Philippines election hopeful's LGBTQ woes spark debate on voter focus
A senatorial candidate touted as an opposition bet in
the Philippines ' coming midterm elections has faced widespread criticism among progressive voters for her conservative stance on same-sex marriage.
Advertisement
The controversy surrounding Heidi Mendoza, a former
United Nations undersecretary general and ex-state auditor, has sparked discourse on the issues that voters should prioritise to increase headway for independent candidates.
Mendoza is not among the top 12 candidates in pre-election surveys, yet she gained traction among progressive voters for her platform on anti-corruption and as a viable opposition choice in tipping the balance in the country's legislative branch.
Out of 24 senators, only two belong to its minority bloc, including opposition senator Risa Hontiveros, who has led Senate inquiries on crimes linked to
Philippine offshore gaming operators (Pogos) . There will be 12 Senate seats up for grabs in the coming polls.
The Philippines ranked 114th out of 180 countries in Transparency International's 2024 Corruption Perception Index, with named the country as among the region's 'significant decliners' in 2021 and 2022.
Heidi Mendoza pictured with then-UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon (right) in 2015, when she was sworn in as the United Nations' undersecretary general for internal oversight services. Photo: United Nations
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
11 hours ago
- Asia Times
Trump's Golden Dome will make US – and world
President Donald Trump's idea of a 'Golden Dome' missile defense system carries a range of potential strategic dangers for the United States. Golden Dome is meant to protect the US from ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles, and missiles launched from space. Trump has called for the missile defense to be fully operational before the end of his term in three years. Trump's goals for Golden Dome are likely beyond reach. A wide range of studies makes clear that even defenses far more limited than what Trump envisions would be far more expensive and less effective than Trump expects, especially against enemy missiles equipped with modern countermeasures. Countermeasures include multiple warheads per missile, decoy warheads and warheads that can maneuver or are difficult to track, among others. Regardless of Golden Dome's feasibility, there is a long history of scholarship about strategic missile defenses, and the weight of evidence points to the defenses making their host country less safe from nuclear attack. I'm a national security and foreign policy professor at Harvard University, where I lead 'Managing the Atom,' the university's main research group on nuclear weapons and nuclear energy policies. For decades, I've been participating in dialogues with Russian and Chinese nuclear experts – and their fears about US missile defenses have been a consistent theme throughout. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping have already warned that Golden Dome is destabilizing. Along with US offensive capabilities, Golden Dome poses a threat of 'directly undermining global strategic stability, spurring an arms race and increasing conflict potential both among nuclear-weapon states and in the international arena as a whole,' a joint statement from China and Russia said. While that is a propaganda statement, it reflects real concerns broadly held in both countries. Golden Dome explained. Experience going back half a century makes clear that if the administration pursues Golden Dome, it is likely to provoke even larger arms buildups, derail already-dim prospects for any negotiated nuclear arms restraint, and perhaps even increase the chances of nuclear war. My first book, 35 years ago, made the case that it would be in the US national security interest to remain within the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which strictly limited US and Soviet – and later Russian – missile defenses. The United States and the Soviet Union negotiated the ABM Treaty as part of SALT I, the first agreements limiting the nuclear arms race. It was approved in the Senate 98-2. The ABM Treaty experience is instructive for the implications of Golden Dome today. Why did the two countries agree to limit defenses? First and foremost, because they understood that unless each side's defenses were limited, they would not be able to stop an offensive nuclear arms race. If each side wants to maintain the ability to retaliate if the other attacks – 'don't nuke me, or I'll nuke you' – then an obvious answer to one side building up more defenses is for the other to build up more nuclear warheads. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, the Soviets installed 100 interceptors to defend Moscow – so the United States targeted still more warheads on Moscow to overwhelm the defense. Had it ever come to a nuclear war, Moscow would have been even more thoroughly obliterated than if there had been no defense at all. Both sides came to realize that unlimited missile defenses would just mean more offense on both sides, leaving both less secure than before. In addition, nations viewed an adversary's shield as going hand in hand with a nuclear sword. A nuclear first strike might destroy a major part of a country's nuclear forces. Missile defenses would inevitably be more effective against the reduced, disorganized retaliation that they knew would be coming than they would be against a massive, well-planned surprise attack. That potential advantage to whoever struck first could make nuclear crises even more dangerous. Unfortunately, President George W Bush pulled the United States out of the ABM Treaty in 2002, seeking to free US development of defenses against potential missile attacks from small states such as North Korea. But even now, decades later, the US has fewer missile interceptors deployed (44) than the treaty permitted (100). The US pullout did not lead to an immediate arms buildup or the end of nuclear arms control. But Putin has complained bitterly about US missile defenses and the US refusal to accept any limitation at all on them. He views the US stance as an effort to achieve military superiority by negating Russia's nuclear deterrent. Russia is investing heavily in new types of strategic nuclear weapons intended to avoid US missile defenses, from an intercontinental nuclear torpedo to a missile that can go around the world and attack from the south, while US defenses are mainly pointed north toward Russia. Russia maintains a large force of nuclear weapons like this mobile intercontinental ballistic missile. Photo: Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via APPEAR / The Conversation Similarly, much of China's nuclear buildup appears to be driven by wanting a reliable nuclear deterrent in the face of the United States' capability to strike its nuclear forces and use missile defenses to mop up the remainder. Indeed, China was so angered by South Korea's deployment of US-provided regional defenses – which they saw as aiding the US ability to intercept their missiles – that they imposed stiff sanctions on South Korea. Now, Trump wants to go much further, with a defense 'forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland,' with a success rate 'very close to 100%.' I believe that this effort is highly likely to lead to still larger nuclear buildups in Russia and China. The Putin-Xi joint statement pledges to 'counter' defenses 'aimed at achieving military superiority.' Given the ease of developing countermeasures that are extraordinarily difficult for defenses to overcome, odds are the resulting offense-defense competition will leave the United States worse off than before – and a good bit poorer. Putin and Xi made clear that they are particularly concerned about the thousands of space-based interceptors Trump envisions. These interceptors are designed to hit missiles while their rockets are still burning during launch. Most countries are likely to oppose the idea of deploying huge numbers of weapons in space – and these interceptors would be both expensive and vulnerable. China and Russia could focus on further developing anti-satellite weapons to blow a hole in the defense, increasing the risk of space war. Already, there is a real danger that the whole effort of negotiated limits to temper nuclear arms racing may be coming to an end. The last remaining treaty limiting US and Russian nuclear forces, the New START Treaty, expires in February 2026. China's rapid nuclear buildup is making many defense officials and experts in Washington call for a US buildup in response. Intense hostility all around means that for now, neither Russia nor China is even willing to sit down to discuss nuclear restraints, in treaty form or otherwise. In my view, adding Golden Dome to this combustible mix would likely end any prospect of avoiding a future of unrestrained and unpredictable nuclear arms competition. But paths away from these dangers are available. It would be quite plausible to design defenses that would provide some protection against attacks from a handful of missiles from North Korea or others that would not seriously threaten Russian or Chinese deterrent forces – and design restraints that would allow all parties to plan their offensive forces knowing what missile defenses they would be facing in the years to come. I believe that Trump should temper his Golden Dome ambitions to achieve his other dream – of negotiating a deal to reduce nuclear dangers. Matthew Bunn is professor of the practice of energy, national security and foreign policy, Harvard Kennedy School This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Thanks
South China Morning Post
a day ago
- South China Morning Post
US-China trade call's impact on manufacturers, Trump and Musk feud: SCMP daily highlights
Catch up on some of SCMP's biggest China stories of the day. If you would like to see more of our reporting, please consider subscribing As two of the world's most powerful leaders – President Xi Jinping and US counterpart Donald Trump – exchanged rare conciliatory words in a phone call that signalled a potential thaw in China-US tensions, the mood on factory floors in China remained far more restrained. The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee has approved a slate of China-focused measures, including bipartisan bills to counter Beijing's overseas military expansion and bolster Taiwan's role in global finance while advancing the nomination of a former ambassador to lead US diplomacy in East Asia. Before their public feud this week, US President Donald Trump and Elon Musk attended a press conference in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30. Photo: Reuters The gloves have come off as the besties turn on each other, attacking policy decisions, threatening repercussions and levelling scandalous accusations.
RTHK
a day ago
- RTHK
Youths 'can bridge AI gap between Global South, North'
Youths 'can bridge AI gap between Global South, North' Boao Forum for Asia secretary general Zhang Jun, right, says artificial intelligence development gaps will fuel further digital divisions. Photo: RTHK Participants at the forum at the Convention and Exhibition Centre said access and skills for youths and young entrepreneurs posed challenges for their economies. Photo: RTHK Boao Forum for Asia secretary general Zhang Jun said on Friday youths play a key role in bridging the artificial intelligence development gap between the Global South and Global North. He made the remarks as the International Science, Technology and Innovation Forum of the Boao Forum made its debut in Hong Kong, with previous editions held in Macau, Zhuhai and Guangzhou. Speaking at a roundtable session, Zhang, who served as a permanent representative of China to the United Nations, said the digital divide, which includes AI development gaps, will further weigh on global fragmentation. He called on youths to help forge global collaboration to tackle such challenges. "Youths have a key role... in really trust-building, partnership-building, which is also badly needed in today's world, because we are more divided than [at any time] after the end of the Second World War. "And we are living in a world which is becoming very much dangerous because of the failure of the international governance system, including the United Nations," Zhang said. Many of the forum's participants pointed out challenges encountered during their countries' own digital transformation, especially with access and skills for youths and young entrepreneurs. Many said it's essential to ramp up digital literacy training and partnerships between nations. Mimala Chanthasone, an official of the Institute of Foreign Affairs in Laos, cited the China-Laos AI Innovation Cooperation Centre as an example. Launched in February, she said the centre marks the first China-Asean AI innovation cooperation. Conrad Ho, a member of the Youth Development Commission, called for more efforts to be made to address the employability gap created by the emergence of AI technology. "The post-AI world presents many challenges and also opportunities, including how youth might gain more senior-level skills as AI reduces the demand for entry-level and middle-management roles," he said. "I think as AI unlocks more capacity, we're going to transition from [having more] large corporations to smaller ventures, one-person teams, smaller teams that can still create very massive value. "And yet for all these companies, for them to be successful, the founders still need to have the critical hard and soft skills that they need to learn." The two-day innovation forum ends on Saturday.
