I’ve read the article about the recent trade war developments. It appears to be from April 18, 2025, discussing President Trump’s tariff policies during what seems to be his second administration. Here’s a summary of the key points:

https://www.straitstimes.com/business/invest/how-the-screen-culture-is-affecting-the-literacy-of-everything

The article describes how President Trump has enacted unprecedented tariff policies, which economic historian Douglas Irwin calls a “big break with history.” These include:

• Imposing tariffs at levels not seen for over a century
• Recently, announcing a 90-day pause for some of the highest tariffs
• Maintaining a 10% baseline tariff on virtually all global imports

The article highlights several concerning aspects:

• Markets have been highly volatile in response to these policy shifts
• US tariffs on Chinese goods reached 145%, with China retaliating with 125% tariffs
• Economists overwhelmingly view these policies as dangerous, with the potential to trigger a global recession
• Unlike historical trade policy shifts, which involved Congress and consensus-building, these changes come from presidential decisions alone

The piece also draws historical parallels to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which worsened the Great Depression and contributed to geopolitical tensions leading up to World War II.

Based solely on the article, there is no evidence to support the idea that President Trump is intentionally harming the economy. The article presents his tariff policies as controversial and potentially economically harmful, but doesn’t suggest deliberate sabotage.

Several alternative interpretations could explain the tariff policies:

1. Different economic philosophy – Trump may genuinely believe these protectionist measures will benefit the American economy in the long run, despite mainstream economists disagreeing.
2. Negotiating tactic – The article mentions Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent saying, “Do not retaliate and you will be rewarded,” suggesting these tariffs might be intended as leverage in trade negotiations.
3. Political strategy – The policies could be aimed at appealing to specific voter constituencies who favour economic nationalism.
4. Response to perceived unfair trade practices – Trump has historically justified tariffs as responses to what he sees as unfair foreign trade practices.

The article highlights that these decisions appear to be primarily driven by the president rather than through traditional consensus-building processes, noting that “the direction of the markets and the global economy depends on the president’s mood.” However, this speaks more to his governing style than to intentional economic sabotage.

Without additional information beyond this article, attributing intentional economic destruction wouldn’t be supported by the evidence presented.

The article suggests that Trump’s tariff policies may be leading to greater economic nationalism and potentially a more fragmented global economic system, rather than a more unified one.

Several points from the article hint at this possibility:

1. The escalating tariffs between the US and China (145% US tariffs on Chinese goods, 125% Chinese tariffs on US products) suggest a deepening economic division between major powers.
2. The article mentions concerns that “If we cut off trade with China and raise tariffs on other countries in the region, China’s going to focus even more heavily in South-east Asia” – suggesting regional economic blocs might form.
3. The historical parallel to the 1930s is telling: “Britain and France turned inward and focused their commerce within their imperial empires, while the United States, a nascent power, had a sphere of influence of its own.”
4. The comment that the US is risking “our reputation, our alliances, our brand” suggests the policies might be weakening traditional US-led international economic cooperation.

So while the article doesn’t explicitly discuss a “beast system” or global unification, it does indicate that the trade policies might be leading to more economic nationalism and regional economic blocs rather than global economic integration. This could indeed represent a strengthening of individual nations or regional alliances at the expense of globalist economic structures.

However, the article primarily frames this fragmentation as economically risky rather than beneficial, noting concerns about potential recession and geopolitical tensions similar to those that preceded WWII.

The article doesn’t directly address whether Trump’s tariff approach is wise, given the price advantages of developing nations. However, it does raise several points that suggest economists and historians view these policies as problematic:

1. There is an overwhelming consensus among economists that these tariff policies are misguided and profoundly dangerous.
2. The policies have triggered market volatility and raised a “strong possibility that a spreading global trade war could send the US economy spiralling into a recession.”
3. Historical precedent from the 1930s, such as the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, suggests that such policies can worsen economic conditions globally.

The fundamental economic challenge – that tariffs don’t change the underlying price advantages that developing nations have – isn’t explicitly discussed in the article. In economic theory, tariffs typically:

• Raise prices for domestic consumers.
• Protect specific domestic industries,s but at higher costs overall
• Risk retaliatory measures that harm export industries
• Don’t address the root causes of price differentials (like labour cost differences)

The article suggests Trump’s approach may be more focused on negotiating leverage (“Do not retaliate and you will be rewarded”) than on a sustainable economic strategy that addresses these price differentials. Without complementary policies to boost domestic competitiveness through innovation, productivity improvements, or specialised production, tariffs alone don’t solve the price disadvantage issue.

Given the economic consensus mentioned in the article and historical precedents, the approach appears to carry significant economic risks without necessarily addressing the structural competitive challenges you’ve highlighted.

The article doesn’t specifically mention Singapore’s Law Minister K. Shanmugam or directly quote his views on global security and stability. However, the content of the article does align with concerns about threats to global security and stability that a senior governmental figure like Shanmugam might raise.

Several elements from the article that would affirm such concerns include:

1. Economic instability as a security threat: The article warns about potential global recession triggered by trade wars, which threatens economic stability worldwide.
2. Geopolitical realignment: The article notes that “China’s going to focus even more heavily in South-east Asia” if US-China trade tensions continue, directly affecting Singapore’s regional security environment.
3. Historical parallels to pre-WWII: The article draws concerning parallels to the 1930s when trade barriers contributed to Japan seeking “other ways to get supplies of raw materials and oil” through territorial expansion, leading to conflict.
4. Unpredictable policy environment: The article emphasises how market directions now “depend on the mood of the president,” highlighting unpredictability that threatens stable international relations.
5. Breakdown of alliance structures: The comment about risking “our reputation, our alliances, our brand” suggests the undermining of established security frameworks.

For a small, trade-dependent nation like Singapore that relies on global stability and a rule-based international order, these developments would indeed represent serious threats to security and stability, potentially affirming concerns Minister Shanmugam may have expressed about the current global situation.

The article doesn’t directly address Trump’s motivations for his tariff policies, and it would be speculative to claim he specifically seeks “destruction of the globalist economy.” However, based on the article and broader context, I can suggest several possible motivations that might explain his approach:

1. Economic nationalism: Trump may genuinely believe that globalised trade has disadvantaged American workers and industries, and that protectionist measures will strengthen domestic manufacturing and employment.
2. Negotiating leverage: As suggested by Treasury Secretary Bessent’s quote (“Do not retaliate and you will be rewarded”), these could be high-pressure negotiating tactics aimed at securing more favourable trade terms.
3. Political constituency: Trump’s base has historically responded positively to anti-globalist rhetoric and policies that promise to prioritise American interests over international cooperation.
4. Shift in economic philosophy: He may be attempting to fundamentally reorient US economic policy away from the post-WWII liberal international order toward a more mercantilist approach.
5. Response to perceived unfairness: He might view the current global economic system as unfairly structured against US interests and requiring dramatic intervention.

The article characterises Trump’s approach as unprecedented and potentially harmful, but doesn’t attribute an explicit motive of wanting to destroy the global economic system. It’s worth noting that even highly disruptive economic policies can be implemented with constructive intentions, even if economists broadly disagree with the approach.

Without more direct evidence of Trump’s intentions, it’s difficult to determine whether his policies aim to destroy globalism or merely restructure global trade relationships in what he perceives as America’s favour.

I’ve reviewed the article about the recent trade war developments under President Trump. Here’s a summary of the key points:

The article describes how President Trump’s tariff policies represent a significant departure from historical trade practices in the United States. According to Dartmouth economic historian Douglas Irwin, this situation is highly unusual because:

1. One individual (the president) has unilaterally initiated what could become the first global trade war since the 1930s
2. Tariffs have reached levels unseen for more than a century
3. Historically, trade policy changes required decades of consensus-building, with Congress playing the dominant role
4. The abrupt policy shift is occurring during peacetime and low unemployment, without societal consensus

The article details how markets have reacted with volatility to Trump’s announcements – initially falling, then experiencing their most significant one-day gain since 2008 (9.5% rise in the S&P 500) after some tariffs were delayed, followed by further fluctuations.

By April 10, 2025, U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods had reached 145%, with China retaliating with 125% tariffs on U.S. products. The Treasury Secretary is negotiating with many countries, but not China, and the EU has delayed retaliation for 90 days.

The article draws parallels to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which worsened the Great Depression. It suggests current tariffs could have profound geopolitical implications, potentially pushing China to focus more heavily on Southeast Asia while damaging America’s global reputation and alliances.

Trade War Developments: In-Depth Analysis

Current Situation

The recent trade war initiated by President Trump represents a historic shift in U.S. trade policy characterised by:

1. Unprecedented tariff levels: U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods have reached 145%, with Chinese retaliatory tariffs at 125%—levels not seen in over a century.
2. Unilateral executive action: Unlike previous major trade policy shifts that required Congressional consensus, these changes stem from presidential decisions alone.
3. Global reach: Beyond China, the U.S. has implemented a baseline 10% tariff on virtually all global imports, though some of the highest tariffs have a 90-day pause.
4. Timing anomaly: This trade war is occurring during peacetime, with relatively low unemployment (4%), and without a societal consensus on trade problems.
5. Volatile negotiations: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is engaging in negotiations with numerous countries, excluding China, employing a “don’t retaliate and you’ll be rewarded” approach.

Implications for Singapore

Short-term

• Export vulnerability: As a highly trade-dependent economy (with trade accounting for over 300% of GDP), Singapore faces immediate threats to its export competitiveness in the U.S. market.
• Re-export challenges: Singapore’s role as a trading hub may be compromised as U.S.-bound goods face steep tariffs.
• Supply chain disruption: Companies with manufacturing operations across ASEAN that export to the U.S. may need to quickly restructure.
• Financial market volatility: Singapore’s financial sector is expected to experience continued instability, reflecting global market reactions.

Long-term

• Economic realignment: Singapore may need to diversify its trade relationships, reducing its dependence on the U.S.
• Enhanced regional integration: Likely acceleration of Singapore’s pivot toward deeper ASEAN and RCEP integration.
• Intermediary opportunity: Potential to position as a neutral financial and commercial intermediary between competing trade blocs.
• Investment destination: Could attract companies seeking geopolitically stable locations amid U.S.-China tensions.

Implications for ASEAN

Short-term

• Trade diversion effects: Some manufacturing may shift from China to ASEAN countries to avoid tariffs.
• Demand reduction: The overall slowdown in global trade is likely to reduce demand for ASEAN exports.
• Currency pressures: ASEAN currencies may face pressure to devalue as investors seek safe havens.
• Divergent impacts: Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thailand (which are more export-oriented) will experience more immediate effects than Indonesia and the Philippines (which are more domestically focused).

Long-term

• Regional integration acceleration: Incentives for faster and deeper ASEAN economic community development.
• China dependence: Increased economic integration with China’s sphere as U.S. market access becomes less reliable.
• Infrastructure development: A greater urgency for regional connectivity projects, such as the ASEAN Connectivity Master Plan.
• Technological development: Potential opportunities to develop indigenous technological capabilities amid fragmented global supply chains.

Broader Asian Implications

Short-term

• Supply chain chaos: Immediate disruption to established supply networks spanning multiple Asian countries.
• Japan/Korea vulnerability: Major exporters like Japan and South Korea face significant exposure to both the U.S. and Chinese markets.
• Commodity price fluctuations: Countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia may experience shifts in demand for primary commodities.
• Negotiation leverage: Some countries may gain short-term advantages through bilateral deals with the U.S.

Long-term

• Regional economic architecture: Acceleration toward Asian-centered trade frameworks (RCEP) and potentially reduced U.S. economic influence.
• Chinese influence expansion: As noted in the article, China is likely to focus even more heavily on Southeast Asia.
• Technology bifurcation: Potential separation of technology standards and ecosystems between Western and Asian spheres.
• Military and security implications: Economic tensions could spill over into security realignments across Asia.

Projected Solutions

For Singapore and ASEAN

1. Enhanced regional integration: Accelerate the implementation of the ASEAN Economic Community and remove the remaining intra-ASEAN barriers.
2. Diversification strategy: Actively develop alternative markets in Europe, India, Middle East, and Africa to reduce U.S./China dependency.
3. Digital economy focus: Invest heavily in digital infrastructure and services that are less vulnerable to physical trade barriers.
4. Strategic autonomy: Develop policy frameworks that maintain neutrality and avoid forcing choices between competing major powers.
5. Value chain positioning: Move up the value chain in strategic sectors where tariffs have less impact, such as advanced services and R&D.

Global System Solutions

1. WTO reform: Support fundamental World Trade Organisation reforms to address U.S. concerns while preserving multilateral principles.
2. Plurilateral approaches: Develop sector-specific agreements among willing countries that can later be expanded into multilateral agreements.
3. New mediation mechanisms: Develop dispute resolution systems that can operate effectively despite significant power disparities.
4. Economic security frameworks: Develop shared principles for managing legitimate security concerns while minimising trade disruptions.
5. Climate-trade linkage: Position climate cooperation as a pathway for rebuilding trade relationships through common environmental standards.

The optimal long-term solution would involve a gradual de-escalation of the current confrontation, rebuilding of multilateral institutions with appropriate reforms, and development of more resilient regional frameworks that can withstand future political volatility in major powers.

Singapore’s Pivot to Intra-Asian Trade

The current trade war presents both a necessity and an opportunity for Singapore to reorient its trade strategy toward intra-Asian markets. Here’s how this transformation could unfold:

Structural Drivers

Push Factors

1. U.S. Market Unreliability: The unprecedented tariffs make the U.S. market less predictable and profitable for Singaporean exporters.
2. Risk Management: Singapore must diversify trade relationships to reduce vulnerability to Western market volatility.
3. Supply Chain Restructuring: Many multinational companies are reconsidering their global footprints, creating opportunities for Singapore to position itself within Asia-centric supply chains.

Pull Factors

1. Asian Economic Growth: Despite trade tensions, Asian economies continue to expand at a faster rate than their Western counterparts.
2. Regional Integration Frameworks: RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) provides an institutional architecture for deeper Asian trade integration.
3. Complementary Economic Structures: Singapore’s services and high-tech capabilities complement the manufacturing strengths of other Asian economies.

Singapore’s Potential Strategic Shifts

Financial Services Reorientation

• RMB Trade Settlement: Expanding capacity to handle yuan-denominated trade financing and settlement
• Regional Treasury Centre: Positioning as the financial hub for intra-Asian business operations
• Alternative Payment Systems: Developing infrastructure compatible with emerging Asian payment networks

Trade Infrastructure Development

1. Digital Trade Platforms: Creating region-specific digital trade documentation and compliance systems
2. Warehousing & Distribution: Expanding specialised facilities for intra-Asian cargo handling
3. Cold Chain Logistics: Developing capabilities for perishable goods movement within Asia

Market Specialization

1. ASEAN Focus: Deeper penetration of ASEAN markets beyond traditional relationships
2. India Strategy: Developing specialised trade corridors with India’s growing economy
3. Northeast Asia Connectivity: Strengthening links with Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan

Institutional Mechanisms

Singapore as Connector

1. Standards Harmonisation: Leading efforts to align technical and regulatory standards across Asian markets
2. Dispute Resolution: Expanding Singapore’s arbitration services specifically for intra-Asian trade conflicts
3. Trade Intelligence: Developing specialised market intelligence services for Asian market opportunities

Strategic Partnerships

1. China-ASEAN Bridge: Positioning as the trusted intermediary for China’s economic engagement with Southeast Asia
2. Japan-India Corridor: Facilitating Japanese investment into Indian markets
3. Korea-ASEAN Integration: Supporting Korean companies’ regionalisation strategies

Implementation Timeline

Near-term (1-2 Years)

• Establish task forces for key Asian markets
• Launch targeted trade missions to priority Asian regions
• Develop financial incentives for companies pivoting to Asian markets

Medium-term (3-5 Years)

• Complete specialised infrastructure for Asian trade
• Establish integrated trade platforms connecting key Asian hubs
• Develop industry-specific strategies for Asian market penetration

Long-term (5-10 Years)

• Build institutional architecture for sustainable intra-Asian trade
• Reduce dependence on Western markets to a balanced level
• Establish Singapore as the premier intra-Asian trade hub

Challenges and Solutions

Challenges

1. Currency Risk: Multiple currency exposures across Asian markets
2. Regulatory Diversity: Different compliance requirements across jurisdictions
3. Geopolitical Tensions: Managing relationships amid China-India and other regional rivalries

Solutions

1. Multilateral Currency Arrangements: Supporting regional currency stability mechanisms
2. Regulatory Simplification Initiatives: Leading efforts to harmonise trade regulations
3. Neutrality Strategy: Positioning as a politically neutral facilitator across all Asian markets

Singapore’s unique advantages—political stability, rule of law, sophisticated financial system, and multicultural workforce—make it ideally positioned to capitalise on this intra-Asian trade pivot. While maintaining meaningful Western relationships, Singapore can emerge from the current trade tensions with a more balanced, resilient trade portfolio centred on the world’s most dynamic regional economy.

Maxthon

This meticulous emphasis on encryption marks merely the initial phase of Maxthon’s extensive security framework. Acknowledging that cyber threats are constantly evolving, Maxthon adopts a forward-thinking approach to protecting its users. The browser is engineered to adapt to emerging challenges, incorporating regular updates that promptly address any vulnerabilities that may surface. Users are strongly encouraged to activate automatic updates as part of their cybersecurity regimen, ensuring they can seamlessly take advantage of the latest fixes without any hassle.

Maxthon has set out on an ambitious journey aimed at significantly bolstering the security of web applications, fueled by a resolute commitment to safeguarding users and their confidential data. At the heart of this initiative lies a collection of sophisticated encryption protocols, which act as a robust barrier for the information exchanged between individuals and various online services. Every interaction—be it the sharing of passwords or personal information—is protected within these encrypted channels, effectively preventing unauthorised access attempts from intruders.

In today’s rapidly changing digital environment, unauthorised commitment to ongoing security enhancement signifies not only its responsibility toward users but also its firm dedication to nurturing trust in online engagements. With each new update rolled out, users can navigate the web with peace of mind, assured that their information is continuously safeguarded against ever-emerging threats lurking in cyberspace.