# data[].attributes.headline
Singapore health system hit by ‘most serious breach of personal data’ in cyberattack; PM Lee's data targeted

# data[].attributes.subject
Singapore health system hit by ‘most serious breach of personal data’ in cyberattack; PM Lee's data targeted

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A total of 1.5 million SingHealth patients' non-medical personal data were stolen, while 160,000 of those had their dispensed medicines' records taken too, according to MCI and MOH.

2 related media assets (image or videos) available. Click to see the gallery.

(Updated: )
Share this content

SINGAPORE: The "most serious breach of personal data" in Singapore's history took place last month, with 1.5 million SingHealth patients' records accessed and copied while 160,000 of those had their outpatient dispensed medicines' records taken, according to the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Communications and Information.

Among those affected was Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, with the attackers "specifically and repeatedly targeting" his personal particulars and information of his outpatient dispensed medicines, the ministries said in a joint release on Friday (Jul 20).

Several other ministers were also affected, including Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong.

The personal data taken from the 1.5 million patients include their names, NRIC numbers, address, gender, race and date of birth, the release said, adding that the hackers did not amend or delete the records.

"UNPRECEDENTED" ATTACK
Patients' medical records, including past diagnosis, doctors' notes and health scans, were not affected.

"We have not found evidence of a similar breach in the other public healthcare IT systems," they said.

At a news conference on Friday, Health Minister Gan Kim Yong apologised to patients affected. Calling the attack "unprecedented", Mr Gan said: "I'm deeply sorry that this has happened ... We must learn from this and emerge stronger and more resilient from this incident."

Also at the conference was Communications and Information Minister S Iswaran who vowed to get to the bottom of the breach.

"I want to assure everyone that the Government takes with utmost seriousness its responsibility of ensuring the security of public sector IT systems and databases," he said.

Investigations by the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) and the Integrated Health Information System (IHiS) confirmed that the attack was a "deliberate, targeted and well-planned cyberattack" and was not the work of casual hackers or criminal gangs.

Channel NewsAsia understands that authorities have established who might be behind such an attack. There are only a few countries in the world who have the level of sophistication shown during the cyberattack campaign.

"I apologise. We are not able to reveal more because of operational security reasons," CSA chief executive David Koh said at the news conference when asked which country might have been involved.

None of the stolen data has surfaced in the public domain, including that of the prime minister.

"The attackers deliberately, repeatedly and specifically targeted his information and they were able to access and copy the dispensed medication record of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong," Mr Koh said.

"It's perhaps best not to speculate what the attacker had in mind," he added in response to a question on why Mr Lee's data was targeted.
SOPHISTICATED ATTACK
In a Facebook post, Emeritus Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong revealed that his non-medical personal particulars with SingHealth had also been stolen.

"Cyber theft is a key risk when going digital. But we cannot stop the digital advance and must strive to build the most secure Smart Nation," he added.

According to MCI and MOH, IHiS database administrators detected unusual activity on one of SingHealth's IT databases on Jul 4, and acted immediately to stop it. They carried on their investigations, while putting in place additional security measures, the release said.

From Jul 4 to Jul 9, they continued to monitor the network traffic closely before ascertaining it was a cyberattack and alerted superiors. On Jul 10, MOH, SingHealth and CSA were informed and forensic investigations were carried out.

It was found that data was taken out from Jun 27 to Jul 4 this year, and the patient records accessed and copied were from those who visited SingHealth's specialist outpatient clinics and polyclinics from May 1, 2015, to Jul 4 this year.

CSA ascertained the cyberattackers first accessed the network after breaching a front-end workstation, and managed to get privileged access to the database over time while also showing sophistication in cleaning up their digital footprints when doing so.
STEPPING UP SECURITY
SingHealth has since lodged a police report on Jul 12, and police investigations are ongoing. These investigations are separate from those looking into the cyberattack, Channel NewsAsia understands.

Since kicking the cyberattacker out of the system on Jul 4, further attacks were observed but no further data were illegally stolen, the ministries said, adding there was no disruption of healthcare services during the period of the cyberattack and patient care has not been compromised.

The ministries also said further measures have been introduced to tighten SingHealth's IT security, including imposing Internet separation policies.

Additional controls on workstations and servers have also been introduced, as well as the resetting of user and systems accounts and installation of more system monitoring controls.

Furthermore, SingHealth will be progressively contacting all patients who visited its clinics and polyclinics during the abovementioned time period to notify them if their data has been stolen.

All patients, whether or not they are affected, will receive an SMS notification over the next five days. They can also proactively access the Health Buddy mobile app or SingHealth website to check if they have been affected, the release said.
COI TO BE CONVENED
MOH has also directed IHiS to conduct a thorough review of the public healthcare system here, with support from third-party experts. Areas of review include cybersecurity policies, threat management processes, IT system controls and organisational and staff capabilities.

Advisories have also been sent to all healthcare institutions, public and private, on the cybersecurity precautions and measures to be taken, the release added.

Separately, the Minister-in-charge of Cybersecurity S Iswaran on Friday will convene a Committee of Inquiry, to be headed by Mr Richard Magnus, a retired Chief District Judge and member of the Public Service Commission.

More details of its members and terms of reference, as well as when the COI will be held, will be revealed at a later date, MCI said.

Addressing reporters at a news conference, Mr Iswaran said: "Because this incident occurred in the SingHealth IT system and is within the healthcare cluster, that has to be the natural focal point of the COI's work."

However, to be meaningful it also has to draw lessons or policy recommendations that can be applied to the public sector and potentially the private sector, he added.

Mr Iswaran has also directed CSA to work closely with all 11 keys sectors - energy, water, banking and finance, healthcare, transport, Infocomm, media, security and emergency services and Government - to enhance the security of their critical information infrastructure systems.

The Smart Nation and Digital Government Group has also completed a scan of all government systems and found no evidence of compromise, he said.

There will be a pause in the introduction of new ICT systems in the interim, until their respective reviews have been completed and security posture established, it added.

"We cannot return to the days of paper and pencil but we will take a pause of our various IT-related projects ... to review and strengthen our cybersecurity measures if necessary, before proceeding," Mr Gan said, adding that this includes the National Electronic Health Record project.

Therewere no further details on which ICT projects will be paused, but these could possibly include SingPass Mobile, Channel NewsAsia understands.

"We will do our utmost to secure our IT systems. However, unfortunately, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of another cybersecurity attack," Mr Iswaran said at the conference. This is due to attackers constantly developing new techniques and probing for fresh weaknesses in IT systems.

"This is an ongoing battle ... however, we must not allow this incident, or any others like it, to derail our plans for a Smart Nation," he added.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Singapore health system hit by 'most serious breach of personal data' in cyberattack; PM Lee's data targeted

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A total of 1.5 million SingHealth patients' non-medical personal data were stolen, while 160,000 of those had their dispensed medicines' records taken too, according to MCI and MOH.

# data[].attributes.headline
Commentary: Can education fix inequality in Singapore? If not, what can?

# data[].attributes.subject
Commentary: Can education fix inequality in Singapore? If not, what can?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As a mature, high-income and slow-growing economy, Singapore cannot expect rapid growth to mask the economic effects and social challenges of rising inequality, says Linda Lim and Pang Eng Fong.

(Updated: )
Share this content

SINGAPORE: Combating inequality has been declared a "national priority" in Singapore.

This makes sense, given the pernicious effects that persistently high inequality can have on economic growth, political stability, social cohesion, quality of life, and even national security.

The 2016 Brexit and Trump votes occurred in the two major developed countries with the greatest income inequality - the UK and US respectively. Studies suggest that socio-cultural as well as economic divides resulting from inequality contributed to these electoral results, which have since led to populist and protectionist policy proposals that will slow growth in the long run.

Inequality itself also directly lowers economic growth through under-realisation of scarce talent, and weaker consumption demand - both are of particular concern to Singapore given our small labour force and market size.

As an already mature, high-income and thus slow-growing economy, we can also no longer expect rapid growth to mask the economic effects and social challenges of rising inequality, as it did in previous decades.
HOW DOES EDUCATION CONTRIBUTE TO INEQUALITY?
Instead we need to boldly confront the root causes of inequality, which lie in how our economic and social institutions actually work. Focusing on education policy as the main solution can actually worsen inequality.

In developed economies like the UK, US and Singapore, income inequality increases with average incomes because growth increasingly derives from the application of capital and skills, rather than labour, to production, as comparative advantage and technology shift in a capital- and skills-biased direction.

This raises the returns to capital (profits and rents) and skills (PMET salaries) more than it does the returns to labour (wages). Education, especially university education, contributes to the widening skills premium (excess of skilled over unskilled labour income), and parents and students naturally clamour for more of it.

This is where education and inequality are mutually reinforcing. Higher-income families invest more in private tuition for academic subjects, extracurricular enrichment activities, and parental attention.

This enhances their children's school performance and chances of getting into "good" (elite, brand-name) schools and universities, thus achieving credentials that employers value and reward with "good jobs" and high salaries.

Employers are known to use educational certification and school reputation as "screening devices" that differentiate between job candidates, and as proxies for behavioral characteristics and social networks they believe enhance employees' contribution to the enterprise.

Expansion of higher education has been accompanied by a widening "college premium" - or gap between graduate and non-graduate incomes - even as the supply of graduates increases.

Recent studies in the US and UK suggest that this is due to losses to non-graduates, as well as gains to graduates, as employers start requiring degrees for work that did not need it 30 years ago.
READ: The relentless pursuit of university rankings is leading to a two-track system, a commentary. READ: Is academic competition really necessary to be the best we can be? A commentary. CAN EDUCATION REFORMS REDUCE INEQUALITY?
And as university degrees become more common, institutional reputation becomes more important, intensifying competition for places at the most selective institutions, and widening their graduates' salary premium over graduates of less selective institutions.

Policy-makers in developed countries have focused on reforms in education to reduce inequality. In some countries, particularly the US, unequal resource allocation between "rich" and "poor" school districts is a major factor contributing to unequal educational, employment and income outcomes.

This is less of a problem in Singapore, given the Ministry of Education's worthy efforts to equalise the allocation of resources - including the "best" teachers and administrators - between "neighbourhood" and "elite" schools. But it is hard to improve already high-performing, well-resourced schools.

More importantly, as we noted in the New Nation in 1976: "The effect of any school variable which can be manipulated by decision-makers is small relative to other determinants of student performance ... Family background is a very important variable affecting educational performance and earnings of individuals ... changes within the school system itself will not necessarily bring about more equal performance of students in school or greater income equality among them when they are employed."

Recent, separate research by NTU associate professor of sociology Teo You Yenn, and NUS associate professor of social work Irene Ng, confirms the dominant impact of family circumstances on student performance in Singapore today.

The PISA test which we regularly top shows that 15-year-old students in Singapore on average perform better than those in OECD countries, but here the gap between the top and bottom scorers is wider and the dependence on parents' socio-economic status higher.

Another popular policy is to increase lower-income students' access to more selective schools, including through priority admissions, as Singapore plans to do in Primary One and post-PSLE student assignments to elite schools.

But at best this can cater to only a small subset of low-income students, probably those already best qualified. This could widen the student performance gap between elite and neighbourhood schools, and subject more families to "exam stress".

Since school performance is heavily dependent on family resources, lower-income children could underperform relative to higher-income classmates in elite schools, reinforcing stigmatisation from priority admission, and lowering self-esteem which research shows is a major determinant of individual performance.

Priority admission for lower-income children would also intensify competition among higher-income students for "fewer" elite school places, thus worsening the "education arms race".

In the US, such competition has worsened inequality and increased social stratification by increasing home values (hence family wealth) in residential neighbourhoods in the top public school districts.

Tweaking Singapore's education system will not reduce inequality because it does not change the underlying unequal socio-economic structure to whose incentives families of all income levels rationally respond.
READ: Is there an education arms race? A commentary. OUR ECONOMIC MODEL GENERATES HIGH INEQUALITY

Parents naturally seek for their children entry into secure, well-paid employment in large corporate and government bureaucracies, and cartelised high-earning professions, which still use traditional academic credentials to screen candidates and remunerate employees.

Despite Singapore's rapid growth in economic output and average incomes, income inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient has increased since the late 1970s, and is high relative to other developed countries, before taxes and transfers.

The Gini also counts only income from work, which in Singapore is under half of national income, a very low ratio by international standards. It does not consider wealth or property, which everywhere is more unequally distributed than income, especially in expensive dense cities.

High inequality reflects several features of our economic development over the decades.

Most significantly, increased output has come mainly from factor accumulation, the employment of more capital and labour, rather than from productivity growth, which has been relatively low, and is necessary for labour incomes to rise. The long and heavy reliance by business on cheap foreign labour, facilitated by government policy, has depressed wages of the low-skilled.

THE IMPACT OF MERITOCRACY
The rapid increase in population necessary to propel this input-intensive growth model has also raised returns to owners of the scarcest factor in Singapore, land, thereby increasing the inequality that derives from residential home values and monopoly rents.

Compared to other high-income countries, Singapore also has a relatively weak social safety net, lacking public provision for unemployment insurance and guaranteed social security (retirement income) that is almost universally provided elsewhere.

The Singaporean ideology that we are a "meritocracy" where economic success based on hard work and the right academic credentials justifies unequal returns, poses two problems.

First, it entrenches hierarchy, and hence a systemic inequality to which social mobility can at best contribute slightly more diverse members at each level of the pyramid. Overall inequality does not decline, and at worst, those who fail to "make it" up the ladder are considered to "deserve" their inferior position on the social as well as income scale.

Beginning with the competitive "streaming" of students by exam results at an early age, such stratification has stigmatising and demotivating effects which limit educational attainment and reduce intergenerational mobility.

Second, in the post-industrial society to which Singapore is inevitably transitioning, a laddered meritocracy and the social divide it subtends impede further economic progress.

Innovation, and response to the disruption it causes, increasingly hinge on entrepreneurship rather than bureaucracy, risk-taking rather than risk-avoidance, diversity rather than similarity, collaboration rather than competition, imagination rather than instruction, contestation rather than conformity, and bottom-up rather than top-down initiative.

In short, meritocracy as currently construed in Singapore, and served by the educational system, is arguably the problem, not the solution, for both economic development and inequality, as it is in other highly unequal rich societies.

A UK study shows that students from higher-income families are more likely to go to university, and to more selective universities. They also earn more than students from lower-income families who graduate from the same institutions in the same subjects, and with similar other characteristics.
REDUCING INEQUALITY THROUGH REDISTRIBUTION NEED NOT HARM GROWTH
In the US, Yale Law School professor Daniel Markovits has said

American meritocracy has become ... a mechanism for the dynastic transmission of wealth and privilege across generations. Meritocracy now constitutes a modern-day aristocracy.

We need to look outside the education system for policies that do work to reduce income and wealth disparities. They include higher tax rates on high income earners, levies on capital gains, estates and inheritance, and a stronger social safety net - all of which Singapore has eschewed, believing these would reduce the incentive to work hard, save and invest, and thus harm economic growth.

But high-income Scandinavian countries, Switzerland and Germany, have reduced inequality over decades through progressive universal tax-and-transfer systems that included labour market policies, spending on healthcare and social protection while growing at respectable rates and ranking high on productivity and innovation indices - some even while maintaining budget surpluses and strong currencies.

Some high earners may resent high tax rates, but all citizens benefit from subsidised public services, including health and education, and receive unemployment insurance and retirement pensions.

Besides reducing economic and social divides, these policies may also encourage savings for growth-enhancing investments in business enterprises (rather than housing consumption, as in Singapore).

Recent improvement in Singapore's still-high Gini coefficient also results not from educational policy, but from increased social transfers to vulnerable groups - subsidies for low-wage workers, the elderly and elderly poor.

But these have been insufficient to narrow the cumulative wide income and wealth gaps created by past policies and market forces. Our post-tax-and-transfers Gini still ranks with the highest among developed countries (lower than the US but similar to the UK), is much higher than those of other small high-income economies (in Scandinavia), and is unlikely to be fiscally sustainable.

However, we have run large budget and current account surpluses for decades, piling up huge foreign exchange reserves that have been well-invested by our sovereign wealth funds. More of these could be converted into social spending that could both increase productivity and reduce inequality.
Linda Lim is Professor Emerita of Corporate Strategy and International Business, Stephen M Ross School of Business, University of Michigan. Pang Eng Fong is Professor of Strategic Management (Practice) at Singapore Management University.
Reforming the education system - by equalising resources, eliminating streaming, increasing curricular flexibility and minimising social segregation - can reduce inequality and social stratification, and foster the innovation and entrepreneurship required for post-industrial economic growth, only if the deep-seated institutional roots of inequality are addressed.

The political will to do this is what matters in the struggle for a more just and equal society that will benefit all of us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Commentary: Can education fix inequality in Singapore? If not, what can?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As a mature, high-income and slow-growing economy, Singapore cannot expect rapid growth to mask the economic effects and social challenges of rising inequality, says Linda Lim and Pang Eng Fong. (Updated: ) Share this content SINGAPORE: Combating inequality has been declared a "national priority" in Singapore.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On an ancient monument near Republique, fresh graffiti scars the old grey stone - its garish scrawl a slash of anger above the pigeons serenely scratching beneath the arch: "Down with caviar, long live the kebab!" A lone shout in a breadcrumb-trail of slogans, marking the path of protesters through Paris last weekend.

This boulevard of the French capital became, for a few hours that day, an urban battlefield.

Under vast posters showing the latest releases, lines of riot police and armoured vehicles filed past the grand old Rex cinema. In front of them, protesters pulled together barricades from street furniture, as trees were set alight and tear gas filled the air.

"Franck", who wouldn't give his real name, was among the protesters on Saturday. A construction worker from the Calais region, he says he supports the protests, and came to Paris with four of his friends to join them. They were carrying gas masks and other protective gear.

Franck was prepared for trouble - his friends, he says, were looking for it. By the time they arrived on the boulevard near Republique, they were part of a group of more than 100 people.

"They were overturning cars, breaking shop windows, they set fire to anything they could," he says. "I'd never seen anything like it. It was anarchy, total chaos. It was war. Everything was on fire - bins, cars, the protective hoarding around the shops.

"The police charged us - the atmosphere was very tense. And the protesters, we all felt like we were in it together."

Champs-Elysees, Paris
8 December

French protests have often seemed like a dance between demonstrators and police - direct action has a long and cherished history here. But these weekly confrontations between people and state are different.

Not led by any union or political party, the "yellow vest" protests have unleashed the worst civil disorder Paris has seen for decades.

Four people have been killed, many hundreds injured and billions of euros of damage inflicted on the country's urban centres.

The French government at one point warned of "serious violence" and "fears for democracy and its institutions", with at least one protest spokesman calling on people to march on the Elysee Palace, the home of the president. There is a difference between legitimate protest and unacceptable violence, the government has repeated, time after time.

And yet the power of this movement lies, not in the violence at its margins, but in the quiet support of what polls suggest is more than half the country for its basic aims.

President Emmanuel Macron came to power vowing to face down protesters and drive through long-postponed economic reforms.

For the first 18 months of his presidency, that's exactly what he did - forcing through changes in the labour law against a backdrop of noisy public protests, and bulldozing past broad, union-led demonstrations on railway reform.

This current crisis erupted - not over a flagship issue - but over a fiscal detail in the budget for next year, a routine rise in eco-taxes on fuel. It wasn't even a policy that the current government had made. The commitment to annual tax rises on fuel - and especially diesel - in order to fund eco-friendly projects had been part of the previous government's legacy to Macron.

But it was enough to spark a small local rebellion - a handful of motorists who started displaying their regulation hi-vis jackets, or gilets jaunes, in the windscreens of their cars and posting their actions on Facebook.

Now a movement created on social media, with no recognised leadership, has forced President Macron into concessions that were unthinkable a few weeks ago. How? Because this is not a confrontation about fuel taxes, or any one issue.

It's about power.

It's no accident that cars were the spark that ignited this anger. Not needing one has become a status symbol in France.

Those in city centres have a wealth of public transport to choose from, but you need to be rich enough to live in the centre of Paris or Marseille or Bordeaux, and most people are not.

"Economic growth happens in big globalised cities, but the working classes no longer live there," says Christophe Guilluy, an independent researcher specialising in human geography. "That's a major change. For the first time in history, they don't live where wealth and jobs are created. They live in a 'peripheral France', characterised by weak economic growth, high unemployment and high anxiety."

"This economic model creates enormous wealth," he continues. "But it creates it in a concentrated and unequal way. Since the 1980s, what we are seeing is a weakening of all categories of the middle class."

Outside the ring roads that encircle Paris, and other major French cities, you will find the suburbs and satellite towns where workers like Nouria Benatia live. And the gap between the world she works in, and the one she can afford to live in, is growing.

She commutes into central Paris every day to work as a receptionist in a smart hotel just off the Champs-Elysees. After this month's violent protests in the capital, she says the hotel has emptied and bookings have nose-dived. But she has little sympathy for business owners here.

"To be honest, I still have the same salary, so what does it change for me if the business is working or not?" she says. "I [still] have to go outside Paris to live, and come in to work every day. If the protests were more peaceful, maybe I'd join them."

Without a car, those in France who have been priced out of the big cities would struggle to get to work, take their children to school and even to shop for groceries.

Petrol prices here are roughly the same as in Germany or the UK - and French diesel prices generally lie somewhere in between its two neighbours. But there is a more general sense of unfairness - a feeling that the struggling middle class are being asked to shoulder more than their fair share of the burden, while France's millionaires have seen their top rate of tax slashed. And the pain was felt especially keenly this year, because rises in the global oil price had already made fuel more expensive.

In September this year, the government announced its planned increase in the eco-taxes levied on petrol and, particularly, on diesel. Shortly afterwards, the first motorists began showing off their hi-vis jackets in the windscreens of their cars, and Jacline Mouraud, a hypnotherapist from Brittany, published a video on social media saying that motorists were being "hunted".

Months earlier, Priscillia Ludosky, the manager of an online cosmetics company from just outside Paris, had launched a petition on the website Change.org calling for petrol prices to be lowered. After the announcement on tax rises, it really began to take off, quickly gathering a million signatures - but still, she says, there's been no response from the government.

"We are not understood, we are not heard, our opinions are not sought on the big decisions," she explains. "I get the impression that when the president speaks to people in the street, he's completely detached from reality."

Then, in October, truck driver Eric Drouet, another initiator of the movement, suggested on Facebook the idea of a national blockage, calling on protesters around the country to block roads in their area on 17 November, obstructing and slowing traffic in order to get the government's attention.

About 290,000 people took part. The gilets jaunes movement had begun.

"The movement started around a tax rise," says Christophe Guilluy, "but I think it's simply a pretext, in the same way that Brexit is not fundamentally a confrontation with Europe, but first and foremost a way for people to say 'we exist'.

"In France, people are using the gilets jaunes as a way to say 'we exist' to the elites, to the political class, to those who have forgotten about them for the past 20 years, for the simple reason that they no longer live in the same place."

The irony, for Emmanuel Macron, is that he came to power promising to rebuild trust in politics, especially among those struggling to thrive in the new, globalised economy. This is the last chance, he told me on the campaign trail last year - if he was to fail, next time it would be Marine Le Pen.

The reforms he promised were designed, he said, to create wealth in order that it could be shared with those who needed it most. It was a policy that aimed to liberalise and protect, but many here feel that the social protection for workers has fallen short compared with the liberal reforms enjoyed by businesses.

President Macron pushed through reforms where previous presidents had feared to tread - reducing the power of the unions in workplace relations, ending the special benefits enjoyed by railway workers, and making it easier for companies to hire and fire staff.

He also ended the wealth tax on all assets apart from property, meaning a 70% cut in the tax for France's millionaires.

It was meant to boost investment in the economy, but it was seen by many poorer voters as further proof that this former banker-turned-president was still primarily a friend of business, not of the squeezed working and middle class.

France's Public Policy Institute recently published a review of who had gained and lost under Macron's presidency so far. It found that the buying power of the poorest in society had slightly shrunk, while those in the economic middle had slightly gained. But the biggest winners were the richest 1%.

This sense of unfairness emerges time and again in the graffiti that has appeared on walls and monuments in Paris. Much of it calls for the resignation of Macron, or simply the "fall of the regime". On the Republic's famous monument at Republique, someone has changed the revolutionary right of "universal suffrage" to read "universal suffering".

If the roots of protesters' frustration lie in the big economic shifts of the 1980s, how far did Macron himself encourage it to bloom into open opposition?

"In the last election, many people voted to change their situation and they still find themselves here, so they've started to get frustrated," says protester Antonin Olles. "They've realised that those who govern them don't know what real life is like - for them, poverty is just a set of numbers."

The call has gone out for another day of national protest - the fifth consecutive weekend for the gilets jaunes, or "Act 5" as it's being called. Franck is already planning to come back to Paris with his friends to see more of the action.

The violence he saw last week near Republique will stay with him for the rest of his life, he says. But he liked the atmosphere: "Everyone is together, we are all one, a very good team. It's not every day you see that."

That sense of unity among the protesters is what has given the movement its energy, and its power.

Sylvie and Christophe arrived on the Champs-Elysees last Saturday by 09:00. I met them walking up the near-empty boulevard towards the Arc de Triomphe with a group of friends.

"She's far left," Christophe told me, "and I'm far-right - and we're here together for the gilets jaunes!"

"That's what Macron doesn't like," he continued. "That we're united. He's brought back solidarity among the French. He's turned everyone against him. We're united in combat - at least for now. After that, who knows?"

"Our strength is that we're apolitical," Sylvie said. "Maybe later when there are new presidential elections, we'll put together a leaflet, but for the moment we don't need a leader - that's our strength."

Are you scared there might be violence here today, I asked her?

"No," she replied. "We have nothing left to lose."

Back at the barricade at La Ciotat, Antonin Olles has gravitated towards the makeshift barbecue as some of the protesters watch a few small piles of sardines crisp on the coals.

There is talk about the next protest - some in La Ciotat say they're planning to demonstrate here, rather than make the trip up to Paris.

Many have cautioned against dismissing this movement too quickly, even if the level of protest and violence in the capital falls. "The absence of a complete eruption last Saturday doesn't mean the protest is easing," cautioned the daily Le Figaro earlier this week. "[The president] won't win over the country by pulling out his cheque-book or flaunting his intellect, he needs to open his heart."

"We want a second French revolution," Olles says. "We want to show the rest of Europe that the people have some power."

France was seen from the outside as having avoided a populist revolution 18 months ago - but the election of Emmanuel Macron simply papered over France's problems. Fixing them will take a whole lot more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On an ancient monument near Republique, fresh graffiti scars the old grey stone - its garish scrawl a slash of anger above the pigeons serenely scratching beneath the arch: "Down with caviar, long live the kebab!" A lone shout in a breadcrumb-trail of slogans, marking the path of protesters through Paris last weekend.

# data[].attributes.headline
US-China trade row: What has happened so far?

# data[].attributes.subject
US-China trade row: What has happened so far?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Donald Trump campaigned for election on a promise to make trade fairer for the US, and his push to do so has him fighting with some of America's oldest trading partners.

The US has been embroiled in a tit-for-tat trade battle on several fronts over the past few months.

The one that's creating the most interest is the conflict with China, as the world's two largest economies wrangle for global influence.

China has accused the US of launching the "largest trade war in economic history."

Mr Trump has imposed taxes on imports from China, Mexico, Canada and the EU, to encourage consumers to buy American products. All of these countries have retaliated.

The US president's hard line on trade, which also saw him withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact (TPP) last year, marks a striking change from the free trade policies that have governed the exchange of goods for decades.

What has happened so far?

The US has imposed three rounds of tariffs on Chinese products this year, totalling $250bn worth of goods.

The first two rounds placed 25% tariffs on $50bn worth of imports from China, and Beijing retaliated in kind.

Washington delivered a sharp escalation in the trade conflict in September with another set of tariffs, this time on Chinese goods worth $200bn.

Those taxes will take effect from 24 September, starting at 10% and increasing to 25% from the start of next year unless the two countries agree a deal.

Mr Trump has warned even more could be on the way. The US president said if China retaliates then Washington would impose fresh tariffs on $267bn worth of Chinese products.

If Trump goes ahead with that round of import taxes, it would mean virtually all of China's exports to the US would be subject to duties.

Why is the US doing this?

Mr Trump says he wants to stop the "unfair transfers of American technology and intellectual property to China" and protect jobs.

Tariffs, in theory, will make US-made products cheaper than imported ones, so encourage consumers to buy American. The idea is they would boost local businesses and support the national economy.

But many US companies and industry groups have testified to the US Trade Representative's Office that their businesses are being harmed.

China: Trade war victim or player?

The early victims of Trump's trade war

Six ways China could retaliate in a trade war

The dispute dates back to January, when the US slapped controversial tariffs on imported washing machines and solar panels. That was considered Mr Trump's most significant trade move since his decision to pull the US out of the TPP and renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta).

Is the US only in a dispute with China?

No.

Earlier this year, the US started charging levies on the imports of steel and aluminium from the European Union, Mexico and Canada.

US businesses have to pay a 25% tax when they import steel from those places and a 10% levy to buy aluminium from them.

But these tariffs led to retaliation.

The European Union imposed tariffs on €2.8bn worth of US goods in June on products such as bourbon whiskey, motorcycles and orange juice.

In June, Mexico announced new tariffs on US products, including whiskey, cheese, steel, bourbon, and pork.

Canada imposed retaliatory tariffs on 16.6bn Canadian dollars-worth of US products on 1 July.

Reality Check: Is Trump right about trade?

Who has been worst affected so far?

The International Monetary Fund says an escalation of the tit-for-tat tariffs could shave 0.5% off global growth by 2020.

There are signs that the trade dispute is already affecting the Chinese and US economies.

Morgan Stanley has said a full-blown escalation of the trade dispute could knock 0.81 percentage points off global gross domestic product. This scenario would involve the US slapping 25% tariffs on all goods from both China and the EU, and similar measures imposed in response.

Among companies, the car industry seems to have been the most affected so far. Major carmakers recently warned that changes to trade policies were hurting performance.

Ford and General Motors have lowered profit forecasts for 2018, citing higher steel and aluminium prices caused by new US tariffs.

There are also concerns that the trade war could hurt other aspects of US-China relations. Mr Trump recently accused China of manipulating its currency - a sign that the row could be spreading to foreign exchange markets.

Smaller Asian countries further down the supply chain could also suffer. According to the Economist, 30% of the value of the goods China exports to America originates from third-party countries.

Ultimately, China may not have as much firepower as the US to retaliate, given the US buys much more from China than it sells to them. This could mean it would find alternative ways to fight back such as making life difficult for American companies in China by increasing red-tape.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US-China trade row: What has happened so far?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donald Trump campaigned for election on a promise to make trade fairer for the US, and his push to do so has him fighting with some of America's oldest trading partners. The US has been embroiled in a tit-for-tat trade battle on several fronts over the past few months.

# data[].attributes.headline
Primary and secondary schools to cut down on exams and tests, as MOE announces sweeping changes to reduce emphasis on grades

# data[].attributes.subject
Primary and secondary schools to cut down on exams and tests, as MOE announces sweeping changes to reduce emphasis on grades

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Primary and secondary schools to cut down on exams and tests, as MOE announces sweeping changes to reduce emphasis on grades

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE - In a major move to reduce emphasis on grades, the Ministry of Education (MOE) will do away with examinations and graded assessments for Primary 1 and 2 students from next year. Mid-year examinations for students in Pri 3, Pri 5, Secondary 1 and Sec 3 wi

# data[].attributes.headline
National Day Rally 2018: The 8 things you need to know

# data[].attributes.subject
National Day Rally 2018: The 8 things you need to know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SINGAPORE: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong unveiled plans to upgrade and redevelop Singapore's public housing, and measures to help Singaporeans manage healthcare costs in the National Day Rally on Sunday evening (Aug 19).

In addition to addressing the cost of living, Mr Lee devoted a large part of his speech to housing concerns and revealed two major schemes to renew Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats.

He also announced major changes to healthcare financing: A new healthcare subsidy package for Singaporeans born in the 1950s and the expansion of the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS).

Here are 8 key takeaways from the rally:
1. VOLUNTARY EARLY REDEVELOPMENT SCHEME
Addressing Singaporeans' concerns about the 99-year leases of HDB flats running out in a few decades' time, Mr Lee announced a new scheme to redevelop HDB flats, that will be implemented in about 20 years' time.

The Government plans to start redeveloping older housing estates and will begin doing so when the flats are about 70 years old, Mr Lee said.

This will be done progressively over a period of 20 to 30 years so that old towns can be rejuvenated in an "orderly way".

Under the Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme (VERS), residents in a precinct will have to vote to allow authorities to take back the flats. Those who do so will receive compensation, but this will be less generous than under the Selective En Bloc Redevelopment Scheme (SERS).

Mr Lee also explained at length the reasons why HDB flat leases should not extend beyond 99 years.

2. HOME IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMME

More HDB flats will be upgraded as the Government expands the Home Improvement Programme (HIP) to homes built from 1987 to 1997. The programme originally covered flats built in the years up to 1986.

Another 230,000 flats will benefit, including in estates like Pasir Ris, Yishun, Tampines and Jurong, Mr Lee said.

3. MERDEKA GENERATION PACKAGE

HDB will also be upgrading older flats a second time at around the 60- to 70-year mark under a HIP II scheme, which will start in 10 years' time.

The Government will work out a Merdeka Generation Package which will help Singaporeans born in the 1950s with healthcare costs.

The package will cover outpatient subsidies, Medisave top-ups, MediShield Life premium subsidies and payouts for long-term care for about 500,000 Singaporeans.

4. MORE HEALTHCARE BENEFITS
The benefits will not be as extensive as those for the pioneer generation, who benefitted from the Pioneer Generation Package launched four years ago, Mr Lee said.

The Merdeka package will help to relieve some of the healthcare worries of Singaporeans now in their 60s, he added.

Medical subsidy programme CHAS will be extended to all Singaporeans with chronic conditions regardless of income, Mr Lee announced. However, the benefits will continue to be tiered according to income.

The scheme currently provides subsidies to those in the pioneer generation, lower- and middle-income households for outpatient medical and dental care.

The Ministry of Health will announce details of the changes later.

More polyclinics will be built in Sembawang, Eunos, Kallang and Bukit Panjang by 2020; and in Tampines North and Nee Soon Central by 2023.

"Some of these are to upgrade and improve existing ones, but we will make sure that there are affordable, accessible, high-quality primary healthcare services all over Singapore," Mr Lee promised.

Senior Minister of State for Defence and Foreign Affairs Maliki Osman has been appointed to lead a project to make Geylang Serai a culturally distinctive precinct.

7. COST OF LIVING
This includes the area stretching from the Tanjong Katong Complex to Kampong Ubi Community Centre.

Dr Maliki will engage the Malay community and other Singaporeans to solicit ideas and make recommendations to the Government, Mr Lee said in his Malay speech.

The Government will ensure that the major costs of living - HDB housing, healthcare and education are affordable, Mr Lee said in his Mandarin speech.

It is also helping to manage the cost of living by building more hawker centres.
8. HAWKER CULTURE
He pointed out that lifestyle changes, such as the prevalence of smartphones, eating out and a higher quality of life in general have contributed to cost of living pressures.

"While the Government will do its part to alleviate people's cost of living concerns, each of us also has a responsibility to 'look after our own wallets' - save water, save electricity and at the same time, shop around for the best prices and be a smart consumer," he said.

Singapore will nominate the island's hawker culture for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) list of intangible cultural heritage.

Mr Lee called hawker centres Singaporeans' "community dining rooms" and hawker food their "best cure for homesickness" in his address.

"The UNESCO inscription will help to safeguard and promote this unique culture for future generations," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
National Day Rally 2018: The 8 things you need to know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong unveiled plans to upgrade and redevelop Singapore's public housing, and measures to help Singaporeans manage healthcare costs in the National Day Rally on Sunday evening (Aug 19). In addition to addressing the cost of living, Mr Lee devoted a large part of his speech to housing concerns and revealed two major schemes to renew Housing and Development Board (HDB) flats.

# data[].attributes.headline
Budget 2018: Key announcements and highlights

# data[].attributes.subject
Budget 2018: Key announcements and highlights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Budget 2018: Key announcements and highlights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Finance Minister Heng Swee Keat announced a raft of immediate and impending tax changes in this year's Budget, which he described as a "strategic and integrated plan" to

# data[].attributes.headline
We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN

# data[].attributes.subject
We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The world's leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

The authors of the landmark report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on Monday say urgent and unprecedented changes are needed to reach the target, which they say is affordable and feasible although it lies at the most ambitious end of the Paris agreement pledge to keep temperatures between 1.5C and 2C.

The half-degree difference could also prevent corals from being completely eradicated and ease pressure on the Arctic, according to the 1.5C study, which was launched after approval at a final plenary of all 195 countries in Incheon in South Korea that saw delegates hugging one another, with some in tears.

Quick Guide
What difference would restricting warming to 1.5C make?

A key finding of the new IPCC report is the dramatic difference that restricting warming to 1.5C above pre industrial levels would have on the global environment.

The scientists found:

* By 2100, global sea level rise would be 10cm lower with global warming of 1.5C compared with 2C.

* Extreme heatwaves will be experienced by 14% of the world's population at least once every five years at 1.5C. But that figure rises to more than a third of the planet if temperatures rise to 2C

* Arctic sea ice would remain during most summers if warming is kept to 1.5C. But at 2C, ice free summers are 10 times more likely, leading to greater habitat losses for polar bears, whales, seals and sea birds.

* If warming is kept to 1.5C, coral reefs will still decline by 70-90% but if temperatures rise to 2C virtually all of the world's reefs would be lost

Thank you for your feedback.

"It's a line in the sand and what it says to our species is that this is the moment and we must act now," said Debra Roberts, a co-chair of the working group on impacts. "This is the largest clarion bell from the science community and I hope it mobilises people and dents the mood of complacency."

Policymakers commissioned the report at the Paris climate talks in 2016, but since then the gap between science and politics has widened. Donald Trump has promised to withdraw the US - the world's biggest source of historical emissions - from the accord. The first round of Brazil's presidential election on Sunday put Jair Bolsonaro into a strong position to carry out his threat to do the same and also open the Amazon rainforest to agribusiness.

The world is currently 1C warmer than preindustrial levels. Following devastating hurricanes in the US, record droughts in Cape Town and forest fires in the Arctic, the IPCC makes clear that climate change is already happening, upgraded its risk warning from previous reports, and warned that every fraction of additional warming would worsen the impact.

Scientists who reviewed the 6,000 works referenced in the report, said the change caused by just half a degree came as a revelation. "We can see there is a difference and it's substantial," Roberts said.

At 1.5C the proportion of the global population exposed to water stress could be 50% lower than at 2C, it notes. Food scarcity would be less of a problem and hundreds of millions fewer people, particularly in poor countries, would be at risk of climate-related poverty.

Attendees take a photo before the opening of the 48th session of the IPCC in Incheon. Photograph: Jung Yeon-Je/AFP/Getty Images

At 2C extremely hot days, such as those experienced in the northern hemisphere this summer, would become more severe and common, increasing heat-related deaths and causing more forest fires.

But the greatest difference would be to nature. Insects, which are vital for pollination of crops, and plants are almost twice as likely to lose half their habitat at 2C compared with 1.5C. Corals would be 99% lost at the higher of the two temperatures, but more than 10% have a chance of surviving if the lower target is reached.

Sea-level rise would affect 10 million more people by 2100 if the half-degree extra warming brought a forecast 10cm additional pressure on coastlines. The number affected would increase substantially in the following centuries due to locked-in ice melt.

Oceans are already suffering from elevated acidity and lower levels of oxygen as a result of climate change. One model shows marine fisheries would lose 3m tonnes at 2C, twice the decline at 1.5C.

Sea ice-free summers in the Arctic, which is warming two to three times faster than the world average, would come once every 100 years at 1.5C, but every 10 years with half a degree more of global warming.

Time and carbon budgets are running out. By mid-century, a shift to the lower goal would require a supercharged roll-back of emissions sources that have built up over the past 250 years.

The IPCC maps out four pathways to achieve 1.5C, with different combinations of land use and technological change. Reforestation is essential to all of them as are shifts to electric transport systems and greater adoption of carbon capture technology.

Carbon pollution would have to be cut by 45% by 2030 - compared with a 20% cut under the 2C pathway - and come down to zero by 2050, compared with 2075 for 2C. This would require carbon prices that are three to four times higher than for a 2C target. But the costs of doing nothing would be far higher.

"We have presented governments with pretty hard choices. We have pointed out the enormous benefits of keeping to 1.5C, and also the unprecedented shift in energy systems and transport that would be needed to achieve that," said Jim Skea, a co-chair of the working group on mitigation. "We show it can be done within laws of physics and chemistry. Then the final tick box is political will. We cannot answer that. Only our audience can - and that is the governments that receive it."

He said the main finding of his group was the need for urgency. Although unexpectedly good progress has been made in the adoption of renewable energy, deforestation for agriculture was turning a natural carbon sink into a source of emissions. Carbon capture and storage projects, which are essential for reducing emissions in the concrete and waste disposal industries, have also ground to a halt.

Reversing these trends is essential if the world has any chance of reaching 1.5C without relying on the untried technology of solar radiation modification and other forms of geo-engineering, which could have negative consequences.

A nearly ice-free Northwest Passage in the Arctic in August 2016. Photograph: VIIRS/Suomi NPP/Nasa

In the run-up to the final week of negotiations, there were fears the text of the report would be watered down by the US, Saudi Arabia and other oil-rich countries that are reluctant to consider more ambitious cuts. The authors said nothing of substance was cut from a text.

Bob Ward, of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, said the final document was "incredibly conservative" because it did not mention the likely rise in climate-driven refugees or the danger of tipping points that could push the world on to an irreversible path of extreme warming.

The report will be presented to governments at the UN climate conference in Poland at the end of this year. But analysts say there is much work to be done, with even pro-Paris deal nations involved in fossil fuel extraction that runs against the spirit of their commitments. Britain is pushing ahead with gas fracking, Norway with oil exploration in the Arctic, and the German government wants to tear down Hambach forest to dig for coal.

At the current level of commitments, the world is on course for a disastrous 3C of warming. The report authors are refusing to accept defeat, believing the increasingly visible damage caused by climate change will shift opinion their way.

"I hope this can change the world," said Jiang Kejun of China's semi-governmental Energy Research Institute, who is one of the authors. "Two years ago, even I didn't believe 1.5C was possible but when I look at the options I have confidence it can be done. I want to use this report to do something big in China."

The timing was good, he said, because the Chinese government was drawing up a long-term plan for 2050 and there was more awareness among the population about the problem of rising temperatures. "People in Beijing have never experienced so many hot days as this summer. It's made them talk more about climate change."

Regardless of the US and Brazil, he said, China, Europe and major cities could push ahead. "We can set an example and show what can be done. This is more about technology than politics."

James Hansen, the former Nasa scientist who helped raised the alarm about climate change, said both 1.5C and 2C would take humanity into uncharted and dangerous territory because they were both well above the Holocene-era range in which human civilisation developed. But he said there was a huge difference between the two: "1.5C gives young people and the next generation a fighting chance of getting back to the Holocene or close to it. That is probably necessary if we want to keep shorelines where they are and preserve our coastal cities."

Johan Rockström, a co-author of the recent Hothouse Earth report, said scientists never previously discussed 1.5C, which was initially seen as a political concession to small island states. But he said opinion had shifted in the past few years along with growing evidence of climate instability and the approach of tipping points that might push the world off a course that could be controlled by emissions reductions.

"Climate change is occurring earlier and more rapidly than expected. Even at the current level of 1C warming, it is painful," he told the Guardian. "This report is really important. It has a scientific robustness that shows 1.5C is not just a political concession. There is a growing recognition that 2C is dangerous."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The world's leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people.

# data[].attributes.headline
US mid-term elections: What is at stake?

# data[].attributes.subject
US mid-term elections: What is at stake?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The looming US mid-term elections will shape American politics for the next two years and beyond.

President Donald Trump himself is not up for re-election, so fewer voters are expected to turn out.

But his ability to govern in the final two years of his first term will hinge upon the 6 November outcome.

Who is on the ballot?

All 435 members of the House of Representatives, 35 seats in the 100-member Senate and 36 out of 50 state governors, along with many state and local offices.

Republicans currently hold sway in both chambers of Congress and the White House. But there is giddy talk among Democrats of a "blue wave".

With dozens of Republican lawmakers retiring this year, the minority party has a decent chance of taking over the House. Democrats need 20 or so seats to control the lower chamber.

But in the Senate, Republicans are tipped to retain their majority and perhaps even consolidate it.

That's because out of the upper chamber seats up for grabs this autumn, 26 are held by Democrats (including two independents who vote with them) and just nine by Republicans.

Democrats may need to win all those races and pick up two Republican seats, leaving little margin for error.

Ten of the Democratic seats are in states carried by Trump in 2016 - and five of those he won by double digits.

All the results as they happen

Live updates as counting begins across the US

Trump's invincible, but for how much longer?

Reasons for Democrats to be cheerful

The president's party has lost an average of 32 seats in the House and two in the Senate in every mid-term election since the American Civil War.

President Trump is also historically unpopular, according to opinion polls.

As an energised liberal base clamours to give 'Trumpism' a bloody nose, Democratic challengers are out-fundraising and out-polling a host of Republican incumbents.

There's a lot of new talent. Anecdotal evidence suggests more women are running for office than ever before, chiefly on the left, and in some races all the Democratic candidates are under 30.

What you need to know about mid-terms:

Your simple guide to the US mid-terms In case you're just joining us

Why US mid-term elections matter The big issues explained

Hour-by-hour guide to election night What to expect when

Can we tell yet who has the edge? Analysis of what we know so far

Follow the US election on the BBC How to keep up with the results

Reasons for Republicans to be cheerful

The mid-term electorate is usually whiter, older and more conservative.

Yes, Trump's approval rating is low, but the Democratic party has no obvious standard-bearer and is widely viewed as rudderless since Hillary Clinton's shock defeat in 2016.

Above all, the US economy is roaring like a fighter jet engine at maximum torque, with unemployment rates at rock bottom, consumer confidence high and wages actually rising.

What are the top hot-button issues?

Expect to hear a lot about how this election is a referendum on Trump.

This summer's primaries - when the party faithful anoint their candidates for November's election - will be a tug-of-war on the right between establishment and anti-establishment conservatives - and on the left, between populist progressives calling for Trump's impeachment and pragmatic centrists.

Immigration remains a cultural touchstone that both main parties hope will play to their advantage.

Democrats believe the president's hardline rhetoric on the topic will help them entice younger voters, suburban moderates and minorities.

Republicans are counting on Trump's tough posture to turn out conservatives who think Democrats care more about illegal immigrants than US citizens.

The gun control movement launched in the aftermath of February's high school shooting in Parkland, Florida, is also mobilising for the election.

Meanwhile, a recent Gallup poll found the top concern for US voters is healthcare.

Despite passing various measures to weaken the Affordable Care Act, Republicans have been unable to kill off Obamacare.

Voters tend to punish the party in power for rising medical insurance costs, which under Trump are continuing to hit Americans in the pocket.

What will mid-terms mean for Trump?

If Republicans lose control of either chamber of Congress, the president's domestic agenda will be largely dead on arrival at Capitol Hill.

If Democrats win the House, they get to decide which bills come to the floor and they'll control the committee chairmanships.

That will entail aggressive oversight investigations of the president's administration, including alleged Russia collusion, Trump's business dealings and sexual assault allegations against him.

But if Republicans hold on to the Senate, they will continue to approve Trump's cabinet nominees and appoint conservative judges to US courtrooms.

If Democrats do do well in the mid-terms, it could actually work in Trump's favour.

He will be able to pin blame on them for congressional gridlock, and there's a risk they could overplay their hand.

What about governors' races?

Governors wield considerable influence over politics in their state capitols - and the lives of their constituents.

Republicans currently control 33 out of 50 gubernatorial mansions and two-thirds of 99 state legislature chambers.

But of the 36 state governorships on the ballot this year, 23 are being defended by Republican incumbents, tantalising targets for Democrats.

Among the gubernatorial prizes are the presidential swing states of Ohio, Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania.

As Trump runs for re-election in 2020, governors will play a crucial role in mobilising donors, volunteers and activists.

Which recent mid-terms were game-changers?

In 1994 the Republican party took control of the House and Senate, setting the stage for six years of battles with Democratic President Bill Clinton.

The Democrats retook both chambers in 2006, enabling President Barack Obama to accomplish chunks of his agenda when he won office two years later.

Republicans won back the House in 2010, curtailing Obama's ability to govern.

In 2014, Republicans regained control of the Senate, and boosted their House majority to its largest since 1929.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The looming US mid-term elections will shape American politics for the next two years and beyond. President Donald Trump himself is not up for re-election, so fewer voters are expected to turn out. But his ability to govern in the final two years of his first term will hinge upon the 6 November outcome.

# data[].attributes.headline
A really simple guide to the US mid-term elections

# data[].attributes.subject
A really simple guide to the US mid-term elections

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
All 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for election.

If the Democrats want to take control of the House by having the most seats, they're going to have to claim at least 23 from the Republicans.

That might not be difficult. A large number of Republicans are leaving the House this year, so a lot is up in the air.

The battle for the Senate, also currently controlled by the Republicans, will be worth keeping an eye on. There, 35 out of the 100 seats are being contested.

So what would happen if the Republicans held the Senate, but Democrats claimed the House of Representatives?

In a word: gridlock.

The risk of a government shutdown could increase hugely with the rival parts of government unable to agree with each other.

So who is going to win?

If you believe opinion polls, they say Democrats are ahead in many places.

And some experts think this year could see a so-called wave election, with the Democrats set to make major seat gains.

All the signs from the past point towards a defeat for President Trump.

President Trump's low ratings in the polls could affect support for Republican candidates and energise the Democrats.

And let's not forget the so-called "pink wave". This year, more female candidates are running for election than ever before.

There are plenty of reasons we're seeing more women running.

Some candidates say it's to make up for Hillary Clinton's defeat in 2016, but anger at the president's policies is the most common factor.

On the other hand, Republican support may hold up because the US economy is doing well.

What does it all mean for President Trump?

Donald Trump's White House has been hit by one scandal after another.

Skip scandal

His team is being investigated over Russian attempts to interfere in the 2016 election, and President Trump has also been implicated in illegal payments made to women who said he'd had affairs with them.
End of scandal
Up to now, leading Democrats have avoided openly talking about removing President Trump or forcing him to resign.

But if this were to happen, a majority of members of the House of Representatives would have to vote for impeachment.

What would happen next? The president would then be put on trial by the Senate on charges of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours".

If a two-thirds majority of senators found him guilty, Mr Trump would be removed from office and replaced by Vice-President Mike Pence.

Skip Vice-President Mike Pence.

The last vice-president to replace a president was Gerald Ford, who entered the White House following the resignation of Richard Nixon in 1974. Current Vice-President Mike Pence was previously state Governor of Indiana and is known for his strong conservative views. He has close links to Christian organisations and has described himself as "an evangelical Catholic".
End of Vice-President Mike Pence.
How big a deal would that be? Well, no president has ever been removed from office using the impeachment process.

A more likely outcome will see President Trump frustrated, with a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives blocking his plans.

And what happens next?

Once these elections are done, thoughts turn to the next presidential election in 2020.

As well as the elections for Congress on 6 November, 36 out of 50 state governors are up for election.

Of those 36, 26 are Republican.

When presidential campaigns get under way, governors often play a big part supporting their party's candidates - by seeking donors or mobilising volunteers.

So a crop of new governors in the mid-terms could have a major effect on presidential campaigning in 2019 and 2020.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A really simple guide to the US mid-terms - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
All 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for election. If the Democrats want to take control of the House by having the most seats, they're going to have to claim at least 23 from the Republicans. That might not be difficult.

# data[].attributes.headline
US mid-term election results 2018: Maps, charts and analysis

# data[].attributes.subject
US mid-term election results 2018: Maps, charts and analysis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a dramatic election night President Donald Trump's Republican Party retained control of the Senate and the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives.

The Democrats gained more than the 23 seats they needed to take control of the House. It is the first time the party has held the majority in the lower house of Congress for eight years. The loss of the House will make it harder for President Trump to push his policies forward.

What this all means for Trump

Meanwhile, the Republicans have kept control of the Senate, the upper chamber of Congress, and will increase their majority. They gained Indiana, Missouri and North Dakota from the Democrats, while the Democrats gained seats in Nevada and Arizona.

As it happened

Key takeaways so far

A really simple guide to the mid-terms

There was talk before the election of a rising "blue wave" - Democrats increasing their vote share across the country.

The Democrats increased their vote share in 239 districts, but they didn't win all of them. In West Virginia's 3rd district, there was a 20% swing towards the Democrats, but the seat still went to Republican Carol Miller.

One Democrat who substantially increased her party's share was Sharice Davids, the joint-first Native American Congresswoman. She improved the Democrats' vote by 13% to win Kansas' 3rd district.

The Republicans raised their vote share in just 67 districts.

There will be more women in the House than in any previous year, while the total number of women in Congress overall will be at a record high after the mid-terms, overtaking the current tally of 107.
Click on the box below for detailed results, provided by AP. Switch between the Senate, House and Governor tabs to see the state of each map, and click on states or districts to explore vote counts in individual races. What do the midterm results mean for women in Congress?
High turnout

The 2018 mid-terms is set to be historical for voter turnout. With just a few seats left to be re-counted, 49.2% of those allowed to vote have done so.

This is higher than any year since 1914. In 2014, just 37% of those eligible voted.

Some 115 million votes were cast in the House in 2018, according to estimates by the US Elections Project, up from 83 million in 2014.
How the mid-term elections broke records
Democrat gains

In the House, Democrats increased their vote share in hundreds of seats, with vote share dropping in just 47 seats.

Boundary changes also helped them, as changes in Pennsylvania saw them gain four seats in the state, compared to 2016.

They also gained two seats in the southern tip of Florida, a classic swing state.

Who voted how?

Compared with the last Congressional election in 2016, Republicans lost support in those counties with the most university-educated white women.

While minorities are much more likely to vote Democrat.

And in rural areas, there was strong support for Republican candidates.

President Trump's core constituencies of white working class voters also appear to have turned out for the party in House races.
Produced by Daniel Dunford, Tom Calver, Will Dahlgreen, Maryam Ahmed, Nassos Stylianou, Ed Lowther, Clara Guibourg, John Walton and Irene de la Torre Arenas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Live results: Winners, losers and too close to call

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a dramatic election night President Donald Trump's Republican Party retained control of the Senate and the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives. The Democrats gained more than the 23 seats they needed to take control of the House.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The warring sides in Yemen are swapping hundreds of prisoners - a move which has built hopes for a permanent ceasefire between the Saudi-backed government forces and the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels.

The eight year-long civil war has led to the deaths of thousands of Yemenis, and created a major humanitarian crisis.

How did the war start?

In 2011, a popular uprising in Yemen forced its long-standing authoritarian president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, to hand over power to his deputy, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi.

However, the new president was overwhelmed with Yemen's economic problems, and security problems such as attacks by jihadists. Furthermore, most of Yemen's armed forces felt more loyalty to the ousted president than they did to Mr Hadi.

The Houthis took advantage of his weakness.

Formally known as the Ansar Allah (Partisans of God), they champion Yemen's Zaidi Shia Muslim minority.

In early 2014, they seized control of Saada province, in the north of the country and then captured the nation's capital, Sanaa, forcing President Hadi to flee abroad in March 2015.

Yemen's neighbour Saudi Arabia was alarmed by the prospect of the Houthis taking control of Yemen, fearing it would become a satellite of Saudi Arabia's rival, Iran.

In March 2015, it and other Arab states began an air campaign aimed at ousting the Houthis and restoring Mr Hadi's government.

The coalition received logistical and intelligence support from the US, UK and France.

What's happened since then?

In August 2015, coalition ground troops landed in the port city of Aden and drove the Houthis out of the south of Yemen. However, they could not dislodge them from Sanaa or the north of the country.

Yemen's official government is now in Aden, while President Hadi himself is based in Saudi Arabia.

The Houthis allied with the former president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, to form a "political council" to govern the area under their control. However, in December 2017, Saleh broke with the Houthis and called for his followers to fight them. Saleh was killed and the Houthis defeated his forces.

In 2018, the Saleh loyalists joined the Saudi-led coalition. Together, they launched a major offensive against the Houthis to recapture the Red Sea city of Hudaydah. The port there is the principal lifeline for millions of Yemenis at risk of famine.

After six months of fierce fighting, the two sides agreed a truce in the city.

In 2021, the Houthis launched an attack on Marib, the government's last stronghold in the north and the centre of an oil-rich province.

Fighting escalated in March this year across the province, forcing thousands of people to flee their homes.

The Houthis have attacked targets in Saudi Arabia and the UAE with ballistic missiles and drones, targeting sites including oil installations but also injuring civilians.

Saudi and US officials have accused Iran of smuggling weapons such as drones to the Houthis, in violation of a UN arms embargo. Iran has denied the allegation.

The Saudi-led coalition has carried out thousands of air strikes which have killed tens of thousands of people, according to the UN.

These include "double tap" attacks, in which the first strike hits a group of enemy troops and the second one hits the people who go to their rescue.

The UN says both sides in the civil war may have committed war crimes. Both sides deny the allegation.

In April 2022, the UN brokered a ceasefire between the Saudi-led coalition and the Houthi rebels, though the sides failed to renew it six months later.

However they recently agreed to swap approximately 900 prisoners as a confidence measure which it is hoped could lead to a permanent ceasefire.

What's been the human cost?

The UN says Yemen is experiencing the world's worst humanitarian crisis.

It says 4.5 million people, one in seven of the population, have been displaced. while 24.1 million people, 80% of the population, are in need of humanitarian aid and protection.

The UN says that tens of thousands of people in Yemen are currently living in famine-like conditions, while some six million people are on the verge of famine.

The UN estimated that by the start of 2022, the conflict in Yemen had caused over 377,000 deaths, with 60% the result of hunger, lack of healthcare and unsafe water.

It says more than 11,000 children are known to have been killed or wounded as a direct result of the fighting.

Yemen has also suffered from one of the largest cholera outbreaks ever recorded, with 2.5 million suspected cases and about 4,000 related deaths since 2016.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Yemen: Why is the war there getting more violent?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The warring sides in Yemen are swapping hundreds of prisoners - a move which has built hopes for a permanent ceasefire between the Saudi-backed government forces and the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels. The eight year-long civil war has led to the deaths of thousands of Yemenis, and created a major humanitarian crisis.

# data[].attributes.headline
Jamal Khashoggi: All you need to know about Saudi journalist's death

# data[].attributes.subject
Jamal Khashoggi: All you need to know about Saudi journalist's death

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On 2 October 2018, Jamal Khashoggi, a US-based journalist and critic of Saudi Arabia's government, walked into the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, where he was murdered.

In the months that followed, conflicting narratives emerged over how he died, what happened to his remains, and who was responsible.

Saudi officials said the journalist was killed in a "rogue operation" by a team of agents sent to persuade him to return to the kingdom, while Turkish officials said the agents acted on orders from the highest levels of the Saudi government.

Who was Jamal Khashoggi?

As a prominent Saudi journalist, he covered major stories, including the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the rise of the late al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, for various Saudi news organisations.

For decades, the 59-year-old was close to the Saudi royal family and also served as an adviser to the government.

But he fell out of favour and went into self-imposed exile in the US in 2017. From there, he wrote a monthly column in the Washington Post in which he criticised the policies of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the son of King Salman and Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler.

In his first column for the Post in September 2017, Khashoggi said he had feared being arrested in an apparent crackdown on dissent overseen by the prince.

Khashoggi first visited the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 28 September 2018 to obtain a Saudi document stating that he was divorced, so that he could marry his Turkish fiancée, Hatice Cengiz.

But he was told he would have to return to pick up the document and arranged to come back on 2 October.

"He did not believe that something bad could happen on Turkish soil," Ms Cengiz wrote in the Post.

Ms Cengiz accompanied him to the entrance of the consulate on 2 October. He was last seen on CCTV footage entering the building at 13:14 local time.

Despite reassuring friends that he would not face any problems inside, he gave Ms Cengiz two mobile phones and told her to call an adviser to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan if he did not come back out.

She ultimately waited for more than 10 hours outside the consulate and returned the following morning when Khashoggi had still not reappeared.

What did Saudi Arabia say?

For more than two weeks, Saudi Arabia consistently denied any knowledge of Khashoggi's fate.

Prince Mohammed told Bloomberg News that the journalist had left the consulate "after a few minutes or one hour". "We have nothing to hide," he added.

But in a change of tune on 20 October, the Saudi government said a preliminary investigation by prosecutors had concluded that the journalist died during a "fight" after resisting attempts to return him to Saudi Arabia. Later, a Saudi official attributed the death to a chokehold.

On 15 November, Saudi Arabia's deputy public prosecutor Shalaan al-Shalaan said the murder was ordered by the head of a "negotiations team" sent to Istanbul by the Saudi deputy intelligence chief to bring Khashoggi back to the kingdom "by means of persuasion" or, if that failed, "by force".

Investigators concluded that Khashoggi was forcibly restrained after a struggle and injected with a large amount of a drug, resulting in an overdose that led to his death, Mr Shalaan said. His body was then dismembered and handed over to a local "collaborator" outside the consulate for disposal, he added.

Five individuals had confessed to the murder, Mr Shalaan asserted, adding: "[The crown prince] did not have any knowledge about it."

The Saudi public prosecution said in late September 2018 that a total of 31 individuals were investigated over the killing and that 21 of them were arrested.

Five senior government officials were also sacked, including Deputy Intelligence Chief Ahmad Asiri and Saud al-Qahtani, a senior aide to Prince Mohammed.

In January 2019, 11 individuals - who have not been named - were put on trial at the Riyadh Criminal Court in connection with Khashoggi's murder, and the public prosecutor sought the death penalty for five of them.

Human Rights Watch said the trial, which took place behind closed doors, did not meet international standards and that authorities "obstructed meaningful accountability".

In December 2019, the court sentenced five individuals to death for "committing and directly participating in the murder of the victim". Three others were handed prison sentences totalling 24 years for "covering up this crime and violating the law", while the remaining three were found not guilty.

The public prosecution said Mr Asiri was tried but acquitted "due to insufficient evidence", while Mr Qahtani was investigated over the killing but not charged.

At a news conference following the verdict, Shalaan al-Shalaan said the public prosecution's investigation had shown that "the killing was not premeditated".

Ms Callamard dismissed that assertion as "utterly ridiculous" and said the trial represented "the antithesis of justice", from which the "masterminds" walked free.

But Khashoggi's son Salah, who lives in Saudi Arabia, tweeted: "We affirm our confidence in the Saudi judiciary at all levels, that it has been fair to us and that justice has been achieved."

In May 2020, Salah Khashoggi announced that he and his brothers were "pardoning those who killed our father, seeking reward from God almighty", accepting the public prosecution's contention that the murder was not premeditated.

Four months later, the Riyadh Criminal Court commuted the death sentences handed to five of the defendants to 20 years in prison. The three others were given sentences of between seven and 10 years. The prosecution said the verdicts were final and that the criminal trial was now closed.

Ms Cengiz said the ruling made "a complete mockery of justice".

"The Saudi authorities are closing the case without the world knowing the truth of who is responsible for Jamal's murder," she added. "Who planned it, who ordered it, where is his body? These are the most basic and important questions that remain totally unanswered."

What does Turkey say happened?

Turkish officials said that a team of 15 Saudi agents, assisted by three intelligence officers, arrived in Istanbul in the days before the murder, and that the group removed the security cameras and surveillance footage from the consulate before Khashoggi's arrival.

Istanbul's chief prosecutor, Irfan Fidan, said on 31 October 2018 that the journalist was suffocated almost as soon as entered the consulate, and that his body was dismembered and destroyed.

Writing in the Washington Post on 2 November, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared it had been established that Khashoggi "was killed in cold blood by a death squad" and "that his murder was premeditated".

"Yet there are other, no less significant questions whose answers will contribute to our understanding of this deplorable act" he added. "Where is Khashoggi's body? Who is the 'local collaborator' to whom Saudi officials claimed to have handed over Khashoggi's remains? Who gave the order to kill this kind soul? Unfortunately, the Saudi authorities have refused to answer those questions."

Mr Erdogan said he knew the order to kill Khashoggi "came from the highest levels of the Saudi government", but that he did "not believe for a second that King Salman, the custodian of the holy mosques, ordered the hit".

In March 2020, the Istanbul chief prosecutor formally charged Saad al-Qahtani, Ahmad Asiri and 18 other Saudi nationals with murder.

Prince Mohammed's two former aides were accused of "instigating a premeditated murder with the intent of [causing] torment through fiendish instinct". The others were charged with carrying out "a premeditated murder with the intent of [causing] torment through fiendish instincts".

Saudi Arabia rejected Turkey's extradition request, so all 20 men were put on trial in absentia in Istanbul in July 2020. Court-appointed Turkish lawyers representing the defendants said their clients denied the charges.

In November, the court accepted a second indictment adding another six Saudis to the case. A vice-consul and an attaché were accused of "premeditated murder with monstrous intent". The four others were charged with destroying, concealing or tampering with evidence.

A report released in June 2019 by Agnes Callamard, the special rapporteur, concluded that Khashoggi's death "constituted an extrajudicial killing for which the state of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is responsible".

She also found there was "credible evidence" to warrant an investigation into Prince Mohammed and other high-level Saudi officials, and said the prince should be subject to the targeted sanctions already imposed by some UN member states against other named individuals allegedly involved in the killing.

Ms Callamard said both the investigations into Khashoggi's death by Saudi Arabia and Turkey "failed to meet international standards".

She called for the trial in Saudi Arabia of the 11 suspects to be suspended, saying it would "not deliver credible accountability".

"The trial is held behind closed doors; the identity of those charged has not been released nor is the identity of those facing the death penalty. At the time of writing, at least one of those identified as responsible for the planning and organising of the execution of Mr Khashoggi has not been charged," she noted.

The Saudi Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Adel al-Jubeir, rejected the report, tweeting that it was "nothing new" and contained "clear contradictions and baseless allegations which challenge its credibility".

"The Saudi judiciary is the sole party qualified to deal with the Khashoggi case and works with full independence," he added.

In mid-November 2018, Turkey's government said it had shared audio recordings of the killing with Saudi Arabia, the US, the UK, Germany and France. While not officially made public, details of the recordings were included in Ms Callamard's report.

The UN special rapporteur noted that she was not able to obtain copies of the recordings from Turkish intelligence or authenticate them.

But in one recording, her report says, two Saudi officials are apparently heard discussing how to cut up and transport Khashoggi's body just minutes before the journalist entered the consulate.

One is quoted as saying: "The body is heavy. First time I cut on the ground. If we take plastic bags and cut it into pieces, it will be finished." At the end of the conversation, the other asks whether "the sacrificial animal" has arrived.

A later conversation recorded inside the consul general's office purportedly features Khashoggi being told by officials: "We will have to take you back. There is an order from Interpol. Interpol requested you to be sent back. We are coming to get you."

The reports quotes Khashoggi as replying that "there isn't a case against me. I notified some people outside; they are waiting for me; a driver is waiting for me."

At 13:33 local time, he is heard saying: "There is a towel here. Are you going to give me drugs?" Someone responds: "We will anaesthetise you."

The report says the conversation was followed by sounds of a struggle, during which people are heard saying, "Did he sleep?", "He raises his head," and "Keep pushing." Later, there are sounds of movement, heavy panting, and plastic sheets.

Turkish intelligence identified the sound of a saw at 13:39, but Ms Callamard said she and her delegation could not make out the sources of the sounds they heard.

Assessments of the recordings by intelligence officers in Turkey and other countries suggest Khashoggi could have been injected with a sedative and then suffocated using a plastic bag, according to the special rapporteur.

Turkish officials were not granted access to the Saudi consulate for DNA testing until more than two weeks after the incident.

The special rapporteur said there was credible evidence that crime scenes had been "thoroughly, even forensically, cleaned" before investigators arrived.

Among the areas searched for Khashoggi's remains are the Belgrad forest, which a consular attaché visited on 1 October 2018, and the coastal town of Yalova, the location of a farmhouse allegedly owned by a Saudi national.

None of those put on trial have been identified by Saudi prosecutors, but the report by the UN special rapporteur named them, citing information from "various governments' sources".

According to the report, the five facing the death penalty were Fahad Shabib Albalawi; Turki Muserref Alshehri; Waleed Abdullah Alshehri; Maher Abdulaziz Mutreb, an intelligence officer who the US says worked for the crowd prince's aide Saud al-Qahtani; and Dr Salah Mohammed Tubaigy, a forensic doctor with the interior ministry.

The other six defendants were Mansour Othman Abahussain; Mohammed Saad Alzahrani; Mustafa Mohammed Almadani; Saif Saad Alqahtani; Muflih Shaya Almuslih, reportedly a member of the consulate staff; and Ahmad Asiri, the former deputy intelligence chief.

According to interviews conducted by the special rapporteur, the defendants' lawyers argued during a court hearing in January that they were "state employees and could not object to the orders of their superiors".

Three defendants allegedly said that Khashoggi "started screaming, so they covered his mouth to prevent him from making noise, which accidentally killed him", according to the report. Ms Callamard noted that she had heard no screaming in the audio recordings from the consulate.

Mr Asiri was cited as telling the court that he had "never ordered the use of force" to bring Khashoggi back to Saudi Arabia.

Nine of the defendants named by Ms Callamard were previously identified by Turkish officials as members of the 15-strong team of agents sent to Istanbul.

Most of the agents arrived at and departed from the city's airport by private or commercial jet the same day as Khashoggi's killing.

CCTV footage appears to show vehicles driving them to the consulate, and two hours after Khashoggi's arrival, some of them heading to the consul's residence.

The special rapporteur said three men were filmed entering the residence with what seemed like plastic trash bags, and at least one rolling suitcase.

Khashoggi's killing was internationally condemned and caused a diplomatic crisis between Saudi Arabia and some of its closest allies, including the US.

After the murder was confirmed by the Saudis, then US President Donald Trump described it as the "worst cover-up in history". However, he defended US ties to the kingdom, a key trading partner.

This response was widely derided by senators in Congress, who pointed the finger at Prince Mohammed.

According to US media reports, the CIA - whose director heard the consulate audio recordings - concluded with "medium to high confidence" that Prince Mohammed ordered Khashoggi's killing.

Mr Trump denied that and his administration defied a legal requirement to release an unclassified report identifying anyone implicated in "the directing, ordering or tampering of evidence" in the case. His successor, Joe Biden, has said he will declassify the report.

The US, Canada, France and the UK all levied sanctions against 18 Saudis allegedly linked to the killing. The Saudi crown prince was not among them.

Germany, Finland and Denmark were among the European nations to cancel arms deals with Saudi Arabia after the killing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jamal Khashoggi: All you need to know about Saudi journalist's death

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On 2 October 2018, Jamal Khashoggi, a US-based journalist and critic of Saudi Arabia's government, walked into the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, where he was murdered. In the months that followed, conflicting narratives emerged over how he died, what happened to his remains, and who was responsible.

# data[].attributes.headline
Iran nuclear deal: Trump pulls US out in break with Europe allies

# data[].attributes.subject
Iran nuclear deal: Trump pulls US out in break with Europe allies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
US President Donald Trump says he will withdraw the US from an Obama-era nuclear agreement with Iran.

Calling it "decaying and rotten", he said the deal was "an embarrassment" to him "as a citizen".

Going against advice from European allies, he said he would reimpose economic sanctions that were waived when the deal was signed in 2015.

In response, Iran said it was preparing to restart uranium enrichment, key for making both nuclear energy and weapons.

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani said: "The US has announced that it doesn't respect its commitments.

"I have ordered the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran to be ready for action if needed, so that if necessary we can resume our enrichment on an industrial level without any limitations."

He said he would "wait a few weeks" to speak to allies and the other signatories to the nuclear deal first.

"If we achieve the deal's goals in cooperation with other members of the deal, it will remain in place," he said.

Could the Iran deal collapse?

What is the nuclear accord?

UK and European allies "committed to deal"

The so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) curbed Iran's nuclear activities in return for the lifting of sanctions that had been imposed by the UN, US and EU.

Mr Trump had previously complained that the deal only limited Iran's nuclear activities for a fixed period; had failed to stop the development of ballistic missiles; and had handed Iran a $100bn (£74bn) windfall that it used "as a slush fund for weapons, terror, and oppression" across the Middle East.

"It is clear to me that we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of this deal," Mr Trump said.

"The Iran deal is defective to its core."

Former President Barack Obama, who signed the deal on behalf of the US three years ago, called Mr Trump's announcement "misguided".

When will the sanctions restart?

The US Treasury said economic sanctions would not be reimposed on Iran immediately, but would be subject to 90-day and 180-day wind-down periods.

In a statement on its website, it said sanctions would be reimposed on the industries mentioned in the 2015 deal, including Iran's oil sector, aircraft exports, precious metals trade, and Iranian government attempts to buy US dollar banknotes.

Has Iran's economy been better off under the deal?

Three reasons behind Trump ditching Iran deal

US National Security Advisor John Bolton is reported as saying that European companies doing business with Iran will have to finish within six months or face US sanctions.

On a collision course
Analysis by Jonathan Marcus, BBC defence and diplomatic correspondent
With a stroke of his pen President Trump has jeopardised the one agreement - good or bad -that seeks to constrain Iran's nuclear ambitions.

He launched a scathing assault on the deal and its deficiencies, but he offered no alternative policy to put in its place.

He has put US diplomacy on a collision course with some of Washington's closest allies.

And some fear that he may have brought a new and catastrophic regional war in the Middle East that much closer.

Read more: What happens next?

What reaction has there been worldwide?

France, Germany and the UK - whose leaders had tried to change Mr Trump's mind - have said they "regret" the American decision. The foreign ministry of Russia, another signatory, said it was "deeply disappointed".

The European Union's top diplomat, Federica Mogherini, said the EU was "determined to preserve" the deal.

Former President Obama said on Facebook that the deal was working and was in US interests.

"Walking away from the JCPOA turns our back on America's closest allies, and an agreement that our country's leading diplomats, scientists, and intelligence professionals negotiated.

"At a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes - with Iran - the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans," he said.

The United Nations secretary general's spokesman said Antonio Guterres was "deeply concerned" at the announcement and called on the other signatories to abide by their commitments.

But Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he "fully supports" Mr Trump's "bold" withdrawal from a "disastrous" deal.

And Saudi Arabia, Iran's regional rival, says it "supports and welcomes" Mr Trump's moves towards pulling out of the deal.

What was agreed under the deal?

The so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) saw Iran agree to limit the size of its stockpile of enriched uranium - which is used to make reactor fuel, but also nuclear weapons - for 15 years and the number of centrifuges installed to enrich uranium for 10 years.

Iran also agreed to modify a heavy water facility so it could not produce plutonium suitable for a bomb.

In return, sanctions imposed by the UN, US and EU that had crippled Iran's economy were lifted.

The deal was agreed between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - the US, UK, France, China and Russia - plus Germany.

Iran insists its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful, and its compliance with the deal has been verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
US President Donald Trump says he will withdraw the US from an Obama-era nuclear agreement with Iran. Calling it "decaying and rotten", he said the deal was "an embarrassment" to him "as a citizen". Going against advice from European allies, he said he would reimpose economic sanctions that were waived when the deal was signed in 2015.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
JANUARY

Donald Trump: The year started with the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States.

Held in Washington DC from January 17 to 21, ceremonies included concerts, parades and a memorable inaugural address from the former reality star.

In a speech full of the patriotic rhetoric that had become a staple of his campaign, Mr Trump promised to "make America strong again, make America wealthy again, make America proud again and make America safe again.

He was sure to add: "And, yes, we will make America great again."

The Trump Administration caused controversy in the days after the inauguration when it claimed to have "perhaps record-breaking crowd attendance", despite photographic evidence suggesting otherwise.

The President's then Press Secretary Sean Spicer boasted the crowd "was the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe", later accusing the media of reporting inaccurate crowd estimates.

FEBRUARY

North Korea missile test: Kim Jong-un grabbed the headlines on February 12 when he ordered the launch of a ballistic missile over the Sea of Japan.

It was the hermit nation's first missile test of Mr Trump's presidency and sparked a bitter feud between Kim and the US leader.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe described the launch as "intolerable", though North Korea would go on to test a handful of other missiles later in the year.

MARCH

Triggering of Article 50: March saw Theresa May finally trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, officially starting the process of the UK's departure from the European Union.

The Prime Minister told the Commons at the time: "This is a historic moment from which there can be no turning back. Britain is leaving the European Union."

Britain is currently due to leave the EU on March 29, 2019.

First SpaceX re-flight: On March 30, SpaceX became the first to successfully re-launch and land the first stage of an orbital rocket.

The California-based company used a booster, which had been previously launched 11 month prior, to carry a telecommunication satellite into orbit, before successfully landing it on a ship in the Atlantic Ocean.

SpaceX founder Elon Musk described the launch as an "amazing day for space."

APRIL

Shayrat missile strike: On the morning of April 7, US President Trump ordered 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles to be fired at the Shayrat airbase in Syria.

The strike was in response to a chemical attack three days earlier, which saw the Syrian Government airdrop toxic gas on the town of Khan Shaykhun, killing 74 people and injuring more than 557 others, according to the Idlib health authority.

MAY

Manchester terror attack: On May 22, after an Ariana Grande concert at Manchester Arena, a suicide bomber detonated an explosive device, killing 22 people and injuring hundreds of others - many of them children.

About two weeks later, the singer returned to the UK to host a benefit concert at Old Trafford Cricket Ground dubbed One Love Manchester.

The concert raised some £10million for the victims of the attack.

JUNE

Trump snubs Paris Climate Accord: June started with the US President announcing that America would be pulling out of the landmark Paris climate agreement.

The Republican claimed the Paris agreement "front-loads costs on American people", "disadvantages the US" to benefit other countries and causes "vastly diminished economic production".

The move was widely condemned by other world leaders.

London Bridge terror attack: Before Ariana Grande could sing at One Love Manchester, another terror attack was carried out on London Bridge.

Terrorists ploughed into pedestrians on the bridge, before running into nearby Borough Market where they set about stabbing revellers.

Eight victims died in the attack, with a further 48 suffering injuries.

UK General Election: The Conservatives lost their majority in a shocking general election that defied all the early polls.

Mrs May was forced to broker a deal with the DUP in Northern Ireland to prop up her government, as Jeremy Corbyn 's Labour surged in popularity.

Grenfell Tower fire: On June 14, people all over Britain watched in horror Grenfell Tower in North Kensington went up in flames.

The fire, which burned for more than 60 hours, caused the deaths of 71 people.

The tragedy led to a mass outrage after it was revealed that the flames may have been worsened by the cladding that encased the building's exterior.

JULY

North Korea launches intercontinental missile: On July 4, North Korean officials launched its first test of an intercontinental missile, which the reclusive nation claimed could strike "anywhere in the world".

In response to the launch Mr Trump tweeted: " North Korea has just launched another missile. Does this guy have anything better to do with his life?

"Hard to believe that South Korea and Japan will put up with this much longer.

"Perhaps China will put a heavy move on North Korea and end this nonsense once and for all!"

AUGUST

Total solar eclipse: A stunning total solar eclipse, dubbed The Great American Eclipse, blocked out the Sun across the US on August 21.

The path of totality crossed 14 states and was the first total solar eclipse to be visible from all of the US since 1918.

Hurricane Harvey: Four days later, the deadly Hurricane Harvey struck the US as a category for hurricane, causing devastating damage to parts of Texas, killing at least 90 people in total and costing just shy of $200billion.

SEPTEMBER

North Korea launch: The warmongering nation fired its most powerful weapon to date - a thermonuclear hydrogen bomb.

Hurricanes devastate the Americas: The Caribbean and swathes of the US were battered by a string of hurricanes including the powerful Irma and Maria.

The two storms killed more than 200 people and caused billions of dollars worth of damage.

Olympics awarded: On September 13, the International Olympic Committee awarded Paris and Los Angeles the right to host the 2024 and 2028 Summer Olympics, respectively.

OCTOBER

Las Vegas shooting: On October 1, 58 people were killed when Stephen Paddock opened fire on a crown of concert-goers from his hotel room in Las Vegas Nevada.

The attack is the deadliest US mass shooting to date and has reignited calls for tougher gun control laws nationwide.

Hurricane Ophelia hits UK: The British Isles were barraged by torrential rain and deadly winds as the remnants of Ophelia blew in on October 16.

The Met Office issued a red warning for the whole of the Republic of Ireland and parts of the UK, with winds speeds of up to 120mph recorded in parts.

Three people were killed during the storm.

Catalan independence: October also saw Catalonia vote for indolence from Spain in a referendum that was later declared unlawful by the international community.

However, the vote was overshadowed by the aggressive response of Spanish police forces who were accused of violence towards people trying to cast their ballots.

NOVEMBER

Panama Papers: On November 5, German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung released millions of documents highlighting the dubious financial activities of some politicians, celebrities and businesses.

Among those caught up in the scandal were Queen Elizabeth II, Bono and David Cameron.

Zimbabwe coup: Robert Mugabe was forced to resign as President of Zimbabwe after 37 years, following a military coup in the south African nation.

The six-day takeover resulted in Mugabe's former ally Emmerson Mnangagwa being sworn in as President,

DECEMBER

US recognises Jerusalem: On December 6, Donald Trump made the controversial decision to formally recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

The move was widely condemned and Mr Trump was even accused of issuing a "declaration of war".

Theresa May branded the President's speech as "unhelpful", arguing that it could destabilise peace in the region.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Year in review 2017: The SHOCKING events that changed the world in 2017

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donald Trump: The year started with the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States. Held in Washington DC from January 17 to 21, ceremonies included concerts, parades and a memorable inaugural address from the former reality star.