Category: The Conversation – Global Perspectives

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Rick Sarre, Emeritus Professor in Law and Criminal Justice, University of South Australia

Erin Patterson, having been convicted in the Supreme Court of Victoria two months ago on three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder, has today received a life sentence from the trial judge, Justice Christopher Beale.

He ordered a non-parole period of 33 years. Given her age (50) and the 676 days she’s already spent in detention, this means Patterson will not be eligible to apply for parole until 2056, when she is in her 80s.

Erin Patterson’s story is now one of the most well-known true crime cases in Australia. Nine weeks ago, a jury found her guilty of poisoning her lunch guests in July 2023 at her home in Leongatha with foraged death-cap mushrooms she had baked into individual servings of Beef Wellington.

In sentencing, Justice Beale said he had no hesitation in finding Patterson’s offending falls into the “worst category” of murder and attempted murder.

So after months of media frenzy and myriad headlines, the sentencing now bookends the case, pending any appeal. Here’s how the judge reached his decision and what happens now.

A lengthy prison term

The life sentence was as expected, given Patterson’s lawyer, Colin Mandy, did not oppose the prosecution’s bid for the maximum sentence for murder in Victoria.

The matter that exercised the judge’s mind, principally, in considering the sentence was the length of the non-parole period. The standard such period for murder in Victoria is 20 years.

If there’s more than one victim, however, the minimum non-parole period increases to 25 years.

While it’s possible to sentence a murderer to life without parole, it is very unusual.

In 2019, the judge who gave a life sentence to James Gargasoulas, the man who drove down Bourke Street Mall in Melbourne, killing six people, set a non-parole period of 46 years.

What did the judge consider?

The factors taken into account in sentencing relate to the nature of the crime and the personal circumstances of the person convicted.

The final outcome is informed by principles that vary only slightly across Australia’s states and territories.

The main one here, arguably, was denunciation: the sentence needs to reinforce in the public mind the abhorrence of her conduct.

Indeed, there was no plea of guilty, and no remorse from Patterson at any time.

Moreover, when considering a non-parole period, a judge takes into account what is referred to as “proportionality”. This can be a limiting feature where there is lesser culpability, but an exacerbating feature where there are multiple deaths.

One might refer to it colloquially as a person receiving their “just desserts”.

In this instance, the judge was mindful of the fact there were four victims.

He was also mindful of Patterson’s “harsh” prison conditions, telling the court:

you have effectively been held in continuous solitary confinement for the last 15 months and at the very least there is a substantial chance that for your protection you will continue to be held in solitary confinement for years to come.

Deterrence, as a regular feature of the sentencing exercise, in this case becomes a companion to denunciation.

Rehabilitation was always unlikely to have any impact on the sentence, given the life term. There was no submission by defence counsel that his client had a diagnosed mental disorder or would benefit from any form of an ongoing remediation or restorative program.

Huge personal tolls

What dominated the submissions at the pre-sentence hearing in August were the victim impact statements.

In Victoria, such statements have been in place since 1994, but it has only been since 2005 that the court has been required to take account of the impact of the crime on any victim when sentencing.

Only since 2011 have victims been granted the right to read a statement aloud in court or have a nominated representative do so on their behalf.

In the Patterson pre-sentence hearing, the sole survivor of the meal, Ian Wilkinson, read his own statement and described the loss of his wife Heather. He said he felt “only half alive without her”.

Patterson’s estranged husband Simon did not attend the pre-sentence hearing, so his statement was read to the judge by a family member. His children, he wrote:

have […] been robbed of hope for the kind of relationship with their mother that every child naturally yearns for.

The Wilkinsons’ daughter, Ruth Dubois, also addressed the judge with her own statement. She highlighted the wider victims of the crimes, namely medical staff, investigators, shop owners (who had had their names scrutinised), mushroom growers, the health department and taxpayers.

“I am horrified,” she said, “that our family is even associated, through no choice of our own, with such destructive behaviour towards the community”.

Will there be an appeal?

Patterson’s counsel has 28 days in which to appeal. An appeal would either be against conviction or the sentence or both.

In relation to an appeal against conviction, defence counsel would need to establish that the trial judge made a mistake in admitting (or ruling out) certain evidence or failing to properly explain the defence case.

The former, a mistake about evidence, is the more common appeal ground.

Less likely is the latter appeal ground because it would be difficult for defence counsel to assert that his client’s case was given too little regard by the judge, given the amount of time (almost two days) Justice Beale devoted to explaining the defence case to the jury.

When appealing the length of the non-parole period, either counsel can argue the duration was either manifestly inadequate (a prosecution submission) or manifestly excessive (a defence submission). It remains to be seen if either side will pursue this option.

Whatever the case, there would not be too many observers surprised by the judge’s final determination.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Four victims, no remorse: Erin Patterson given a life sentence for mushroom murders – https://theconversation.com/four-victims-no-remorse-erin-patterson-given-a-life-sentence-for-mushroom-murders-264128

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ken M.P. Setiawan, Senior Lecturer in Indonesian Studies, The University of Melbourne

During Indonesia’s recent mass protests, the looted homes of politicians in Jakarta revealed unexpected victims: cats reportedly left behind or stolen as their owners fled for safety.

The cats have gone viral on social media. Their politician owners – celebrities-turned-MPs Uya Kuya and Eko Patrio of the National Mandate Party (PAN) – were accused of “abandoning” their pets. This is a framing they reject, arguing they just didn’t have any opportunity to collect them before fleeing looters.

Wherever the truth lies, images of these frightened cats rescued by concerned citizens have struck a deep chord in cat-obsessed Indonesia.

Protesters and netizens quickly came to view these incidents as symbolic of politicians’ betrayal of their duty toward society’s most vulnerable.

Pets are political

Cats are hugely popular in Indonesia, which boasts the highest rate of cat ownership in the Asia-Pacific.

Indonesia is a majority Muslim country, and the high status of cats in Islam may help explain why cats are so popular there.

Beyond the cultural significance of cats, however, the recent incidents also offer insights into the nature of political image-making in Indonesia.

The phenomenon of politicians using cats and other animals to bolster their popularity is of course not new, nor is it uniquely Indonesian.

From Winston Churchill’s wartime cat Nelson, to Bill Clinton’s cat Socks or Downing Street’s “chief mouser” Larry, politicians have long used pet cats to carefully curate their public images as warm, approachable, relatable and humane.

The prime example from Indonesia is President Prabowo Subianto and his rescue tabby cat Bobby Kertanegara.

Bobby boasts almost 1 million followers on Instagram. Images of Prabowo feeding, playing with, and cuddling him helped transform the former army general’s public image in the lead-up to last year’s presidential election. He went from strongman with a questionable human rights record to a cuddly, sweet, animal-loving grandpa.

Now Indonesia’s “first cat” Bobby gets wheeled around in a luxury pet stroller and has his own security detail. He makes appearances at state functions where he receives gifts from foreign leaders. This includes a bespoke scarf Bobby recently received from Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

Vice President Gibran Rakabuming Raka and former Jakarta governor and 2024 presidential candidate Anies Baswedan have also used their pets to bolster their public image in Indonesia.

The recent protests

The recent protests in Jakarta were triggered by a proposed rise in MP allowances but also by general resentment towards the political class.

Anger has intensified over coverage of politicians’ lavish lives, as ordinary Indonesians struggle with high living costs and youth unemployment rates.

During the recent protests, several high-profile politicians had their houses looted.

Kuya and Patrio were reported to have left behind their cats, some of which were taken by looters or rescued by concerned citizens.

While many of these claims have been disputed by the politicians, commentary on viral posts have asked: if politicians can’t take responsibility for their own pets, how can they be trusted to care for the citizens they are supposed to represent?

Political image-crafting

Social media attention for these cats soon triggered a response from their owners.

Both Kuya and Patrio refuted claims the cats were “abandoned”. They argue there was no opportunity to grab the cats when their homes were targeted for looting, with the animals fleeing on their own.

Both have appealed for their pets to be returned, which has received some support from netizens.

The damage to the politicians’ reputations, however, has been done.

In the age of social media, pets have proven to be a double-edged sword.

Once used to soften politicians’ images and generate public support, these cats have now been drawn into a narrative that positions politicians as uncaring and out of touch. They have become metaphors for what some see as the elites’ betrayal of the people.

These cat incidents also reveal the precarious nature of political image-crafting in the age of social media.

Where once social media enabled political pets to be used to drive public adoration, it has now become a vehicle for backlash.

Ken M.P. Setiawan receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a Board Member of EngageMedia, a nonprofit organisation that promotes digital rights, open and secure technology, and social issue documentary in the Asia-Pacific.

Charlotte Setijadi has previously received research funding from Singapore’s Ministry of Education and the Singapore Social Science Research Council. She is currently one of the co-convenors of the University of Melbourne’s Indonesia Forum.

Elisabeth Kramer receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with the Australia-based Indonesia Council and the Australian Consortium for In-Country Indonesian Studies (ACICIS).

– ref. How MPs’ ‘abandoned’ cats became the unexpected symbol of Indonesia’s protests – https://theconversation.com/how-mps-abandoned-cats-became-the-unexpected-symbol-of-indonesias-protests-264511

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Mary Ellen O’Connell, Professor of Law and International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame

The U.S. government is justifying its lethal destruction of a boat suspected of transporting illegal drugs in the Caribbean as an attack on “narco-terrorists.”

But as an expert on international law, I know that line of argument goes nowhere. Even if, as the U.S. claims, the 11 people killed in the Sept. 2, 2025, U.S. Naval strike were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, it would make no difference under the laws that govern the use of force by state actors.

Nor does the fact that protests from other nations in the region are unlikely, due in large part to Washington’s diplomatic and economic power – and President Donald Trump’s willingness to wield it.

Protest is not what proves the law. Unlawful killing is unlawful regardless of who does it, why, or the reaction to it. And in regard to the U.S. strike on the alleged Venezuelan drug boat, the deaths were unlawful.

Domestic U.S. legal issues aside – and concerns have been raised on those grounds, too – the killings in the Caribbean violated the human right to life, an ancient principle codified today in leading human rights treaties.

Killing in war and peacetime

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is one such treaty to which the United States is a party. Article 6 of the covenant holds: “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”

Through rulings of human rights and other courts, it has been well established that determining when a killing has been arbitrary depends on whether the killing occurred in the context of peace or armed conflict.

Peace is the norm. And in times of peace, government agents are only permitted to use lethal force to save a life immediately. The United Nations’ Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials reinforce this peacetime right-to-life standard, noting “intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.”

The principle is also supported by the fact the U.S. has bilateral treaties regarding cooperation in drug interdiction. The Coast Guard has a series of successful Maritime Law Enforcement Agreements – known as Shiprider Agreements – with nations in the Caribbean and elsewhere. They commit U.S. authorities to respecting fundamental due process rights of criminal suspects. Such rights obviously do not include summary execution at sea.

Bypassing these bilateral and international treaties to dramatically blow up a ship not only violates law, but it will, I believe, further undermine trust and confidence in these or any other agreements the U.S. makes.

Flouting international law

In armed conflict, intentionally targeting an enemy vessel with lethal force is permitted, so long as the attack complies with international humanitarian law.

But it would be very difficult, in my opinion, for the U.S. to argue that it took action in the context of an armed conflict. In international law, armed conflict exists when two or more organized armed groups engage in intense fighting lasting at least a day. The U.S. started ignoring the definition of armed conflict when it began targeted killings of terrorism suspects with drones and other military means in 2002. War was raging in Afghanistan, but I would argue that killings in Yemen and elsewhere were not sufficiently tied to the fighting there to be lawful. The killings in Caribbean on Sept. 2 are a worse violation – they had links to no hostilities.

Organized crime groups of the kind the Trump administration alleges the boat members belonged to may be highly violent, but they are not engaged in armed conflict.

And while some armed groups waging war against governments do deal in drugs to pay for their participation in conflict, there is no evidence the gang that President Donald Trump purportedly targeted is such a group.

The term the Trump administration has used for the group is “narco-terrorist.” But that is not a recognized term under international law. As such, using it creates no exception to established principles on the right to life.

Nor does the right to life change depending on whether killings took place in territorial waters or on the high seas.

Given that the U.S. likely flouted international law, one could be forgiven for expecting the Trump administration to be held to account by the mechanisms that support the complex and comprehensive international legal system, such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.

But prosecuting alleged violations of international law is notoriously hard. And given the power of the U.S. government and the nature of the victims – members of an alleged drugs gang – the political will to hold Washington to account may be weak. Yet, the attack still presents an important opportunity to demand respect for international law and what it stipulates in regard to the right to life.

Mary Ellen O’Connell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. US obliteration of Caribbean boat was a clear violation of international ‘right to life’ laws – no matter who was on board – https://theconversation.com/us-obliteration-of-caribbean-boat-was-a-clear-violation-of-international-right-to-life-laws-no-matter-who-was-on-board-264568

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jordan Miller, Teaching Professor of Public Health, Arizona State University

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, long considered the nation’s – if not the world’s – premier public health organization, is mired in a crisis that not only threatens Americans’ health but also its very survival as a leading public health institution.

The degree of this crisis was on full display during Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Sept. 4, 2025, testimony before the U.S. Senate.

In the hearing, Kennedy openly criticized CDC professionals’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic, saying “the people at CDC who oversaw that process, who put masks on our children, who closed our schools, are the people who will be leaving.”

Kennedy’s hearing came on the heels of a contentious week in which Kennedy fired the CDC’s director, Susan Monarez, spurring 12 members of the Senate Finance Committee – including 11 Democrats and independent Bernie Sanders – to call on Kennedy to resign from his position.

At least four top CDC leaders resigned following Monarez’s ouster, citing pressure from Kennedy to depart from recommendations based on sound scientific evidence.

I am a teaching professor and public health professional. Like many of my colleagues, the disruption happening at the CDC in recent months has left me scrambling to find alternate credible sources of health information and feeling deeply concerned for the future of public health.

The CDC’s unraveling

These leadership shakeups come on the heels of months of targeted actions aimed at unraveling the CDC’s structure, function and leadership as it has existed for decades.

The turmoil began almost as soon as President Donald Trump took office in January 2025, when his administration enacted sweeping cuts to the CDC’s workforce that health experts broadly agree jeopardized its ability to respond to emerging health threats.

Trump used executive orders to limit CDC employees’ communication with the public and other external agencies, like the World Health Organization.

Within weeks, he ordered as much as 10% of the overall workforce to be cut.

Soon after, Kennedy – who was newly appointed by Trump – began undoing long-standing CDC institutions, like the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, replacing all 17 of its members in a move that was widely denounced by health experts.

Critics pointed to a lack of qualifications for the new committee members, with more than half never having published research on vaccinations and many having predetermined hostility toward vaccines.

In June, more than 20 authoritative organizations, including the National Medical Association and American Academy of Pediatrics, expressed serious concerns for the health impacts of overhauling the advisory committee.

How Monarez’s removal spurred the crisis

Public health leaders had cheered the July confirmation of Monarez as the CDC’s new director, seeing her nomination as a welcome relief to those who value evidence-based practice in public health. Monarez is an accomplished scientist and career public servant.

Many viewed her as a potential voice of scientific wisdom amid untrained officials appointed by Trump, who has a track record of policies that undermine public health and science.

In her role as acting director, to which she was appointed in January, Monarez had quietly presided over the wave of cuts to the CDC workforce and other moves that drastically reshaped the agency and weakened the country’s capacity to steward the nation’s health.

Yet Monarez had “red lines” that she would not cross: She would not fire CDC leadership, and she would not endorse vaccine policies that ran contrary to scientifically supported recommendations.

According to Monarez, Kennedy asked her to do both in an Aug. 27 meeting. When she refused, he asked her to resign.

Her lawyers pushed back, arguing that only the president had the authority to remove her, stating: “When CDC Director Susan Monarez refused to rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives and fire dedicated health experts, she chose protecting the public over serving a political agenda. For that, she has been targeted.”

Ultimately, the White House made her dismissal official later that evening.

An agency in turmoil

Further exemplifying and deepening the crisis at the agency, on Aug. 8, a gunman who had expressed anger over COVID-19 vaccinations opened fire on CDC headquarters, killing a police officer.

Many health workers attributed this directly to misinformation spread by Kennedy. The shooting amplified tensions and made tangible the sense of threat under which the CDC has been operating over the tumultuous months since Trump’s second term began. One employee stated that “the CDC is crumbling.”

Public health experts, including former CDC directors, are sounding the alarm, speaking out about the precariousness of the agency’s position. Some are questioning whether the CDC can even survive.

A crisis of trust

Even before the most recent shock waves, Americans said they were losing trust and confidence in CDC guidance: In April, 44% of U.S. adults polled said that they will place less trust in CDC recommendations under the new leadership. This would undoubtedly undermine the U.S. response if the country faces another public health challenge requiring a rapid, coordinated response, like COVID-19.

In addition to installing new members on the vaccine advisory committee, Kennedy abruptly changed the recommendations for flu and COVID-19 vaccines without input from the CDC or the vaccine advisory committee, and contrary to data presented by CDC scientists.

Public health professionals and advocates are now warning the public that vaccine recommendations coming from the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices may not be trustworthy. They point to the lack of credibility in the review process for the new committee, the fact that members have made statements contrary to scientific evidence in the past, and failure to apply an evidence-to-recommendations framework as compromising factors. Critics of the committee even describe a lack of basic understanding of the science behind vaccines.

Health impacts are being felt in real time, with health care providers reporting confusion among parents as a result of the conflicting vaccine recommendations. Now, those who want to be vaccinated are facing barriers to access, with major retailers placing new limits on vaccine access in the face of federal pressure. This as vaccination rates were already declining, largely due to misinformation.

The end result is an environment in which the credibility of the CDC is in question because people are unsure whether recommendations made in the CDC’s name are coming from the science and scientists or from the politicians who are in charge.

Filling the gaps

Reputable organizations are working to fill the void created by the CDC’s precariousness and the fact that recommendations are now being made based on political will, rather than scientific evidence.

The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Gynecology have both released recommended vaccination schedules that, for the first time, diverge from CDC recommendations.

And medical organizations are discussing strategies that include giving more weight to their recommendations than the CDC’s and creating pathways for clinicians to obtain vaccines directly from manufacturers. These measures would create workarounds to compensate for CDC leadership voids.

Some states, including California, Oregon, Washington and New Mexico, are establishing their own guidance regarding vaccinations. Public health scientists and physicians are attempting to preserve data and surveillance systems that the Trump administration has been removing. But independent organizations may not be able to sustain this work without federal funding.

What’s at stake

As part of its crucial work in every facet of public health, the CDC oversees larger-scale operations, both nationally and globally, that cannot simply be handed off to states or individual organizations. Some public health responses – such as to infectious diseases and foodborne illnesses – must be coordinated at the national level in order to be effective, since health risks are shared across state borders.

In a health information space that is awash with misinformation, having accurate, reliable health statistics and evidence-based guidelines is essential for public health educators like me to know what information to share and how to design effective health programs. Doctors and other clinicians rely on disease tracking to know how best to approach treating patients presenting with infections. The COVID-19 pandemic made clear the importance of laboratory science, a unified emergency response and rapid distribution of effective vaccines to the public.

One of the strengths of the American system of governance is its ability to approach challenges – including public health – in a coordinated way, having a federal level of cooperation that unifies state-level efforts.

The CDC has been the nation’s preeminent public health institution for more than eight decades as a result of its vast reach and unparalleled expertise. Right now, it’s all sitting at a precarious edge.

Jordan Miller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Kennedy hearing deepens crisis over dismantling of CDC leadership – health scholar explains why the agency’s ability to protect public health is compromised – https://theconversation.com/kennedy-hearing-deepens-crisis-over-dismantling-of-cdc-leadership-health-scholar-explains-why-the-agencys-ability-to-protect-public-health-is-compromised-264273

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Adam Simpson, Visiting Scholar at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University; Senior Lecturer, International Studies, University of South Australia

Thai politics is often chaotic. But this past week has been especially tumultuous, even by Thailand’s standards.

In a matter of days, Thailand has seen one prime minister, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, ousted by the country’s top court. And following a great deal of intrigue and horse-trading, a new prime minister, Anutin Charnvirakul, has finally been elected.

Anutin, a conservative tycoon who led the fight to legalise medicinal cannabis use, was elected by parliament after securing the backing of the progressive People’s Party in a surprise move.

Despite a leader being agreed on, there will be little stability in the new arrangement. Anutin will lead a shaky minority government, as many of his conservative values and policies are in direct opposition to those of his new backers.

The deal also requires a snap election within the next four months, once some constitutional questions have been settled.

The People’s Party has demanded Anutin commit to constitutional reform in exchange for its support. So, there is a chance democratic changes might finally be achieved. But Anutin could also renege on the deal once in power, if he can peel away enough MPs from other parties to sustain his government.

This would not be surprising. The country’s conservative forces have a long history of undermining the will of the people.

An all-powerful court

This political drama was put in motion after Paetongtarn Shinawatra was removed from office last Friday by the powerful and conservative Constitutional Court over violations of ethics standards.

Paetongtarn is the daughter of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was himself ousted by a military coup in 2006.

Since the Constitutional Court was established in 1997, it has toppled five prime ministers linked to the Shinawatra clan, in addition to dissolving 111 political parties, often linked to popular, pro-democracy politicians.

The court has dissolved three parties linked to the Shinawatras, as well as both progressive predecessors of the People’s Party. This includes Move Forward, which won the most seats in the last general election in 2023 but was prevented from taking power.

Thailand also has a history of military coups, with at least 12 over the past century. Not only was Thaksin’s government overthrown by a coup, so was his sister Yingluck’s government in 2014.

What did the People’s Party demand?

After Paetongtarn’s dismissal, the coalition government formed by Pheu Thai, the Shinawatra family’s party, and Anutin’s Bhumjaithai Party fell apart. In the political vacuum, the People’s Party emerged as kingmaker.

Despite its popularity, the People’s Party has been repeatedly stymied in its attempts to promote constitutional reform by the potent conservative forces in Thai society.

In exchange for supporting Anutin’s rise to prime minister, the People’s Party laid out several key conditions for the new government:

• it must dissolve parliament within four months and hold a new election

• it must organise a referendum, if required by the Constitutional Court, to allow parliament to amend the constitution

• if no referendum is required, it must work with the People’s Party to expedite the process of moving towards drafting a new constitution.

The People’s Party also committed against joining the new coalition government or taking any ministerial seats in cabinet.

This plan would allow the People’s Party to put forward its candidates for prime minister at the snap election, which it is restricted from doing in the current parliamentary vote by the constitution.

---

Read more:
Explainer: why was the winner of Thailand’s election blocked from becoming prime minister?

---

Thaksin flees again

Adding to the political turmoil, 76-year-old Thaksin Shinawatra abruptly left the country on his private jet on Thursday, heading for his mansion in Dubai.

Thaksin, who had previously spent 15 years in self-imposed exile to avoid legal charges, was acquitted in late August over charges he violated Thailand’s oppressive lèse-majesté law. Under Section 112 of Thailand’s Criminal Code, anyone found guilty of insulting the monarchy can receive up to 15 years in jail.

His acquittal initially suggested that a détente between the Shinawatras and conservative forces supporting the military and monarchy may have been back on track. But the removal of his daughter from office suggested these forces were keen to demonstrate they still held powerful cards.

Thaksin had been due to return to the Supreme Court next week in a separate case that could have seen him jailed. He said on social media he would return to Thailand for the court date on Tuesday, but whether he does so remains to be seen.

Where to now?

If the agreement between Anutin and the People’s Party holds, Thailand could see some movement towards constitutional reform, followed by a new election.

The People’s Party will likely win any election held, but whether its leader will be allowed to become prime minister is another question.

Since its predecessor was dissolved in 2024, its MPs have softened their rhetoric over reforming the lèse-majesté law. But there is little doubt conservative forces in Thailand still see the progressive policies and supporters of the party as a threat to their privileged status in society. They can be expected to use all means at their disposal to ensure the party doesn’t assume power.

Given the turmoil, another question is whether the military will step in, as it has in the past, to take control.

When asked about the military’s potential role in the current political negotiations, the Second Army commander said “the military has no plans for a coup”.

This will hardly be reassuring to Thais who have lived through more coups and removals of governments than they can count.

Adam Simpson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Thailand has another new prime minister and an opening for progress. But will anything change? – https://theconversation.com/thailand-has-another-new-prime-minister-and-an-opening-for-progress-but-will-anything-change-264332

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Dragan Rangelov, Senior Lecturer in Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience, Swinburne University of Technology

Imagine a game show where the host asks the contestant to randomly pick one option out of three: A, B or C.

After the contestant chooses, say, option B, the host reveals one of the remaining choices (say C) does not contain the prize. In the final step, the contestant is asked whether they want to change their mind and select the remaining option A or stick with their original choice, B.

Dubbed the Monty Hall problem after an American game show host, this famous puzzle has entertained mathematicians for decades. But it can also tell us something about how the human mind and brain function.

Why do some people choose to change their minds while others stick with their first choice? What would you do and what might your choice reveal about your mind?

Choosing when to change

Research on changes of mind uses the concept of “metacognition” to explain when and how mind changes occur. Broadly speaking, metacognition refers to psychological and biological processes that inform us about how well we are doing the task.

In a sense, metacognition is that inner voice telling us we are either on track or that we should try harder.

Intuitively, changes of mind may be triggered by low confidence in our initial choice. Yet, when my colleagues and I reviewed the research on changes of mind about a range of different kinds of decisions, we found many studies showing people change their minds less often than you might think. This was surprising, given how often we feel uncertain about our choices.

On the other hand, when people do choose to change their mind, it is often for the better. This ability to accurately gauge whether to change your mind is referred to as metacognitive sensitivity.

Our research has found people often make better decisions about whether to change their minds when they are put under time pressure.

Understanding more about how we decide to change our minds may lead to ways to train our minds to make better choices.

Our brains show when we will change our minds

Another interesting question about changes of mind is when do people choose to change their minds. The answer to this question might seem obvious, as people can change their minds only after they have made the first choice.

To find out more about this process, we measured people’s brain activity before they even made their initial choice in a laboratory task that involved answering questions about moving images on a screen. We successfully predicted changes of mind seconds before they took place.

These findings suggest brain activity that predicts changes of mind could be harnessed to improve the quality of the initial choices, without needing a change of mind later. Training based on this brain activity may help people in sensitive professions such as health or defence make better choices.

Why don’t we change our minds more often?

Research on metacognition has provided robust evidence that changes of mind tend to improve choice outcomes. So why are people so reluctant to change their minds?

There are at least two possible reasons. First, deciding to change your mind is typically a result of making extra cognitive effort to analyse the quality of the initial choices. Not every decision requires that effort, and most everyday choices can be good enough rather than perfect.

For example, choosing a wrong brand of orange-flavoured soft drink will probably not significantly impact our wellbeing. In fact, consumer research shows buyers tend to report higher product satisfaction when offered fewer choices, a phenomenon called “the paradox of choice”. This suggests having more choices and, therefore, greater opportunity to change one’s mind may be more cognitively effortful.

Second, frequent changes of mind may signal personality traits that are not socially desirable. Meaningful and fulfilling interpersonal relationships rely on the ability to predict and rely on another person’s actions.

Erratic and frequent changes of mind could negatively impact relationships and people may avoid doing this to improve their social integration.

The future of changing your mind

The science of changes of mind is an exciting field of research, developing at a fast pace.

Future developments in the field might focus on identifying specific brain activity markers of subsequent correct changes of mind. If reliable and valid markers are found, they could be harnessed to help people become experts on when they should change their minds to achieve better professional and social outcomes.

Oh, and coming back to the Monty Hall problem: if you ever do find yourself offered this choice by a game show host, you should definitely change your mind. In this scenario, for mathematical reasons, switching away from your first pick will double your chances of winning.

Dragan Rangelov does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What actually happens in your brain when you change your mind? – https://theconversation.com/what-actually-happens-in-your-brain-when-you-change-your-mind-263907

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Peter Draper, Professor, and Executive Director: Institute for International Trade, and Director of the Jean Monnet Centre of Trade and Environment, University of Adelaide

The global trading system that promoted free trade and underpinned global prosperity for 80 years now stands at a crossroads.

Recent trade policy developments have introduced unprecedented levels of uncertainty – not least, the upheaval caused by United States President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff regime.

This is presenting some fundamental changes to the way nations interact economically and politically.

The free trade ideal

Free trade envisions movement of goods and services across borders with minimal restrictions. That’s in contrast to protectionist policies such as tariffs or import quotas.

However, free trade has never existed in pure form. The rules-based global trading system emerged from the ashes of the second world war. It was designed to progressively reduce trade barriers while letting countries maintain national sovereignty.

This system began with the 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which was signed by 23 countries in Geneva, Switzerland.

Through successive rounds of negotiation, this treaty achieved substantial reductions in tariffs on merchandise goods. It ultimately laid the groundwork for the establishment of the World Trade Organization in 1995.

‘Plumbing of the trading system’

The World Trade Organization introduced binding mechanisms to settle trade disputes between countries. It also expanded coverage of rules-based trade to services, intellectual property and investment measures.

Colloquially known as “the plumbing of the trading system”, this framework enabled global trade to expand dramatically.

Merchandise exports grew from US$10.2 trillion (A$15.6 trillion) in 2005 to more than US$25 trillion (A$38.3 trillion) in 2022.

Yet despite decades of liberalisation, truly free trade remains elusive. Protectionism has persisted, not only through traditional tariffs but also non-tariff measures such as technical standards. Increasingly, national security restrictions have also played a role.

Trump’s new trade doctrine

Economist Richard Baldwin has argued the current trade disruption stems from the Trump administration’s “grievance doctrine”.

This doctrine doesn’t view trade as an exchange between countries with mutual benefits. Rather, it sees it as as a zero-sum competition, what Trump describes as other nations “ripping off” the United States.

Trade deficits – where the total value of a country’s imports exceeds the value of its exports – aren’t regarded as economic outcomes of the trade system. Instead, they’re seen as theft.

Likewise, the doctrine sees international agreements as instruments of disadvantage rather than mutual benefit.

---

Read more:
No, that’s not what a trade deficit means – and that’s not how you calculate other nations’ tariffs

---

The US retreats from leadership

Trump has cast himself as a figure resetting a system he says is rigged against the US.

Once, the US provided defence, economic and political security, stable currency arrangements, and predictable market access. Now, it increasingly acts as an economic bully seeking absolute advantage.

This shift – from “global insurer to extractor of profit” – has created uncertainty that extends far beyond its relationships with individual countries.

Trump’s policies have explicitly challenged core principles of the World Trade Organization.

Examples include his ignoring the principle of “most-favoured nation”, where countries can’t make different rules for different trading partners, and “tariff bindings” – which limit global tariff rates.

Some trade policy analysts have even suggested the US might withdraw from the World Trade Organization. Doing so would complete its formal rejection of the global trading rules-based order.

China’s challenge and the US response

China’s emergence as the world’s manufacturing superpower has fundamentally altered global trade dynamics. China is on track to produce 45% of global industrial output by 2030.

China’s manufacturing surpluses are approaching US$1 trillion annually (A$1.5 trillion), aided by big subsidies and market protections.

For the Trump administration, this represents a fundamental clash between US market-capitalism and China’s state-capitalism.

How ‘middle powers’ are responding

Many countries maintain significant relationships with both China and the US. This creates pressure to choose sides in an increasingly polarised environment.

Australia exemplifies these tensions. It maintains defence and security ties with the US, notably through the AUKUS agreement. But Australia has also built significant economic relationships with China, despite recent disputes. China remains Australia’s largest two-way trading partner.

This fragmentation, however, creates opportunities for cooperation between “middle powers”. European and Asian countries are increasingly exploring partnerships, bypassing traditional US-led frameworks.

However, these alternatives cannot fully replicate the scale and advantages of the US-led system.

Alternatives won’t fix the system

At a summit this week, China, Russia, India and other non-Western members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization voiced their support for the multilateral trading system. A joint statement reaffirmed World Trade Organization principles while criticising unilateral trade measures.

This represents an attempt to claim global leadership while the US pursues its own policies with individual countries.

The larger “BRICS+” bloc is a grouping of countries that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa and Indonesia. This group has frequently voiced its opposition to Western-dominated institutions and called for alternative governance structures.

However, BRICS+ lacks the institutional depth to function as a genuine alternative to the World Trade Organization-centred trading system. It lacks enforceable trade rules, systematic monitoring mechanisms, or conflict resolution procedures.

Where is the trading system headed?

The global trading system has been instrumental in lifting more than a billion people out of extreme poverty since 1990. But the old system of US-led multilateralism has ended. What replaces it remains unclear.

One possible outcome is that we see a gradual weakening of global institutions like the World Trade Organization, while regional arrangements become more important. This would preserve elements of rules-based trade while accommodating competition between great powers.

“Coalitions of like-minded nations” could set high policy standards in specific areas, while remaining open to other countries willing to meet those standards.

These coalitions could focus on freer trade, regulatory harmonisation, or security restrictions depending on their interests. That could help maintain the plumbing in a global trade system.

Nathan Howard Gray receives funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Peter Draper does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. As Trump abandons the rulebook on trade, does free trade have a future elsewhere? – https://theconversation.com/as-trump-abandons-the-rulebook-on-trade-does-free-trade-have-a-future-elsewhere-264338

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Peter Newman, Professor of Sustainability, Curtin University

Some 15 people have died after the Gloria funicular railway car in Lisbon, Portugal, derailed and crashed on Wednesday local time.

Emergency services have also confirmed that more than 18 people were also injured, five of them seriously, in the tragedy, which occurred at the start of the evening rush hour.

It follows another accident on the same line in May 2018, when one of the cars derailed due to flaws in the maintenance of its wheels. No one was killed in that incident.

The exact cause of the most recent accident is not yet known. Witnesses have reported that the yellow-and-white tram appeared out of control as it sped downhill, before derailing as it rounded a bend and crashing into a building. Photos of the aftermath show a crumpled heap of cables and steel.

These cable car–like transport systems are rare relics of the 19th century, found in only a few very hilly places around the world. So how do they work? And why are they still in use?

How do funicular railways work?

Trains and trams typically only work on flat terrain. That’s because their steel wheels can’t get enough traction on steel rails on steep hills. As a workaround, railway engineers often build tunnels through steep mountainsides.

Funicular railways, however, can go up very steep hills.

They usually feature two counterbalanced cars that are attached via a haulage cable.

As one car descends, it helps pull the ascending car up the hillside. The weight of the ascending car also prevents the descending one from careening out of control. Some now have electric motors to help power them and some are able to engage a one-way mechanical drive just for steep hills.

Even though funicular systems are typically quite slow and clunky, they are still popular with both tourists and residents in the places where they’re found.

Where are they found?

The Gloria funicular railway line in Lisbon opened in 1885. One of three funicular lines in Lisbon, it connects the city’s downtown area with the Bairro Alto (Upper Quarter).

But there are other examples of these transport relics around the world.

Switzerland has several funicular railways. The most notable is the Stoosbahn – the steepest funicular in the world. It covers a total ascent of around 744 metres, reaching a gradient of 47 degrees. It is a very popular tourist trip.

In Hong Kong, the Peak Tram is a funicular railway that has operated since 1888 and takes people to near the top of Hong Kong Island.

Last year, there was also some discussion about installing a new funicular railway system in the Blue Mountains in New South Wales, Australia, that would travel 14 metres every second.

The rise of trackless trams

Funicular railways still serve a purpose for people living in – or visiting – steep areas where they’re found. However, newer technology means more conventional forms of rail transport are now far less limited in travelling up and down hills.

For example, trackless trams are kind of a combination between a tram and a bus. They use GPS and digital sensors to move precisely along an invisible track and have rubber wheels, enabling them to ascend gradients of up to 15%. However, these have not yet been built for steeper hills.

I have enjoyed riding such funicular trams in a range of hilly cities, but this crash is likely to take the shine off the tourist experience. It’s about time we had a 21st-century option that is clearly safer.

Peter Newman receives funding from the CRC RACE.

– ref. Tragedy has struck Lisbon’s funicular railway. A transport expert explains how these old-fashioned trains work – https://theconversation.com/tragedy-has-struck-lisbons-funicular-railway-a-transport-expert-explains-how-these-old-fashioned-trains-work-264574

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Rob Nicholls, Senior Research Associate in Media and Communications, University of Sydney

Google will not have to sell its Chrome web browser in order to fix its illegal monopoly in the online search business, a United States federal judge has ruled. It will, however, need to do a few other things, such as sharing data with rival companies, in order to improve competition.

The remedies ruling was handed down by DC District Court Judge Amit Mehta, who last year found Google had violated antitrust laws in relation to its online search business.

This was not the worst-case scenario for Google, and the share price of its parent Alphabet rose 8% after the news. But the ruling could still have a significant impact on the tech giant – and the entire internet.

What was the case actually about?

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed its antitrust suit against Google in 2020, arguing the tech giant had used exclusive agreements with device makers such as Apple and Samsung to unfairly box out competitors from the search engine market.

For years, Google accounted for reportedly 90% of all search queries in the US, using what the DOJ called “anticompetitive tactics” to maintain and extend its monopolies in search and search advertising.

In August 2024, Judge Mehta ruled in the DOJ’s favour, finding Google had maintained an illegal monopoly.

The case centred on Google’s practice of entering into exclusionary agreements that collectively locked up the primary avenues through which users access online search, making Google the pre-set default general search engine on billions of mobile devices and computers – and particularly on Apple devices.

The remedies – proposed and actual

The DOJ urged the sell-off of the Chrome browser and possibly its Android operating system, and the sharing of search data. It said these remedies would limit Google’s ability to monopolise the search market and prevent it from gaining an unfair advantage in other markets, notably artificial intelligence (AI).

The DOJ also demanded an end to its multibillion-dollar agreements with Apple and other partners.

Judge Mehta’s remedies ruling fell significantly short of the DOJ’s harshest demands.

Under the remedies ordered, Google will be barred from entering or maintaining exclusive contracts relating to the distribution of Google Search, Chrome, Google Assistant, and the AI-powered Gemini app.

Google cannot enter agreements that condition the licensing of any Google application on the distribution or placement of these products, or condition revenue share payments on maintaining these products on any device for more than one year.

Google must also provide competitors with access to its search results and advertising services at standard rates. This will help them to deliver quality search results to their own users while building their own technology.

However, Google will not be barred from paying device makers to preload its products, including Google Search and generative AI products.

A technical committee will be established to help enforce the final judgment, which will last six years and go into effect 60 days after entry. Judge Mehta ordered the parties to meet by September 10 for the final judgment.

Shortly after the judge’s ruling, Google released a statement reiterating its opposition to the initial ruling in August 2024, which it still plans to appeal.

Today’s decision recognises how much the industry has changed through the advent of AI, which is giving people so many more ways to find information. This underlines what we’ve been saying since this case was filed in 2020: competition is intense and people can easily choose the services they want.

More cases to come

This decision opens up competition in the search market while allowing Google to maintain its core business structure. The data-sharing requirements could particularly benefit AI competitors who need large datasets to train their models.

Google faces additional antitrust pressure beyond this search case. In April 2025, US District Judge Leonie Brinkema found Google illegally monopolised advertising technology markets. The remedies trial for that case is scheduled for later this month.

As William Kovacic, a global competition law professor at George Washington University and former Federal Trade Commission commissioner, told TechCrunch:

We’ve never had a circumstance in which the Department of Justice has had two largely parallel cases involving major elements of alleged misconduct against the same dominant firm with two parallel remedy processes going ahead.

Google’s competitors, however, believe the remedies should have been more severe in this case.

In a statement, Gabriel Weinberg, the chief executive of search engine competitor DuckDuckGo, claimed Google “will still be allowed to continue to use its monopoly to hold back competitors, including in AI search”. He also called on the US congress to step in “to swiftly make Google do the thing it fears the most: compete on a level playing field”.

It seems likely the DOJ will need to demonstrate abuse of dominance in the AI search field in order to get a remedy that will satisfy DuckDuckGo.

The full resolution of these cases likely won’t occur until late 2027 or early 2028, as Google has indicated it will appeal both the liability and remedy decisions.

Rob Nicholls receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Google just dodged a major penalty in the courts – here’s what happens next – https://theconversation.com/google-just-dodged-a-major-penalty-in-the-courts-heres-what-happens-next-264473

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Vincent Ho, Associate Professor and Clinical Academic Gastroenterologist, Western Sydney University

Many of us are guilty of scrolling our smartphones on the toilet. But a new study from the United States, published today, has found this habit may increase your risk of developing haemorrhoids by up to 46%.

So, what’s the link? How can time on your phone lead to these painful lumps in and around your anus? Here’s what we know.

What are haemorrhoids?

Every healthy person has haemorrhoids, sometimes called piles. They are columns of cushioned tissue and blood vessels found close to the opening of the anus.

Haemorrhoids have a really important role in maintaining bowel continence or, to put it simply, keeping your poo in.

When all is well, we don’t notice them. But haemorrhoids can get swollen and this can lead to symptoms such as pain, bleeding or feeling a lump just inside your anus (internal haemorrhoids) or protruding outside (external haemorrhoids).

So when someone “has haemorrhoids”, it means they have become inflamed or symptomatic.

This is extremely common: more than one in two of us will experience symptomatic haemorrhoids at some point in our lives.

You are more likely to get haemorrhoids if you:

• are older (over 45)
• are pregnant
• are overweight
• have persistent constipation or diarrhoea
• regularly lift heavy objects
• spend a lot of time on the toilet.

The link between toilet time and haemorrhoids

Prolonged sitting in general has not been linked to developing haemorrhoids.

However, a standard toilet seat – unlike a chair or couch – has a large internal opening that provides no support for the pelvic floor (the group of muscles and ligaments that support the bladder, bowel and uterus).

Prolonged sitting on a toilet seat is believed to increase pressure inside the pelvic floor and lead to blood pooling in the vascular cushions of the anus. This makes haemorrhoids more likely to develop.

What the new study looked at

The new US study recruited 125 adults, aged 45 and older, who were undergoing a colonoscopy at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical centre.

Researchers surveyed them about their smartphone habits while using the toilet, including how often they checked their phone and for how long. Participants also reported on other behaviours such as straining, their fibre intake, and how much physical activity they did.

The researchers recorded whether they had haemorrhoids. Since the participants were all having a colonoscopy, the presence of internal haemorrhoids could be directly confirmed visually.

What did the study show?

Two-thirds (66%) of all participants used smartphones while on the toilet. The most common activity was reading news (54.3%), followed by social media (44.4%).

Those who used their smartphones spent longer on the toilet than those who didn’t. More than one in three (37.3%) toilet smartphone users spent over five minutes on the toilet, compared to just over one in 20 (7%) of those who didn’t use their smartphones.

The smartphone users had a 46% higher risk of haemorrhoids, compared to those who didn’t use their smartphone. To calculate this, researchers took into account other known risk factors for haemorrhoids such as gender, age, body mass index, exercise activity, straining and fibre intake.

However, unlike some other research, this study did not find a link between straining and haemorrhoids.

As a result, the researchers concluded that time spent on the toilet poses a more significant risk for haemorrhoids than straining. However, we can’t rule out straining as a risk factor, based on one study.

Some other limitations to consider

The study relied on participants remembering whether or not they strained, and how long they spent on the toilet.

This kind of recall is subjective, and may also be influenced by taking part in the study. For example, if the participants thought they had haemorrhoids, they may be more likely to report straining.

The study’s small sample size and the participants’ age (all over 45) also mean it is unlikely to be representative of the broader population.

Toilet sitting time

The new study is not the first to study the link between time spent on the toilet and developing haemorrhoids. In 2020, a Turkish study found spending more than five minutes on the toilet was associated with haemorrhoids.

Another 2020 study from Italy of 52 people with diagnosed internal or external haemorrhoids noted the longer they spent on the toilet, the more severe their haemorrhoids.

---

Read more:
Do men really take longer to poo?

---

So, what are we doing on the toilet?

Defaecation itself usually doesn’t take long. One study found it took healthy adults an average two minutes when sitting, but only 51 seconds when squatting.

The majority of “toilet sitting time” usually means just that – sitting on the toilet, doing other activities aside from pooing (or weeing).

One 2008 study from Israel surveyed 500 adults and found more than half (52.7%) read books or newspapers while on the toilet. It also found toilet readers spent significantly more time on the toilet.

How to avoid haemorrhoids

The usual advice is to increase the amount of fibre in your diet (eating more fruit, vegetables and wholegrains) and ensure you drink enough water. This makes it easier to pass a stool and reduces straining – which you should also try to avoid.

However, the new research confirms previous evidence that cutting down toilet sitting time may also help. So, avoiding distractions by leaving your smartphone outside the bathroom is a good idea (and as a bonus, will expose your device to fewer germs).

---

Read more:
Your phone is covered in germs: a tech expert explains how to clean it without doing damage

---

If you have any concerning symptoms, such as blood in your stool, a new lump in the anal region, or pain when passing a bowel motion then you should see your local doctor for further investigations and treatment.

Vincent Ho does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Scrolling on the toilet increases your risk of haemorrhoids, new study shows – https://theconversation.com/scrolling-on-the-toilet-increases-your-risk-of-haemorrhoids-new-study-shows-264107