Asia Pacific

About 50,000 people are still isolated across New South Wales after a powerful weather system dumped months of rain in three days.

Record-breaking floods in eastern Australia have killed four people and stranded tens of thousands after days of relentless rain.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and New South Wales Premier Christopher Minns visited affected communities on Friday, some of which have experienced their worst flooding on record this week.

Minns praised emergency workers and volunteers, who have rescued 678 people in recent days – 177 of them in the past 24 hours.

“It’s an amazing, heroic logistical effort where, in very difficult circumstances, many volunteers put themselves in harm’s way to rescue a complete stranger,” Minns told reporters.

“Without the volunteers, we would have had hundreds of deaths and we’re in deep, deep gratitude.”

As well as the four victims killed, one person is reported missing.

About 50,000 people are still isolated across New South Wales, the country’s most populous state. Entire towns remain cut off and roads submerged after a powerful weather system dumped months of rain in three days.

Flash floods tore through rural communities, washing away livestock, damaging homes, and turning streets into rivers. Coastal areas are now littered with debris and dead animals.

Authorities have warned returning residents to remain vigilant.

“Floodwaters have contaminants, there can be vermin, snakes … so you need to assess those risks. Electricity can also pose a danger as well,” said Emergency Services Deputy Commissioner Damien Johnston.

Australia has faced a string of extreme weather events in recent years, a trend experts attribute to climate change.

“What once were rare downpours are now becoming the new normal – climate change is rewriting Australia’s weather patterns, one flood at a time,” said Davide Faranda, a climate researcher at ClimaMeter, in comments carried by the Reuters news agency.

The storm system has now moved south towards Sydney, causing further disruption.

Train services, including airport services, were affected by flooded tracks. Sydney airport shut two of its three runways for an hour on Friday morning, delaying flights.

Officials also warned that Warragamba Dam, which supplies 80 percent of Sydney’s water and is currently at 96 percent capacity, may soon overflow.

United States debt has long been considered the safest of all safe havens.
But, Washington has just lost its pristine reputation as a borrower.
Moody’s has downgraded the nation from its top-notch AAA rating, becoming the last of the big three agencies to do so.
The ratings agency has cited the United States’s growing debt – now at $36 trillion, almost 120 percent of gross domestic product – and rising debt service costs.
Against this backdrop, President Donald Trump is pushing what he calls the “one big, beautiful bill”.
Critics warn his tax cut package could add trillions more to the already ballooning deficit.

Economists echo Dimon’s concerns as US credit downgrade and tariff-driven uncertainty continue.

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon has warned that he can’t rule out the possibility that the United States will fall into what is called stagflation— an economic term that refers to a period when inflation and unemployment are high as economic growth is slow.

In an interview with Bloomberg Television on Thursday, Dimon said, “I don’t agree that we’re in a sweet spot” in response to a question about some US Federal Reserve officials saying that the US economy was in a sweet spot.

Dimon made his comments while at JPMorgan’s Global China Summit in Shanghai. His comments come against the backdrop of the US facing increasing geopolitical tensions, rising deficits and pressure on consumer prices from changing government policies on tariffs that have led retailers to announce a need to raise prices and left businesses in a wait-and-watch mode over all the economic uncertainties.

Economists like Stuart Mackintosh, executive director of the financial think tank Group of Thirty, echoed Dimon’s concerns to Al Jazeera.

“Stagflation is a real risk we cannot rule out. We’re in a circumstance where we have uncertainty on tariffs, uncertainty on many policies that increase the downward pressure on growth in America.”

Last week Moody’s Ratings downgraded the US economy’s credit rating. The firm lowered its gold-standard Aaa to an Aa1 credit rating for the US, citing its growing national debt.

Dimon’s Thursday comments were underscored by his remarks at the company’s investor day on Monday.

“Credit today is a bad risk,” Dimon said.

While at the summit, Dimon also offered comments on US President Donald Trump’s “big beautiful bill”, the tax and spending bill passed by the US House of Representatives that includes key parts of the Trump administration agenda including tax cuts, slashes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), increased funding for immigration enforcement, and new taxes on colleges and universities.

“I think they should do the tax bill. I do think it’ll stabilise things a little bit, but it’ll probably add to the deficit,” Dimon said in a record first obtained by the Reuters news agency.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has said that the tax bill would add $3.8 trillion to the national debt.

‘Inflation going up’

In the Bloomberg interview, Dimon added that the US Federal Reserve is doing the right thing to wait and see before it decides on monetary policy. The central bank opted to hold rates steady at its last policy meeting, which was largely in line with economists’ expectations.

Policymakers weighed a stable labour market at the time, even as they acknowledged that could be short-lived.

“This is unsustainable. We might get into a much worse economic picture almost immediately,” Mackintosh said.

More information on the state of the US labour market is expected in the next couple of weeks as both the US Department of Labor and the payroll and human resources firm ADP are slated to release their monthly report on the rate of job growth.

Dimon has also long warned that inflation and stagflation will continue to increase.

“I think the chance of inflation going up and stagflation is a little bit higher than other people think,” he noted.

On Wall Street, JPMorgan Chase’s stock has trended up following Dimon’s remarks. As of noon in New York (16:00 GMT), it was 0.2 percent higher than yesterday’s market close after opening lower this morning.

A Chinese coast guard vessel collided with a Philippines government ship near a disputed reef in the South China Sea. The Philippines accused China of “aggressive interference,” while China said the other vessel was “illegally intruding.”

Heavy rains in New South Wales have caused record-breaking floods, killing two people and isolating tens of thousands of residents. Authorities warn of more rain and life-threatening flash floods as emergency teams continue rescue efforts.

Vessel damaged as a result of ‘absolute carelessness, irresponsibility and unscientific empiricism’, state media says.

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has reprimanded officials over a “serious accident and criminal act” that resulted in damage to a newly built warship, state media has reported.

The 5,000-tonne destroyer suffered damage to its hull when a transport cradle detached prematurely during a launch ceremony in the northeastern city of Chongjin, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) reported on Thursday, blaming the incident on “inexperienced command and operational carelessness”.

After witnessing the incident, Kim made the “stern assessment” that the accident was caused by “absolute carelessness, irresponsibility and unscientific empiricism,” which “could not be tolerated”, the KCNA said.

Kim “warned solemnly” that officials responsible for the botched launch “would have to be dealt with” at the next meeting of the central committee of the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea, and “censured them for the fault”, according to the KCNA.

Kim ordered the warship to be fixed in time for a plenary meeting of the party’s central committee in June, describing the vessel’s restoration as “not merely a practical issue but a political issue directly related to the authority of the state”, according to the KCNA.

South Korea’s military said Pyongyang appeared to have failed to complete a side-launch of the ship, and it had partially capsized.

Official admissions of incompetence are uncommon in North Korea, where the ruling Kim family enjoys a near God-like status.

The disclosure comes after Kim attended the launch of a “new multipurpose destroyer” equipped with “the most powerful weapons” on April 25.

In state media reports at the time, Kim hailed the vessel as “indispensable in building up our capability for stoutly defending our maritime sovereignty” and an “important starting point of our journey towards building an advanced maritime power”.

“I feel infinitely honoured to proclaim the birth of the first warship of a new generation,” Kim was quoted as saying.

Tea is the most popular drink in the world other than water. It beats out coffee and beer, which hold second and third place.

May 21 is designated as International Tea Day by the United Nations, marking the significance and value of the drink globally, not just economically but culturally too.

Tea plays a meaningful role in many societies. From Tibetan po cha to a good old English breakfast brew, tea is considered a unifying and hospitable beverage.

While the exact origins of tea are unknown, it is believed to have originated in northeast India, northern Myanmar and southwest China, according to the UN. There is evidence that tea was consumed in China 5,000 years ago, making it one of the oldest beverages in the world.

How to say tea around the world

Across the globe, nearly all words for tea can be derived from the root words “cha” or “te”.

In many parts of South Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe, the word for tea is derived from cha.

• In Mandarin: 茶 (chá)
• In Arabic: شاي (shāy)
• In Turkish: çay
• In Hindi: चाय (chāi)

In Western Europe, many countries use some derivative of te. For example, “tea” was introduced into the English language as a result of trade routes in the East. The word was taken from China, where it was pronounced “te” in the Hokkien dialect.

• In English: tea
• In French: thé
• In Spanish: té
• In German: tee

Who produces the most tea globally?

The tea plant is usually grown in tropical and subtropical climates where its cultivation and processing support the livelihoods of millions of people.

According to the latest data from the Tea and Coffee Trade Journal‘s Global Tea Report, China produces nearly half of the world’s tea (48 percent). India is the second largest producer, accounting for 20 percent of world production, followed by Kenya (8 percent), Turkiye (4 percent) and Sri Lanka (3 percent).

The rest of the world accounts for 17 percent of tea production globally.

How much tea is consumed daily worldwide?

According to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), world tea consumption reached 6.5 million tonnes in 2022, growing from previous years.

Consumption in China, the largest consumer of tea, reached 3 million tonnes in 2022, representing 46 percent of global consumption.

India, the second largest consumer, accounted for a share of nearly 18 percent at 1.16 million tonnes in 2022, followed by Turkiye with 250,000 tonnes, Pakistan with 247,000 tonnes and Russia with 133,000 tonnes.

According to the FAO, tea consumption expanded by 2 percent in 2022 compared with 2021 and further increased in 2023.

However, tea consumption in countries in Europe and North America has been declining due to increasing competition from other beverages while for Russia, tea imports have been negatively impacted by the war in Ukraine.

Five odd teas around the world

To mark this year’s International Tea Day, here are five somewhat unusual teas from around the world and how to make them:

Butter tea (po cha)

Found in: Tibet and other Himalayan regions

What’s odd?: It’s in the name. Made with yak butter, black tea and salt, butter tea is broth-like. Apparently, there is a tradition where the host will refill your cup with butter tea until you refuse or until they stop filling it, signalling it’s time for you to leave.

Kombucha – is it tea?

Found in: China, Japan and the Koreas

What’s odd?: Kombucha is considered a tea. It’s a fermented tea made using a jelly-like SCOBY (symbiotic colony of bacteria and yeast). Kombucha fans often name their SCOBYs, treat them like pets and pass them to friends like family heirlooms.

Butterfly pea flower tea

Found in: Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam

What’s odd?: It is known as blue tea because of its colour, which then changes to purple when lemon juice is added. It’s caffeine free and made from a concoction of floral petals from the blue pea flower.

Baobab leaf tea

Found in: sub-Saharan Africa

What’s odd?: Baobab leaf tea is traditionally used in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa as a mild herbal remedy and nutritional drink.

Unlike most herbal teas, which are often floral or fruity, baobab leaf tea has a mildly earthy or even slightly bitter taste, a bit like spinach water.

Guava leaf tea

Found in: Philippines, Central America, Africa

What’s odd?: The tea is made from the leaves of the guava tree, which have an earthy flavour. In Philippine culture, it is said to have medicinal benefits for soothing stomach aches and bathing wounds.

National Party and Liberal Party part ways after more than 60-year alliance following election defeat.

Australia’s National Party has split from its conservative coalition partner of more than 60 years, the Liberal Party, citing policy differences over renewable energy and following a resounding loss in the national elections this month.

“It’s time to have a break,” the National leader, David Littleproud, told reporters on Tuesday.

The split shows the pressure on Australia’s conservative parties after Anthony Albanese’s centre-left Labor Party won a historic second term in the May 3 election, powered by a voter backlash against United States President Donald Trump’s policies.

Under the longstanding partnership in state and federal politics, the Liberal and National coalition had shared power in governments, with the Nationals broadly representing the interests of rural communities and the Liberals contesting city seats.

“We will not be re-entering a coalition agreement with the Liberal Party after this election,” Littleproud said, citing policy differences.

Liberal Party leader Sussan Ley, who was installed in the role last week, had pledged to revisit all policies in the wake of the election loss. She said on Tuesday she was disappointed with the Nationals’ decision, which came after they had sought specific commitments.

“As the largest nongovernment political party, the Liberals will form the official opposition,” she added.

The Liberals were reduced to 28 out of 150 seats in the House of Representatives, their worst result, as Labor increased its tally to 94 from 77, registering its largest-ever majority in an election. The National Party retained its 15 seats.

The Liberal Party lost key city seats to independents supporting gender equality and action on climate change.

Ley, a former outback pilot with three finance degrees, was elected as the party’s first female leader after opposition leader Peter Dutton lost his seat in the election.

“She is a leader that needs to rebuild the Liberal Party; they are going on a journey of rediscovery, and this will provide them the opportunity to do that,” said Littleproud.

The Nationals remain committed to “having the door open” for more coalition talks before the next election, but would uphold the interests of rural Australians, he said.

The Nationals had failed to gain a commitment from Ley that her party would continue a policy taken to the election supporting the introduction of nuclear power, and also wanted a crackdown on the market power of Australia’s large supermarkets, and better telecommunications in the Outback.

Australia has the world’s largest uranium reserves but bans nuclear energy.

Littleproud said nuclear power was needed because Australia’s move away from coal to “renewables only” under the Labor government was not reliable.

Wind farm turbines “are tearing up our landscape, they are tearing up your food security”, he said.

Michael Guerin, chief executive of AgForce, representing farmers in Queensland state, said the urban-rural divide was worsening.

“Perhaps we’re seeing that in the political forum,” he said, adding the Liberals and Nationals both needed to rebuild.

Labor Party treasurer Jim Chalmers said the split in the opposition was a “nuclear meltdown”, and the Liberals would have a presence “barely bigger” than the cross-bench of 12 independents and minor parties when Parliament sits.

Despite slowdown, data points to reliance of Chinese economy in the face of Donald Trump’s tariffs.

China’s industrial output and retail sales growth have slowed amid trade tensions with the United States.

Factory output grew 6.1 percent year-on-year in April, down from a 7.7 percent rise in March, data released by China’s National Bureau of Statistics showed on Monday.

While down compared with the previous month, the figure beat analysts’ expectations.

Analysts polled by the Reuters and Bloomberg news agencies had respectively forecast growth of 5.5 percent and 5.7 percent.

Retail sales grew 5.1 percent year-on-year, slower than the 5.9 percent growth recorded in March and below analysts’ forecasts.

Fixed-asset investment, which includes property and infrastructure investment, rose 4 percent.

Unemployment fell slightly, from 5.2 percent to 5.1 percent.

The latest data is likely to bolster hopes of China’s economy remaining resilient in the face of US President Donald Trump’s tariffs, after gross domestic product expanded a better-than-expected 5.4 percent in the January-March period.

The National Bureau of Statistics said the economy maintained “new and positive development momentum” due to Beijing’s economic policies, despite the “increasing impact of external shocks”.

“However, we should be aware that there are still many unstable and uncertain factors in external environment, and the foundation for sustained economic recovery needs to be further consolidated,” the statistics agency said in a statement.

The economic figures are the first to be released since Washington and Beijing last week agreed to dramatically reduce tariffs on each other’s goods for 90 days.

Under the deal reached in Geneva, the US lowered its tariff on Chinese goods from 145 percent to 30 percent, while China slashed its rate from 125 percent to 10 percent.

“The risk is that tariffs remain in place for a long time, and eventually, we see production offshored,” Lynn Song, chief economist for Greater China at ING, said in a note on Monday.

“But amid tariff unpredictability, not just for China but across the world, few companies will be rushing to commit resources to set up offshore manufacturing facilities. This could mean that a decent portion of China’s manufacturing and exports will be less impacted than originally feared.”

On May 12, the United States and China announced that they are putting reciprocal tariffs on pause for 90 days. Some tariffs will be retained while trade negotiations continue, a joint statement said.

This is yet another reversal of the sweeping tariffs US President Donald Trump imposed in early April that destabilised the global economy and sent stock markets into freefall.

Although he claimed that his measures would make the US economy “boom”, it was clear from the start that they would not work. A trade war cannot improve the lot of American workers, nor bring back manufacturing into the country.

Now spooked by corporations slashing profit targets and reports of the US gross domestic product (GDP) shrinking, the Trump administration appears to be walking back on its strategy. But going back to economic liberalism under the guise of “stability” is not the right course of action.

The current global economic system, distorted by policies favouring the rich sustained over decades, has proven itself to be unsustainable. That is why we need a new world economic order that promotes inclusive and sustainable development across both the Global North and South and addresses global socioeconomic challenges.

The crisis of liberal globalisation

The troubles that economies around the world currently face are the result of policies the elites of the Global North imposed over the past 80 years.

In its original Keynesian vision, the economic order put forward by the Allied Powers after World War II aimed to combine trade, labour, and development best practices to foster inclusive growth. However, over the following few decades, corporate opposition in the US and Britain derailed this order, replacing it with a skewed system centred around the Global North’s chief economic instruments, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, both created in 1944.

In the 1970s, economic elites blamed rising inflation and stagnation not on temporary shocks like the oil crisis but on what they saw as excessive concessions to organised labour: government overspending, strong unions, and heavy regulation. Subsequently, they launched an institutional counter-revolution against the Keynesian model of power sharing and social compromise.

This counter-revolution took shape in the 1980s under US President Ronald Reagan and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who aggressively pursued policies to restore corporate profitability. They slashed taxes on the wealthy, liberalised international capital flows that made it easier to relocate production to low-cost economies, deregulated the financial sector, weakened labour unions, and privatised public services. As a result, outsourcing of labour, tax evasion, real estate speculation, financialisation, and credit-fuelled bubbles became US corporations’ dominant ways of making profit.

In developing countries, the IMF, the World Bank and regional development banks pushed governments to cut public spending, privatise state-owned enterprises, remove trade barriers, and deregulate markets rapidly and with little regard for social consequences.

As a result, the 1980s and 90s became lost decades for many countries embracing globalisation through radical liberalisation. These policies triggered massive employment shocks, rising inequalities, skyrocketing debt and persistent financial turbulence from Mexico to Russia.

East Asian economies were the exceptions, as they learned to circumvent the straitjacket of liberal globalisation and joined the global economy on their own terms.

The biggest beneficiaries of this system were Western economic elites, as corporations profited from low-cost production abroad and domestic deregulation at home. The same cannot be said for Western workers, who faced stagnating real wages, eroded labour protections, and increasing economic insecurity under the pressure of competitiveness, relocation, and automation.

Illiberal economic policy is doomed to fail

For those of us who studied the post-war economic order, it was apparent that without correcting the pitfalls of liberal globalism, a nationalist, illiberal counter-revolution was coming. We saw its signs early on in Europe, where illiberal populists rose to prominence, gaining a foothold first in the periphery and then gradually scaling up to become Europe’s most disruptive force.

In the countries where they gained power, they pursued policies superficially resembling developmentalism. Yet, instead of achieving genuine structural transformation, they fostered oligarchies dominated by politically connected elites. Instead of development, they delivered rent-seeking and resource extraction without boosting productivity or innovation.

Trump’s economic policies follow a similar path of economic populism and nationalistic rhetoric. Just like illiberal economic policies failed in Europe, his tariffs were never going to magically reindustrialise the US or end working-class suffering.

If anything, tariffs – or now the threat of imposing them – will accelerate China’s competitive edge by pushing it to deepen domestic supply chains, foster regional cooperation, and reduce reliance on Western markets. In the US, the illiberal response will drag labour standards down, eroding real wages through inflation and propping up elites with artificial protections.

Furthermore, Trump has no real industrial policy, which renders his reactive trade measures completely ineffective. A genuine industrial policy would coordinate public investment, support targeted sectors, enforce labour standards, and channel technological change towards good jobs.

His predecessor, President Joe Biden, laid the foundations of such an industrial policy agenda in the Inflation Reduction and CHIPS acts. However, these programmes are now under attack from the Trump administration, and their remaining vestiges will not have a meaningful effect.

Without these pillars, workers are left exposed to economic shocks and excluded from the gains of growth, while the rhetoric of reindustrialisation becomes little more than a political performance.

The way forward

While Trump’s economic policies are unlikely to work, returning to economic liberalism will not resolve socioeconomic grievances either. Let us remember that past efforts to maintain this deeply flawed system at any cost backfired.

Following the 2008 global financial crisis, Western governments rescued big banks and allowed financial markets to return to business as usual. Meaningful reforms of the global economic architecture never materialised. Meanwhile, the living standards of working- and middle-class families from Germany to the US stagnated or declined as wages flatlined, housing prices soared, and economic insecurity deepened.

We cannot return to this dysfunction again. We need a new global economic order focused on multilateral governance, ecological sustainability, and human-centric development. Such progressive global multilateralism would mean governments coordinating not only on taxing multinational corporations and curbing tax havens but also on regulating capital flows, setting minimum labour and environmental standards, sharing green technologies, and jointly financing global public goods.

In this new economic order, the institutions of global economic governance would make space for developing and emerging countries to implement industrial policies and build stronger ties with public finance bodies to mobilise patient, sustainable capital. This cooperative approach would offer a practical alternative to liberal globalism by promoting accountable public investment and development-focused financial collaboration.

Parallel to the eco-social developmentalism in emerging economies, wealthy nations need to embrace a post-growth model gradually. This strategy prioritises wellbeing, ecological stability, and social equity over endless GDP expansion.

This means investing in care work, green infrastructure, and public services rather than chasing short-term profits or extractive growth. For mature economies, the goal should be shifting from growing more to distributing better and living within planetary limits. This would also allow more space for low- and middle-income countries to improve their living standards without overexploiting our limited shared natural resources.

With stronger cooperation between national and multilateral public finance institutions and better tools to tax and regulate corporations, governments could regain the capacity to create stable, well-paying jobs, strengthen organised labour, and tackle inequalities. This is the only way for American workers to regain the quality of life they aspire to.

Such progressive multilateralism would be a powerful long-term antidote against illiberal populism. Achieving this shift, however, requires building robust global and regional political coalitions to challenge entrenched corporate interests and counterbalance the existing liberal, capital-driven global framework.

The challenge is clear: not only to critique Trump’s destructive policies but to present a bold, coherent vision of industrial renewal, ecological sustainability, and global justice. The coming months will show whether anyone is prepared to lead that transformation.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Candidates Lee, the frontrunner, and his opponent Kim clash in the first of three televised debates.

South Korea’s two leading presidential candidates, Lee Jae-myung and Kim Moon-soo, have held the first of three televised debates as the race intensifies to replace former President Yoon Suk-yeol, who was removed in April over his contentious move to declare martial law late last year.

Yoon’s ouster has stoked political turmoil in the nation, and a snap election is set for June 3.

During Sunday’s heated debate, Lee, who is the main opposition Democratic Party’s candidate and the frontrunner in the race, faced criticism about being too friendly towards China from his opponents, who cited his comments that South Korea does not need to get involved in China-Taiwan disputes.

But Lee, who considers pragmatism as key to his foreign policy, said the country “should not go all-in” on its alliance with traditional ally the United States and called for the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula.

He added that managing China and Russia relations was important, while noting that security cooperation with the US and Japan is necessary.

Lee also advocated putting South Korea’s interests first in response to US tariffs, more investment in artificial intelligence (AI), protection for unionised workers, and a four-and-a-half-day working week.

There was no need for Seoul to rush to reach a trade agreement with Washington, Lee said during the two-hour debate.

South Korea has begun trade talks with the US and is seeking a waiver from the 25 percent tariffs that US President Donald Trump slapped on the country in April – after which Seoul was one of the first countries to hold face-to-face talks with Washington, following in the footsteps of Japan.

“I think we should prepare well for this situation delicately and competently,” Lee added, also arguing that South Korea needs to nurture high-tech and renewable energy industries to overcome low economic growth.

“We will focus on developing so-called sovereign AI so our people can at least use something like ChatGPT for free like an electronic calculator,” he said.

Kim, candidate for the conservative People Power Party, vowed to create jobs and deregulate to foster businesses.

Kim has also pledged to create a government agency dedicated to innovating regulations and to invest more than five percent of the budget in research and development.

Asia’s fourth-largest economy contracted in the first quarter as exports and consumption stalled, amid fears over the impact of Washington’s aggressive tariffs and political turmoil at home.

Lee holds a lead with 51 percent support in the latest Gallup Korea poll released on Friday, with Kim trailing far behind at 29 percent.

Lee called earlier in the day for constitutional reform to allow a four-year, two-term presidency and a two-round system for presidential elections through a referendum. South Korean presidents currently serve a single five-year term.

He also vowed to curb the presidential right to declare martial law and hold to account those responsible for the December 3 declaration.

Former President Yoon had claimed at the time he declared martial law that antistate and North Korean forces had infiltrated the government. But senior military and police officials who were sent to shut down the country’s National Assembly have testified that he ordered them to detain rival politicians and prevent the assembly from voting to lift his military rule order.

Puchong, Malaysia – On a recent Sunday morning, about a dozen men with fishing nets skirted the rubbish-strewn banks of the Klang River just outside the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur.

Surveying the river, the men cast their nets into the polluted water. The nets billowed open and sunk quickly under the weight of metal chains.

From where they stood on the riverbank, they started to pull in their nets, already filled with dozens of squirming black-bodied catfish.

“You don’t see any other fish. Only these,” said Mohamad Haziq A Rahman, the leader of Malaysia’s “foreign fish hunter squad”, as they emptied their catch of wriggling suckermouth catfish into piles, away from the river.

None of the fish caught that morning were sold at nearby markets or food stalls. The sole purpose of the expedition was to cull suckermouth catfish, one among a growing number of invasive species that have in recent decades dominated freshwater habitats across Southeast Asia.

Once brought in for commercial or hobbyist reasons, invasive fish are not only threatening to edge native species out of the food chain in Malaysia and elsewhere, but they also spread diseases and cause great damage to local environments.

Invasive fish are a problem the world over, but experts say the issue is keenly felt in mega-biodiverse Malaysia.

“More than 80 percent of rivers in the Klang Valley have been invaded by foreign fish species, which can cause the extinction of the rivers’ indigenous aquatic life,” said Dr Kalithasan Kailasam, a river expert with the Malaysia-based Global Environment Centre.

“It’s growing in almost all other main rivers in Malaysia,” said Kailasam, explaining how species such as the suckermouth have the potential to quickly reproduce and survive in dirty water, leaving local fish on the losing side.

Aside from the suckermouth, Malaysia’s waterways are now threatened by species such as the aggressive peacock bass, Javanese carp and redtail catfish, he said.

While the full extent of the problem is not yet known, Malaysia’s fisheries department, after a four-year study until 2024, found invasive species in 39 areas across nearly every state in peninsular Malaysia and on the island of Labuan, including in dams, lakes and major rivers.

Alarmed by the threat, a small group of citizens banded together to fight the aquatic invaders.

Led by Haziq, they are working to reclaim Malaysia’s rivers one fin at a time.

Invasive fish invasion

The citizen fish hunters’ quest to fight invasive species started during the country’s COVID-19 lockdowns, when Haziq, a former healthcare consultant, turned to fishing as a pastime in a river near his house in central Selangor state. He found every fish he caught was of the suckermouth variety, also known as the “pleco” or “ikan bandaraya” – which translates as the “janitor fish” in Malay and is favoured by hobbyists to keep aquariums clean, as the suckermouth feeds on algae, leftover food and dead fish.

Native to South America, varieties of the suckermouth have also been introduced into waterways in the United States, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, often when owners dump them into rivers, canals, dams or free them after they grow too large for their aquarium tanks.

Because of their thick, scaly skin, suckermouths are usually avoided by even larger predators in Malaysia, and can grow to about half a metre (1.6ft) in length.

As bottom feeders, the catfish have been known to eat the eggs of other species and destroy their nesting sites. Catfish also burrow into riverbanks to nest, causing them to erode and collapse, which is a serious environmental issue in flood-prone Malaysia where year-end monsoon winds bring heavy rain.

Malaysia’s central bank said in 2024 that floods are the cause of 85 percent of the country’s natural disasters, with their frequency increasing since 2020.­

Though far from his favourite fish to catch, Haziq discovered that suckerfish roe could be used as bait for other bigger fish, and he earned some money selling their eggs to other fishing enthusiasts. He also gained a following by putting his exploits on social media. Further research then led him to learn about the threats posed by invasive species.

Harziq started to attract like-minded anglers, and, in 2022, they decided to form a group for hunting suckermouth, meeting nearly every week in a river to carry out a cull.

Their public profile and popularity are growing. The group’s membership has now grown to more than 1,000, and it has a strong fan following on social media.

“People kept asking how to join our group, because we were looking at the ecosystem,” Haziq said.

Focusing first on Malaysia’s Selangor state and rivers in the capital Kuala Lumpur, the fish hunter squad netted nearly 31 tonnes of suckermouths alone in 2024. They have also visited rivers in other states in Malaysia as their campaign expands.

Dispose, use for research, or cook and eat?

During a hunt in the Klang River earlier this year, Haziq and his comrades deployed to the river’s banks on a mission to see how many suckermouth they could catch during a single outing.

But hunting for invasive fish can be tricky. Without boats, the hunters have to wade into the fast-moving polluted waters from muddy banks, while navigating underwater debris such as rubbish on the riverbed.

Almost all the fish they caught were of the invasive kind, but once in a while, they do net a local.

“Haruan (snakehead)!” shouted ex-navy diver Syuhaily Hasibullah, 46, as he showed off a small fish half the size of his arm, taken from a net containing several suckermouths.

“This one is rare! There used to be a lot of them in the river,” he told Al Jazeera.

Haziq said if the hunters found many invasive species in their nets, they would organise another outing to the same location, bringing along more people to take part.

The day they set out to calculate how many invasive fish they could catch in a single outing turned out to yield half a tonne of suckermouth in just three hours – so many they had to stuff them into sacks.

Previously, the hunters buried their hauls in deep holes away from the river. Now, they have found more creative ways to dispose of what is, generally, an unwanted fish.

At the event earlier this year, sacks of suckermouths were handed over to a local entrepreneur looking to experiment with turning the fish into a form of charcoal known as biochar.

Some local universities have also started researching the possible use of the suckermouth. One university research article explored the potential of suckermouth collagen for pharmaceutical use, while another considered its use as fertiliser or even as a type of leather.

On some occasions, the hunters even eat the fish they catch, though that depends on which river they have been taken from.

While redtail or African catfish are considered delicacies by some, the suckermouth, also known in India as “devil fish”, is a less attractive snacking option – but not out of the question when it comes to a quick riverside grill.

“If the fish is from the Klang River, we don’t eat it,” Mohd Zulkifli Mokhtar told Al Jazeera, before dozens of hunters broke their fast during the holy Muslim month of Ramadan.

“But if it’s from the Langat River, it’s still OK,” Zulkifli said, as dozens of suckermouth caught in the less polluted Langat River, located in Bangi some 25km (16 miles) south of Kuala Lumpur, were gutted, marinated in satay and grilled on skewers.

Studies from Bangladesh and Indonesia have found varieties of catfish with high levels of heavy metals and contaminants. A 2024 article by Malaysia’s Universiti Teknologi Mara cited a study that showed the level of contaminants in the suckermouth was “heavily influenced by the level of pollution in the river”.

‘If we don’t act now, it would be worse’

While Malaysia’s fisheries department said there were no records of local species becoming endangered because of invasive ones, native fish nevertheless face threats.

Local fish either faced becoming prey or have had to fight to survive, with the department finding in a survey that 90 percent of the fish in six rivers in the Selangor and Kuala Lumpur region were now foreign arrivals.

The department’s Director-General Adnan Hussain said various measures had been put in place, including the release of some 33.6 million native fish and prawns into rivers nationwide from 2021 to 2025 to “balance the impact” of invasive fish.

Late last year, the state government of Selangor also came up with a scheme to pay anglers one Malaysian ringgit ($0.23) for every kilogramme (2.2lb) of the suckermouth fish removed from two rivers. The captured fish were to be turned into animal feed and organic fertiliser, an official said.

Restrictions on the import of certain foreign aquatic species – including entire species and groups – into Malaysia were also imposed last year, and he added that programmes and collaboration with the fish hunters had also helped to deal with the problem.

In one river in Selangor state, Adnan said the amount of invasive fish caught following one eradication programme had dropped from 600kg (1,300lb) in a May 2024 event to just more than 150kg (330lb) four or five months later.

However, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu fish researcher Professor Amirrudin Ahmad said it was “almost impossible” to fully exterminate the country’s invasive fish.

“So many species live in (native water bodies) and getting rid of invasive species by the means of poisoning the water is not feasible at all,” he said, adding there were close to 80 recorded fish species introduced in Malaysia so far.

He further warned that rising temperatures caused by climate change may even allow species like the predatory Mekong redtail catfish to proliferate in cooler upstream waters in Malaysia.

“They are here to stay,” Amirrudin said.

“It is simply,” he said, “that the environment is mostly similar to their native country, or these species are highly adaptable.”

That this is an ecological war that can never truly be won is a point that Haziq and his fellow fish hunters are fully aware of. Nearly every river they visited in recent times had almost nothing but invasive fish, he said.

But their mission will carry on, he added, along with the hunting and public awareness that has spurred thousands to follow his social media videos on the subject.

“Yes, this fish won’t be completely gone from our rivers,” he told Al Jazeera.

“But if we don’t act now, it would be worse,” he said.

“It’s better to take action than to just leave it alone,” he added.

“At least we can reduce the population, than allow it to completely take over our local fish.”

Decorated veteran Ben Roberts-Smith failed to have reports that he ‘murdered four Afghan men’ quashed.

Australia’s most decorated living war veteran has lost an appeal against a civil court ruling that implicated him in war crimes while serving in Afghanistan.

Australia’s Federal Court dismissed the appeal lodged by Ben Roberts-Smith on Friday, in the latest setback for the 46-year-old’s fight to salvage a reputation tattered by reports that he took part in the murder of four unarmed Afghan prisoners.

Three federal court judges unanimously rejected his appeal of a judge’s ruling in 2023, which said Roberts-Smith was not defamed by newspaper articles published in 2018 that accused him of a range of war crimes.

In the earlier ruling, a judge had found that the accusations were substantially true to a civil standard and Roberts-Smith was responsible for four of the six unlawful deaths of noncombatants he had been accused of.

Delivering the appeal court’s verdict, Justice Nye Perram explained that the reasons for the decision are being withheld due to national security implications that the government must consider.

The marathon 110-day trial is estimated to have cost 25 million Australian dollars ($16m) in legal fees that Roberts-Smith will likely be liable to pay.

He has however said he will fight to clear his name in Australia’s High Court, his last avenue of legal appeal.

“I continue to maintain my innocence and deny these egregious spiteful allegations,” Roberts-Smith said in a statement. “We will immediately seek to challenge this judgement in the High Court of Australia.”

Tory Maguire, an executive of Nine Entertainment that published the articles Roberts-Smith claimed were untrue, welcomed the ruling as an “emphatic win”.

“Today is also a great day for investigative journalism and underscores why it remains highly valued by the Australian people,” Maguire said.

Australia deployed 39,000 troops to Afghanistan over two decades as part of United States and NATO-led operations against the Taliban and other armed groups.

Perth-born Roberts-Smith, a former SAS corporal, had won the Victoria Cross – Australia’s highest military honour – for “conspicuous gallantry” in Afghanistan while on the hunt for a senior Taliban commander.

An Australian military report released in 2020 found evidence that Australian troops unlawfully killed 39 Afghan prisoners and civilians. The report recommended 19 current and former soldiers face criminal investigation.

It’s not clear whether Roberts-Smith was one of them.

Police have been working with the Office of the Special Investigator, an Australian investigation agency established in 2021, to build cases against elite SAS and Commando Regiments troops who served in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016.

The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and The Canberra Times said in a series of reports in 2018 that Roberts-Smith had kicked an unarmed Afghan civilian off a cliff and ordered subordinates to shoot him.

He was also said to have taken part in the machine-gunning of a man with a prosthetic leg, which was later brought back to an army bar and used as a drinking vessel.

The United States and China have surprisingly agreed to a dramatic de-escalation in their trade war.

Under the agreement, the world’s two largest economies have paused their respective tariffs for 90 days.

That breaks an impasse which has brought much of the commerce between the two nations to a halt.

Critics say the talks in Geneva did not appear to yield any meaningful concessions. The two sides aim to reach a broader deal, but this takes too long to negotiate.

Also in this episode, we examine whether the US-UK trade pact will deliver real benefits, or is it symbolism over substance?

Also, Senegal is capitalising on its energy wealth to change its fortunes.

Anwar Ibrahim came to power in Malaysia soon after ex-PM Najib Razak was jailed for his role in the $4.5bn 1MDB financial scandal.

He has faced criticism after a royal pardon slashed Najib’s sentence while alleged 1MDB mastermind, Jho Low, remains at large.

Anwar leads ASEAN this year as it confronts Donald Trump’s tariffs and rising transnational crime, including a cyber-scam industry in Cambodia worth billions of dollars.

In a 101 East exclusive, Anwar Ibrahim speaks about politics and corruption in Malaysia and his conversations with Cambodia’s PM Hun Manet before the controversial deportation of domestic worker, Nuon Thoeun.

Taipei, Taiwan – As Taiwan prepares to shut down its last nuclear reactor, soaring energy demand driven by the island’s semiconductor industry is rekindling a heated debate about nuclear power.

Taiwan’s electricity needs are expected to rise by 12-13 percent by 2030, largely driven by the boom in artificial intelligence (AI), according to the Ministry of Economic Affairs.

Environmental group Greenpeace has estimated that the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), the world’s largest contract chipmaker, will by itself consume as much electricity as roughly one-quarter of the island’s some 23 million people by the same date.

The self-ruled island’s soaring appetite for power complicates Taipei’s pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, which is heavily dependent on raising renewable energy production to about 60-70 percent of the total from about 12 percent at present.

Nuclear power advocates argue that the energy source is the most feasible way for Taiwan to reach its competing industrial and environmental goals.

On Tuesday, Taiwan’s legislature passed an amendment to allow nuclear power plants to apply for licences to extend operations beyond the existing 40-year limit.

The opposition Kuomintang and Taiwan People’s Party passed the bill over the objections of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party, which came to power in 2016 on a pledge to achieve a “nuclear-free homeland”.

The legal change will not halt Sunday’s planned closure of the last operating reactor – the No 2 reactor at the Maanshan Nuclear Power Plant – though it casts doubt over the island’s longstanding opposition to nuclear power.

The government said after the vote that it had no immediate plans for any future nuclear power projects, though Premier Cho Jung-tai indicated earlier that the government would not oppose the restoration of decommissioned reactors if the amendment passed.

Cho said Taipei was “open” to nuclear power provided safety was ensured and the public reached a consensus on the issue.

Any move to restart the local nuclear industry would, at a minimum, take years.

Taiwan began its civilian nuclear programme in the 1950s with the assistance of technology from the United States.

By 1990, state-owned power firm Taipower operated three plants with the capacity to generate more than one-third of the island’s electricity needs.

‘Renewable energy isn’t stable’

Angelica Oung, a member of the Clean Energy Transition Alliance who supports nuclear power, said Taiwan could generate about 10 percent of its energy requirements from nuclear plants when the DDP came to power nearly a decade ago.

“Energy emissions at the time were lower than now – isn’t that ridiculous?” Oung told Al Jazeera.

“At the time, it was reasonable to launch the anti-nuclear policy as the public was still recovering from the devastating Fukushima nuclear disaster … but now even Japan has now decided to return to nuclear,” Oung said, referring to Tokyo’s plans to generate 20 percent of its power from the energy source by 2040.

“That’s because renewables simply don’t work.”

“The supply of renewable energy isn’t stable … solar energy, for example, needs the use of batteries,” Oung added.

While the 2011 Fukushima disaster helped solidify opposition to nuclear power, Taiwan’s history of anti-nuclear activism stretches back decades earlier.

The DPP was founded just months after the 1986 Chornobyl disaster and included an anti-nuclear clause in its charter.

The following year, the Indigenous Tao people launched protests against Taipower’s policy of dumping nuclear waste on Orchid Island, helping cement the civil anti-nuclear movement.

Nuclear energy attracted further negative scrutiny in the 1990s, when it emerged that about 10,000 people had been exposed to low levels of radiation due to the use of radioactive scrap metals in building materials.

In 2000, Taipei halted construction of a planned fourth nuclear plant amid protests by environmental groups.

A 2021 referendum proposal to restart work on the mothballed project was defeated 52.84 percent to 47.16 percent.

Chia-wei Chao, research director of the Taiwan Climate Action Network, said nuclear power is not the answer to Taiwan’s energy needs.

“Developing nuclear energy in Taiwan often means cutting the budget for boosting renewables, as opposed to other countries,” Chao told Al Jazeera.

Chao said Taiwan’s nuclear plants were built without taking into account the risk of earthquakes and tsunamis, and that establishing a local industry that meets modern standards would be costly and difficult.

“Extension of the current plants and reactors means having to upgrade the infrastructure to meet more updated safety standards and factoring in quake risks. This costs a lot, so nuclear energy doesn’t translate into cheaper electricity,” he said.

Lena Chang, a climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace East Asia, said that reviving nuclear energy would not only be costly, but potentially dangerous, too.

“We, Greenpeace, firmly [oppose] restarting nuclear plants or expanding the use of nuclear because nuclear poses an unresolved safety, waste and environmental risk, particularly in Taiwan – a small island that can’t afford a nuclear and environmental disaster,” Chang told Al Jazeera.

Chang said the chip industry should have to contribute to the cost of switching to renewable energy sources.

“They should be responsible for meeting their own green energy demand, instead of leaving all the work to Taipower, as any of the money to build more energy plants and storage facilities ultimately comes from people’s tax money,” she said.

Chao agreed, saying chip giants such as TSMC should lead the push to go green.

“The chipmaking industry is here to stay … Sure, energy supply will be tight in the next three years, but it’s still enough,” he said.

On Monday, the United States and China reached an agreement to slash sky-high tariffs for 90 days. Though both sides claimed they could withstand a long trade war, they reached a truce quicker than many analysts expected.

The breakthrough marked a dramatic ratcheting down of trade tensions following the tariff war launched by US President Donald Trump during his “liberation day” announcement on April 2.

Trump initially unveiled so-called reciprocal tariffs on dozens of countries before pausing them just one week later. China, however, did not get off the hook and Beijing soon retaliated with tariffs of its own.

Tit-for-tat exchanges quickly snowballed into eye-watering sums. By April 11, tariffs on Chinese goods entering the US had reached 145 percent and levies on US products going to China had swelled to 125 percent.

Tensions were already at boiling point last weekend when US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and He Lifeng, China’s vice-premier, agreed a ceasefire that would slash respective tariffs by 115 percentage points for three months.

US duties on Chinese products will now fall to 30 percent, while China’s tariffs on US goods will drop to 10 percent. Stock Markets rallied on the news, with the Nasdaq Composite climbing 4.3 percent on Monday and gaining 20 percent over its April low.

But one key question has significant implications for trade talks to come: Did Washington or Beijing flinch first?

What did the two countries say?

The tariff suspension, which was sharper than analysts expected, came after two days of trade talks in Geneva, Switzerland. On Monday, the US and China released a joint statement announcing the deal.

The two countries acknowledged the importance of their “bilateral economic and trade relationship” as well as the importance of a “sustainable, long-term, and mutually beneficial economic and trade relationship”.

The US and China agreed to establish a mechanism to continue discussing trade relations. China also agreed to “suspend or cancel” non-tariff measures against the US, but did not provide any details.

Speaking to reporters in Geneva last weekend, China’s Vice Premier He described the talks as “candid, in-depth and constructive”.

For his part, US Treasury Secretary Bessent told Bloomberg Television on Monday that “both sides agree we do not want a generalised decoupling.”

“The US is going to do a strategic decoupling in terms of the items that we discovered during COVID were of national security interests – whether it’s semiconductors, medicine, steel,” Bessent said.

After the talks concluded, Trump praised negotiations as a “great trade deal”, adding “we’re not looking to hurt China.” He then claimed a personal win, saying he had engineered a “total reset” with Beijing.

Elsewhere, Hu Xijin, former editor of the Chinese state-run Global Times publication, said on social media that the deal was “a great victory for China”.

What are the terms of the pause?

After the tariff pause had been announced, Bessent said it’s “implausible” that reciprocal tariffs on China will fall below 10 percent. However, he said the April 2 level – set by President Trump at 34 percent – “would be a ceiling”.

He also said “we could see some amount of the fentanyl tariffs… come off.” Earlier this year, Trump put a 20 percent tariff on China, accusing it of not doing enough to stop the flow of fentanyl, a highly addictive and deadly opioid, into the US.

For now, Chinese goods will continue face a 30 percent tariff. In addition, specific products from China, such as electric vehicles, steel and aluminium, are subject to even higher, separate tariffs imposed in recent years.

On Monday, the White House also issued an executive order lowering duties on low-value packages – items costing up to $800 – from China from 120 to 54 percent.

And while a minimum $100 fee on packages from e-commerce sites Temu and Shein will remain in place, the increase to $200 planned for June 1 was dropped.

On the flip side, Beijing pledged to suspend non-tariff forms of retaliation imposed since April 2, such as export restrictions on critical minerals that US manufacturers use in high-tech equipment and clean energy technology.

Notably, the deal does not include concessions from Beijing on several US sticking points, like its huge trade surplus with the US or its exchange rate policy, China is accused of keeping its renminbi artificially low in order to boost export sales.

Tariff suspensions will be in place for 90 days. They will be subject to reviews based on broad negotiations in the coming weeks and months.

Who conceded more ground?

The speed with which the US and China unwound their tariffs, taking many analysts by surprise, suggests the trade war was inflicting pain on both sides.

The tariffs were threatening job losses for Chinese factory workers and higher inflation and empty shelves for American consumers.

But for Piergiuseppe Fortunato, an adjunct professor of economics at the University of Neuchatel in Switzerland, it is clear who wanted the deal more badly.

“First of all, America made more concessions than China. Second, America’s economy, which is unsteady at the moment, is more reliant on China’s than the other way around.”

In April, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) warned that the US economy was facing an increased risk of recession as Trump’s trade war – and the accompanying increase in consumer prices – could unleash a “significant slowdown”.

Fortunato told Al Jazeera that “Beijing is not in such a precarious position. Take, for example, its latest export figures.”

China’s exports grew sharply in April. The strong performance, an 8.2 percent increase from the year before, came as Chinese firms diverted trade flows to Southeast Asia, Europe and other destinations.

“I think that Washington overplayed its hand with Beijing,” says Fortunato.

“The White House overestimated the importance of the US market, and underestimated China’s success in diversifying its exports away from the US since the first Trump trade war” in 2018.

What will happen next?

“It could take a long time to reach a detailed agreement, if one is even possible,” notes Fortunato.

In 2018, the US backed away from a potential trade deal following talks with Beijing. The next 18 months saw tariff exchanges before a Phase One deal was signed in January 2020.

However, China did not meet all the terms of that purchase agreement. It fell some 43 percent short of the $200bn worth of goods it agreed to buy from the US by 2021.

Then, the US trade deficit with China jumped up during the COVID-19 pandemic, setting the stage for the current trade war.

Earlier this week, Bessent once again hinted that Washington might be looking for the type of “purchase agreements” that characterised the Phase One deal.

“The US has made noises that it may be going for more purchase agreements. But the American economy took a hit last time from similar arrangements,” says Fortunato.

During Trump’s first trade war with China, the US-China Business Council estimated that 245,000 US jobs were lost.

As the scope of tariffs is greater today, even after last weekend’s announcement, it’s fair to assume that even more jobs will be shed.

In the future, Fortunato suspects the US will “land at an average tariff rate of 15-20 percent, and even higher for China. That’s five times greater than what it was in January… a massive change.”

Dennis received a 17-month suspended sentence over a car incident in Australia which killed his wife, fellow Olympian Melissa Hoskins.

Former Olympic cyclist and world champion Rohan Dennis received a suspended sentence over what was termed a “tragic accident” that led to the death of his wife, fellow Olympian Melissa Hoskins.

The 34-year-old appeared in South Australia District Court on Wednesday after an earlier charge of committing an aggravated act likely to cause harm.

Dennis was arrested after Hoskins, 32, was struck by his vehicle in front of their home at Medindie in Adelaide’s north on December 30, 2023. Hoskins suffered serious injuries in the crash and died at Royal Adelaide Hospital.

The court was told that the couple had argued over kitchen renovations before Dennis left their home and drove away. The court also heard that Hoskins had jumped onto the hood of the car during the incident.

Dennis on Wednesday was sentenced to one year, four months and 28 days in jail, to be suspended for two years. The sentence was reduced from two years and two months because of his guilty plea and he’s been placed on a two-year good behaviour bond.

His driver’s licence was also suspended for five years.

“I accept you have a sense of responsibility for all that occurred, I accept you have anguished over what could have been different if you had acted in some other way,” Judge Ian Press said Wednesday.

Dennis showed little emotion when Press sentenced him.

“Given your plea of guilty, your remorse, that you are the sole carer for your young children, and given all your other personal circumstances and the circumstances of the offending, I am satisfied that good reason exists to suspend that sentence,” the judge said.

The offence carried a maximum sentence of seven years in jail but lawyer Jane Abbey asked that her client receive a suspended sentence, which was not opposed by the prosecution.

During sentencing submissions in April, Amanda Hoskins said her daughter had loved Dennis “and I know that you would never intentionally hurt her”.

“I believe this is a tragic accident. Your temper is your downfall and needs to be addressed,” she said.

Hoskins’ funeral was held in her home city of Perth, Western Australia, and a public memorial service was held in Adelaide in February 2024. Dennis attended the service with their two children.

Hoskins competed at the 2012 and 2016 Olympics on the track in the team pursuit and was in the squad that won the 2015 world title. Dennis won two world titles in the road time trial, as well as silver in the team pursuit at the 2012 Olympics and bronze in the road time trial at the Tokyo Olympics.

Russia must pay damages for the downing of a Malaysian airliner over Ukraine in 2014, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) says.

The United Nations aviation agency has said Russia was responsible for the downing of a Malaysian airliner over Ukraine in 2014 that killed all 298 passengers and crew.

With 38 Australian citizens and 196 Dutch citizens on board the aircraft when it was downed, the two governments called on Russia to take responsibility for the incident and pay damages. However, Russia has consistently denied any involvement in the downing of the plane.

Late on Monday, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) said Australia and the Netherlands’ claims over the shooting down of flight MH17 were “well-founded in fact and in law”.

“The Russian Federation failed to uphold its obligations under international air law in the 2014 downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17,” the agency said in a statement.

According to international air law, a distinction must be made between military aircraft and commercial or other aircraft during warfare.

While the ICAO has no regulatory powers, it holds moral suasion and sets global aviation standards adopted by its 193-member states.

‘Important step’

Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp said in a statement that the ICAO’s ruling in the case launched in 2022 was an “important step towards establishing the truth and achieving justice”.

“This decision also sends a clear message to the international community: States cannot violate international law with impunity,” he said.

Moreover, Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong said her government welcomed the decision and urged ICAO to swiftly determine reparations.

“We call upon Russia to finally face up to its responsibility for this horrific act of violence and make reparations for its egregious conduct, as required under international law,” Wong said in a statement.

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha also welcomed the ruling and said the decision was another step towards “restoring justice for this crime”.

“No matter how much money and effort Russia put into lying to conceal its crimes, the truth wins out, and justice prevails,” Sybiha wrote on X.

On July 17, 2014, the Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777, travelling from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, was hit by a Russian-made BUK surface-to-air missile over eastern Ukraine’s Donetsk region, where pro-Russian separatists were fighting Ukrainian forces.

At the time, separatists in the area claimed the airliner was shot down by a Ukrainian military jet, with Russian President Vladimir Putin accusing Ukraine of bearing “responsibility” for the deaths of the passengers.

In 2022, a Dutch court sentenced three men to life sentences over the downing of the plane, including two Russians that Moscow refused to extradite.