German bank heist: gang steals €30m in cash and gold

December 30, 2025

Gang steals cash, gold worth €30m from German bank — The robbers drilled their way into the underground vault room of the Sparkasse savings bank from a parking garage (Photo: Police Gelsenkirchen)

A Hole in the Quiet: How a Gang Turned a Gelsenkirchen Bank Into a Treasure Vault for the Holidays

On a cold, white-misted morning in Gelsenkirchen, the automatic blink of a bank’s fire alarm did something it rarely does: it woke an entire community. What followed was not the polite flutter of emergency crews responding to a false alarm but a tableau that looked ripped from a heist film — except the grief and fury in the faces of the people outside the branch were painfully real.

By the time daylight broke over the Ruhr valley, crews discovered a gaping breach in the underground vault at a Sparkasse branch beneath a municipal parking garage. The thieves had not come with masks and a getaway driver for a quick draw. They had come prepared to live inside the bank — literally, investigators suspect — and to spend the long Christmas holidays carving open safety deposit boxes with a large drill and cold efficiency.

Numbers that feel like a punch

The tally reads like the beginning of a thriller: more than 3,250 safe deposit boxes, over 95% of them forced open, an estimated damage figure circling €30 million. Police say the average insured value per box was north of €10,000. But insurance numbers only tell part of the story — several customers told authorities the sentimental and actual value of what disappeared far exceeded any paperwork figure.

“My grandmother’s wedding band has been in that box for thirty years,” said one woman who stood shivering outside the shuttered branch, clutching a worn photograph against her chest. “It’s not about money — it’s about lineage. They don’t understand what they took.”

How they did it

Police allege the gang bored their way in from the parking garage directly above the vault, a shadowy excavation that took advantage of the long public holiday. Germany’s businesses closed for the Christmas holidays on Thursday and Friday, and the suspects likely used the quiet to their advantage, possibly lingering through the weekend as they opened boxes one by one.

Witnesses described the eerie sight of men hauling large bags in the stairwell in the small hours between Saturday and Sunday. Security footage later captured a black Audi RS6 — a powerful, fast estate car — leaving the garage in the dim hours, occupants masked. Investigators added a small detail that felt particularly brazen: the Audi’s license plates had reportedly been stolen earlier in Hanover.

“This was not opportunistic,” a police spokesperson told reporters. “A great deal of planning and criminal energy went into this. It’s professional, methodical. Think Ocean’s Eleven tactics but with a harsher, real-world aftermath.”

The human consequences

Outside the bank, a crowd of customers and onlookers gathered, their faces drawn and eyes bright with exhaustion. Hundreds, by most counts, demanded answers, pressed for reassurances, for the return of family heirlooms — jewelry, cash tucked away for a child’s education, and documents no amount of insurance could replace. Tension rose quickly when threats were reportedly made against bank staff, forcing the branch to remain closed for safety.

“They kept saying, ‘You have to tell us what you know, you have to tell us who to talk to,'” a bank employee later recalled. “We were shocked, we were frightened. There were tears. There were shouts. This is supposed to be the place where people feel secure.”

The bank has set up a hotline and promised written notices to affected customers while coordinating with its insurer. Sparkasse officials publicly expressed their shock, saying they were standing by customers and would do everything in their power to assist. Still, for many, the immediate question was not about paperwork: it was about trust.

Voices from the Ruhr

“Gelsenkirchen is a working-class town,” said Mahmoud, owner of a small jewelry stall near the old market. “People here value things differently. A watch from your grandfather, a bracelet from a parent — these are memories. It’s painful for them to see those gone.”

Soccer fans passing by — the blue and white scarves of the local FC Schalke 04 are a common sight here — paused to watch the police vans. For a city that has reinvented itself since the last coal mine closed, the heist felt like an assault on a fragile security net.

Why this matters beyond Gelsenkirchen

Physical safety deposit boxes exist in an era where so much of our wealth is intangible: cryptocurrency wallets, stock portfolios, cloud backups. Yet many people still choose to stash their most private, irreplaceable items in concrete vaults beneath banks. This robbery forces a global question: how secure are our last refuges?

Security experts say this kind of operation, while rare, illuminates a broader vulnerability: when criminals are willing to invest time and specialization, they can overcome static defenses. “The human element — the ways institutions underestimate downtime, assume no one would risk remaining onsite — is often the weak link,” a security consultant who asked not to be named told me. “Physical security requires not just walls and cameras, but rotation, detection algorithms, and often unpredictable human oversight.”

There are deeper social trends at play too. As policymakers and banks push for digital transitions, sometimes the protections for physical assets lag behind. And when thefts of this magnitude happen, they don’t just redistribute wealth — they erode confidence.

Old stories, new methods

Heists have always captured public imagination — from the Antwerp diamond robbery to cinematic capers — but what makes this episode so unnerving is its ordinariness: it happened in a mid-sized town on a holiday weekend, with people who had entrusted banks with their most private possessions.

“It feels like a betrayal,” a retired teacher waiting for information said calmly, wiping frost from her hands. “We put things in safes because the world outside feels uncertain. Now what? Will the bank change its vault? Will they compensate memories?”

After the dust settles: questions and consequences

Investigators continue to search for the perpetrators. For the people of Gelsenkirchen, the longer ramp-up to Christmas morning — the quiet streets, the closed storefronts — will now be remembered as the time when the familiar formally opened its cracks.

For readers in other cities, the scene invites reflection. Where do you keep what’s irreplaceable? How much trust do you place in institutions — and what happens when that trust is shaken?

This heist is a story about money and metal, yes, but it is also about the fragile economies of memory and belonging. It reminds us that security is not simply a vault or a camera; it’s the consensus we maintain with one another that certain places remain safe sanctuaries.

As police piece together how the gang tunneled, drilled and spirited away millions, the residents of Gelsenkirchen face the long, quiet work of inventorying what’s gone and, perhaps harder, deciding what it will take to feel safe again.

“We want our things back,” a man who had stored his father’s medals in a box said, voice breaking. “But even if we get them, I wonder if I will ever put anything valuable away again.”

What would you do if a trust you had in place for decades suddenly collapsed over a holiday weekend? How much of our personal history is safe, and how much is sitting in a vault simply waiting for the right pair of hands?

Taiwan’s leader denounces China’s live-fire drills off its coast

hanad

December 30, 2025

Taiwan leader condemns China live-fire drills — Chinese PLA soldiers fire rockets as they conducted military drills on Pingtan island close to Taiwan

Smoke Over the Strait: A Day When Rockets Wrote the Headlines

On a wind-whipped morning in Pingtan, the air tasted faintly of salt and diesel. Tourists pressed against wooden railings, phones held high like lighthouses, as a volley of rockets stitched white scars across the sky and thundered into the Taiwan Strait. For a few surreal minutes, a coastal town that usually trades in ferry schedules and seafood menus felt like the front row of a military exercise.

“It sounded like the mountains were coughing,” said Lin Mei, a schoolteacher who had come for a weekend visit. “Children started to cry, some people laughed nervously. We all took pictures. It felt unreal — like watching a war movie that we’re not allowed to blink at.”

That spectacle was no film effect. Beijing had launched a second day of live-fire drills — a drill package baptized “Justice Mission 2025” by state channels — aimed at simulating a blockade of the self-ruled island’s key ports and strikes on maritime targets. The maneuvers involved warplanes, bombers, destroyers and frigates and were mapped into five large zones around Taiwan, some reported to be within 12 nautical miles of the island’s coast.

What Happened — In Numbers

According to Taiwanese officials, the past 24 hours saw the detection of roughly 130 Chinese military aircraft, alongside at least 14 navy ships and a handful of government vessels. Taiwan’s coast guard shadowed dozens of ships with 14 of its own boats. Flights to the offshore Kinmen and Matsu islands were cancelled, and shipping lanes were reported disrupted in parts of the strait.

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) said it had achieved “desired effects” from long-range live-fire drills to the north of Taiwan. State broadcaster CCTV framed the exercises around the idea of a blockade, singling out major ports like Keelung in the north and Kaohsiung in the south as potential choke points in a simulated conflict.

Voices From the Islanders

Back in Taipei, life moved with a stubborn normalcy. At a wet market in Beitou, fishmonger Chiang Sheng-ming, 24, shrugged while arranging mackerel on ice. “There have been so many drills like this over the years that we are used to it,” he said. “If you stand your ground, there’s nothing to be afraid of.”

Nearby, 80-year-old fruit seller Tseng Chang-chih smiled and shook his head. “War? Impossible,” he said. “It’s posturing. If they really attacked Taiwan, they would have to pay a price.” Their voices framed the attitude of a community resilient by habit — people who arrange their lives around tension because history has taught them how to do it.

Politics, Provocation and the Global Chessboard

Taiwan’s president, Lai Ching-te, used the strongest possible terms, condemning the drills as “highly provocative and reckless” and saying China was deliberately undermining regional stability. Beijing, for its part, has long insisted that Taiwan is part of its sovereign territory and has not ruled out the use of force to bring the island under its control.

Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi warned that large-scale U.S. weapon sales to Taiwan would be “forcefully countered” and that any attempt to obstruct unification would “inevitably end in failure.” The flashpoint was touchingly mundane: a U.S.-approved arms package for Taipei, reportedly worth around $11 billion, landed like kindling on an already smoldering geopolitical log pile.

Even global leaders felt compelled to weigh in. Japan’s prime minister suggested that the use of force against Taiwan could trigger a response from Tokyo, and U.S. President Donald Trump — asked whether he feared an invasion — answered, “I don’t believe he’s going to be doing it,” a comment that many analysts saw as cavalier given the stakes.

Expert Take: What a Blockade Would Really Mean

“A blockade is more than a show of force,” said Dr. Mei-Ling Chen, a defense analyst with the Island Security Institute in Taipei. “It is an attempt to throttle trade, create fear, and degrade confidence in the island’s economy. Taiwan’s lifelines — ports, air routes, and undersea cables — are strategic infrastructure. Damaging or severing them would have ripple effects far beyond its shores.”

To put that into perspective: Taiwan is home to roughly 23.5 million people and anchors a global high-tech supply chain centered on semiconductors. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), the island’s crown jewel, produces a substantial share of the world’s most advanced chips — estimates vary, but industry watchers often cite that Taiwan manufactures the lion’s share of leading-edge semiconductors. Any disruption to that production could stall manufacturing worldwide, from cars to smartphones to medical devices.

Everyday Lives, Extraordinary Risk

Beyond the abstract geopolitics, the drills eventually showed up in people’s daily rhythms. Fishermen rerouted nets and waited at harbors. Airlines rerouted or cancelled short-hop flights to the outlying islands. Small businesses, already jittery from global economic uncertainty, braced for any shock that could disrupt supply lines or consumer confidence.

“We plan our lives in months, not in headlines,” said Hsu Chao, a ferry operator who runs a route between Taipei and the Matsu islands. “When exercises close sea lanes, it becomes real: prices rise, fuel costs go up, and people miss doctor appointments. Those are the quiet costs of military posturing.”

Why the World Watches

Because Taiwan sits at an intersection of power politics and indispensable industry. It is a democracy that runs its own institutions, yet China views it as a renegade province. The United States, Japan and other democracies have interests — strategic, economic, and moral — that complicate any simple resolution.

So what are readers to make of this? Is this the new normal, a slow attrition of stability by repeated displays of force? Or a dangerous escalation that could one day outgrow the bounds of staged maneuvers?

Ask yourself: how comfortable are you with the idea that a tiny island could suddenly become the pivot of a global supply-chain crisis or a flashpoint for military conflict affecting millions? Would trade partners intervene when commerce is at stake? Are diplomatic channels robust enough to temper the spiral from gesture to engagement?

Between the Lines: The Human Aftertaste

Walking away from the railings in Pingtan, the sound of the rockets faded faster than the unease. A vendor sold warm sweet potatoes to tourists who had come for the seaside breeze and left with a picture of white smoke in their phones. Children returned to school. Workers returned to shifts. The machinery of daily life, stubborn and necessary, continued.

But beneath that persistence are deeper currents: a modern island whose geopolitical value is measured in microchips, shipping routes, and strategic alliances. A population that views drills with a mix of cynicism and quiet defiance. And a neighborhood of nations whose choices in Washington, Beijing, and Tokyo will ripple through ordinary mornings like the thunder of rockets over the strait.

We watch, we photograph, we debate. And in the spaces between those acts, people simply try to go about their lives. How would you? What would you do if your morning commute became the next headline?

Ukraine says no credible evidence of an attack on Putin’s residence

hanad

December 30, 2025

No 'plausible evidence' of attack on Putin home - Ukraine — The Kremlin said the drone attack on a presidential residence will toughen the Russia's position on a possible peace deal

Smoke and Signals: How an Alleged Drone Strike Reignited a Fragile Peace Process

On a bitterly cold morning, the world found itself leaning forward—listening to a story that smelled of smoke, satellite imagery, denials and the old, familiar echo of war-time politics.

Russian state outlets accused Ukrainian forces of launching a drone strike aimed at one of President Vladimir Putin’s residences in the country’s north. Kyiv, however, pushed back swiftly and absolutely, calling the tale a fabrication intended to derail delicate negotiations that many believe might finally push this war toward an end.

The claims and the counterclaims

“There is no plausible evidence that Ukraine carried out such an attack,” Andriy Sybiha, Ukraine’s foreign minister, wrote in a forceful post that rippled across social platforms. “We have nothing to hide, because nothing like this happened.”

The Kremlin responded in kind—vehement, stony and terse. “Attempts to deny the incident are insane,” a spokesman said, insisting that all incoming drones had been intercepted and that, as a result, tangible wreckage was unnecessary to prove the event.

Between the two camps, other voices chimed in. A former U.S. president turned broker of peace, who says he had spoken with Mr. Putin, told reporters he had been informed of the attempted strike and expressed frustration that such an incident might imperil ongoing diplomacy. “It’s a delicate period of time,” he said. “This is not the right time.”

Why the story matters

It is tempting to treat this as just another entry in the news cycle: accusation, denial, assertions of evidence. But beneath those headlines are several hard truths about the modern face of war—truths about information, leverage, and the politics of proving the unprovable.

Air-defence systems, electronic warfare suites and layered intelligence means that scrap and debris are often reclaimed quickly, hidden, or repurposed. And in a world where footage can be doctored and where audiences are global and impatient, claims themselves become tools—capable of shifting negotiation stances, hardening public opinion, or compelling third parties to choose sides.

Voices from the ground

“I live in a village not far from the site they claimed was targeted,” said Anna Petrovna, a pensioner who asked that only her first name be used. “There was no boom, no sirens. What we have is more fear now—fear that someone will use this to make decisions for us.”

In Kyiv, people gathered in cafés long after closing time, talking about peace like it was a delicate plant—beautiful, potentially fragile, and not to be trodden on. “We have seen false dawns before,” said Serhiy, a teacher who lost a colleague in 2022. “Promises are cheap. Proof is what we need—proof of commitment to talk, and proof that our lives matter in those talks.”

An arms-control analyst in Brussels, Dr. Miriam Haverford, warned against taking either side’s claims at face value. “In conflicts where trust is shattered, information itself becomes an arena of combat,” she said. “Claims about attacks—true or false—can be weaponized to justify the rejection of concessions or to rally domestic audiences.”

Timing: a weapon in itself

The allegation arrives at a sensitive moment. European leaders, NATO representatives and others have been engaged in urgent conversations about pathways to ceasefire and security guarantees for Ukraine—tangible ideas that would determine the shape of East European geopolitics for years, if not decades.

Poland’s prime minister has been among the most optimistic voices, asserting that peace might be within reach in a matter of weeks and pointing to security guarantees being discussed in Washington as a hopeful sign. “This could be wrapped up soon,” he told colleagues, urging a posture aimed at “bringing parties to the table” before seasonal politics and winter fatigue set in.

But optimism breeds its own vulnerabilities. What happens when a single act—real or staged—offers the perfect pretext to pull back?

What’s at stake

Human lives: Millions remain displaced—some living abroad, many still within Ukrainian borders—grappling with the loss of homes, livelihoods, and loved ones.
Diplomatic capital: Each accusation costs trust. Negotiators can lose leverage overnight when public opinion is stoked by allegations of bad faith.
Regional stability: A perceived attack on a head of state carries explosive potential; it can prompt military escalation, harden positions, or justify punitive measures that extend the suffering of civilians.

Evidence—or the lack of it

When a minister says there’s “no plausible evidence,” and a state insists everything was intercepted mid-air, what are we to make of the gap? The answer lies partly in transparency, partly in forensic patience.

“Demonstrating proof requires time and access: wreckage, independent forensics, corroborating radar logs, and cross-referenced intelligence,” explained Haverford. “In many cases, parties prefer the political advantage of immediate accusation rather than waiting for a careful, neutral examination that could undermine their narrative.”

That matters globally because it shapes how third parties—neighboring states, international organizations, even private citizens—respond. Does the EU push sanctions? Do mediators step back? Does NATO revise its posture? All depend on whether it sees this as a genuine escalation or a narrative device.

Wider reflections: trust, war and information

This episode invites a broader question: in the age of ubiquitous cameras and instantaneous social media, how do societies adjudicate truth? How do the bereaved and the weary find closure when every dramatic claim can be countered by an equally persuasive denial?

“We’re in a moment when image and claim can travel faster than verification,” said Professor Anya Sobolev, an expert on conflict and media. “That’s dangerous because it can harden positions before reasoned diplomacy has a chance.”

And yet—there is a countercurrent of hope. Leaders who continue to press for negotiated settlements, citizens who clamor for peace, and institutions trying to keep channels open all suggest that a different finish is possible than an endless cycle of tit-for-tat headlines.

Where do we go from here?

There are no easy answers. But some steps are clear: independent investigations into serious allegations, pressure from neutral mediators for transparency, and the courageous political will to prioritize people over posture. If peace is to be more than a headline, it needs process—slow, sometimes tedious, often unromantic process.

So, what do you think? Can diplomacy withstand another round of accusations? Are we conditioned to treat every claim as part of a broader strategy? Or is it time to demand a different kind of public discourse—one that insists on proof before policies, and on human consequences before political advantage?

For now, the smoke is more figurative than literal. But the implications are real: for displaced families who dream of returning home, for negotiators who are trying to stitch together fragile agreements, and for the people of Europe, who watch and wait, hoping that this moment becomes the beginning of an end and not another twist in a story that has already taken too much.

More musicians cancel Kennedy Center performances amid name-change controversy

hanad

December 30, 2025

More artists cancel Kennedy Center shows over name change — Protesters gather at the renamed Trump Kennedy Centre

When a Name on the Façade Changes the Music

The lights along the Kennedy Center’s limestone façade still glint off the Potomac at dusk, but the hum in the neighborhood has altered. Where seasonal crowds once gathered to trade scarves, programs and small-talk about opening nights, a different kind of conversation now threads through Foggy Bottom coffee shops and taxis: should art answer to politics, or does it have the right to walk away?

On a cold December evening, one of America’s most venerable jazz ensembles — the Cookers — quietly announced they would not perform their scheduled New Year’s Eve shows at the national performing-arts center. The reason: a name. Or, more precisely, the addition of a president’s name to an institution that many regarded as belonging to the culture of a nation rather than to any single politician.

A stage without its musicians

“Jazz was born from struggle and insists on freedom — of thought, voice, expression,” read a note from members of the septet, their words heavy with history. “We have carried that music through decades. To perform beneath a banner that redefines a national landmark feels like a contradiction we cannot accept.”

The Cookers, an all-star septet whose members are veterans of the post-bop tradition, were billed to “ignite the Terrace Theater stage with fire and soul.” Their withdrawal follows a string of departures. A Christmas Eve concert hosted by vibraphonist Chuck Redd was canceled last week; Redd told reporters the name change was the reason. New York’s Doug Varone and Dancers have also reportedly pulled out of performances in April. Each cancellation is a small fissure that, together, makes a public statement.

Inside the Kennedy Center’s marble and glass, work crews were pictured earlier this month affixing new signage: the board voted to rename the venue The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts — or, as detractors have called it, the Trump Kennedy Center.

What the naming means — and what it stings

To many Washington residents and the artists themselves, the change felt less like a rebranding than a takeover. “The Kennedy Center has hosted presidents from every party; its mission was never party-aligned,” said Maya Alvarez, who runs a small theater company in D.C. and whose troupe performs frequently at campus venues. “This suddenly feels like the institution has been weaponized.”

Democrats in Congress and cultural leaders have gone further, arguing the board’s vote was illegal. The family of John F. Kennedy publicly denounced the move as an affront to his legacy. Officials who backed the renaming say it honors a sitting president’s desire to be associated with national culture. But critics worry it sets a precedent: what becomes of public trust in cultural spaces when political names can be bolted onto them with one vote?

Richard Grenell, a longtime White House ally whom the president named president of the Kennedy Center earlier this year, dismissed the cancellations as a “political stunt.” “Art should be for all Americans,” he said in a brief statement. “We welcome back the artists who wish to continue.” That retort, however, has not soothed the simmering disquiet among musicians who feel their work is grounded in a lineage that predates any contemporary political contest.

Why musicians are walking — and why it matters

Jazz did not spring fully formed into the Terrace Theater. It emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries from New Orleans — from black churches, marching bands and the raw sweetness of community resilience. It is an art form that often reads its own history aloud: improvisation, call-and-response, a freedom to speak even when the world will not listen.

“When you put a name on a national venue that changes its meaning in people’s minds, you’re asking artists to tacitly endorse that meaning,” said Dr. Peter Lang, a cultural sociologist who has studied the politicization of arts institutions. “For some, that’s impossible. For others, staying seems like complicity.”

Beyond questions of principle, there are practical implications. The Kennedy Center draws roughly two million visitors a year, across performances, education programs and tours. Its calendar is a major driver of D.C.’s hospitality economy: restaurants, hotels and small businesses rely on audience traffic. When headline acts pull out, the ripple can be counted in canceled dinners and empty hotel rooms as much as in headlines.

“We had seven reservations for the evening the Cookers were supposed to play,” said Anton Yi, manager of a nearby bistro. “Now we’ve got no shows. People ask, ‘What happened?’ and I can see in their faces that this is about more than music. It takes years to rebuild that trust.”

A global echo

The dispute over a nameplate in Washington looks parochial, but it resonates globally. Around the world, cultural institutions are battlegrounds for identity: museums that confront colonialism; theaters that take stances on human rights; festivals that refuse to book artists complicit in abuses. Audiences are increasingly attentive to who sits on boards, who funds the programs, and what values inform programming decisions.

“It’s not just about Trump or the Kennedys,” said Lian Chen, director of an arts policy NGO that tracks governance in cultural institutions. “This is about transparency, independence and the conditions under which artists can create freely. When those conditions erode, other democratic values can too.”

Voices on the street

On the sidewalks outside the center, opinions collide. “I think art should be above politics,” said Robert Mills, a retired teacher who takes a yearly subscription to the Kennedy Center. “But names matter. A name signals who you’re honoring.” Across the plaza, a young trumpet player tuning up for a gig at a local jazz club said simply, “If music can’t be honest, why play?”

Community choirs and student groups that rely on the center for performance space find themselves caught between principle and opportunity. “We rehearse there,” said Carmen Soto, whose high-school chorus recently performed on the Kennedy Center’s Millennium Stage. “These places are training grounds. But we also teach our kids about civic responsibility. It’s complicated.”

What comes next?

For now, the Kennedy Center’s schedule still lists many events. But each artist’s decision carries symbolic weight. Will other ensembles follow the Cookers? Will audiences boycott? Or will pressure mount to reverse the name change, perhaps through legal challenges or new board appointments?

There are precedents for reputational damage. Cultural boycotts and withdrawals have shifted policy before — they once helped reshape museum practices around provenance and repatriation, for example. If artists and patrons coalesce here, the impact could be lasting.

Questions to sit with

As you read this from somewhere else in the world, consider the institutions in your own city: who governs them, and whose names are plastered above their doors? Do those names invite participation, reflection and critique — or do they silence it?

And for the lovers of music, theater and dance: how do you balance the desire to preserve cultural access with the imperative to stand by principles? Does the absence of a single performance change the larger conversation, or does it become the spark that reignites it?

Final notes from the plaza

The Kennedy Center façade gleams under winter lights, but the annual promise of New Year’s music feels fractious. In a country where symbols are freighted with meaning, a name is not merely a label; it is an argument. And for artists whose craft roots itself in the outspoken and the improvisatory, the choice to perform beneath that argument or to step away is both practical and profoundly ethical.

As one veteran saxophonist waiting in line for coffee put it, “We don’t want to be used as ornaments on somebody else’s banner. If music is to remain a place of truth, sometimes you have to leave the stage.”

Singapore to punish scammers with up to 24 cane strokes

hanad

December 30, 2025

Scammers face up to 24 strokes of the cane in Singapore — People walking past a poster warning of scam threats in the financial business district in Singapore

An island on edge: Singapore turns to caning to fight a new kind of crime

On a humid morning at a neighbourhood hawker centre, a kopi pours into a paper cup and the regulars argue, not about football or the next MRT delay, but about a law that feels simultaneously ancient and shockingly modern.

“If someone steals your pension online, are you supposed to smile and move on?” asks Mr. Lim, a retiree with a sharp, weathered face and hands that have known decades of hard work. “Maybe this will make them think twice.” He sips his coffee and shrugs. “But I also worry about the young men forced to do this—are they the real criminals or just victims?”

Singapore this month enacted tougher penalties for scammers: mandatory caning of at least six strokes, up to a maximum of 24, for the most serious offenders, to run alongside prison terms and fines. Those who assist—”money mules” who lend bank accounts, or people selling SIM cards—face discretionary caning of up to 12 strokes.

Why now? The arithmetic of loss and outrage

The move comes amid a surge of losses attributed to scams. Between 2020 and the first half of 2025, authorities say Singaporeans and residents lost more than US$2.8 billion to fraud and deception—nearly $3 billion siphoned away by phone, message, romance, and crypto cons. The Ministry of Home Affairs has told parliament that roughly 190,000 scam cases were reported in that period, a staggering toll that reads like a catalogue of broken trust.

“Fighting scams is a top national priority,” the ministry said in a statement as it pushed the legislation through. The line was short, crisp—and meant to signal a sense of emergency.

From hotline apps to canes: a multi-pronged campaign

Singapore’s response has been both technical and punitive. In recent years the government has launched public education campaigns, a national hotline and the ScamShield app, which allows users to vet suspicious calls, websites and messages. Posters in MRT stations dramatise phishing flows; community centres host talks aimed at seniors who are often the most vulnerable.

“Education and prevention are crucial,” says a cybersecurity researcher at a local university. “But when criminal syndicates industrialise scams—running call centres, recruiting vulnerable migrants, using sophisticated spoofing—the tools have to match the scale.”

And the scale is real. Law enforcement actions have revealed sprawling networks across Southeast Asia. In one high-profile sweep, police tied more than US$115 million in seized assets to Chen Zhi, a British-Cambodian businessman accused of running forced-labour camps in Cambodia that were used as bases for massive online scamming operations.

The human stories behind the numbers

Numbers can numb. Stories do not.

A young woman who asked to be identified only as “Nadia” recalls being lured into a “work-from-home” scheme when she arrived in the region looking for better wages. “They said I’d be doing customer service. But once I got there, they gave me scripts. If I didn’t hit my numbers, they’d beat us or lock the doors. I felt so ashamed,” she says, voice low. “Some of the girls cried every night. We were promised one thing—and sold another.”

Across town, an office worker, Jason, recounts the day his mother almost lost her life savings to an investment scam. “The caller sounded like a bank manager. My mum transferred everything. We only got half back. She stopped going to the temple for a while—too embarrassed,” he says. “No punishment will bring money back, but maybe it will stop someone else from falling into the trap.”

Local colour and the ecosystem of fraud

Walk through a neighbourhood like Geylang at dusk and you’ll see the contradictions: gleaming glass offices that are the engine of a wealthy nation, shadowed lanes where migrant labourers live in cramped quarters, and a culture where saving face matters. Those fault lines help explain how scams flourish.

Phone numbers are spoofed to look like trusted institutions; romance scammers build emotional trust over weeks; crypto schemes glitter with promises of quick wealth. The syndicates behind these operations often prey on loneliness, greed, and fear—universal human currents that cross borders and languages.

Debate, dissent and the ethics of punishment

Not everyone welcomes caning as the answer. Human rights advocates, both local and international, argue that corporal punishment is cruel and irreversible, and that it risks punishing lower-level participants coerced or trafficked into criminality.

“Caning is a deeply problematic response to a problem that requires international cooperation, social support and targeted law enforcement,” says a researcher at an NGO focusing on forced labour. “We should be asking why these networks exist, who profits from them, and how to protect the most vulnerable.”

Others counter that Singapore’s approach is pragmatic and steeped in the country’s legal traditions. “Singapore has always had strict penalties for certain crimes, and that has shaped social norms,” notes a political analyst. “This move is as much about signalling—telling both the public and international partners that the state intends to act decisively—as it is about individual deterrence.”

Will harsh penalties deter global syndicates?

That is the central question. Criminal networks adapt quickly. When one route is closed, another opens. Money mules may move to new jurisdictions; call centres shift to different cities; encrypted messaging apps proliferate. For every tightened knot, there are a dozen loose threads.

Yet there is a second avenue of action that offers cause for cautious optimism: cross-border cooperation. Singapore’s recent asset seizures and regional investigations point to a growing willingness among governments to collaborate. Technology firms, too, are increasingly engaged—flagging suspicious transactions, blocking malicious numbers and investing in detection tools.

Where does this leave the rest of us?

As you read from wherever you are in the world, the Singapore story asks a larger question: how should societies respond when crime becomes digital, sprawling, and deeply human? Do we answer with stricter punishments, or with more humane prevention and support for victims? Do we treat the exploited as offenders—or as another class of victims needing rescue?

“It’s never just about the canes,” says an elder social worker. “You need to help families recover. You need to give people skills so greedy promises don’t sound like salvation. Otherwise, the cycle continues.”

Justice, like journalism, is messy. It resists tidy solutions. But as Singapore tries a harsh new tack, the global lesson is clear: in a world where scams cross borders like light, responses must too—combining local instincts with international strategy, technical tools with social safety nets.

So tell me: if your grandmother received a call claiming her bank account was frozen, what would you want the state to do? And what would you do yourself?

Trump delivers stern warning to Hamas, Iran after Netanyahu meeting

hanad

December 30, 2025

Trump warns Hamas, Iran after Netanyahu talks — Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu presented a united front following talks in Mar-a-Lago in Florida yesterday

On a Florida stage, a warning to the region: brinkmanship, honor, and the fragile arithmetic of peace

The sun hung low over Palm Beach, gilding the columns where two leaders stood side by side, and for a moment the world felt very small — and very large — all at once.

Speaking after a high-stakes meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Donald Trump looked straight into the bank of microphones and issued a stark admonition: Iran would face fresh strikes if it tried to rebuild nuclear capabilities or replenish its ballistic missiles, and Hamas would “have hell to pay” should it refuse to disarm under the terms of the Gaza truce.

“We made our position clear,” Trump told reporters. “If Iran tries to put itself back on the road toward a weapon, we will eradicate that program. And if Hamas does not disarm, the consequences will be severe and swift.” The language was blunt, the posture unmistakable — a reminder that in geopolitics, words can be a prelude to action.

Instant ripples: Tehran’s answer and a public show of teeth

Tehran responded in equally combative language. Ali Shamkhani, a top adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, posted on social media that Iran’s missile and defense capabilities were neither “containable nor permission-based” and warned any would-be aggressor to expect “an immediate harsh response beyond its planners’ imagination.”

“We are not bluffing,” said a Tehran-based security analyst who asked to remain anonymous, describing the message as a deliberate signal to regional rivals and to domestic audiences alike. “The leadership wants to show capability and resolve without tipping into open confrontation — yet the rhetoric narrows the room for calm.”

Why this matters: a tangle of deterrence, diplomacy and symbolism

There are many moving pieces here. On one level, this is a classic display of deterrence: a superpower promising to strike back to prevent a rival from gaining a strategic advantage. On another, it is a theatrical moment — Israel awarding the United States’ leader its highest civilian honor, the first time it has gone to a non-Israeli citizen — that cements a political and personal alliance in the public eye.

“Symbols matter,” said Dr. Laila Mansour, a veteran Middle East scholar. “The medal, the open microphone, the public threats — they are all tools of statecraft. But symbols can seduce leaders into thinking they can negotiate from a posture of dominance without paying attention to the human and political complexities on the ground.”

There are practical questions too. Since the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), nuclear diplomacy has been the axis of U.S.-Iran friction for nearly a decade. The U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 reshaped the diplomatic landscape and pushed Tehran to diversify its options. Missile development, civilian nuclear work, regional proxies — they are all part of a complex equation of deterrence and prestige.

Hamas, the ceasefire, and the hard calculus of disarmament

The other headline from the Florida meeting was the future of Gaza. The tentative ceasefire that has held so far is fragile, and President Trump pushed for a transition to a second phase: a Palestinian technocratic government in Gaza and an international stabilization force to keep the peace.

Yet Hamas, whose armed wing has repeatedly insisted it will not surrender weapons it considers essential to resistance, is a central obstacle. “We will not lay down our arms like sacrificial offerings,” a Hamas spokesman told local reporters recently, echoing the group’s long-standing position that its fighters are a deterrent against perceived threats.

“Disarmament is not simply a technical measure,” noted Dr. Mansour. “It is deeply political and tied to questions of dignity, security, and local power structures. Asking an armed group to lay down its weapons without credible guarantees for civilian safety and political representation is like asking someone to step off a cliff blindfolded.”

Voices from the region: fear, hope, and weary pragmatism

On the streets of Tel Aviv, reactions varied. “We want peace, but we want one that lasts,” said Miriam Levy, a schoolteacher, between sips of coffee. “If there is to be a Palestinian government in Gaza, it has to be capable of governing and protecting people. Threats alone won’t build that trust.”

In a Gaza neighborhood still fresh with the scars of conflict, a father of four, Ahmad, spoke with a tired pragmatism. “We are exhausted,” he said. “Every ceasefire is a pause in the fear. Who will keep the promises? Who will let our children go to school without the sound of drones overhead?”

International experts warn that an over-reliance on coercive language can backfire. “Escalatory rhetoric narrows options,” said Caroline Moretti, a former diplomat now with an international security think tank. “If Tehran believes its survival is threatened, it will act to preserve its deterrent. If Hamas feels existentially endangered, its calculus shifts toward maximizing leverage. The challenge is to couple deterrence with credible diplomatic paths out of the crisis.”

What the world should watch next

There are a few critical junctures on the horizon:

Whether the United States follows through with the implied military threats or shifts toward intensified sanctions and diplomatic pressure.
How Iran interprets and responds to the warnings — will it accelerate clandestine work or move back toward talks?
Whether Israel and the Palestinians can translate a ceasefire into a tangible, enforceable transition that addresses governance, security, and humanitarian needs.

Beyond the headlines: a moment to reflect

These are not abstract calculations. They are decisions that ripple through markets, refugee flows, energy prices, and the daily lives of millions. When leaders use the language of eradication and harrowing consequence, ordinary people hear the crescendo and count the cost in sleepless nights and shuttered businesses.

Ask yourself: what kind of security does the world want? One built on repeated cycles of blow-and-response, or one that invests in institutions, credible arbitration, and tangible incentives for peace? Which is more realistic, and which is more humane?

There are no easy answers. The political theater in Florida — the medals, the press conference, the pointed tweets and speeches — offers a window into a strategy that hinges on intimidation, alliance signaling, and domestic theater. But if history teaches anything, it is that lasting stability rarely arrives that way.

“Diplomacy is boring and boring things often work,” a veteran negotiator told me wryly. “The problem is that boring is hard when headlines reward drama.”

For now, the region holds its breath. Leaders posture. Analysts prognosticate. People pray for simple things: peace, predictability, and the chance to put down their guards. The question remains: can political theater be converted into political transformation, or will rhetoric only fan the embers of conflict? The next moves — by capitals in Washington, Tehran, Jerusalem, and the neighborhoods in between — will tell us a great deal about the answer.

Bondi attack hero sought to shield innocent bystanders

hanad

December 30, 2025

Bondi attack hero wanted to protect 'innocent people' — Police stand guard at the entrance to the pavilion at Bondi Beach in Sydney

When a Beach Became a Battlefield: Courage, Loss and a Country Asking Why

There are mornings at Bondi Beach that belong to light—the kind of light that catches the foam on the waves and seems to make everything more forgiving. On 14 December, as the sun cut a silver path across the Pacific and families gathered to mark Hanukkah, that light was shattered by gunfire. Fifteen people were killed. Dozens more were wounded. A seaside celebration turned, in an instant, into a scene that will linger in Australia’s memory for years to come.

Amid the chaos came an act so raw and human it has been replayed across the globe: a fruit seller—a man who had emigrated from Syria nearly two decades ago—hurried from a coffee run into the firing line and wrestled a gun from one of the attackers. By the time he was dragged away, he had been shot several times and would need multiple surgeries. By the time he recovered enough to speak, he had become an emblem of quiet, stubborn bravery.

The Moment

Imagine the small comforts before the unimaginable: the bicycle bell of a coffee cart, the tang of citrus in a fruit stall, a child’s laugh. Then the crack of gunfire, the human panic, the tide of bodies trying to peel away from the sound. “I could hear people screaming,” the man told reporters later; he said his aim was simple—take the gun and stop the killing. He dove toward one of the gunmen, grabbed him, and demanded he drop the weapon. The scuffle ended with the attacker shot and, for a time, the gun no longer a tool of harm.

He is known locally as Ahmed, a father who left Syria for Australia in 2007. His relatives in Al‑Nayrab, the town where his family still farms, told visitors that their pride was mingled with grief. “We have watched him grow into a man who would put himself between danger and others,” a cousin said, eyes wet. “He did what any of us would hope a neighbour would do.”

Who the Attackers Were

Authorities say the attackers were a father and son: Sajid Akram, 50, and his 24‑year‑old son, Naveed. Sajid, an Indian national who entered Australia in 1998, was shot dead by police during the incident. Naveed, an Australian‑born citizen, remains in custody, charged with 15 counts of murder and terrorism‑related offences. He has not yet entered a plea.

For families of the dead, for friends who ran into the water or flattened themselves under parked cars, answers are still porous. Why did a celebration in a popular, public space become the target for such targeted hatred? How did the alleged perpetrators slip through whatever safety nets should have caught them?

From Grief to Demand: Families Call for a Royal Commission

Seventeen bereaved families have written an open letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese demanding a Commonwealth Royal Commission into what they describe as “the rapid rise of anti‑Semitism in Australia” and the failures of policing and intelligence that allowed the attack to happen.

“We have lost parents, spouses, children and grandparents,” the letter reads in part. “We were celebrating a festival of light in an iconic public place that should have been safe. You owe us answers.”

The prime minister, while offering sympathy and pledging action, has resisted calls for an immediate federal inquiry. He argues that urgent reforms must not be delayed by a commission that could take years. Instead, he has pointed to a state‑led royal commission in New South Wales and a raft of proposed reforms to weapons laws, hate‑speech regulations and security services.

Families and some community leaders are unconvinced. “Only a federal commission has the scope and the coercive powers to get to the truth,” a spokesperson for a Jewish community group told me. “We need a full accounting—where warnings were missed, why warning signs went unheeded, how extremist ideology was allowed to fester.”

Voices from Bondi

At the small cafes that dot the road above the sand, conversations turned from coffee to anger and fear. “Bondi’s always been a place for everyone—surfers, picnickers, tourists,” said Maria, who runs a takeaway counter near the pavilion. “Now people look at their kids differently. It’s heartbreaking.”

A lifeguard who had assisted in the chaos described the scene with haunting understatement. “We’re trained for rip currents and heads stuck between rocks,” he said. “This was something else—too much noise, too much terror.”

A tourist from New Zealand, who had been staying in a rental two streets back, said the attack made her reassess the notion of public safety. “You come to Australia for the beaches, the friendliness. You don’t expect to have to duck for cover at sunrise,” she said.

Policy, Prevention and a Wider Conversation

Beyond the local sorrow, the Bondi shooting raises broader questions that many countries are still grappling with: how to confront anti‑Semitism and other forms of targeted hate; how to balance civil liberties with robust policing and intelligence gathering; and how immigration, integration and identity politics interplay with radicalisation.

Experts warn that mass incidents like Bondi do not arise from a vacuum. “These attacks are often preceded by a pattern of hateful rhetoric, community isolation and online radicalisation,” explained a security analyst. “You need early intervention programs, better monitoring of extremist networks, and community outreach so grievances don’t calcify into violence.”

The federal government has signalled it will propose changes: tighter firearms regulation, strengthened hate‑speech laws, and reviews of police and intelligence processes. But the timing and reach of those reforms is still up in the air. Meanwhile, for the families who have cried at funerals, policy debates feel painfully abstract.

Immediate demands from families include a Commonwealth Royal Commission and accountability for intelligence lapses.
Government offerings currently include a NSW royal commission, legal reforms, and promises of support for victim families.
Community leaders call for long‑term investments in education, counter‑radicalisation programs, and mental‑health support.

What Comes Next?

After the funerals and the initial outpouring of support, Australia must answer some uncomfortable questions. How do societies prevent hatred from escalating into violence? How do we protect open, public spaces while preserving the freedoms that make them vibrant? And how do we treat heroes like Ahmed—whose quick action saved lives—without turning trauma into celebrity?

On the pavement above Bondi, someone painted a mural. A crowd gathered, laid flowers, and then dispersed into their lives—people who commute, who tend shopfronts, who take their children to surf lessons. They will carry the memory of that morning in a way statistics cannot fully capture.

What do you think should be the priority for a nation in the aftermath of such an attack: swift reform, a painstaking inquiry, or both? As Australia wrestles with both grief and the need for answers, the world watches and asks itself the same question.

Trump cautions Iran against nuclear resurgence while hosting Netanyahu at White House

hanad

December 30, 2025

Trump warns Iran on nuclear revival as he hosts Netanyahu — US President Donald Trump held a meeting with Israeli Prime ⁠Minister ‍Benjamin ⁠Netanyahu in ‍Mar-a-Lago

A Mar-a-Lago Meeting and the Tension That Trails It

It was a warm Florida afternoon — the kind where the Atlantic throws glints of light across manicured golf greens and the palm trees outside Mar-a-Lago sway like they’re listening in. Inside, the conversation was anything but sunny.

President Donald Trump welcomed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to his oceanfront club, and the two men sat for talks that read like a map of the region’s most combustible lines: Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the fragile ceasefire in Gaza, and the uneasy disarmament of Hezbollah in Lebanon. As the cameras clicked, the president’s words were blunt and unmistakable: if Iran rebuilt its nuclear or long-range missile capabilities, “we’re going to have to knock them down. We’ll knock them down. We’ll knock the hell out of them.”

That vow — raw and belligerent, delivered with a sheen of theatrical certainty — is more than campaign rhetoric. It is a distillation of a larger anxiety: the fear that deterrence will fail and that the Middle East, already scarred by years of war, could be pushed into a new, wider conflagration.

Where the Worry Comes From

The backstory is familiar by now. In June, U.S. forces struck at sites tied to Iran’s nuclear program, an operation the White House has described as destroying Tehran’s enrichment capacity. Tehran, for its part, has been at pains to insist publicly that it is no longer enriching uranium at any declared facility — an assertion meant to signal openness to diplomacy even as regional rivalries hum beneath the surface.

Israeli intelligence officials have warned privately and publicly that Iran is trying to rebuild elements of its long-range missile supply chain — weapons that could soon threaten cities across Israel. The stakes are high: the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack that killed some 1,200 people remains a searing memory, and the hostage crisis that followed left 251 people taken; all but one have since been returned, alive or dead.

“We can’t play catch-up,”

said one former Israeli military planner who asked not to be named. “If Iran is reconstituting the infrastructure, you cannot sit back and wait for the first missile to land before you respond.”

Whether Tehran is, in fact, rebuilding at the speed Israel fears is partly an intelligence question and partly a political one. Iranian officials insist they have ceased enrichment — a stance designed for the international audience — while also conducting missile exercises and showcasing resilience. Last month, Tehran announced another round of military drills, underlining how military signaling remains central to the dispute.

The Ceasefire, the Hostages, and the Moral Calculus

Netanyahu’s visit to Florida came at a delicate moment for the U.S.-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. The agreement, which began its first phase in October, slowed the bloodshed and produced the difficult work of releasing hostages and exchanging conditions. Progress has been uneven.

“There can be no second phase without the first being fulfilled,” President Trump told reporters, echoing a sentiment voiced in grief by hostage families. Trump and Netanyahu repeatedly returned to the human face of the bargain: the last unreturned person, Ran “Rani” Gvili, remains a pivot point for many Israeli leaders, who say they will not move fully into the next stage until they know what happened to him.

“Every family I spoke with is asking for one thing,” said Miriam Cohen, a volunteer with a Tel Aviv support group for hostage families. “They want dignity. They want closure. They want to know that politicians are not bargaining away their loved ones for abstract gains.”

Netanyahu has said he is in no hurry to advance the ceasefire until the Gvili case is resolved; the family has been meeting with senior U.S. envoys while they wait. It’s a reminder that beneath grand strategy sit people whose lives have been ruptured in immeasurable ways.

Lebanon’s Ceasefire: A Test of Disarmament

To the north, the quiet along the Lebanon-Israel border has been precarious. A November 2024 deal, backed by Washington, was meant to end more than a year of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah and to begin a process of disarming the powerful Iran-backed group in southern Lebanon. Official Beirut says the disarmament effort is close to completion within the year-end deadline, but independent observers and Israeli officials say progress is partial and fragile.

“Disarmament is not only a technical job; it’s political and social,” explained Lina Haddad, a Lebanese civil-society activist. “You cannot simply take weapons out of communities that feel existentially threatened without offering security or a political framework.”

Israel, saying it sees Hezbollah reconstituting its strength, has carried out near-daily strikes in Lebanese border regions to keep the group off balance. The result is a patchwork of ceasefires and flare-ups, each one a reminder that the end of one battle line doesn’t erase the forces that fed it.

Diplomacy, Domestic Politics, and the Weight of Personality

There are other layers to this visit. Trump’s effusive praise of Netanyahu — “If you had the wrong prime minister, Israel would not exist,” he said — was as much a domestic flourish as a strategic endorsement. Political theater is always part of high diplomacy in Washington and Palm Beach; this time it carried echoes of past administrations’ alliances, and of the personal chemistry between leaders who trade bluster and assurance.

The two also touched on an eyebrow-raising claim about a potential pardon. Trump said Israeli President Isaac Herzog had told him he planned to pardon Netanyahu of corruption-related charges. Herzog’s office quickly pushed back: there had been no conversation between the two presidents on that subject since a pardon request was submitted, the statement said. A political whisper, amplified on a gilded lawn.

Experts put it this way:

“The Middle East remains a theater where domestic politics and international strategy blur,” said Dr. Amina Soltani, a Middle East policy scholar. “When leaders use bold language about striking another state, they are also signaling to domestic constituencies that they are strong, decisive. The risk is that the rhetoric can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

What to Watch Next

Iran’s trajectory: whether Tehran’s public claims about enrichment hold against intelligence reporting about missile and weapons logistics.
The ceasefire’s Phase Two: whether the parties and their international backers can translate ceasefire pledges into tangible steps, including the return or accounting of hostages.
Hezbollah’s disarmament: whether Lebanon can reconcile community security with the broader goal of removing heavy weaponry from civilian areas.

These are not merely items on a diplomatic docket. They are the markers of whether the region tilts toward cold containment or hot escalation.

Final Thoughts — A Question for the Reader

Standing in Mar-a-Lago, under the spray of Florida sun, two leaders negotiated lines of red and green that will determine lives thousands of miles away: whether a young man’s remains return to his grieving parents, whether a city will be threatened by a missile, whether a fragile ceasefire will become a durable peace. Can diplomacy, bolstered by credible deterrence, hold long enough to forge something more permanent? Or will the next misstep — miscalculation, mistrust, or miscommunication — open a door that is very hard to close?

These are not theoretical questions. They are urgent, and they demand more than slogans. They demand patience, intelligence, and the kind of honest conversations that don’t always play well on camera but might save lives. The world will be watching. And what do you think should happen next?

1...383940...233 Page 39 of 233