and Islamabad have both been flexing their military might.

Pakistan shot down an Indian drone that was used for “espionage” in the disputed Kashmir region on Tuesday, Pakistani security sources told CNN.

Two days earlier, India’s navy said it had carried out test missile strikes to “revalidate and demonstrate readiness of platforms, systems and crew for long range precision offensive strike.”

Tensions have also been simmering along the de facto border, the Line of Control, in Kashmir, and gunfire was exchanged along the disputed border for seven straight nights.

Kashmir, one of the world’s most dangerous flashpoints, is controlled in part by India and Pakistan but both countries claim it in its entirety.

The two nuclear-armed rivals have fought three wars over the mountainous territory that has been divided since their independence from Britain nearly 80 years ago.

India conducted airstrikes inside Pakistan in 2019 following a major insurgent attack on paramilitary personnel inside Indian-administered Kashmir. It was the first such incursion into Pakistan’s territory since a 1971 war between the two neighbors.

The latest attack on tourists in Kashmir has sparked fears that India might respond in a similar way.

Conditions may be ripe for greater conflict now than was seen in 2019, according to Steven Honig and Natalie Caloca, researchers at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Writing on the CFR website, the two said Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has “made the transformation and stabilization of Kashmir a central pillar of his legacy”

They said Modi was hurt politically by the 2019 attacks inside Indian-administer Kashmir and will likely feel pressure to be more assertive with New Delhi’s response this time.

Both countries are heavily armed, though in any conventional conflict, India holds a large advantage.

The Indian defense budget is more than nine times Pakistan’s, according to the “Military Balance 2025” from the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

That budget supports an active-duty Indian force of almost 1.5 million personnel, compared to just 660,000 for Pakistan.

On the ground, India’s 1.2 million force army has 3,750 main battle tanks and more than 10,000 artillery pieces, while Pakistan’s tank force is only two-thirds of India’s and Islamabad has fewer than half of the artillery pieces in New Delhi’s arsenal.

At sea, the Indian navy’s advantage is overwhelming. It has two aircraft carriers, 12 guided-missile destroyers, 11 guided-missile frigates and 16 attack submarines.

Pakistan has no carriers and no guided-missile destroyers, with 11 smaller guided-missile frigates being the backbone of its naval fleet. It also has only half the number of subs that India fields.

Both air forces rely heavily on older Soviet-era aircraft, including MiG-21s in India and the Chinese equivalent – the J-7 – in Pakistan.

While overall numbers of air-to-air fighter jets and ground-attack aircraft sway heavily in India’s favor, both militaries have been making recent efforts to update their air forces with modern fourth-generation aircraft.

India has been investing in multirole French-made Rafale jets, with 36 now in service, according to the Military Balance.

Pakistan has been adding Chinese J-10 multirole jets, with more than 20 now in its fleet.

Though Pakistan still has dozens of US-made F-16 fighters, the backbone of its fleet has become the JF-17, a joint project with China that came online in the early 2000s. About 150 are in service.

Despite acquiring the Rafales from France, Russian-made aircraft still play a significant role in India’s air fleet. More than 100 MiG-29 fighters are in service with the air force and navy combined. And more than 260 Su-30 ground attack jets bolster India’s force.

The rivals are closer in capabilities when it comes to nuclear forces – with around five dozen surface-to-surface launchers each – though India has longer range ballistic missiles than Pakistan.

India also has two nuclear-capable submarines while Pakistan has none.

CNN’s Jennifer Hansler, Rhea Mogul and Sofia Saifi contributed to this report.