eMacromall.com - Politics - Most Reliable Information Mall

eDirectory

Country's Politics

Media (Newspapers, TV/Radio)

Politics & Issues & World's Politics

Did You Know?

Hong Kong’s future under China’s domination is shaped by authoritarian consolidation fused with economic pragmatism: freedoms remain curtailed, yet the city continues to serve as a financial and diplomatic instrument of Beijing. Despite the collapse of autonomy, Hong Kong retains economic vitality, with GDP growth projected at 2–3% in 2025, while Beijing repositions it as a strategic hub aligned with its Global South agenda. The outcome is a city stripped of its once‑vibrant liberties but preserved for its utility, operating under fear, exile, or silence as global confidence in China’s treaty commitments steadily erodes. Economic importance endures, but political credibility has disintegrated, leaving trust in China’s promises shattered.
Hong Kong, once celebrated as Asia’s beacon of liberty, has endured a dramatic collapse in freedom, now ranked only “Partly Free” by Freedom House with a score of 40 out of 100—just 9 out of 40 for political rights and 31 out of 60 for civil liberties—reflecting a staggering 25‑point decline over the past decade. Since Beijing’s imposition of the National Security Law in 2020, nearly 2,000 political prisoners, including prominent figures such as Jimmy Lai and Joshua Wong, have been jailed; independent media outlets like Apple Daily and Stand News have been forced to close; and elections have been hollowed out to permit only “patriots” to serve. Judicial independence has withered under political pressure, dismantling the promise of “one country, two systems” and casting a chilling shadow across society while shaking global confidence in Hong Kong’s autonomy. The December 2025 Legislative Council election, which excluded all pro‑democracy candidates, cemented the legislature as a rubber stamp for Beijing’s policies. Many activists now face lengthy prison terms or exile abroad, with repression stretching beyond Hong Kong’s borders. Adding to the turmoil, tragedies such as the deadly high‑rise fire in December 2025 have laid bare corruption and weak oversight, intensifying public anger and deepening distrust in government.
China’s move to restrict Hong Kong’s freedoms decades before the 2047 deadline promised in the 1984 Sino‑British Joint Declaration reflects a deliberate strategy: Beijing dismisses the treaty as a mere “historical document” with no binding force, elevates sovereignty and national security above international commitments, and fears that genuine autonomy could ignite demands for democracy across the mainland. Although the Basic Law guaranteed a “high degree of autonomy” for 50 years after the 1997 handover, the 2020 National Security Law dismantled those protections almost overnight, producing political prisoners and silencing dissent. The legislature has been reduced to a rubber stamp, cementing Beijing’s control decades ahead of schedule and leaving civil society trapped in fear, exile, or silence. This premature dismantling of autonomy has eroded global confidence in China’s treaty obligations, while sanctions and criticism from the U.K., U.S., and EU have had limited effect. The result is a hollowed‑out civil society, with activists jailed or driven abroad, independent media shuttered, and elections stripped of meaning, reduced to symbolic exercises under authoritarian rule.
Many wealthy nations refrain from building nuclear weapons not because they lack the capability, but because they are bound by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), rely on the U.S. nuclear umbrella for deterrence, and fear the economic and diplomatic costs of sanctions, while North Korea, one of the poorest countries in the world, has made nuclear arms the centerpiece of its survival strategy. In 2001, Pyongyang spent more than $5 billion on defense—over 30% of GDP, and by 2024 military expenditure still consumed 15.9% of government spending, about USD 1.47 billion, even as famine left 84% of households with borderline or poor food consumption, one‑third of children stunted, and infant mortality at 33%. After withdrawing from the NPT in 2003, the regime relied on clandestine networks to acquire technology, then forced domestic scientists into nuclear research under the Songun or "military‑first" policy. By mid‑2024, analysts estimated North Korea had produced enough fissile material for up to 90 warheads, with roughly 50 assembled, and in 2025 the parliament declared nuclear weapons status "permanently fixed in law." This stark contrast shows how rich nations choose restraint for stability, while North Korea embraces nuclear weapons as a desperate lifeline, sacrificing prosperity for authoritarian survival and global leverage.
North Korea has been able to sustain a nuclear program despite isolation and poverty by coercively channeling its limited talent into military research, tightly controlling education, and diverting scarce resources into weapons development. Promising students are funneled into elite institutions such as Kim Il-sung University and Kim Chaek University of Technology, where they are trained in physics, engineering, and chemistry before being conscripted into nuclear projects, often described as “slaves to the bomb.” Although cut off from global scientific collaboration, the regime has relied on clandestine networks and illicit technology transfers, particularly after withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003, to acquire critical knowledge and equipment. Once secured, domestic scientists adapted and maintained these systems under strict state oversight. The scale of investment is striking: in 2001, military spending exceeded $5 billion—over 30% of GDP, and by 2024 defense still consumed 15.9% of government expenditure, about USD 1.47 billion. Analysts estimated that by mid‑2024 Pyongyang had produced enough fissile material for up to 90 nuclear warheads, with roughly 50 assembled, and in 2025 the parliament declared nuclear weapons status “permanently fixed in law.” This trajectory underscores the paradox of a nation where 84% of households survive on borderline or poor food consumption, one‑third of children are stunted, and infant mortality reaches 33%, yet its most educated citizens are conscripted into nuclear research to cement authoritarian control and global leverage.
North Korea has managed to build nuclear weapons despite being one of the world’s poorest states by relentlessly prioritizing military power over civilian welfare. In 2001, military spending exceeded $5 billion, more than 30% of GDP, while in 2024 defense still consumed 15.9% of government expenditure—around USD 1.47 billion. Guided by the Songun or “military‑first” policy, the regime diverted scarce resources into weapons programs, acquiring technology through clandestine networks and investing heavily in uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing. By mid‑2024, analysts estimated Pyongyang had produced enough fissile material for up to 90 nuclear warheads, with roughly 50 assembled, and in 2025 the parliament reaffirmed a defense‑heavy budget while declaring nuclear weapons status “permanently fixed in law.” This trajectory reveals a stark paradox: while 84% of households survive on borderline or poor food consumption, one‑third of children are stunted, and infant mortality reaches 33%, billions continue to be funneled into missiles and warheads, cementing authoritarian control and global leverage at the expense of mass deprivation.
North Korea has continued to channel vast resources into its military despite economic collapse, with defense consuming 15.9% of government expenditure in 2024—around USD 1.47 billion—even as citizens endured worsening shortages of food and medicine. This obsession with military strength is not new; in 2001, spending exceeded $5 billion, more than 30% of GDP, one of the highest ratios in the world. Guided by the Songun or “military-first” policy, weapons programs remained the regime’s top priority, and by mid‑2024 analysts estimated Pyongyang had produced enough fissile material for up to 90 nuclear warheads, with roughly 50 assembled. In 2025, the parliament reaffirmed a defense‑heavy budget, and the government declared its nuclear weapons status “permanently fixed in law,” cementing its role as a nuclear power. This trajectory exposes a stark paradox: while 84% of households survive on borderline or poor food consumption, one‑third of children are stunted, and infant mortality reaches 33%, billions continue to be funneled into missiles and warheads to sustain authoritarian control and global leverage.
The satire film The Interview captures surprising truths about North Korea, particularly its psychological landscape and the regime’s obsession with appearances. Experts have noted that the film’s depiction of fake abundance—like supermarkets filled with plastic produce—is not far from reality. During the famine years, visitors to Pyongyang reported seeing exactly that: shelves stocked with artificial fruits and vegetables designed to project prosperity while citizens starved outside. This surreal façade reflects the regime’s strategy of masking deprivation with propaganda, creating a Potemkin‑style illusion of normalcy that mirrors the absurdity portrayed in the movie.
In North Korea, attempting to leave the country without official permission is treated as a serious crime, with the regime threatening detention and forced labor as punishment for disobedience. Many families risk escape by crossing into China in hopes of finding refuge overseas, but those captured are often sent to political prisoner camps notorious for systemic abuse. Conditions inside these camps are harsh, with reports of forced labor, torture, and extremely high death rates. U.S. and South Korean officials estimate that between 80,000 and 120,000 people are currently imprisoned in such facilities, making them one of the most extensive systems of political incarceration in the world.
North Korea’s poverty is compounded by authoritarian control, sanctions, and prioritization of military spending, which limit consumer welfare and economic development. North Korea is among the world’s poorest countries, with GDP per capita far below global averages and comparable to struggling nations such as Yemen, Myanmar, and Nepal.

Nepal ($1,540–1,560) edges above both, though it remains one of Asia’s poorest economies.
Myanmar ($1,359) is slightly higher than North Korea but faces severe instability after the 2021 coup.
North Korea’s GDP per capita ($1,319) places it in the bottom tier globally, just above Yemen but below Nepal and Myanmar.
Yemen ($634) is poorer due to ongoing civil war and economic fragmentation.

North Korea ranks among the poorest nations in the world, with up to 60% of its population living below the poverty line as of 2020, monthly wages often hovering around $2–$3, and chronic food shortages that demand about 5.3 million tonnes of grain annually while producing only 4.5 million tonnes. The collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s triggered a famine that killed hundreds of thousands, exposing the contradiction between Juche’s promise of self-reliance and the regime’s reliance on foreign aid. Even in the 2020s, reports of starvation persist, underscoring the humanitarian crisis. Despite this extreme poverty, the state has endured by prioritizing military spending, conducting its first nuclear test in 2006, and leveraging alliances with China and Russia, which helped GDP rebound by 3.1% in 2023 after years of contraction. This paradox of destitution paired with survival highlights how authoritarian control, dynastic legitimacy, and opportunistic partnerships have allowed one of the world’s most isolated regimes to persist against the odds.
As of 2025, persecution of Christians in North Korea remains among the harshest in the world, with human rights groups estimating that between 50,000 and 70,000 believers are imprisoned in the regime’s notorious kwanliso political prison camps, enduring forced labor, starvation, and torture. Reports have documented that Christians discovered by authorities risk execution on the spot or lifelong sentences, often with entire families punished together, while a 2025 investigation noted the disappearance of 70 prisoners without trace, underscoring the secrecy surrounding these facilities. Despite North Korea ratifying no protections for religious freedom, the regime continues to treat Christianity as a direct threat to its stability, earning the country the grim distinction of being ranked the worst place in the world to be a Christian. This continuity since 2012, when around 70,000 Christians were already imprisoned, highlights how repression has remained systemic, with faith itself criminalized and survival inside the camps a matter of endurance against overwhelming odds.
In North Korea, poverty is entrenched, with estimates suggesting that between 40% and 60% of the population—roughly 24 million people—live below the poverty line, while most workers earn only $2 to $3 per month. Daily life has deteriorated into extreme deprivation, defined by chronic food shortages and limited access to basic services. Since the early 1980s, average life expectancy has dropped by five years, reflecting the heavy toll of isolation, international sanctions, and the regime’s relentless prioritization of military spending over social welfare. This paradox of survival amid destitution underscores how authoritarian control, dynastic rule, and ideological rigidity have enabled one of the world’s most impoverished states to endure despite decades of economic decline.
North Korea’s COVID‑19 crisis was defined by secrecy, repression, and economic collapse, with the regime acknowledging its first outbreak only on May 8, 2022 in Pyongyang and later claiming just 168 confirmed cases and 74 deaths, figures widely doubted given the lack of testing and fragile healthcare system. Borders were sealed almost completely, cutting off trade with China and worsening food shortages, while suspected cases were sometimes sent to harsh quarantine camps and lockdown rules enforced through arbitrary detention. By 2024–2025, escapees described pandemic restrictions as tools of control that shrank freedoms even further, with movement, employment, and food access tightly restricted. The humanitarian toll was immense: markets disrupted, aid blocked, vaccines absent, and repression deepened, leaving ordinary citizens to endure hunger and instability while state media portrayed the leadership as victorious against the virus. The paradox is stark—North Korea claimed triumph over COVID‑19, yet by 2025 the country still suffers the aftershocks of isolation, famine, and systemic neglect.
North Korea suffers from a widespread methamphetamine epidemic that took root in the early 2000s, when state‑run factories began producing meth as a way to offset the collapsing economy and generate revenue. What began as an export commodity quickly spread domestically, turning meth into a common fixture of daily life and even a perceived luxury item in a society with few other comforts. The result has been devastating: reports estimate that as many as 80% of residents have used meth at least once, while around 40% are addicted, creating one of the highest rates of drug dependency in the world. With little to no government support for treatment and a regime that has historically tolerated or even encouraged production as an economic stimulus, meth has become both a coping mechanism for poverty and a symbol of systemic neglect, deepening the humanitarian crisis already marked by famine, corruption, and repression.
In North Korea, healthcare is officially declared free under the state system, yet in practice residents are often denied treatment unless they can afford the high prices of medicine on the black market or through informal channels. Hospitals frequently lack basic supplies, electricity, and trained staff, leaving patients to provide their own drugs, bandages, or even food during hospitalization. This contradiction between the promise of universal care and the reality of exclusion underscores the broader crisis of deprivation, where poverty, sanctions, and mismanagement have eroded access to essential services. The result is a system where survival depends less on state guarantees and more on personal resources, deepening inequality in one of the world’s most isolated nations.
In North Korea, the end of fertilizer imports from South Korea in 2008 forced the regime to adopt an extraordinary and controversial solution: a nationwide program requiring farmers to use human feces as fertilizer. To sustain agricultural output, the government imposed quotas on citizens, with factory workers reportedly ordered to provide up to two tons of human waste each. This policy reflected both the desperation of a state struggling with chronic food shortages and the rigid enforcement of self-reliance under Juche ideology. While intended to boost crop yields, the program underscored the extent of deprivation, as the population was compelled to meet impossible quotas with little regard for health or dignity.
Timeline of Food Crisis Responses in North Korea:

1990s: Famine and Foraging

Collapse of the Soviet Union triggered famine that killed hundreds of thousands.
Citizens survived on tree bark, roots, and wild plants.
Informal barter markets (jangmadang) emerged as lifelines outside state control.

2000s: Two Meals a Day Campaign

Government urged citizens to eat only twice daily to conserve food.
Policy deepened hunger and sparked frequent food riots.

2007: Giant Rabbit Experiment

Kim Jong-il imported oversized rabbits from German breeder Karl Szmolinsky to boost meat supply.
Project collapsed when the rabbits were reportedly eaten instead of bred.

2000s–2010s: Rooftop Farming and Substitute Foods

Urban rooftops converted into vegetable plots.
Corn and grass promoted as patriotic substitutes for rice.

2010s–2020s: Persistent Shortages

UN FAO study found 84% of households had “borderline or poor food consumption.”
World Food Programme reported one-third of children stunted and infant mortality at 33%.
Food assistance declined sharply after 2009, worsening deprivation.

In North Korea, poverty and food shortages remain pervasive, with the famine that began in the 1990s leaving a lasting scar and forcing the country to depend heavily on international aid to feed its people. Since 2009, however, food assistance has declined sharply, worsening the crisis. A United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization study revealed that 84% of households survive on “borderline or poor food consumption,” while the World Food Programme reports that one-third of children are stunted by malnutrition and the infant mortality rate stands at 33%. The government’s “two meals a day campaign” has further fueled unrest, with food riots becoming a common occurrence. These conditions, compounded by isolation and sanctions, have resulted in thousands of deaths and entrenched extreme deprivation across the population.
In North Korea, in 2007, Kim Jong-il reportedly sought to address food shortages by importing giant rabbits bred by Karl Szmolinsky, a German rabbit breeder known for producing some of the world’s largest rabbits. The plan was to use these oversized animals as a source of meat to help alleviate famine conditions. Szmolinsky sent several of his rabbits to North Korea, but the experiment quickly collapsed. Reports suggested that instead of establishing a breeding program, the rabbits were eaten—possibly even by Kim Jong-il himself—ending the initiative before it could make any impact. This story highlights the regime’s often desperate and unconventional attempts to tackle chronic food insecurity, which has persisted since the 1990s famine. It also underscores the paradox of Juche’s emphasis on self-reliance, as even bizarre foreign imports were considered a potential solution to hunger.
In North Korea, survival has often depended on bizarre and desperate food policies, from the Two Meals a Day campaign in the 2000s, which urged citizens to eat only twice daily and sparked frequent food riots, to Kim Jong-il’s 2007 rabbit-breeding experiment, inspired by German breeder Karl Szmolinsky, that collapsed when the giant rabbits were reportedly eaten instead of bred. Urban rooftops were transformed into vegetable plots, corn and even grass were promoted as patriotic substitutes for rice, and during the 1990s famine thousands relied on tree bark, roots, and wild plants to stay alive. Informal barter markets known as jangmadang also emerged, becoming critical lifelines outside state control. These unusual strategies, blending propaganda with improvisation, reveal the paradox of Juche’s self-reliance: while the regime insists on ideological independence, survival has often hinged on improvised farming, substitute foods, and grassroots markets that expose the fragility of one of the world’s most isolated economies.
Since the 1950s, North Korea has survived isolation by continually reshaping its strategies, beginning with Kim Il-sung’s revolutionary push for independence, formalizing Juche in the 1972 constitution, and immortalizing it with the towering monument built in 1982. The collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s unleashed a catastrophic famine that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, forcing reliance on foreign aid despite Juche’s doctrine of self-reliance. In response, Kim Jong-il advanced Songun (“military-first”), while the regime’s inaugural nuclear test in 2006 ushered in a new era of deterrence. Under Kim Jong-un, Juche has been reinterpreted in the 2010s–2020s as a justification for nuclear development and sovereignty, even as the state cautiously engages with the outside world through high-profile summits in 2018–2019 and renewed alliances with China and Russia.
Over more than 70 years, North Korea has managed to survive isolation through a mix of authoritarian control, dynastic legitimacy, military deterrence, and selective foreign alliances. The Kim family’s rule—spanning three generations—has been cemented by Juche ideology, which stresses self-reliance yet paradoxically collided with reliance on foreign aid during the devastating famines of the 1990s. Kim Il-sung’s revolutionary independence of the 1950s evolved into Kim Jong-il’s formalized doctrine and military-first expansion in the 1970s–1990s, before Kim Jong-un reframed Juche in the 2010s–2020s as justification for nuclear development. Despite closed borders and economic hardship, the regime has adapted by leveraging ties with China and Russia, securing lifelines that allowed GDP to grow by 3.1% in 2023 after years of contraction. This blend of ideological rigidity, militarization, and opportunistic alliances has enabled one of the world’s most isolated states to endure, with Juche acting as the ideological glue binding the Kim dynasty’s survival strategy.
In North Korea, the ideology of Juche has transformed over more than 70 years, beginning with Kim Il-sung’s revolutionary call for independence in the 1950s, evolving into Kim Jong-il’s formalized doctrine of self-reliance and military-first expansion during the 1970s–1990s, and culminating in Kim Jong-un’s use of Juche as a justification for nuclear development in the 2010s–2020s. This trajectory is marked by a striking paradox: Juche’s insistence on self-sufficiency often collided with the regime’s reliance on foreign aid, most visibly during the catastrophic famines of the 1990s. Yet, despite these contradictions, Juche has endured as the ideological cement of the Kim dynasty, reshaping itself to meet shifting political and economic challenges while sustaining dynastic legitimacy and the cult of personality that defines the regime.
North Korea’s political system is a dynastic, authoritarian regime that has been ruled by the Kim family for three generations, beginning with Kim Il-sung, followed by Kim Jong-il, and now Kim Jong-un, who holds absolute power as head of state, commander of the military, and leader of the Workers’ Party of Korea. The system is defined by its centralized structure, where decision-making flows entirely from the top, and by its unique ideology of Juche, introduced in the 1950s, which emphasizes self-reliance in politics, economics, and defense. Juche has been adapted across decades to justify policies ranging from economic isolation to nuclear development, while the military-first doctrine, Songun, further entrenches the priority of armed strength. A powerful cult of personality surrounds the Kim lineage, with Kim Il-sung enshrined as the “eternal president,” Kim Jong-il revered as his successor, and Kim Jong-un portrayed as the guardian of national survival. Together, these elements create a system that fuses dynastic succession, ideological rigidity, and militarization into one of the most centralized and enduring authoritarian regimes in the world.
In 2011, Transparency International ranked North Korea as the world’s most corrupt country, a label that reflects the regime’s dependence on illicit wealth to sustain itself. Kim Jong‑un is believed to have inherited $4 billion from his father, with South Korean reports placing his fortune as high as $5 billion, and in 2025 his fortune is still estimated at $4–5 billion, hidden in secret foreign accounts and built on counterfeiting, narcotics sales, arms trading, and other illegal ventures. Despite UN bans on luxury imports since 2006, reports show that in 2024 North Korea imported $51.92 million worth of luxury goods—from cosmetics and watches to alcohol—used for “gift politics” to reward loyal elites, while a South Korean study estimated Kim spends up to $1.82 billion annually on perks for insiders, including luxury cars, designer items, and lavish events. This extravagance mirrors earlier excesses, such as the $645.8 million spent on luxury goods in 2012, and stands in stark contrast to the country’s humanitarian crisis, where 84% of households survive on borderline or poor food consumption, one‑third of children are stunted, and infant mortality reaches 33%. The paradox is stark: a nation branded the most corrupt in 2011 continues to funnel billions into indulgence and elite rewards while its people endure chronic deprivation.
The relationship between the U.S. and China is complex, shaped by decades of history, economic competition, and geopolitical tensions. It's a relationship full of cooperation and conflict, shaped by shifting global priorities and national interests. While they are deeply interconnected economically, their strategic and ideological differences often fuel tensions. The competition for technological dominance, military presence in the Pacific, and issues like human rights and trade policies continue to be major points of contention. Tariffs, trade agreements, and economic policies influence everything from global markets to diplomatic tensions. Beyond tariffs, trade policies also shape economic strategies. China is shifting toward a consumer-driven economy, but U.S. trade pressures make that transition difficult. Recent trade policies play a huge role in shaping U.S.-China relations, often acting as both a bridge and a battleground. Despite these challenges, both countries recognize the importance of maintaining dialogue to avoid escalation and find areas of mutual benefit.
Corruption-related human rights abuses occur worldwide, affecting governance, justice, and individual freedoms. Corruption diverts public funds, crippling essential services like healthcare, education, and housing. It disproportionately affects marginalized groups, exacerbating poverty and inequality. For example,

North Korea: The government engages in severe repression, including arbitrary detentions, forced labor camps, and public executions; political prisoners face torture and starvation, and corruption within the ruling elite ensures impunity for officials; defectors report forced labor, arbitrary detentions, and public executions; corruption within the ruling elite ensures impunity for officials, while ordinary citizens suffer severe repression.
Uganda: Activists like Aloikin Praise Opoloje have been recognized for their fight against corruption and human rights violations; she has faced arrests and imprisonment for advocating civil liberties and accountability.
South Sudan: Corruption has fueled violent conflicts, leading to mass killings, displacement, and human rights violations; government officials have been accused of embezzling public funds, worsening poverty and instability.
Saudi Arabia: Political prisoners face harsh treatment, including torture and prolonged detention without trial; corruption within the judicial system allows wealthy and powerful individuals to evade justice, while activists and journalists are silenced.
Malaysia: The 1MDB scandal involved billions of dollars in embezzled funds, affecting public services and economic stability; corruption in law enforcement has led to wrongful arrests and suppression of dissent.
Russia: Corruption is deeply entrenched in government institutions, leading to politically motivated arrests, suppression of opposition, and media censorship; corruption in law enforcement has led to politically motivated arrests, suppression of opposition, and media censorship; activists and journalists who expose corruption face intimidation and violence.

People often believe that Saudi Arabia has led to serious human rights abuses, affecting freedom of expression, political participation, and access to justice. For example,

Suppression of Free Speech: Authorities censor media, restrict internet freedom, and criminalize dissent, making it difficult for citizens to express political opinions or criticize the government.
Arbitrary Detentions & Political Prisoners: The government has detained activists, journalists, and dissidents following unfair trials on vague charges that violate their rights to free expression and association.
Harsh Prison Conditions: Reports indicate that detainees face life-threatening conditions, including solitary confinement, inadequate healthcare, and physical abuse.
Executions & Death Penalty: Saudi Arabia has carried out mass executions, including the execution of 196 people in 2022, making it one of the highest-ranking countries for capital punishment.
Migrant Worker Exploitation: Migrant workers face widespread abuses, including poor working conditions, wage theft, and restrictions on movement.
Transnational Repression: The Saudi government has been accused of harassing dissidents abroad, using intimidation tactics against their families as a form of collective punishment.
Human Rights Concerns in FIFA World Cup Hosting: Saudi Arabia’s 2034 FIFA World Cup bid has raised concerns about human rights violations, including restrictions on freedom of expression, arbitrary arrests, and mistreatment of migrant workers.

People often believe that China has faced significant criticism for human rights abuses, particularly regarding freedom of expression, political participation, and access to justice. For example,

Mass Surveillance & Arbitrary Detentions: The government has deployed invasive mass surveillance technology to monitor citizens, particularly in Xinjiang and Tibet; authorities have arbitrarily detained human rights defenders, journalists, and ethnic minorities.
Suppression of Free Speech: The government imposes strict censorship, blocking access to foreign news and social media platforms; journalists and activists who criticize the government face harassment, imprisonment, or forced disappearances.
Political Repression: The National Security Law in Hong Kong has led to the systematic dismantling of freedoms of expression, association, and assembly; activists and opposition figures have been arrested or forced into exile.
Forced Labor & Detention Camps: Reports indicate that over one million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities have been detained in extrajudicial internment camps, facing forced labor, torture, and indoctrination.
Transnational Repression: The Chinese government has been accused of harassing dissidents abroad, using intimidation tactics against their families in China as a form of collective punishment.

Singapore has a mixed reputation when it comes to freedom of expression, political participation, and access to justice. While it is known for its efficient governance and economic success, concerns remain about restrictions on civil liberties.

Freedom of Expression: Singapore has strict laws regulating speech, including the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), which allows authorities to censor online content; critics argue that these laws are used to silence dissent and independent media.
Political Participation: The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) has dominated politics since 1959, and opposition parties face structural challenges in gaining influence; elections are generally free of irregularities, but legal and electoral frameworks limit political competition.
Access to Justice: Singapore’s judicial system is known for its efficiency and low corruption, but concerns exist about detention without trial and harsh punishments, including mandatory caning and the death penalty for drug-related offenses.

Singapore has strict media regulations, which have led to concerns about press freedom and editorial independence. According to the 2025 World Press Freedom Index, Singapore ranks 123rd out of 180 countries, reflecting limited media freedom and government control, for example,

Government Control: The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) appoints board members and editors of major media outlets, ensuring alignment with government policies.
Censorship & Fake News Laws: The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) allows authorities to correct or remove online content they deem false, raising concerns about censorship and suppression of dissent.
Limited Independent Media: Independent news platforms face harassment and restrictions, with some outlets, like The Online Citizen, having their broadcasting licenses revoked.
Foreign Media Restrictions: The government has the power to approve or block foreign media publications, limiting access to international perspectives.
Self-Censorship: Journalists and media organizations often avoid politically sensitive topics, fearing legal consequences or financial pressure.

Singapore's judicial independence is protected by its constitution, statutes, and common law. The judiciary is expected to remain separate from legislative and executive power, ensuring fair legal proceedings and shielding judges from inappropriate pressure. Singapore’s judiciary is highly efficient and has a strong reputation for low corruption; however, human rights organizations have criticized harsh punishments and legal restrictions on civil liberties, and journalists and media organizations often avoid politically sensitive topics, fearing legal consequences or financial pressure.

Government Control: The ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) appoints board members and editors of major media outlets, ensuring alignment with government policies.

Courts generally uphold the rule of law, but concerns exist regarding cases involving political opponents or activists.
Detention without trial is permitted under laws like the Internal Security Act (ISA), used historically to detain political dissidents.
Mandatory sentencing applies to drug offenses, including the death penalty and caning for certain crimes.

Censorship & Fake News Laws: The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) allows authorities to correct or remove online content they deem false, raising concerns about censorship and suppression of dissent.
Limited Independent Media: Independent news platforms face harassment and restrictions, with some outlets, like The Online Citizen, having their broadcasting licenses revoked.
Foreign Media Restrictions: The government has the power to approve or block foreign media publications, limiting access to international perspectives.

Since 2008, Thailand’s Constitutional Court has become a powerful arbiter of political fate, ousting six prime ministers, all of them connected to former premier Thaksin Shinawatra and his political network. Every prime minister brought before the court—except Prayuth Chan-ocha, the general who seized power in the 2014 coup—has been removed, underscoring the judiciary’s decisive role in shaping political outcomes. These removals highlight the enduring struggle between elected governments aligned with Thaksin’s populist base and entrenched institutions such as the military, monarchy, and judiciary, which have repeatedly intervened to limit his influence. The pattern illustrates how Thailand’s political volatility is not only driven by coups but also by judicial intervention, with the courts acting as a recurring mechanism to dismantle governments tied to Thaksin’s legacy.

2008 – Samak Sundaravej: Removed after the Constitutional Court ruled he violated conflict-of-interest laws by hosting a cooking TV show while in office.
2008 – Somchai Wongsawat: Ousted when the court dissolved the ruling People’s Power Party for electoral fraud; Somchai was Thaksin’s brother-in-law.
2014 – Yingluck Shinawatra: Removed for abuse of power related to the transfer of a senior security official; she was Thaksin’s sister.
2008–2014 – Other leaders tied to Thaksin’s network Several party dissolutions and rulings targeted pro-Thaksin governments, culminating in repeated removals.
2014 onward – Prayuth Chan-ocha Unlike his predecessors, Prayuth, a general who staged the 2014 coup, was never removed by the Constitutional Court.
2025 - Thaksin Shinawatra’s daughter, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, briefly became Thailand’s youngest prime minister at age 39, but her tenure ended abruptly when the Constitutional Court suspended and then removed her from office over alleged ethical violations tied to a leaked phone call with former Cambodian leader Hun Sen.

Thailand has faced significant challenges regarding freedom of expression, political participation, and access to justice. According to Freedom House, Thailand's status declined from "Partly Free" to "Not Free" due to political repression, restrictions on free speech, and judicial interference.

Freedom of Expression

Authorities restrict press freedom, using lèse-majesté laws to prosecute critics of the monarchy.
Journalists, activists, and opposition figures face arbitrary arrests and harassment for expressing dissent.
The government censors online content, limiting access to independent news sources.

Political Participation

The Move Forward Party (MFP), a leading opposition group, was blocked from forming a government and later dissolved by the Constitutional Court.
The military-appointed Senate has played a key role in preventing opposition parties from gaining power.
Elections are competitive, but legal frameworks favor military-aligned parties.

Access to Justice

The judiciary has been criticized for political interference, with courts removing opposition leaders and blocking reforms.
Human rights activists and protesters face harsh legal penalties, including long prison sentences.
Due process is not guaranteed, and there is impunity for crimes committed against activists.

Corruption in Thailand is deeply entrenched, rooted in long‑standing traditions and reinforced by weak institutions. Historically, officials were entitled to 10 to 30 percent of expenditures for their services instead of receiving a salary, a practice that normalized personal gain from public office. Even after salaries were introduced, the tradition of gift‑giving to high officials persisted, and in the modern context this has become a major basis of corruption. Businesses routinely report that irregular payments and bribes are necessary to secure favorable judicial decisions, undermining the rule of law and fair competition. Public perception reflects this reality: surveys show that nearly four out of five Thai citizens believe most or all of the police are corrupt, highlighting the scale of mistrust in law enforcement. Together, these practices illustrate how cultural traditions, systemic bribery, and institutional weakness combine to make corruption not just an occasional abuse but a structural feature of Thailand’s governance.
Corruption remains a significant issue in Thailand, affecting government institutions, businesses, and law enforcement. For example,

Construction Scandal: A major building collapse in Bangkok led to the arrest of Premchai Karnasuta, a construction tycoon, and 14 others; investigations revealed violations of safety standards, including substandard materials and structural flaws.
Temple Embezzlement: A Buddhist monk was arrested for allegedly embezzling $9 million from a temple’s donation funds; authorities linked the stolen money to an illegal online gambling network.
Judicial Corruption: Thailand’s judiciary has been criticized for political interference, with courts removing opposition leaders and blocking reforms.
Police Corruption: Corruption is widespread in Thailand’s police force, with reports of bribery, abuse of power, and political entanglement.
Transparency Ranking: Thailand ranks 107th out of 180 countries on the Corruption Perceptions Index, scoring 34/100, indicating high levels of corruption.

Thailand’s political landscape is defined by four recurring themes that reveal both its fragility and resilience. Military dominance has been the most consistent driver of regime change, with coups serving as the default mechanism for resetting governments. Alongside this, judicial intervention has repeatedly shaped outcomes, as courts dissolve political parties or remove prime ministers, often tipping the balance of power during crises. The monarchy’s role remains symbolic yet deeply influential, with the king frequently legitimizing coups and acting as a stabilizing figure in moments of upheaval. Despite these elite forces, public participation has proven remarkably strong—elections consistently draw high voter turnout, reflecting enduring democratic aspirations even in the face of repeated interruptions. Together, these themes illustrate a cycle where authority is contested between entrenched institutions and the people’s persistent demand for representation.
Thailand’s constitutional journey since 1932 has been one of constant reinvention, with more than 20 constitutions introduced to recalibrate the delicate balance between monarchy, military, and elected representatives. Each coup has typically been followed by a new charter, designed either to legitimize military dominance or to reset political institutions in the hope of stability. This cycle has created a political landscape where constitutions serve less as enduring frameworks and more as instruments of power. The 2017 constitution, drafted under military oversight, remains the latest iteration, but it has drawn sharp criticism for embedding mechanisms that extend military influence deep into the political system, ensuring that even democratic elections unfold under the shadow of entrenched elite control.
Timeline of Coups and Constitutions in Thailand (1932–2014)

1932 – End of absolute monarchy through a bloodless coup; first constitution introduced.
1933 – Military coup against the first civilian government; constitution suspended and reinstated.
1939–1947 – Several rebellions and coups, including the 1947 coup, which installed military dominance.
1949–1951 – “Grand Palace Coup” (1949) and “Manhattan Coup” (1951), both reinforcing military power.
1957–1958 – Coups led by Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat, ushering in authoritarian rule.
1971 – Coup by Prime Minister Thanom Kittikachorn, dissolving parliament.
1973 – Student-led uprising forced Thanom’s resignation, briefly opening democratic space.
1976 – Coup following violent crackdown on student protests; military rule restored.
1977 – Another coup consolidating military control.
1981 – Attempted coup (“Young Turks”) failed, but highlighted military factionalism.
1985 – Coup attempt failed, but instability persisted.
1991 – Successful coup ousted civilian government, leading to military-backed administration.
2006 – Coup against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, citing corruption and abuse of power.
2014 – Coup led by General Prayuth Chan-ocha, dissolving government and suspending constitution.

Thailand’s political history since the end of absolute monarchy in 1932 has been marked by extraordinary turbulence, with over a dozen military coups reshaping its governments and rewriting its constitutions more than 20 times. Each coup has typically suspended or replaced the constitution, dissolved parliament, and installed military-backed administrations, reflecting the enduring influence of the armed forces in Thai politics. Despite this cycle of upheaval, the framework of a constitutional monarchy has remained in place, with the monarch as head of state, the prime minister as head of government, and the judiciary formally independent.
After Thailand’s 2014 coup, the junta tightened its hold on power, and by April 2016 military officers had been granted sweeping police‑like authority to arrest, detain, seize assets, suspend financial transactions, and restrict travel, covering offenses ranging from public peace violations to defamation, gambling, extortion, and labor abuses. This grip only deepened following the death of King Bhumibol later that year, as a 2017 constitution entrenched military dominance by enabling generals to appoint senators and shape the political system to their advantage. When elections returned in 2019, coup leader General Prayut Chan‑o‑cha secured the premiership under rules tilted toward military‑backed parties, and by the 2023 elections the army still commanded decisive influence over key institutions. Thailand’s long record of instability—punctuated by at least 12 coups since 1931—remains unbroken, with border clashes in 2025 boosting military popularity and reviving fears of yet another intervention, a stark reminder of how fragile civilian authority remains under the shadow of entrenched military power.
Thailand’s politics unfold within a unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy established in 1932, when the nation shifted from absolute monarchy to constitutional rule, and since then more than 20 constitutions have been drafted amid over a dozen military coups. The hereditary monarch, currently King Vajiralongkorn (Rama X), serves as head of state, while the prime minister leads the government and is formally appointed by the monarch after nomination by the House of Representatives. The bicameral National Assembly consists of the elected House of Representatives and the partly appointed Senate, both of which shape legislation under the watchful eye of an independent judiciary, with the Constitutional Court often playing a decisive role in dissolving parties or removing leaders. Despite regular elections with high voter turnout, the military, monarchy, and judiciary remain powerful forces, ensuring that Thailand’s political story is one of vibrant public participation intertwined with recurring elite influence and dramatic institutional resets.
The Thai fishermen who carried out pirate attacks against Vietnamese boat people in the Gulf of Thailand never enjoyed broad public or official support; instead, the Thai government largely ignored the crisis, failing to prosecute perpetrators while international observers noted indifference and even hostility toward outsiders who tried to help. Despite hundreds of documented murders and rapes, prosecutions were rare and patrols minimal, leaving small groups of fishermen free to exploit desperate refugees. American humanitarian Ted Schweitzer, who rescued more than 1,200 people, was banned from Thailand by the government, a stark signal of official resistance to outside intervention. Evidence shows that most Thai citizens did not actively support the pirates, and the broader population was never mobilized in favor of such violence. Reports in TIME, UPI, and refugee testimonies shocked the world, spurring UN anti‑piracy patrols funded by 11 donor nations, yet Thailand itself remained reluctant to confront the atrocities, allowing impunity to stain the region’s history.
In the first ten months of 1982, a United Nations investigation revealed the shocking scale of violence faced by Vietnamese “boat people” fleeing across the South China Sea. Thai pirates attacked 289 refugee boats, with each vessel suffering on average more than three separate assaults. The documented toll included 484 known deaths or murders and 583 identified rape victims, though the true numbers were likely higher given the chaos and lack of reporting. These attacks compounded the already desperate conditions of overcrowded boats, starvation, and disease, turning the refugee journey into a nightmare of repeated violence. Despite international awareness, regional authorities failed to provide adequate protection, leaving refugees vulnerable to predation and underscoring the broader neglect of displaced populations during the Southeast Asian refugee crisis.
During the 1980s, thousands of Vietnamese “boat people” fleeing post‑war Vietnam faced horrific violence in the South China Sea, particularly at the hands of Thai pirates. Reports from humanitarian organizations and survivors documented that nearly 1,450 refugees were killed and more than 2,300 women were raped during attacks on overcrowded boats. Pirates often robbed refugees of their few possessions, abducted women, and left survivors adrift without food or water. Despite widespread evidence and appeals from international agencies, the Thai government largely failed to take effective action against these crimes, leaving refugees vulnerable to repeated assaults. This period remains one of the darkest chapters in the refugee crisis of Southeast Asia, highlighting both the desperation of those fleeing persecution and the indifference of regional authorities to their suffering.
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Gulf of Thailand became a deadly corridor for Vietnamese boat people, where storms and starvation were compounded by organized assaults from Thai fishermen turned pirates; in 1979 the Koh Kra massacre claimed 80 lives when a boat of 107 refugees was attacked and deliberately sunk, in 1981 the ordeal of 15‑year‑old Nguyen Phuong Thuy exposed the horror of captivity with up to 30 rapes a day over 3½ months, that same year the Pattani incident left 17 dead including four children and pushed the confirmed death toll to 372, and in 1983 another attack near Vung Tau saw pirates armed with knives and hammers murder 22 of 28 passengers, leaving only two survivors. Reports in TIME and UPI shocked the world and spurred international pressure for stronger maritime protection, yet the Thai government largely ignored these atrocities, allowing the violence to stain the region’s history and forcing the United Nations to step in with limited anti‑piracy patrols that highlighted the urgent need for regional maritime reform.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Gulf of Thailand became infamous for horrific pirate attacks on Vietnamese boat people fleeing their homeland, where Thai fishermen-turned-pirates murdered passengers, sank vessels, and kidnapped survivors; one widely reported case in 1981 involved 15‑year‑old Nguyen Phuong Thuy, who was abducted with another girl after her refugee boat was sunk and endured months of repeated sexual assault, sometimes dozens of times per day, while in captivity, and another attack in 1983 left at least 22 refugees dead after pirates used knives and hammers to slaughter those on board, shocking the world with its brutality and forcing the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to organize limited anti‑piracy patrols funded by donor nations, though gaps in enforcement allowed many crimes to go unpunished, leaving this dark chapter as a stark reminder of how thousands of desperate refugees faced not only storms and starvation but also calculated violence at sea.
India has a complex landscape when it comes to freedom of expression, political participation, and access to justice; while it is the largest democracy in the world, concerns have been raised about press freedom, judicial independence, and political rights.

Freedom of Expression

India’s constitution guarantees free speech, but restrictions exist under laws like sedition and defamation statutes.
Journalists and activists have faced arrests, harassment, and censorship, particularly when criticizing the government.
Internet shutdowns have been used to control dissent, with India leading globally in the number of government-imposed blackouts.
Media freedom has declined, with India ranking 161st out of 180 countries in the 2023 World Press Freedom Index.

Political Participation

India has a multiparty democracy, with elections generally considered free and fair; however, concerns exist about electoral manipulation, voter suppression, and the use of state resources for political advantage.
Religious and ethnic minorities have reported discrimination and exclusion from political processes.

Access to Justice

India’s judicial system is independent, but delays, corruption, and political influence affect legal proceedings.
Police misconduct and extrajudicial killings have been reported, particularly in cases involving minorities and political dissidents.
Legal protections exist, but enforcement is inconsistent, leading to impunity for powerful individuals.

Corruption remains a major issue in India, affecting government institutions, businesses, and public services. For example,

Kiru Hydropower Corruption Case: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a chargesheet against former Jammu and Kashmir governor Satya Pal Malik and five others for alleged irregularities in awarding civil contracts worth ₹2,200 crore for the Kiru Hydro Electric Power Project.
Rafale Fighter Jet Deal: The purchase of 36 Rafale jets from France became a political controversy, with allegations of favoritism, lack of transparency, and procedural irregularities under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government.
Jal Shakti Schemes: Concerns have been raised about irregularities in water supply projects, with reports of inflated contracts, incomplete work, and corruption in tendering processes.
Transparency Ranking: India ranks 96th out of 180 countries on the Corruption Perceptions Index, scoring 38/100, indicating high levels of corruption.

Land ownership in South Africa is deeply intertwined with colonialism and apartheid due to its 1913 Land Act that was a pivotal moment, legally restricting black South Africans from owning land in most areas, reinforcing segregation and economic disparity; it has been a deeply contested issue, shaped by historical injustices and ongoing debates about equity and redistribution. As a result, as of today while whites in South Africa account for some 7 percent of the population, they still own at least 72% of commercial farmland; it's not fair in this modern society.
Apartheid had a complex impact on white South Africans. While they benefited from political and economic dominance, the system also shaped their society in lasting ways.

Economic Privilege: White South Africans had access to better jobs, education, and infrastructure, leading to higher incomes and wealth accumulation.
Political Control: They held exclusive voting rights and leadership positions, ensuring continued dominance in governance.
Social Isolation: Apartheid policies created a segregated society, limiting interactions between racial groups and fostering divisions.
International Backlash: Many white South Africans faced global condemnation, sanctions, and travel restrictions due to apartheid policies.
Post-Apartheid Adjustments: After apartheid ended in 1994, some white South Africans struggled with economic shifts, land reform policies, and changing social dynamics.

In 2023, more than 2 million unauthorized immigrants entered the United States, and by 2024 U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported nearly 3 million encounters at the southern border, including apprehensions, expulsions, and cases of inadmissibility. Despite a dramatic 93 percent drop in illegal crossings in 2025—with some regions like Texas’s Big Bend seeing a 74 percent decline and November marking the lowest start to a fiscal year in U.S. history—the overall number of unauthorized immigrants residing in the country has climbed to about 14 million, up from 11 million just a few years earlier. This paradox of record‑low border flows but record‑high population levels reflects the lingering impact of surges between 2021 and 2024, limited removals, and the enduring pull of economic opportunity, political stability, and social freedoms that continue to drive migration pressures.
Each year, roughly 1 million authorized immigrants enter the United States by obtaining lawful permanent resident status (green cards). This flow is made up of several categories: family‑sponsored immigrants, who reunite with relatives already in the country; employment‑based immigrants, who bring specialized skills or investment; and refugees and asylum seekers, admitted on humanitarian grounds. Together, these groups form the backbone of America’s legal immigration system, sustaining demographic growth, enriching cultural diversity, and contributing to the workforce. The steady annual intake highlights how the U.S. continues to balance family ties, economic needs, and humanitarian commitments in shaping its immigration policy.
In February 2025, a U.S. military plane transported about 100 Indian migrants back to India. Also, 119 migrants from various countries, including China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Uzbekistan, were transported by a U.S. military plane to Panama; they were expected to be moved to a shelter in Panama's Darien region before being returned to their respective countries; this is the first of three planned flights, with a total of about 360 people expected to be deported in this manner. These migrants entered the U.S. illegally or overstayed their visa.
In fiscal year 2024, U.S. authorities recorded a sharp surge in migrants from Asia at the southern border, encountering 78,701 Chinese nationals and 90,415 Indian nationals, compared to 27,756 Chinese and 63,927 Indians just two years earlier in 2022. This dramatic rise reflects a complex mix of drivers: the search for economic opportunities, the appeal of political stability and social freedoms, and a range of personal motivations that push individuals to attempt often perilous journeys. The numbers highlight how migration patterns at the U.S.–Mexico border are no longer dominated solely by Latin American countries but increasingly involve long‑distance travelers from Asia, underscoring the global dimensions of migration pressures and the challenges of border management in an interconnected world.
During a campaign rally on July 13, 2024 for his re-election near Butler, Pennsylvania, former President Donald Trump was shot and ducked to the ground as several Secret Service agents rushed to the stage and surrounded him on all sides, and took him to safety. A 20-year-old gunman, who fired multiple shots, injuring Trump’s right ear, killing one spectator, and critically injuring two others; Secret Service agents neutralized the shooter who the FBI identified as Thomas Matthew Crooks. Trump said the motive wasn't clear. The incident has marked one of the most serious acts of political violence in the U.S.
From 1941 to 1945, six million Jews were killed by the Nazi Germany and its collaborators. Nazi Germany also killed over 5 million non-Jews, which include Gypsies, Poles, communists, homosexuals, Soviet POWs, and the mentally and physically disabled people.
The situation for women and girls in Afghanistan has become increasingly dire under Taliban rule. Since their takeover in August 2021, the Taliban have issued numerous decrees restricting women's rights, including banning girls from education beyond the sixth grade and preventing women from working in many sectors. Women have been systematically removed from public life, with no representation in leadership positions at national or provincial levels. Even within their own homes, many Afghan women report having little to no influence over household decisions. The Taliban have also imposed strict regulations on women's movement, requiring them to have a male guardian when traveling and enforcing dress codes with severe consequences for non-compliance.
In Afghanistan women and girls are being deprived of their dignity, rights and status at home and in the society. The Taliban has enforced punitive laws restricting women's lives, and the government has been institutionalizing large-scale and systematic gender-based discrimination and violence against women and girls and limiting their education and rights. Women have no rights to movement, no rights to education, and no rights to work. Women must cover their faces in public, and they are not allowed to go to parks and gyms; the government issued orders for girls aged 12-18 to stay home, and prohibited them to go to high school.
The Saudi government has been accused of and denounced by various international organizations and governments for violating human rights within the country. For example, Ali al-Nimr was arrested at the age of 17 for his participation in the 2011 Arab Spring protests, and was sentenced to death by beheading at the age of 18. Saudi Arabia sentenced the Saudi scholar Hassan al-Maliki to death; Al-Maliki has been behind bars since 2017 on multiple "charges", including “conducting interviews with western news outlets” and “owning books” that are unauthorized by the Saudi government. Working conditions for the large expatriate labor force are often exploitative; racism in Saudi Arabia extends to allegations of imprisonment, physical abuse, rape, overwork and wage theft, especially of foreign workers who are given little protections under the law. Saudi women face discrimination in many aspects of their lives; for example, they cannot file police reports without the permission of a male guardian, and may end up being imprisoned by the government for complaining. Men are free to abuse women in Saudi Arabia, with reports of women being locked in their rooms for months or threatened with starvation or shooting for offenses such as getting the wrong kind of haircut or being in a relationship with a man the family has not approved. Although women make up 70% of those enrolled in universities, they only make up 5% of the workforce in Saudi Arabia, the lowest proportion in the world.
Saudi Arabia (the largest economy in the Middle East and the 18th largest in the world) restricts almost all political rights and civil liberties. The king combines legislative, executive, and judicial function, and also serves as the prime minister, and presides over the Council of Ministers of Saudi Arabia and Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia. The royal family dominates the political system. No officials at the national level are elected. Women and religious minorities are mostly excluded from leadership positions in the government, and face extensive discrimination. Saudi Arabia has judicial corporal punishment systems that include amputations of hands and feet for robbery, and flogging for lesser crimes such as "sexual deviance" and drunkenness. It was reported that women were sentenced to lashes for adultery even they were actually victims of rape. Companies operating or planning to invest in Saudi Arabia face a moderate to high risk of corruption. In 2018, the government charged 126 local government employees across the country with corruption, abuse of power and other crimes as part of a controversial anti-corruption campaign that started in 2017, and it has ended this sweeping crackdown on corruption recovered more than $106bn through settlements with scores of senior princes, ministers and top businessmen.
People often believe that in Saudi Arabia, women's rights challenges remain, including issues related to guardianship laws, labor rights, and societal expectations. For example, the male guardianship has restricted women's autonomy, requiring them to seek permission from male relatives for various aspects of life, including travel and employment. Migrant domestic workers, particularly from Kenya, have faced severe exploitation, racism, and exclusion from labor protections, with reports of extreme working conditions and abuse. Groups like Amnesty International and MENA Rights Group urge Saudi Arabia to comply with international human rights treaties, such as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
Saudi Arabia has been called an epicenter of sex segregation, stemming partially from its conservative Sunni Islamic practices and partially from its monarchy's legal constraints. Women experience widespread discrimination in Saudi politics, economy and society. For example, in Saudi Arabia, the law allows a man to control a Saudi woman's life from her birth until her death; if a woman is seen socializing with a man who is not a relative, the government will charge her with committing adultery, fornication, or prostitution; the government does not allow women to have the right to unilaterally end a marriage, only men have the unconditional right to initiate a divorce.
In addition to expressing growing concern over the Chinese government’s human rights violations in China and its repression in Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong, many countries around the world have criticized China for its partnership with Russia. China, Russia's most valuable ally, has repeatedly criticized Western sanctions against Russia, refused to follow other nations in leveling stiff economic sanctions against Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, rejected to condemn the Russian invasion, routinely amplifies Russian disinformation about the Ukraine-Russia's conflict, and does not refer to it as an invasion or a war in keeping with Russian practice.
The Myanmar (Burma) military staged a coup on February 1, 2021, nullifying the results of the November 2020 elections and arbitrarily detaining hundreds of politicians, activists, and civil servants. Myanmar has been in chaos since the Army seized power and detained elected government leader Aung San Suu Kyi and much of her party leadership after the coup alleging fraud in the election her party won in a landslide. Hundreds of thousands of people in Myanmar have marched against the military junta to protest the coup. The military coup forces have confronted peaceful demonstrations, arrested thousands of people, and used lethal weapons to shoot demonstrators. They have fired on protesters around the country, including Lashio in the northeast, Myeik in the deep south and Hpa-An in the east; as of March 20, 2021 Myanmar’s security forces have killed at least 235 people, wounded hundreds of others, and arrested more than 2,330 people, in violent crackdowns against opposition to the coup.
On 1/19/2021 the US has officially determined that China is committing genocide and crimes against Uyghur people and religious minority groups. In China, since early 2017 the government has imprisoned more than 1 million people in the western Xinjiang region, including Uighurs and other mostly Muslim ethnic groups, in a vast network of concentration camps. China authorities have discriminated against these people by restricting their freedom to travel, emigrating, and attending schools, and denying other basic human rights of assembly, speech, and worship, and forcing men, women and children into at least 380 concentration camps, where they have been subjected to torture, sterilization and political indoctrination in addition to forced labor as part of an assimilation campaign in a region whose inhabitants are ethnically and culturally distinct from the Han Chinese majority. While China has encouraged Han majority in Xinjiang to have more children, the government has slashed birth rates among Uighurs and other minorities by forcing intrauterine devices, sterilization and even abortion on hundreds of thousands as part of a sweeping campaign to curb the Uighurs population; having more than children is a major reason Uighurs and minor people are sent to prison camps in Xinjiang. China's actions and policies developed to discriminate against Muslim Uighurs and ethnic minorities constitute “crimes against humanity” and a “genocide.”
More than 1 million people - mostly from the Muslim Uighur community in China - are though to have been detailed without trial. These people literally do not know how long they are kept in the prison. A leak document reveals how every aspect of a detainee's life is monitored and controlled: "The students should have a fixed bed position, fixed queue position, fixed classroom seat, and fixed station during skills work, and it is strictly forbidden for this to be changed". The Chinese government has consistently claimed the camps in the far western Xinjiang region offer voluntary education and training. But official documents show how inmates are locked up, and indoctrinated and punished. "It's a total transformation that is designed specifically to wipe the Muslim Uighurs of Xinjiang as a separate cultural group off the face of the Earth." China has sought for years to assimilate the Muslim Uighur population into the majority Han Chinese, partially by flooding Xinjiang province with migrants from elsewhere. But the effort to crush the population has recently picked up speed. This is an actionable piece of evidence, documenting a gross human rights violation.
The Chinese government has described its efforts in Xinjiang as a benevolent campaign to curb extremism by training people to find better jobs. But the documents reveal the party’s efforts to organize a ruthless campaign of mass detention in the name of curbing terrorism, a program whose consequences they discussed with cool detachment. When children asked the Chinese government about the disappearance of their parents and families detained in camps built to hold Muslim minorities "Since it’s just training, why can’t they come home?", they were told ". It seems that you’re still misunderstanding how concentrated education is run. Usually, you would return home for winter or summer vacation without any problem. But if you were careless and caught an infectious virus like SARS, you’d have to undergo enclosed, isolated treatment, because it’s an infectious illness. If you weren’t thoroughly cured, as soon as you returned home you would infect your family with this virus, and your whole family would fall ill."
Xinjiang is officially designated an autonomous region within China, like Tibet to its south. Uighurs, who are ethnically Turkic Muslims, make up about 45% of the Xinjiang region's population; 40% are Han Chinese. Uyghurs in Xinjiang suffer under a "fully-fledged police state" with extensive controls and restrictions upon their religious, cultural and social life because the Chinese government tightly controls religious expression and freedom in Xinjiang by imposing rules on the Uighur community. More than 1 million Uighurs are being tortured and “politically brainwashed” in camps and prisons in China while China insisted that the camps are voluntary education centers that help purge “ideological diseases". Despite growing evidence of forced labor and torture in custody, indoctrination and other abuses in Xinjiang, Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan have remained relatively silent on the issue while the governments of Malaysia, Indonesia and Turkey have voiced concerns about the Uighurs.
The third person most associated with mass deaths in the bloodiest of human centuries after Germany's Adolf Hitler and Soviet's Joseph Stalin is China's Mao Zedong. During the period of 1949 and ended with his death in 1976, Mao Zedong was in some way responsible for 80 million deaths or more, including 1.2 million Tibetan people. In comparison, Hitler is blamed for 12 million concentration camp deaths and at least 30 million other deaths associated with World War II, while Stalin is believed responsible for between 30 million and 40 million "unnatural deaths".
As a result of an investigation, on July 21, 2020 the US ordered to close the Chinese Houston (TX) Consulate, which was part of a large Chinese espionage effort using diplomatic facilities around the US. The consulate was a nest of Chinese spies who tried to steal research data, science and technology from facilities in Texas, including the Texas A&M medical system and The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Centre in Houston. The consulate, which was directed to close in order to protect American intellectual property and Americans' private information, was the first (consulate) established in 1979 after the US and China established diplomatic relations. Relations between the US and China have plummeted, amid an ongoing trade war, the coronavirus pandemic, and US criticism of China's human rights abuses in Hong Kong and Xinjiang.
In the US, China has engaged for years in massive illegal spying and influence operations and that those activities have increased markedly in scale and scope over the past few years. China spends a widespread effort to steal U.S. military technology and classified information and the trade secrets of U.S. companies. US prosecutors charged two Chinese hackers working for the China government, both nationals and residents of the People’s Republic of China (China), with stealing coronavirus treatment and vaccine research in the US. They are hacking into the computer systems of hundreds of victim companies, governments, non-governmental organizations, and individual dissidents, clergy, and democratic and human rights activists in the US and abroad, including Hong Kong and China. They began as early as 2009 and are still going on, stole intellectual property and trade secrets worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
China has a long history of propaganda and efforts to cajole the world into following its own narrative on geopolitical and conflict issues like Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South China Sea. Its newest propaganda is COVID-19, a new SARS coronavirus disease, first reported in Hubei, a city in central China of 11 million, in late December 2019, by suppressing information about the coronavirus’ origin, downplaying by a factor of 15 to 40 times of the number of cases of coronavirus and its seriousness to the rest of the world, and maintaining through mid-January 2020 that this coronavirus wasn't even contagious. China has been lying since early December 2019 about the nature of the new coronavirus by firmly telling the world that it couldn’t be transmitted between humans, and continually reported wrongly low number of coronavirus cases and deaths in the country. Its propaganda resulted in causing or contributing over 1,192,025 coronavirus cases and 64,085+ deaths worldwide (as of April 4, 2020). Taking advantage of the COVID-19 outbreak, the country has increased exerting military pressure on Taiwan, coercing and bullying its neighbors, and seriously violating sovereignty in the South China Sea.
China's underreporting of its pandemic totals was unsurprising, and official statistics from the country are often lies. Unlike South Korea, China did not test vast amounts of people so those who may have died and not tested for COVID-19 were unlikely to be counted in the official tally. For the Hubei province, including Wuhan, on January 25, 2020 the official figure was only nearly 6,000 confirmed coronavirus cases and just over 200 deaths. However, the University of Hong Kong reported in The Lancet, they estimated that 75,815 individuals have been infected in Wuhan as of that day. As of March 31, 2020 China’s government has reported only 3,000 deaths in the Hubei province, where Wuhan is located — a number that Wuhan’s residents have rejected as a full order of magnitude too small. Unlike China, in Indonesia, President Joko Widodo admitted in March 2020, the government had filtered information about the spread of the virus saying "we don't want to make the public panic, we don't want to cause unrest in the society". A study by the London-based Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases released in late March estimates that as few as 2% of Indonesia's coronavirus infections have been reported. That would bring the true number to more than 89,000 but a serious lack of testing, as with many other nations, means we will never be sure.
After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, the US was determined to retaliate. On March 10, 1945 over 100,000 Japanese people were killed and another million injured, most of them civilians, when more than 300 American B-29 bombers dropped 1,500 tons of firebombs on the Japanese capital, Tokyo, that night. The human toll that night exceeded that of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki later that year, where the initial blasts killed about 70,000 people and 46,000 people respectively. The US B29 bombers were the culmination of 20 years of aviation advances leading up to World War II and were the first to have pressurized, heated fuselages, enabling them to operate above 18,000 feet without crews having to don special gear or use oxygen masks. Several weeks before attacking Tokyo, Allied bombing raids on February 13–15, 1945, that almost completely destroyed the German city of Dresden. On the night of February 13, the British Bomber Command hit Dresden with an 800-bomber air raid, dropping some 2,700 tons of bombs, including large numbers of incendiaries. Aided by weather conditions, a firestorm developed, incinerating tens of thousands of people. The U.S. Eighth Air Force followed the next day with another 400 tons of bombs and carried out yet another raid by 210 bombers on February 15. It is thought that some 25,000–35,000 civilians died in Dresden in the air attacks, though some estimates are as high as 250,000, given the influx of undocumented refugees that had fled to Dresden from the Eastern Front. Most of the victims were women, children, and the elderly.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has faced criticism for its mass trials of Emirati dissidents, which have been condemned by human rights organizations. In 2023, 78 individuals were prosecuted under broad counterterrorism laws, many of whom were human rights activists, academics, and political dissidents. Some were sentenced to life imprisonment, raising concerns about due process violations and freedom of expression. For example,

Lack of Transparency: Many defendants faced secretive legal proceedings, with limited access to legal representation and fair trial guarantees.
Political Suppression: The charges were politically motivated, targeting individuals advocating for government reforms, human rights, and free speech.
International Condemnation: Organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch criticized the UAE for using vague national security laws to silence dissent.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been accused of transnational repression, targeting dissidents abroad and using intimidation tactics against their families as a form of collective punishment. For example,

Dissidents and their relatives have been designated as "terrorists" under broad counterterrorism laws, often without due process.
Families of exiled dissidents face travel bans, citizenship revocations, and blocked access to education and employment.
The UAE has expanded its surveillance capabilities, monitoring dissidents abroad and harassing their relatives at home.
Businesses owned by dissidents have been blacklisted, leading to asset freezes and reputational damage.
Authorities have used intimidation tactics, including intermittent questioning and psychological harassment.

ToTok is most popular in the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.), but also serves millions of users in Africa, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and North America. The company that created ToTok, Breej Holding, is believed to be a front group for an Abu Dhabi-based hacking firm called DarkMatter. But the service, ToTok, is actually a spying tool. It is used by the government of the U.A.E. to try to track every conversation, movement, relationship, appointment, sound and image of those who install it on their phones. Google removed it from its store on 12/19/2019, and Apple followed suit on 12/20/2019.
Based on the National Security Law (NSL) introduced by China in Hong Kong on June 30, 2020, in March 2024, Hong Kong enacted the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO), which has criminalized secession, subversion, terrorism, and collusion with foreign forces, treason, insurrection, sabotage, external interference, sedition, theft of state secrets, and espionage. Since the implementation of these laws, people, activists, journalists, and former lawmakers have been arrested, and press freedom has declined. Some trials under the NSJ/SNSO are held behind closed doors, and individuals suspected of violating the law can be wiretapped and put under surveillance. The laws also apply to non-permanent residents and individuals outside Hong Kong, meaning that even those living abroad can be charged. Beijing has the final authority over how the law is interpreted, and if it conflicts with Hong Kong laws, the Beijing law takes priority. These laws have faced international criticism for their broad provisions and potential impact on human rights, including freedom of expression.
The National Security Law (NSL) has significantly restricted free speech in Hong Kong. Since its implementation on June 30, 2020, authorities have arrested activists, journalists, politicians and people for expressing political views. The law has led to the closure of independent media outlets, such as Apple Daily, which was forced to shut down after its executives were arrested. Public protests and political slogans that were once common in Hong Kong have been criminalized, with individuals facing lengthy prison sentences for chanting pro-democracy phrases. The NSL has also expanded government surveillance, making people hesitant to express dissent online or in public.
Since the National Security Law (NSL) was enacted in 2020, authorities have received 890,000 tip-offs through a national security hotline, leading to multiple arrests; over 300 individuals have been arrested for national security offenses. For example,

Jimmy Lai: The founder of Apple Daily, a pro-democracy newspaper, was charged with collusion with foreign forces and subversion; his newspaper was forced to shut down.
Chow Hang-tung: A prominent barrister and activist, she was arrested for allegedly directing others to post seditious content on social media ahead of the June 4 Tiananmen Square anniversary.
Hong Kong 47 Case: This was Hong Kong’s largest national security trial, where 45 pro-democracy activists were sentenced to four to ten years in prison for subversion; they were accused of organizing an unofficial primary election to select opposition candidates for local elections.
Six individuals were arrested in May 2024: They were accused of using a Facebook page to incite hatred against the Chinese and Hong Kong governments.

Individuals arrested under the National Security Law (NSL) in Hong Kong face severe legal consequences, including:

Lengthy Prison Sentences: The NSL allows for life imprisonment for serious offenses such as subversion and collusion with foreign forces.
Asset Freezing: Authorities can freeze bank accounts and seize assets of those charged under the NSL.
Restricted Bail: Bail is rarely granted, as suspects must prove they will not continue to endanger national security.
Extradition to Mainland China: In some cases, individuals can be transferred to mainland China, where they face different legal standards.
Social and Professional Consequences: Many arrested individuals lose their jobs, and some face harassment or pressure on their families.

The legal process for individuals arrested under the National Security Law (NSL) in Hong Kong differs from regular criminal proceedings.

Police Investigatory Powers: Under Article 43 of the NSL, authorities have expanded surveillance powers, including searches without warrants, freezing assets, and restricting movement of suspects.
Designated Judges: Cases under the NSL are handled by judges appointed by the Chief Executive, raising concerns about judicial independence.
Pre-Trial Detention: Bail is rarely granted, as suspects must prove they will not continue to endanger national security.
Closed-Door Trials: Some cases are not open to the public, and jury trials are not guaranteed.
Beijing’s Authority: If deemed necessary, cases can be transferred to mainland China, where defendants face different legal standards.

In Hong Kong, possession of items like zip ties—commonly used as cable fasteners—has, in certain contexts, led to arrests, especially when authorities interpret them as potential tools for unlawful assembly or protest-related activities. Under the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228), individuals may face up to 2 years in jail for carrying objects deemed to have unlawful intent, though this typically applies when combined with other suspicious behavior. More significantly, under the National Security Law and the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance (SNSO), which came into effect in 2020 and 2024 respectively, individuals can face up to 10 years or more in prison for offenses such as subversion, secession, or collusion with foreign forces—charges that have been applied broadly and controversially. Critics argue that the laws are vague and expansive, allowing authorities to interpret ordinary objects or actions—such as carrying a pen allegedly used to forge signatures—as potential threats to national security. While the Hong Kong government maintains that these laws target only a small minority who endanger national security, human rights organizations have documented numerous cases where peaceful expression or symbolic items were treated as criminal evidence, raising concerns about overreach and erosion of civil liberties.
In today's Hong Kong, people can be arrested for publishing children's books. The Hong Kong government has found five people guilty of publishing children's books telling about a village of sheep trying to fight back against a group of wolves who are trying to take over their settlement. These cartoon e-books have been interpreted by authorities as having an overtly political message. The Hong Kong government has been worried that the books' young readers would be led to believe that Chinese authorities were coming to Hong Kong with the "wicked intentions" of ruining the lives of the city's inhabitants. Hong Kong police and prosecutors regularly use the national security law to clamp down on political speech and views.
In Hong Kong people can be caught for carrying zip tie (also known as a hose tie, cable tie, or tie wrap), which a type of short plastic fastener for holding items together, primarily electrical cables and wires. They can be punishable by up to 2 years in jail under the Summary Offences Ordinance, and the new charge carries a maximum jail sentence of 10 years under the Crimes Ordinance of "National Security Law". This strange law can be interpreted so broadly that people can be arrested and kept in jail for carrying a pen to "forge signatures".
Hong Kong authorities have rapidly begun to apply the new National Security Law to prosecute peaceful speech, curtail academic freedom, and generate a chilling effect on fundamental freedoms in the city. The law, which China’s government imposed on June 30, 2020, include creating specialized secret security agencies, denying fair trial rights, providing sweeping new powers to the police, increasing restraints on civil society and the media, and weakening judicial oversight. It's Beijing’s most aggressive assault on Hong Kong people’s freedoms since Britain handed over its former colony, Hong Kong, in 1997. China pledged to preserve the “one country, two systems” framework through 2047; however, China has seen Hong Kong as part of its territory and applied vague laws against Hong Kong people. These include the use of intimidation, covert surveillance, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention, and torture and deaths in custody of activists, rights lawyers, and journalists. Hong Kong people face the prospect of lengthy prison terms for possessing banners or chanting slogans that the authorities dislike. As a result, the United States and many countries no longer treat Hong Kong and China separately on several major issues, including trade and extradition. Hong Kong became just like another Chinese city.
Until 1997, Hong Kong was ruled by Britain as a colony but then returned to China under the "one country, two systems" arrangement. Unlike other cities in China, which are tightly governed by the authoritarian central government, Hong Kong is a semi-autonomous city with its own legal and political systems, and its people have more rights. However, the Chinese government actively interfered in Hong Kong's affairs and created bills to control and take away Hong Kong people's rights. As of today, almost no Hong Kong youth identified themselves as Chinese. Since the summer of 2019, Hong Kong protesters (driven by a sense of desperation rather than hope) began fighting these bills to protect Hong Kong’s autonomy from China. Protesters feared the bills would allow China to encroach on these rare freedoms. As the protests have continued, they are posing a challenge to the city's government and Beijing. The "special" relationship of Hong Kong's leadership with mainland China is a key element in untangling this mess.
In Hong Kong, China demands to implement a law that would criminalize secession, subversion of state power, terrorist activities and colluding with foreign forces to endanger national security. Critics say Hong Kong’s legal statutes already account for such matters and that Beijing is determined to use the law to pursue political opponents. China has long demanded such a law for Hong Kong, but efforts were shelved in the face of massive protests in 2003.
In order to take a firm rhetorical stance, saying the protests "showed signs of terrorism", China and Hong Hong government are using threats and pressure to get business to back its increasingly hard-line stance toward Hong Kong, leading companies to warn and intimidate workers who speak out in protest. For example, HSBC, the London bank, was threatened because it has slowly backed Beijing’s push to enact a new national security law covering the territory, and two Chinese banks, Chiyu Banking and Wing Lung Bank, had pressured their employees to sign a petition supporting the law, by forcing them to sign a petition and taking screenshot of their signature and share it publicly.
China and Hong Kong government have pressured various companies, including railway operator MTR Corporation, airline Cathay Pacific, and the Big Four accounting firms (KPMG, Ernst & Young (EY), Deloitte and PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) - in Hong Kong) to take a hard-line approach against employees who took part in the protests. Cathay Pacific witnessed a huge managerial reshuffling and fired pro-democratic employees after the Civil Aviation Administration of China threatened to block Cathay's access to Chinese airspace while the MTR has closed stations and has ended its service early after being criticized for transporting protesters. The world's "Big 4" accounting firms have confirmed they stand with China by distancing themselves from a newspaper advertisement in which their employees expressed support for Hong Kong protesters. Chinese state media outlets largely ignored the Hong Kong protests, which were also mostly censored from Mainland Chinese social media.
As China tightens its grip on Hong Kong over which British rule ended 20 years ago, pro-democracy activists are still fighting against erosion of freedoms. Since May 2019, thousands of people in Hong Kong gathered and peacefully marched for pro-democracy protests, which had seen numerous clashes between protesters and police with police firing tear gas at demonstrators as the city's protests enter their 13th weekend to demand some basic freedom requests, such as the full withdrawal of the suspended extradition bill and implementation of open and free elections. The Hong Kong public’s response to police violence shows that people are willing to put their bodies on the line for freedom. More than one million people being drawn to the streets twice in a week in June, only to have many of their demands ignored, is a sign of a serious democratic deficit. On September 2, tens of thousands students boycotted the first day of classes as part of a citywide strike.
The Chinese Communist Party has in effect controlled the Hong Kong government, and infringed on freedom of speech and movement. For example, after Hong Kong Professional Teachers Union organized for its members and students to join the general strike on August 5, 2019, the Government's Regional Education Offices asked all schools for names of the teachers and pupils who participated in the strike, hinting at possible future retribution. The Government installed lampposts used for carrying facial recognition function and infringing upon personal privacy of citizens, and protesters attempted to tear down or dismantle them. Hong Kong leader, Carrie Lam, was sorry for causing “unforgivable havoc” by igniting the political crisis engulfing the city and she would quit if she had a choice!.
In 2019 million people in Hong Kong protested to demand a full withdrawal of the extradition bill, dismissal of charges against arrested protesters, a government retraction regarding the term "riot", an independent investigation into police brutality, and universal suffrage. Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law, under which the government has had all but wiped out formal opposition. Authorities have raided and closed down newsrooms, jailed activists and protesters, unseated elected lawmakers, heightened censorship both online and in printed publications, and changed school curricula. The city has been transformed beyond recognition since.
Hong Kong’s human rights record took a dark turn. Civil liberties in Hong Kong are increasingly being undermined by the growing interference of the central government, 20 years after the city returned to Chinese sovereignty in 1997. In April 2018, Hong Kong police arrested 11 pro-democracy advocates on charges including “unlawful assembly” and “obstructing police.” The charges stem from the advocates’ protest against a decision by China’s top legislative body forcing Hong Kong courts to disqualify two pro-independence legislators. In July 2018 a Hong Kong court disqualified four more pro-democracy lawmakers for modifying their oaths swearing allegiance to China in a 2016 ceremony.
Until 22 May 2014 the politics of Thailand were conducted within the framework of a constitutional monarchy, whereby the prime minister is the head of government and a hereditary monarch is head of state. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislative branches. Since the coup d'état of 22 May 2014, Thailand revoked its 2007 constitution. The 2007 Constitution was annulled by the 2014 coup-makers who run the country as a military dictatorship. The country has been under the rule of a military organization called National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), which has taken control of the national administration, and abolished the national assembly and assumed the responsibilities of the legislative branch. Military courts have been tasked to be responsible for most cases that are normally under the civilian courts. The NCPO has repeatedly postponed promised elections, fearing that the pro-Thaksin Pheu Thai Party would do well despite the junta’s election laws and rules that are expressly designed to disadvantage Pheu Thai.
The politics of Italy are conducted through a parliamentary republic with a multi-party system. Italy has been a democratic republic since 2 June 1946, when the monarchy was abolished by popular referendum and a constituent assembly was elected to draft a constitution, which was promulgated on 1 January 1948. Italy has had more than 50 governments and more than 20 Prime Ministers since 1945.

Reports have revealed that individuals close to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud discussed plans to kill other perceived enemies as early as 2017, a year before the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in October 2018. These discussions were part of a broader pattern of repression, in which coercion, intimidation, and abuse were used to seize billions of dollars from wealthy Saudis during the Crown Prince’s sweeping “anti‑corruption” purge. Hundreds of princes, businessmen, and officials were detained at the Ritz‑Carlton in Riyadh, where many were pressured into handing over assets in exchange for their release. While the Saudi government framed the purge as a crackdown on corruption, international observers described it as a consolidation of power and a mechanism to secure vast sums for the state and the Crown Prince’s initiatives. The revelations about pre‑Khashoggi plots underscore the climate of fear and control that has characterized Saudi Arabia’s political landscape under Mohammed bin Salman.

On August 10, 2018, the Turkish lira collapsed by more than 16 percent, hitting a record low against the dollar after the United States announced the doubling of steel and aluminum tariffs in retaliation for Turkey’s refusal to release an American pastor. The U.S. was then the largest destination for Turkish steel exports, accounting for 11 percent of the country’s export volume, making the sanctions particularly damaging. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who had consolidated unprecedented power through a series of referendums, framed the economic crisis as a “national battle” against foreign enemies, with the U.S. cast as the chief antagonist. The episode underscored both the fragility of Turkey’s economy—heavily reliant on external financing—and the political strategy of rallying nationalist sentiment to deflect blame, turning a financial shock into a test of sovereignty and resilience.

Corruption in Cambodia ranks among the highest in the world, and despite the adoption of an Anti‑Corruption Law in 2010, the problem remains deeply entrenched. The law created the Anti‑Corruption Unit but failed to provide protection for whistle‑blowers, leaving them exposed to retaliation. Under Article 41, anyone reporting corruption that cannot be proven faces up to six months in prison, a provision that effectively silences potential informants and discourages accountability. Cambodia ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption in 2007, yet the domestic framework remains misaligned with international standards, allowing political and business elites to dominate institutions while ordinary citizens bear the consequences of systemic graft. This paradox—formal legislation paired with punitive measures against whistle‑blowers—illustrates how anti‑corruption efforts can be symbolic rather than substantive, reinforcing entrenched power structures instead of dismantling them.

Corruption in Cambodia has led to serious human rights abuses, including arbitrary arrests, torture, and suppression of free speech. For example,

Judicial Corruption: The judiciary lacks independence, with courts often favoring government officials and wealthy individuals; this results in unfair trials and politically motivated convictions.
Abusive "War on Drugs": Cambodia's anti-drug campaign has led to arbitrary arrests, torture, and overcrowded prisons; poor and marginalized individuals are disproportionately targeted, and detainees face inhumane conditions and denial of healthcare.
Suppression of Journalists: Reporters who investigate corruption or criticize the government face censorship, threats, and unjustified arrests; some have been imprisoned under vague legal charges.
Political Repression: Opposition members and activists are often harassed, detained, or forced into exile; the government has been accused of transnational repression, targeting critics beyond Cambodia’s borders.

Cambodia ranks 158th out of 180 countries on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, with a score of just 21/100, underscoring entrenched corruption across the state. The judicial system has been singled out as a major source of abuse, cementing Cambodia’s position as the most corrupt nation in Southeast Asia. Corruption permeates daily life, from medical services and traffic violations to court verdicts, while businesses routinely face red tape and bribery when seeking licenses and permits, particularly in the construction sector. The country’s Anti‑Corruption Law offers no protection for whistleblowers, and those who report misconduct without sufficient proof risk imprisonment, reinforcing a climate of fear and impunity that sustains systemic graft.

The 2016 report Hostile Takeover: The Corporate Empire of Cambodia’s Ruling Family revealed the extraordinary reach of Prime Minister Hun Sen—already one of the world’s longest‑serving leaders—and his family across Cambodia’s economy. Investigators found that the family held interests in at least 114 local companies with a combined share capital exceeding $200 million, while experts estimated their collective wealth to be between $500 million and $1 billion, making them arguably the richest and most powerful family in the country. The timing of the report was striking: it was released in July 2016, just a week after the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee approved a spending bill that tied $77.8 million in foreign aid to Cambodia to the condition that the government cease harassment of opposition politicians. This juxtaposition highlighted the stark contrast between Cambodia’s status as one of the world’s poorest nations and the immense concentration of wealth and power within its ruling family, underscoring the deep entanglement of political dominance and economic empire.
Hun Sen’s personal fortune is difficult to quantify, but investigations portray it as vast and dynastic. His official monthly salary as Prime Minister was just over $1,100, yet watchdog reports such as Global Witness’s Hostile Takeover revealed that his immediate family controlled at least 114 companies across 18 sectors, with 27 relatives tied to firms whose registered share capital exceeded $200 million. Analysts estimate the dynasty’s true wealth could reach $500 million to $1 billion when real estate and undisclosed holdings are included. The family’s reach spans energy, mining, telecoms, media, banking, trading, agriculture, and land concessions—industries often secured through state patronage and political leverage. Stakes in major telecom and energy firms highlight a strategy of dominating essential services and extracting rents from natural monopolies, while mining licenses and infrastructure projects provide steady revenue streams through politically connected channels. Meanwhile, trading houses and agribusiness ventures link rural land to urban capital, funneling profits through vertically integrated networks fortified by regulatory gatekeeping. Together, this empire leaves Cambodia’s constitutional monarchy overshadowed by a dynastic regime where political dominance and economic control are inseparable.
Cambodia’s scam industry has expanded dramatically under Hun Sen’s rule, with watchdogs and regional cybercrime investigators linking its growth to dynastic and politically connected networks profiting from operations disguised as online gambling and call‑center businesses. Thai cyber police traced millions of dollars from scams into the Huione Group, a conglomerate accused of controlling compounds that employ thousands of trafficked workers from across Asia and generate billions in illicit revenue. Cambodia’s judiciary—ranked among the most corrupt in the region—ensures operators can evade accountability through bribery, while the Anti‑Corruption Law leaves whistleblowers unprotected, threatening imprisonment for those who report misconduct without sufficient proof. This toxic combination of entrenched wealth, systemic corruption, and geopolitical cover, particularly from China, has enabled scam centers to flourish unchecked, transforming Cambodia into a regional hub of cross‑border fraud and human trafficking.
Hun Sen’s government has faced unrelenting criticism from Western democracies and regional neighbors, with the United States denouncing the repression of opposition parties and imposing sanctions, the European Union suspending parts of Cambodia’s preferential trade access under the “Everything But Arms” scheme in 2020, and Australia raising concerns over the absence of free elections. Relations with Thailand have remained tense, marked by accusations of political interference and unease over Cambodia’s dependence on Chinese funding, while watchdogs such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International continue to spotlight corruption, land grabs, and politically motivated arrests. Despite this, Hun Sen’s regime has endured through powerful alliances, most prominently with China, which has funneled billions into Cambodia through loans, infrastructure projects, and military aid while shielding the government diplomatically. Russia has provided political backing and cooperation in defense and energy, Vietnam—which supported Hun Sen’s rise after the Khmer Rouge era—maintains close ties, and Laos, as a fellow one‑party state, aligns with Cambodia on sovereignty and regional issues. Within ASEAN, sympathetic partners such as Myanmar’s military government reinforce the principle of non‑interference, ensuring collective action against Hun Sen remains muted. This network of support counterbalances Western condemnation and sanctions, creating a formidable geopolitical shield that enables the Cambodian People’s Party to preserve dynastic power while projecting stability at home and loyalty abroad.
Hun Sen’s dynasty has entrenched itself across every pillar of Cambodian power, reshaping the nation from a constitutional monarchy in appearance into a dynastic system in practice. His eldest son, Hun Manet, assumed the premiership in August 2023 at age 46 after elections widely condemned for lacking genuine competition, while Hun Sen himself safeguarded lasting authority by taking the presidency of the Senate. The family’s influence stretches further: Hun Many, the youngest son, serves in Parliament and leads the Cambodian People’s Party’s youth wing; Hun Manit, the middle son, occupies senior posts in intelligence and the military; and daughters along with extended relatives command significant positions in business and government. Woven together, this network consolidates dominance over politics, the armed forces, and state‑linked enterprises, leaving Cambodia less a monarchy in function than a tightly controlled family regime.
Hun Manet’s ascent in August 2023 at age 46, after Hun Sen’s nearly 40‑year rule, marked Cambodia’s first dynastic transfer of power, yet his premiership was overshadowed by elections widely condemned for lacking genuine competition. Hun Sen, unwilling to fade from the political stage, entrenched his influence by becoming President of the Senate in 2024, a role that grants political immunity and secures his dominance, reinforced by the Cambodian People’s Party’s overwhelming control of 55 out of 58 Senate seats. This father‑son arrangement illustrates Cambodia’s hybrid authoritarianism: a constitutional monarchy in outward form but dynastic in practice, where external ties with ASEAN, China, and Western nations coexist with tight internal control and a political system designed to perpetuate the family’s grip on power.
Hun Sen’s nearly 40 years in power turned Cambodia into one of Southeast Asia’s longest‑running authoritarian regimes, defined by manipulated elections, suppression of dissent, and entrenched patronage networks, all while maintaining the façade of a constitutional monarchy. In 2023, he transferred authority to his son Hun Manet, ensuring dynastic continuity, yet retained influence by keeping the position of President of the Senate, a role that secures him political immunity and ongoing sway over national affairs. This maneuver highlights Cambodia’s hybrid authoritarianism: outwardly democratic in structure but deeply controlled in practice, contrasting sharply with North Korea’s absolute hereditary dictatorship under the Kim family.
Cambodia under Hun Sen, who ruled for nearly 40 years, shows authoritarian traits but differs sharply from North Korea’s dynastic dictatorship; while Cambodia is officially a constitutional monarchy with manipulated elections and limited opposition, North Korea is a one‑party state under the Kim family with absolute hereditary rule and no competition. Cambodia maintains ties with ASEAN, China, and Western nations, whereas North Korea remains isolated and sanctioned. Human rights abuses in Cambodia include suppression of dissent and media restrictions, but they do not reach the extreme levels of North Korea’s prison camps, total surveillance, and lack of freedom of movement. Economically, Cambodia relies on tourism and manufacturing in a market‑oriented system plagued by corruption, while North Korea’s state‑controlled economy suffers chronic shortages and depends on illicit trade. Analysts caution against oversimplification: Cambodia’s hybrid authoritarianism allows some civil society and international engagement, unlike North Korea’s closed totalitarian regime.
Hun Sen's government has been widely criticized for its human rights record in Cambodia. Under his leadership, there have been severe restrictions on freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and press freedom. His administration has targeted independent media, arrested political opponents, and imposed harsh limitations on labor rights. Human Rights Watch has documented a long history of rights abuses by Hun Sen’s government, including extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, and suppression of opposition parties. His government has also been accused of transnational repression, harassing critics and exiled opposition members living abroad. In 2020, the European Union suspended Cambodia’s preferential trade agreement due to concerns over human rights violations. Despite international pressure, reports indicate that Cambodia continues to curtail civil liberties and silence dissent.
Under the Prime Minister Hun Sen’s leadership Cambodia's opposition leader Kem Sokha was sentenced to 27 years in jail for treason. Critics argue that the charges were politically motivated to prevent him from participating in the country's elections. Sokha was accused of conspiring with foreign powers to overthrow Prime Minister Hun Sen's government, a claim he has consistently denied. His party, the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP), was dissolved by Cambodia’s Supreme Court two months after his arrest. Rights groups and Western governments have condemned the verdict, calling it a miscarriage of justice.
The Cambodia government under the Prime Minister Hun Sen’s leadership arrested the leader of Cambodia’s political opposition on dubious charges of treason; dissolved the main opposition party and banned over 100 members from political activity; intensified the misuse of the justice system to prosecute political opposition and human rights activists; and forced several independent media outlets to close; he ordered internet service providers to block independent news websites, including Radio Free Asia, Voice of America and Voice of Democracy, in the days leading up to and during the election.
Hun Sen’s most prominent rivals have been the leaders of the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP), which once posed the strongest challenge to his rule before being dissolved in 2017. Among them, Sam Rainsy, a former Finance Minister and co‑founder of the CNRP, has long been regarded as Hun Sen’s chief opponent, though he has lived in exile for years due to politically charged cases. Kem Sokha, the party’s former president, was arrested in 2017 on treason charges, a move widely condemned as an effort to eliminate competition. Alongside them, figures such as Mu Sochua, the former deputy leader of the CNRP, continue to campaign abroad, keeping opposition alive among the diaspora. Despite the CPP’s overwhelming dominance, the symbolic weight of these opposition leaders underscores the enduring struggle between entrenched dynastic power and democratic aspirations in Cambodia.
Prime Minister Hun Sen, already one of the world’s longest‑serving leaders, sought to extend his 33‑year grip on power in Cambodia’s national vote on July 29, 2018, a contest marked by the use of courts to cripple opponents and by fiery warnings that those who cursed or insulted him would “die without a plot of land to bury their bodies.” After casting his ballot, Hun Sen declared that his party had won every seat in Parliament, cementing total control. While Western election monitors stayed away to avoid legitimizing the process, the Chinese Foreign Ministry, which sent observers, hailed the polls as a “success,” underscoring the stark divide between Western condemnation and Beijing’s endorsement of Cambodia’s political trajectory.
A Laos hydroelectric dam that was under construction collapsed on July 23, 2018, sending flash floods through six villages, and killing many people and flooding villages in the southern province of Attapeu. Over 7,000 people were displaced and hundreds more were missing. Laos, a landlocked, communist state that is largely isolated from the rest of the world, is one of Asia’s poorest countries. China, Laos and Cambodia have begun massive hydroelectric development programs, with more than a dozen dams planned, under construction or completed on the main river and many more dams on tributaries. The dam that collapsed is part of the Xe-Pian Xe-Namnoy hydroelectric power project, which involves Laotian, Thai and South Korean firms.
Vietnam’s controversial cybersecurity law, first enacted in 2018, continues to evolve with sweeping new measures: global tech giants such as Google and Facebook must store user data inside the country, establish local offices, and remove “offending” content within 24 hours at the request of authorities. With around 57 percent of Vietnam’s 93 million citizens holding Facebook accounts and nearly 65 million people online, the stakes are immense, as the rules grant the Ministry of Information and Communications and the Ministry of Public Security unprecedented control over digital life. In June 2025, lawmakers passed a Personal Data Protection Law and unveiled a draft Cybersecurity Law 2025, set to take effect on January 1, 2026, consolidating earlier legislation and tightening compliance obligations. While officials frame these moves as necessary for national security, critics warn of devastating consequences for freedom of expression in one of Southeast Asia’s fastest‑growing digital societies.
An intricate network of companies controlled by the family of longtime Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, the world’s sixth-longest-serving premier, has amassed a secret fortune with a value of at least $200 million and possibly between “$500 million and $4 billion”. Hun Sen's financial links into 114 domestic, private companies controlled or owned outright by members of Hun Sen’s family and their links to big international brands, such as Apple, Nokia, Visa, Unilever, Procter & Gamble, Nestlé, Durex and Honda, and many others. Wealth is a sensitive issue for Hun Sen, who has said he makes a wage of just $1,150 a month after 30 years in the job. While Hun Sen’s wealth is vast, on a regional level his family effort pales when comparing with Malaysia’s Taib Mahmud, who is by far the richest; Taib ruled the East Malaysian state of Sarawak for 33 years and retired with a family fortune valued at more than $20 billion and held through a network of 400 companies. In 2015, Malaysia's Prime Minister, Najib Tun Razak, was accused of channelling over RM 2.67 billion (USD $681 million) from 1MDB, a government-run strategic development company, to his personal bank accounts; he declared that the "money was a personal donation from Saudi Arabia’s royal family". More than $1 billion entered Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak's personal bank accounts, much of it from state investment fund 1MDB.
On October 8, 2017, the United States suspended all non‑immigrant visa services at its diplomatic facilities in Turkey after the arrest of a consulate employee, sparking a sharp reaction in Turkish markets. Turkey retaliated by halting visas for Americans, escalating the standoff. By November 2017, limited visa processing resumed following “preliminary assurances” from Ankara, and on December 28, 2017, the U.S. Mission announced the full restoration of visa services, ending a suspension that had disrupted travel for thousands. The episode underscored the fragility of U.S.–Turkey relations, where a single arrest triggered a diplomatic clash with economic consequences, and highlighted how quickly mobility and markets can be shaken in a country already facing volatility.
In July 2017 China quickly cremated its only Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Liu Xiaobo, the country's most famous political prisoner. Liu was a Chinese literary critic, writer, poet, anti-communist, human rights activist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate who called for political reforms and was involved in campaigns to end Communist single-party rule. He championed non-violent resistance as a way of overcoming “forceful tyranny”, and had been serving an 11-year jail sentence for demanding an end to one-party rule when he was diagnosed with late-stage liver cancer in May 2017. On 8 December 2008, Liu was detained due to his participation with the Charter 08 manifesto, and was formally arrested on 23 June 2009 on suspicion of "inciting subversion of state power". Like Liu Xiaobo, many Chinese political activists have been detained, jailed or exiled for their pro-democracy or rights defending activities in China.
Although the 1982 constitution guarantees freedom of speech, the Chinese government often uses the "subversion of state power" and "protection of state secrets" clauses in their law system to imprison those who criticize the government. The government controls the media and Internet censorship very tighhly. The government maintains censorship over all media capable of reaching a wide audience. This includes television, print media, radio, film, theater, text messaging, instant messaging, video games, literature, and the Internet. At least 40 Chinese journalists and 74 Netizens were reportedly imprisoned in China since 2014. China’s prisons held more than 100 journalists, citizen-journalists and bloggers, including a Nobel peace laureate and three winners of the Reporters Without Borders (RSF)-TV5 Monde Press Freedom Prize, as of June 2017.
China’s treatment of its ethnic minorities, particularly Tibetans and Uyghurs, has long been criticized as a mix of exoticization and marginalization. While state media often showcases minorities singing and dancing on television to project harmony, their political, cultural, and religious freedoms remain severely restricted. The repression has been especially stark in Tibet, where since February 2009 at least 122 Tibetans have set themselves on fire in acts of grim protest against Chinese rule, with most dying from their wounds. These self‑immolations reflect desperation in the face of policies that suppress Tibetan language, religion, and identity, while Uyghurs in Xinjiang face mass surveillance, detention, and forced assimilation. Together, these cases highlight how China’s minority policies combine symbolic celebration with systemic control, leaving communities struggling to preserve their identities under a government that demands conformity.
Little is publicly known of identity of the man who stood in front of a column of tanks on June 5, 1989, the morning after the Chinese military had suppressed the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 by force. The British tabloid Sunday Express named him as Wang Weilin (王维林), a 19-year-old student, who was later charged with "political hooliganism" and "attempting to subvert members of the People's Liberation Army. However, this claim has been rejected by an internal Communist Party of China, which reported that they could not find the man based on statements made by a reliable party member, "We can’t find him, we got his name from journalists, we have checked through computers but can’t find him among the dead or among those in prison,". There were at least 300, and perhaps thousands, of the protesters had been killed and as many as 10,000 were arrested after Chinese troops and security police stormed through Tiananmen Square, firing indiscriminately into the crowds of protesters. There are several conflicting stories about what happened to this young man after the demonstration; among these sources he was arrested and executed by a firing squad. However, in a 1990 interview with Barbara Walters, then-CPC General Secretary Jiang Zemin was asked what became of the man, Jiang stated "I can't confirm whether this young man you mentioned was arrested or not."
One of Richard McGregor's books, "The Party", describes a relationship between the Communist Party and the Chinese government. The Chinese Communist Party, the country's sole political party governing China, let Chinese people know that they are using the "model of the US government" that "appoints the entire U.S. cabinet and the heads of federal regulatory commissions, the justices of the Supreme Court, state governors and their deputies, the mayors of major cities, the chief executives of GE, Exxon-Mobil, Wal-Mart and about fifty of the remaining largest U.S. companies, the editors of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, the bosses of the TV networks (e.g.; ABC, CBS, and NBC) and cable stations (HBO, ShowTime, and CNN), the presidents of MIT, Yale and Harvard and other big universities, and the heads of think-tanks (eg.; Brookings Institute, Rand, and the Heritage Foundation)", and the vetting process is secret, and the appointments are announced without any accompanying explanations why they had been made; most Chinese people know these are not true, but no one dares to speak up. Interestingly, in March 2008 the Chinese Communist Party ordered to "establish a store Communist Party committee" within one Wal-Mart store located in the north-east of China.
Across China, the contrast between rural villages and bustling cities is striking: in the countryside, traditions such as ancestor worship during Qingming and the preservation of Hui-style courtyards in places like Hongcun keep centuries of culture alive, yet disposable incomes remain less than one-third of urban levels, making the $51 billion in remittances sent home by migrant workers in 2022 a lifeline for families; meanwhile, cities like Beijing and Shanghai, now home to over 64% of the population, showcase rapid modernization with smart infrastructure, urban renewal, and booming economies that deliver higher wages, advanced healthcare, and diverse lifestyles, though prosperity comes at the cost of stress, soaring expenses, and the challenge of balancing sustainability with growth, leaving the nation to weave together rural calm and tradition with urban dynamism and inequality.
China is made up of 23 provinces, five autonomous regions, four municipalities directly under the Central Government, and the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macao. The 23 provinces are Anhui, Fujian, Gansu, Guangdong, Guizhou, Hainan, Hebei, Heilongjiang, Henan, Hubei, Hunan, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Jilin, Liaoning, Qinghai, Shaanxi, Shandong, Shanxi, Sichuan, Taiwan, Yunnan, Zhejiang; the five autonomous regions are Guangxi, Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, Xinjiang, and Tibet; the four municipalities are Beijing, Chongqing, Shanghai and Tianjin. The interesting and fun fact is that Taiwan is not belonging to China, which has consistently claimed sovereignty over Taiwan and asserted Taiwan is no longer in legitimate existence.
China is a socialist republic ruled by a single party, the Communist Party of China. Power in China is divided between the National People's Congress (NPC), the President, and the State Council. The NPC is the single legislative body, whose members are selected by the Communist Party. The State Council, headed by the Premier, is the administrative branch. The People's Liberation Army (PLA), which includes the Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Second Artillery Force, also wields considerable political power, the President is chairman of the Central Military Commission of China, the country's top military organ and commander of its armed forces. The President, the Premier and all government officials are selected by the Communist Party.
Roughly 47 percent of China’s current population—those now aged 0 to 34—were born under the country’s one‑child policy, which shaped family life and demographics for more than three decades. This generation grew up in a China that was rapidly urbanizing, industrializing, and opening to global markets, experiencing a very different society than the half of the population born before the policy, who lived through eras of collectivization, scarcity, and slower modernization. The contrast between these two halves of the population highlights how the one‑child policy not only altered family structures and birth rates but also created distinct generational experiences in the world’s most populous nation, with younger cohorts navigating modern consumer culture, digital connectivity, and shifting social expectations, while older generations carry memories of a more austere and insular China.
In the 2016 U.S. presidential election, Donald Trump secured victory in the Electoral College with 304 votes, compared to 227 for Hillary Clinton, despite Clinton winning the popular vote by 2,864,974 ballots. This marked the largest popular vote margin ever lost by a candidate who ultimately won the presidency. In the aftermath, Trump told Congressional leaders that between 3 and 5 million undocumented immigrants had voted illegally, a claim that was widely disputed and unsupported by evidence. The episode underscored the tension between the Electoral College system and the popular vote, while also highlighting how allegations of voter fraud became a central narrative in Trump’s defense of his legitimacy.
Germany’s Turkish community remains one of the most influential diasporas in Europe, with over 3 million people of Turkish descent living in the country and roughly half retaining Turkish citizenship, effectively making Germany Turkey’s fourth‑largest electoral district. In parliament, lawmakers of Turkish origin continue to hold seats among the 622 members of the Bundestag, reflecting the community’s political weight. Religious life is equally shaped by these ties: of Germany’s 3,000 mosques, around 2,000 are Turkish, and more than 900 are financed by DITIB, the Turkish‑Islamic Union for Religious Affairs, which sends imams directly from Ankara. In 2025, Berlin demanded that DITIB sever ties with President Erdoğan and reject antisemitic rhetoric after a controversial Istanbul conference, while protests erupted in March over the arrest of Istanbul mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, exposing divisions within the diaspora. Rising attacks on mosques in 2024 further fueled calls for stronger protection, underscoring how Germany’s domestic politics, religious freedoms, and security concerns remain deeply intertwined with Turkey’s influence abroad.
In the aftermath of the failed military coup in July 2016, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan imposed a sweeping state of emergency that dramatically reshaped Turkey’s political and social landscape. His decrees shut down 16 television channels, 23 radio stations, 45 newspapers, 15 universities, 934 schools, 109 student dormitories, 19 unions, 35 medical institutions, and more than 1,100 charities and foundations, effectively silencing much of civil society and independent media. At the same time, more than 60,000 soldiers, police, judges, teachers, civil servants, journalists, and others were suspended, detained, or placed under investigation for alleged complicity in the coup attempt. Among the dismissed were 2,400 military personnel, including 1,200 commissioned officers from the navy, air, and land forces, underscoring the scale of the purge within the armed forces. These measures consolidated Erdoğan’s power, weakened institutional checks, and marked a turning point in Turkey’s trajectory toward centralized authority and curtailed freedoms.
The scandal surrounding Malaysia’s then‑Prime Minister Najib Razak and the state investment fund 1MDB erupted when Attorney General Abdul Gani Patail linked a staggering $681 million (£478 million) deposited into Najib’s personal account to companies and bodies tied to 1MDB. In July 2015, Najib abruptly fired Patail and replaced him with Mohamed Apandi Ali (Mr. Naji), while also dismissing Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin, who had openly criticized his handling of the crisis. By January 2016, Apandi Ali cleared Najib of corruption, accepting Najib’s claim that the money was a “donation” from a member of the Saudi royal family. This explanation was widely disputed, and the episode became the centerpiece of the global 1MDB scandal, which later saw billions allegedly siphoned through shell companies, luxury purchases, and international financial networks. The affair not only shook Malaysia’s political landscape but also drew investigations across multiple countries, making it one of the largest financial scandals in modern history.
Malaysia’s former prime minister Najib Razak, who founded and chaired the state investment fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), became the central figure in one of the world’s largest financial scandals. Investigations revealed that $681 million was transferred into Najib’s personal accounts, while an estimated $4 billion was misappropriated from 1MDB through a web of shell companies, offshore accounts, and lavish spending on luxury properties, art, and even Hollywood films. Najib denied wrongdoing, claiming the $681 million was a donation from a Saudi royal, but global probes in the United States, Switzerland, Singapore, and other countries traced the funds back to 1MDB. The scandal triggered political upheaval in Malaysia, contributed to Najib’s electoral defeat in 2018, and led to multiple criminal charges against him, including abuse of power, money laundering, and breach of trust.
From December 1975 to October 1999, East Timor endured a brutal occupation by Indonesia that resulted in the deaths of an estimated 200,000 Timorese people—roughly one‑third of the population at the time. The toll came through massacres, forced starvation, disease, and systematic repression as Indonesian forces sought to crush resistance and integrate the territory. Villages were destroyed, civilians displaced, and widespread human rights abuses documented by international observers. Despite the violence, Timorese resistance movements persisted, and global solidarity campaigns eventually pressured Indonesia to withdraw. The occupation ended in 1999 following a UN‑sponsored referendum in which the Timorese overwhelmingly voted for independence, leading to the establishment of Timor‑Leste as a sovereign nation in 2002. This dark chapter remains central to Timor‑Leste’s national identity, symbolizing both the immense suffering endured and the resilience that carried the people to freedom.
Mao Zedong governed China as Chairman of the Communist Party from its establishment in 1949 until his death in 1976, a period marked by sweeping social and political upheavals that came at an immense human cost. Historians estimate that around 70 million people died through starvation, forced labor, and executions during his rule, making it one of the deadliest regimes in history. The Great Leap Forward (1958–1962), intended to rapidly industrialize and collectivize agriculture, led to catastrophic famine that killed tens of millions. Later, the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) unleashed purges, mass imprisonments, and widespread violence against perceived enemies of the revolution, further contributing to the toll. Mao’s policies centralized power and promoted ideological conformity, but they also devastated the economy, dismantled traditional culture, and inflicted suffering on vast segments of the population. His legacy remains deeply contested—revered by some for unifying China and reviled by others for the staggering human losses under his leadership.
Between 1975 and 1979, Cambodia endured one of the most horrific genocides of the 20th century under the rule of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, who sought to transform the nation into a radical agrarian society. In pursuit of this vision, cities were emptied, intellectuals and professionals were executed, and millions were forced into labor camps. The result was catastrophic: around 2 million people—an estimated 25 percent of the population—were killed through starvation, forced labor, disease, and mass executions. The regime’s brutality devastated families and dismantled cultural and social structures, leaving scars that remain deeply embedded in Cambodian society. The genocide came to an end in 1979, when Vietnam invaded Cambodia, overthrowing the Khmer Rouge and exposing the scale of atrocities to the world. This intervention marked both the collapse of Pol Pot’s regime and the beginning of Cambodia’s long struggle to recover from the trauma of mass violence.
During the Vietnam War, out of the 2,709,918 American military personnel who served in uniform, at least 67 percent were volunteers, a figure that challenges the common perception that the war was fought primarily by draftees. The last U.S. combat troops departed Vietnam on 29 March 1973, marking the end of direct American military involvement after nearly two decades of escalating conflict. Two years later, on 30 April 1975, South Vietnam fell to North Vietnamese forces with the capture of Saigon, a dramatic conclusion that unfolded without American combat troops present. This timeline underscores both the scale of voluntary service during the war and the geopolitical shift that followed the U.S. withdrawal, as the collapse of South Vietnam highlighted the fragility of its government once American military support was gone.
The Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971 was one of the most devastating conflicts of the 20th century, lasting nine months and culminating in the country’s independence from Pakistan. During this period, the Pakistani military and its allied militias carried out a campaign of mass violence that is widely described as genocidal. Estimates suggest that around 3 million people were killed, while between 200,000 and 400,000 women were subjected to systematic rape, often used as a weapon of war to terrorize communities and destroy social cohesion. Villages were burned, intellectuals and professionals were targeted, and millions fled across the border into India, creating one of the largest refugee crises of the era. This brutality left deep scars on Bangladesh’s national identity, fueling demands for justice and recognition of the atrocities. The war ended in December 1971 with the intervention of India and the surrender of Pakistani forces, but the legacy of mass killings and sexual violence remains central to Bangladesh’s collective memory. The events are commemorated annually, and debates over accountability continue to shape regional politics and historical discourse.
The events beginning in 1915 in the Ottoman Empire are widely recognized by historians as the Armenian Genocide, one of the first major genocides of the 20th century. The Ottoman authorities initiated mass deportations and killings of Armenians, driven by fears that the Christian minority might align with Russia during World War I. Over the course of several years, Armenians were forced on death marches into the Syrian desert, subjected to starvation, massacres, and systematic destruction of their communities. By the early 1920s, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians—about 75 percent of the pre‑war population—had perished. The Turkish government has long denied that these events constitute genocide, framing them instead as wartime relocations and casualties of conflict. However, many countries and international scholars affirm the genocide designation, citing the scale, intent, and systematic nature of the killings. The legacy of this atrocity remains deeply significant: it shaped Armenian identity worldwide, influenced the development of international human rights law, and continues to be a point of political tension between Turkey and nations that officially recognize the genocide.
During the Japanese occupation of Vietnam from October 1944 to May 1945, an estimated 2 million people died of starvation, a catastrophe that struck amid World War II. The famine was caused by a combination of factors: Japanese forces requisitioned rice for their war effort, French colonial authorities mismanaged food supplies, and natural disasters such as floods and droughts devastated harvests. Rice fields were also diverted to grow industrial crops like jute, further reducing food availability. Villages across northern Vietnam were hit hardest, with entire communities collapsing under hunger and disease. This tragedy not only marked one of the deadliest famines in Southeast Asian history but also fueled anti‑colonial sentiment, strengthening support for revolutionary movements like the Viet Minh, who promised to end exploitation and secure food security.
Jean‑Jacques Dessalines, who became the first ruler of independent Haiti after declaring freedom from France in 1804, is remembered both as a founding father and as the leader behind one of the most violent episodes of the Haitian Revolution. In the months following independence, Dessalines ordered the systematic killing of much of the remaining white French population on the island, particularly French Creoles, in what became known as the 1804 Haiti Massacre. Estimates suggest that thousands were killed between February and April of that year. The massacre was driven by fears of renewed French domination, deep resentment of slavery’s brutality, and a desire to eliminate any possibility of colonial return. While it secured Haiti’s independence by removing the old ruling class, it also left a legacy of trauma and controversy, with Dessalines celebrated as a liberator but also condemned for the scale of violence. This event remains one of the most stark examples of revolutionary vengeance in world history, illustrating how centuries of enslavement and oppression culminated in both freedom and bloodshed.
Augusto Pinochet seized power in Chile on September 11, 1973, through a military coup that toppled President Salvador Allende, and ruled until 1990 with an iron grip that left more than 3,000 people dead or disappeared and tens of thousands tortured or imprisoned under the feared secret police, DINA. While his regime implemented neoliberal reforms that stabilized Chile’s economy and attracted foreign investment, Pinochet secretly amassed millions of dollars in hidden bank accounts abroad, exposing the corruption behind his nationalist image. His dictatorship remains one of Latin America’s most polarizing legacies—admired by some for economic modernization yet condemned globally for brutal repression and systemic corruption, a shadow that continues to shape Chile’s political memory and democratic struggles.
Anastasio Somoza García established a family dynasty that dominated Nicaragua for nearly half a century, beginning with his rise to power in 1936 and continuing through his sons Luis Somoza Debayle and Anastasio Somoza Debayle until 1979. The Somozas treated Nicaragua as a personal fiefdom, controlling the military, economy, and political institutions while amassing vast fortunes through land grabs, monopolies, and siphoning foreign aid. Opposition was crushed through censorship, intimidation, and violence, with the National Guard serving as the regime’s iron fist. By the time the dynasty collapsed under the Sandinista revolution, the Somozas had become emblematic of Latin American corruption and authoritarianism—ruling for 43 years in total, enriching themselves at the expense of the nation, and leaving behind a legacy of inequality and resentment that shaped Nicaragua’s turbulent political future.
Rafael Trujillo ruled the Dominican Republic from 1930 until his assassination in 1961, creating one of Latin America’s longest and most brutal dictatorships. His regime was marked by extreme repression, with tens of thousands killed, including the infamous 1937 Parsley Massacre in which an estimated 15,000 Haitians were slaughtered along the border. Trujillo cultivated a personality cult so pervasive that cities, monuments, and even the capital were renamed in his honor, while he demanded public displays of loyalty and obedience. Behind this façade, he amassed enormous personal wealth—controlling industries, land, and trade to enrich himself and his family, effectively turning the Dominican economy into his private enterprise. His dictatorship left a legacy of fear, corruption, and inequality that haunted the nation long after his death, making him a symbol of authoritarian excess in the Caribbean.
Porfirio Díaz ruled Mexico from 1876 to 1911 in what became known as the “Porfiriato,” a 35‑year period defined by rapid modernization and entrenched inequality. His government expanded railroads, encouraged industrial growth, and welcomed foreign investment, transforming Mexico’s economy and infrastructure. Yet these advances overwhelmingly benefited elites and foreign corporations, while rural communities and indigenous populations were dispossessed of land and left in poverty. Díaz maintained power through electoral manipulation, patronage networks, and a repressive military, ensuring stability at the cost of democracy. Corruption flourished as political allies enriched themselves, and dissent was silenced through censorship and intimidation. By the time the Mexican Revolution erupted in 1910, Díaz’s long rule had become synonymous with authoritarianism and systemic corruption, leaving behind a legacy of modernization intertwined with exploitation and social unrest.
Juan Manuel de Rosas dominated Argentine politics between 1829 and 1852, building a regime that blended populist rhetoric with authoritarian control. He presented himself as a champion of federalism and the common people, but in practice relied on patronage networks, censorship, and a loyal militia known as the Mazorca to silence dissent and enforce loyalty. Rosas cultivated a strongman image, demanding public displays of allegiance and using fear to consolidate power, while rewarding allies with land and influence. His rule entrenched corruption and centralized authority, leaving Argentina deeply polarized between supporters who saw him as a protector of order and opponents who viewed him as a tyrant. Ultimately, his downfall at the Battle of Caseros in 1852 ended more than two decades of dominance, but his legacy as one of Latin America’s earliest caudillos continues to symbolize the region’s struggle with authoritarianism and corruption.
Hugo Chávez served as president of Venezuela from 1999 until his death in 2013, leading the country under the banner of “Bolivarian socialism” and positioning himself as a champion of the poor. His government launched ambitious social programs funded by oil revenues, reducing poverty rates and expanding access to healthcare and education, while simultaneously concentrating power in the executive branch and weakening democratic institutions. Chávez cultivated a populist image through fiery rhetoric and direct communication with citizens, yet his administration faced persistent accusations of corruption, cronyism, and misuse of state resources. Political opponents were often marginalized or silenced, and independent institutions lost autonomy as his movement consolidated control. By the end of his 14‑year rule, Venezuela was deeply polarized—supporters praised him for empowering the marginalized, while critics condemned the authoritarian tendencies and systemic corruption that eroded democratic governance and set the stage for the country’s ongoing crisis.