By: Ishaan Patel Amnesty International has recently released a report that has called the state of Israel an ‘apartheid’ state. It’s a term, that especially in a recent era with the ongoing strife between Israelis and Palestinians in the Levant, has been attributed to the Israeli treatment of Arabs within the state. However, this term is misused and is an analogy that lacks a clear correlation. While there is no denying that the state of Israel has engaged in discriminatory and oppressive practices towards Arabs, the issue is simply too nuanced to be defined into a clear black and white scenario, unlike Apartheid in South Africa. The first fallacy of this analogy is that, unlike black people in Apartheid South Africa, Arab-Israelis have clear representation and a voice within the politics and governance of Israel. Arab-Israelis are judges, ambassadors, doctors, and lawyers in Israel, and in fact this year, Arabs have a position within the main coalition of the Knesset and have a true and purposeful role in lawmaking. This is vastly different from the official policy of South Africa at the time; one of ‘separateness’, whereas black south Africans were given zero voice, input, or say in how the country was governed; it was ruled by a white minority, which completely divided the society into two halves; a smaller, prosperous white ruling class; and an impoverished and voiceless black Africans. In Israel, Arabs can coexist with their Jewish counterparts; there is a mix of different ethnicities, religions, peoples in Israeli occupations and cities. Apartheid, however, was completely split; there were two worlds in South Africa, not one. This is the claim that can be attested by anti-apartheid activists; Benjamin Pogrund, an anti-apartheid activist responded to a 2006 Guardian article accusing Israel of apartheid, remarking on his experience at an Israeli hospital in which Arabs and Israelis worked and treated patients together, saying: ‘What I saw in Hassadah Mt Scopus was inconceivable in South Africa where I spent most of my life, growing up and then working as a journalist specializing in Apartheid. In other words, the accusation of Apartheid is not only an incorrect label towards Arab-Israeli relations but diminishes the lived reality of Apartheid’. Another policy that many apartheid critics of Israel point to is the restriction of movement between the West Bank, Gaza, and the rest of the country. However, while this policy is flawed, it is also due to legitimate concerns with the rising extremism and radicalization occurring in these territories. Hamas, an ultranationalist organization hellbent on destroying the state of Israel, has gained great popularity and influence in these areas and has been the perpetrator of a multitude of terror attacks, such as suicide bombings, as well as direct attacks on Israel itself. In fact, it was only last year when Hamas rockets were fired directly at Israeli settlements like Tel Aviv(which thanks to the Iron Dome, remained relatively unscathed). Yes, the policy is ugly and messy, however, given the great instability that the region is facing, the context provided shows that this policy is not at all analogous to apartheid practices. Now, this is not at all to say that Arabs are completely equal in Israel, and no sort of racist, religious, and ethnic discrimination or oppression exists again Arabs in Israel. There are clear, stark differences in poverty, median wage, and education. Arab-Israelis are more likely to be discriminated against, for jobs and opportunities, and the illegal settlement of the West Bank is completely unwarranted and an infringement on the rights of Palestinians. But, quite simply, the usage of the rem of ‘apartheid’; is one that is factually incorrect and completely mispaints the reality of Palestinian and Arab-Israelis within the state. Are there gaps in education, poverty, and opportunity between Arabs and Israelites? Yes, and this is an issue that needs to be addressed if Israel can truly claim to be a positive and inclusive state that represents all of its inhabitants. But do these disparities directly translate to an intentional system of ‘apartness’?. The clear answer is No. References ADL. “Allegation: Israel Is an Apartheid State.” Anti-Defamation League, https://www.adl.org/resources/glossary-terms/allegation-israel-is-an-apartheid-state. Accessed 21 Mar. 2022. Montague, Marcus. “Don’t Call What Israel Is Doing Apartheid | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson.” The Harvard Crimson, 27 June 2021, https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/6/27/montague-mfuni-apartheid/. Pogrund, Benjamin. “Opinion | Why Israel Is Nothing Like Apartheid South Africa - The New York Times.” The New York Times - Breaking News, US News, World News and Videos, 31 Mar. 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/31/opinion/why-israel-is-nothing-like-apartheid-south-africa.html. Robinson, Kali. “What to Know About the Arab Citizens of Israel | Council on Foreign Relations.” Council on Foreign Relations, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-know-about-arab-citizens-israel. Accessed 21 Mar. 2022. Sabel, Robbie. “The Campaign to Delegitimize Israel with the False Charge of Apartheid.” Jewish Political Studies Review, vol. 23, no. 3/4, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, pp. 18–31, doi:10.2307/41575857. Accessed 21 Mar. 2022.

By: Hugo Douglas For many, healthcare is a controversial topic, its universality makes it a source of debate and discussion, but what is the debate about? After the shock of the COVID 19 pandemic, the world awoke to the harsh reality that is the incompetency of its public healthcare systems. Public healthcare systems across the world have been stretched to their limit, yet many countries feel that they need to throw more money at the problem. Is this just the sunk cost fallacy at work? Can we still use underprovision and inefficiency as an excuse for the collapse of an already dysfunctional system? Let’s talk about Singapore. It is expected that in the next decade, healthcare will be the most significant contributor to increases in government spending. This is to be expected, in the past decade alone, the government healthcare budget has increased from $3.7bn to $11.3bn (kudos to a rapidly ageing population). Nonetheless, this is unsustainable, especially in consideration with COVID spending. The practicality of healthcare spending is also part of the question. From a government’s perspective, it is more economically efficient to increase population health by subsidising widely used healthcare facilities. For example, vaccinations, general practitioners, dentists etc. Conversely, citizens are left with lacklustre infrastructure when it comes to the provision of specialist treatments. While general health and common illnesses may be covered, this method of optimisation still affects patients that need more extensive treatment. One must consider how efficient public healthcare entities can realistically be. With direct healthcare provision possessing certain constraints, the reality is that public firms have drastically different incentives than their private counterparts. Public firms have the benefit of more consistent, state funding resulting in a decreased drive towards profit, to which there are notable disadvantages such as a lack of innovation and consequently, efficiency. Development in technology goes hand in hand with scientific progress, it can be said that there is a snowball effect of sorts, and the lack of progress in technological advancement could be a limiting factor for future research and innovation. Moreover, the absence of competition between public firms, reduces the incentive to innovate and revolutionise technology, proving detrimental to the prospects of future scientific development. To further accentuate my point, let’s take a look at COVID. Healthcare systems across the world were pushed beyond their limits to mitigate the effects of the virus. For instance, we saw the need for “instant hospitals” to be constructed in Wuhan, owing to the lack of healthcare resources available. The true weakness of the USA’s public healthcare infrastructure was revealed for all to see when they were faced with what was once an epidemic. Hospitals were understaffed and undersupplied, healthcare workers had to work for hours on end and available ICU beds were becoming more and more scarce. This highlights the fact that specialised divisions of healthcare aren't always as accounted for as the more generic ones. A lot of people are of the opinion that this means that there should be an increase in public health funding, but fail to consider the prospect of letting the private sector do the work. This is because they believe that lack of funding is the issue, as opposed to the model itself. The reality is that if we had more innovative technology that had better capability to mitigate a pandemic, we could’ve been in a better position to handle it. There is also the aspect of the amount of government funding that it takes to provide healthcare directly, it could be argued that there are other, more constructive ways that this money could be spent that benefit the public. In 2020, US healthcare funding reached $4.1trillion (19.7% of GDP at the time). There are many underfunded systems in the US economy, perhaps some of this money would have a greater impact if invested in public schooling, housing, food stamps or any other division of the economy. Obviously, this is a complex issue. While the direct provision of healthcare has its benefits and private sector dominance has its downsides, this article aims to highlight some of the issues that can be experienced as a result of it. The best course of action may not always be black-and-white. For instance, countries like Australia operate on hybridised systems and other countries like Canada invest a large amount of money in an attempt to create stronger public healthcare infrastructure. Ultimately, it can depend on the circumstances, COVID is a great example of this because it knocked healthcare systems worldwide off-balance. The public will always need to consume healthcare the question is in what form? Sources: https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/life-sciences-and-healthcare/articles/top-10-health-care-innovations.html https://mint.intuit.com/blog/trends/what-is-universal-health-care/ https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/budget-2022-healthcare-spending-to-form-bulk-of-govt-expenditure-by-2030 https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/how-healthy-americas-public-health-infrastructure https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical#:~:text=U.S.%20health%20care%20spending%20grew,spending%20accounted%20for%2019.7%20percent. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/09/10/909688913/whatever-happened-to-the-instant-hospitals-built-in-wuhan-for-covid-19-patients

By: Sienna Lovelock-Burtt In the Covid Era, tennis is one of the only sports that has continued undaunted. Tennis is an isolated sport. Unlike many other mainstream sports (e.g. basketball, football, or even hockey), tennis is a sport of only two, or four players. This can be draining on the players, as they are often quite mentally taxed. However, the isolation presents advantages as it is one of the few sports that has consistently continued through COVID, through lockdowns and new waves. Through Covid, the only time a grand slam was cancelled was the Wimbledon Slam in April 2020 - showing the unwise position tennis, as a sport has been in, and the insights it has offered us. Tennis organisers have had to deal with the unique challenges of COVID. How should players be isolated? As professional athletes, should they have access to training equipment? Can their spouses, and teams travel with them? Should vaccines be mandatory? The 2022 Australian Open just finished, and as one of the four biggest events in the world for tennis, it came out with a firm stance on these rules. As always, the rules will change based on country, and circumstance, but notable moments in Australia include protests and uproars over players and entourages being allowed in under looser quarantine restrictions and a brief period where the open banned “Where is Peng Shuai'' t-shirts. However, the controversy is the reason that everyone should be keeping their eyes on tennis. Tennis is leading the way on what sports in a COVID world, and possibly a post COVID world must look like. Over the past couple of years, there's also been a social and political reckoning, that has been echoed in tennis. Peng Shuai, a Chinese tennis star, came out with rape accusations against a party official in November, joining women worldwide in the #Metoo movement. The post was quickly taken down, and she hasn't been seen in public until recently. The Women's Tennis Association (WTA) has taken a hardline stance, by suspending all future tournaments in China, one of their biggest markets. In a world where profit is increasingly prioritised, the WTA has shown a commitment to protecting individual players, so far unmatched by other sports. When Peng Shuai was interviewed recently, she denied her own accusations, however, many suspect the Chinese government may have re-educated her (using forced brainwashing) to change her public opinions. Examining the latest results of the Australian Open, with Rafael Nadal winning his 21st Grand Slam at 35, breaking his tie with Roger Federer and Novak Djokovic for the title of man with the most grand slams, the standards of fitness are changing. Most tennis players previously peaked in their late-20s. Our culture around fitness and aging, is developing, and the standards have shifted. The last two years have ensured this world will never be the same - the pandemic has created both challenges, and meaningful opportunities, especially in the realm of sports and fitness. In a digital age, what do sports look like? Who gets to play it? And under what circumstances? Tennis is smashing it. Sources: https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2022/jan/17/novak-djokovic-deported-for-trying-to-breach-australias-border-rules-scott-morrison-says https://guardian.ng/sport/djokovic-fights-deportation-after-australia-cancels-visa/ https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/08/world/asia/peng-shuai-china-censorship.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/30/sports/tennis/nadal-medvedev-australian-open.html

By: Anjo Chu Jeff Bezos is under fire, yet again, for requesting a permit to dismantle a historical bridge in the Netherlands for the sake of being able to park and roam the water with his $500 million designer superyacht. Before any of the internet’s controversy, an official from the mayor’s office confirmed a plan to reporters, “Mr Bezos will set to foot the bill through Oceanco”. Stories started to arise in Dutch media on the 8th of February, that the middle section of the city’s bridge (Koningshaven Bridge - De Hef) will be temporarily removed to allow Bezos’ superyacht (130ft tall) to sail pass smoothly. This caused huge controversy online, not just because of the absurdity of such a request, but also because of the history behind this bridge. It was built over the Maas River in 1878 but was damaged due to the Nazi invasion of Rotterdam in 1940. After the partial disruption, it was up for renovations again in 2017. The Rotterdam council pledged that they would never allow for the bridge to be dismantled again, even declaring it as a national monument. Many internet viewers in the states wondered as to why there was so much discontent with the dismantling of the bridge, not understanding the complexity that comes within this anger. The citizens of Rotterdam explained that it was disheartening seeing yet another example of the rich infiltrating culture and a nation’s history for the sake of their comfort. In response to the backlash, Rotterdam's mayor told reporters on February 10th that, "No decision has yet been taken, not even an application for a permit," according to The Guardian. The mayoral spokesman also tried to calm the public down by stating, "It's the only route to the sea,", which many believe is a way to justify Bezos’ actions. It seems as though the authority in power have no desire to change the situation, and is in favour of Bezos, perhaps for the compensation they will receive. This plan was also heavily criticised by many politicians. Stephan Leewis - a local politician and self-proclaimed environmentalist, stated on Twitter, "...tearing down our beautiful national monument is a bridge too far”. In fact, many civilians are planning a summer egg-throwing event, in which they throw rotten eggs at Bezos’ superyacht to show their disapproval. This news eventually reached an international scale, and a lot of anger has been detected in the US. Ongoing at the same time is the Amazon worker union strikes. Union strikes are something we see quite often in the media, especially surrounding major conglomerates such as Amazon. The reason this strike struck a cord and got more attention than usual was because of the recent data that shows while the rest of America’s employment plummeted to 9.6 million more, Bezos’ wealth increased to $1 trillion dollars. Many have found the irony in Bezos paying over millions of dollars for an ultra-designer superyacht but can’t seem to spend less than half of that budget on paying his workers fairly. The worker unions are protesting for higher livable wages, better working conditions, and better treatment from their employers. The average factory Amazon worker receives around 28,000 a year, even during 2020, when Amazon stocks increased by 2.6% and in 2022 when Bezos’ net worth increased to $207 million a day. The mass majority of America’s public eye perceives this to be incomprehensible. The mistreatment of workers has also been put at the centre of the current media ruckus. Not only are the workers there forced to wear wristbands that track their ‘productivity’ - many have reported several cases of injury due to the lack of care the machines get. The irregularity of care for the workers and treating them like robots have led to media outrage, it didn’t help that within the span of a week, Bezos’ superyacht news was also released to the public. Although Bezos’ name was trending on Twitter for a couple of days, it got lost within the chaos of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Individuals have tried to speak out about the situation again but just seem to be drowned out by the incoming tweets about the war. So far, there has yet to be action taken from anyone holding Bezos accountable, there have also been no changes within the fine prints of Amazon changing anything about working environments. Countless speculate that this situation will die down, just like many of the previous attempts at worker union strikes at Amazon. The situation seems to be put at a halt given current affairs but there is still hope that justice will be brought upon and that we can finally see change in Amazon. Sources: https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3165760/jeff-bezos-new-superyacht-forcing-dutch-dismantle-historic-bridge https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/jeff-bezoss-super-yacht-historic-architecture-rotten-eggs

By: Sophia Rathleff Foreword from the writer in light of current circumstance This article was written before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and before the invasion even seemed certain. In light of those events it is in general opinion that the Conservative Party has no right nor plausible sense to oust Prime Minister Boris Johnson. An unstable political situation would definitely be the most idiotic and unuseful thing to place themselves in at this time. In a way, Boris Johnson has been saved at the last minute by this unspeakable tragedy. Europe’s peace has been broken, without this the Prime minister would most likely be out of his job. So, with all things, I urge you to read this with context. By now many have seen the “great resignation” being coined for younger workers leaving jobs at mass. However, MP’s under Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s administration are getting involved. Ironically, for a common reason, a bad boss. The Prime Minister is under scrutiny for multiple perceived breaches of COVID-19 restrictions. It was sparked by a leaked video where members of the PM’s cabinet were joking about a christmas party in 2020. The video garnered controversy as the events took place at a time when the government had not only banned families meeting for the holiday, but from visiting dying loved ones in the hospital or holding funerals. Outrage justifyingly erupted throughout the UK, from Parliament to the public. It led to the PM backtracking and changing his story from “there was no party and that no COVID rules were broken" to “nobody told me'' about the rules that he made. The lack of consistency was immediately picked up by parliament, Johnson created his own weapon against him. Weeks of scrutiny ensued in Parliament brandishing a cacophony of calls to resign. As a result, Metropolitan police opened an official investigation into 12 separate events at Number 10 Downing Street and Whitehall. The PM is rumoured to have attended 6 over the course of 2020 and 2021, including the infamous “Bring you brown booze” party of May 2020. Though the Met have not (as of 20/2/22) released their report, it is an apparent breach of the rules the Prime Minister’s party created. It brings the question of the likelihood of a vote of no confidence for Johnson. Known for being ruthless in their removal of problematic leaders, the Conservative Party is clearly leaning towards ousting Boris Johnson. A vote of no confidence is where letters are submitted by MPs to the 1922 backbench committee, led by Sir Graham. A threshold of 50% of Mps (in this administration's case 54 people) have to submit a letter of no confidence. If this is breached then the vote will be held to see if the PM can gain 50% of the vote. If not, Johnson will essentially be fired. As of the 3rd of February, 17 MPs have submitted their letters and one MP, Christian Wakeford, defected to labour. This is a long way off the requirements and with the changing international climate, it would be difficult to see how it would be reached. Altogether, Johnson has put himself in a complicated situation, and the British public can only hope he is held accountable. To the people who have lost their own, imagine the betrayal and sadness they are feeling after Johnson's actions. This situation presents an image with stark contrasts, the Prime Minister was boozing it up at work, whilst his citizens grappled with the pain of being unable to bury or visit their loved ones. Frankly, such despicable and malicious conduct is more than enough grounds for parliamentary reprehension. Prime Minister Boris Johnson should be outright ashamed of himself. Sources: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60227531 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/10/the-guardian-view-on-boris-johnson-odds-shorten-on-a-vote-of-no-confidence https://news.sky.com/story/no-confidence-votes-what-are-they-could-boris-johnson-face-one-and-how-would-a-leadership-challenge-work-12477324 https://www.itv.com/news/2022-02-11/boris-johnson-has-received-questionnaire-from-met-police-over-no10-parties https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-60201752 https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnsons-responses-to-questions-about-whether-he-attended-downing-street-lockdown-parties-12514211 https://inews.co.uk/news/mps-defect-change-seats-christian-wakeford-tory-labour-1413391 https://www.channelnewsasia.com/world/uk-pm-johnson-under-fire-over-bring-your-own-booze-lockdown-party-2427751

By: Yuyu Fu The general western view tends to see Taiwan as an independent nation and criticise China for its intervention and suppression against Taiwan. This article calls readers to not make an absolute judgement or stand on a single perspective. In this article, readers are offered a brief and relatively objective history of Taiwan, which can help them to understand arguments from different parties' perspectives. Before the Japanese Rule The first known settlers in Taiwan were tribal people from nowadays southern China. Roughly the Taiwan island's Chinese written historical records started in AD 239. For centuries, Chinese emperors had been sending expeditionary forces to Taiwan and from the 17th Century, significant numbers of migrants from China arrived in Taiwan, often fleeing turmoil or hardship. Most were Hoklo Chinese and Hakka Chinese, from Fujian and Guangdong. These two types of migrants are now by far the largest demographic group on the island. After being colonised by the Dutch for a short while (1624-1661), China's Qing dynasty had taken back its sovereignty over Taiwan from 1683 to 1895. World War II: Under the Japanese Rule The year 1895 is a turning point for Taiwan. Japan won the First Sino-Japanese War and the Qing government had to cede Taiwan to Japan as a price. The short-lived southern resistance movement was suppressed by Japanese troops and Japan inaugurated its five decades of rule over Taiwan. The Chinese Civil War The Chinese Civil War broke out in 1927 but by 1937 KMT (Kuomintang) nationalists and communists decided to unite against the Japanese invaders. After Japan surrendered on 15 August 1949, the Communist Party established the new government of China on 1 October and named the country the People's Republic of China. In the same year 7 December, the leader of Kuomintang (KMT) Chiang Kai-shek and the remnants of his government fled to Taiwan. This group of about 1.5 million people dominated Taiwan's politics for many years - even though they only account for 14% of the population. Fig: A map of China and Taiwan's territories (ABC News: GFX/Jarrod Fankhauser) Cross-Strait Conflicts after WW2 When the Republic of China first moved to Taiwan, its rule was dictatorial and authoritarian. Facing resistance from local people and under pressure from growing movements that demanded democracy, Chiang Kai-shek's son, Chiang Ching-Kuo, began a process of democratic reforms in the 1980s. New political parties gradually emerged in Taiwan, such as the Democratic Progressive Party (founded in 1986) which eventually developed into one of the two dominant political parties in Taiwan today. The relationship between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) was very tense in the 1950s due to the armed conflict over strategic islands in the Taiwan Strait. In the early 1950s, Kuomingtang's (KMT) forces launched small-scale attacks from Jinmen and Mazu against the coast of mainland China, which were two significant strategic islands in the Strait because of their geographic proximity to both China and Taiwan. As revenge, the PRC also bombed the two islands twice. Leadership on both sides of the strait viewed the islands as a potential launching pad for a ROC invasion to retake the Chinese mainland so both sides had a great interest in controlling the islands. The relationship between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC) was very tense in the 1950s due to the armed conflict over strategic islands in the Taiwan Strait. In the early 1950s, Kuomingtang's (KMT) forces launched small-scale attacks from Jinmen and Mazu against the coast of mainland China, which were two significant strategic islands in the Strait because of their geographic proximity to both China and Taiwan. As revenge, the PRC also bombed the two islands twice. Leadership on both sides of the strait viewed the islands as a potential launching pad for a ROC invasion to retake the Chinese mainland so both sides had a great interest in controlling the islands. U.S. policy toward East Asia in the early Cold War was originally letting PRC forces cross the Strait and defeat Chiang, but after the outbreak of the Korean War in June 1950, the US turned back to ally with Taiwan, together fighting Communist China. It deployed a fleet in the Taiwan Strait to protect its ally from possible attack from the mainland and it wanted the ROC to maintain control of the islands. Furthermore, the US signed the Mutual Defense Treaty with the ROC which promised support if the ROC engaged in a broader conflict with the PRC. In late 1987, for the first time after more than four decades, Taiwan residents were permitted to visit families in China mainland. At the same, trade between the two sides started to bloom. In 1991, Taiwan lifted the state of emergency and unilaterally ended the state of war with China. Two years later, the first direct conference between the two sides' political officials was held in Singapore. On April 26, 2005, the President of the Republic of China Lien Chan traveled to mainland China to meet with the leaders of the CPC including the President of the People's Republic of China, Hu Jintao. This was the first meeting since 1949 of the leaders of the KMT and Communist Party of China. In 2008, Taiwan and China resumed high-level talks after the KMT’s Ma Ying-jeou is elected president on a Beijing-friendly platform. Current Situation The general western view is that Taiwan has been governed independently of China since 1949, but Beijing views the island as part of its territory. Beijing vowed to eventually “unify” Taiwan with the mainland, using force if necessary. Tensions are rising. In the 1980s, relations between China and Taiwan started to improve. China put forward the "one country, two systems" plan, promised Taiwan self-sovereignty if it accepted Chinese reunification. The same system was established in Hong Kong and Macau, arguably to be used as a showcase to attract Taiwanese people back to the mainland. Taiwan rejected the offer, but it did relax rules on visits to China and business wand investment with China. In 1991, it unilaterally proclaimed the war with the People's Republic of China on the mainland to be over. One year after, two sides agreed on the unofficial 1992 Consensus, claiming that both sides belong to the same, the one china, and work together to seek national reunification. Afterward, the idea of "One China" became Kuomingtang's fundamental principle towards cross-strait relations. The Kuomingtang does not support Taiwan’s independence and consistently calls for closer ties with Beijing. During the 2 terms of former President Ma Ying-jeou, the cross-strait relations have once developed to a state of unprecedented friendliness. However, since the election of Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen in 2016, cross-strait tensions have escalated massively. Different from her predecessor Ma from the Kuomingtang, Tsai and her Democratic Progressive Party administration refused to accept the 1992 Consensus and the idea of "one China", instead, she aims for complete independence of Taiwan. In a 2019 speech, the president of China, Xi Jinping, reiterated China’s long-standing proposal for Taiwan: “one country, two systems.” Yet, such a framework is very unpopular among the Taiwanese public. Pointing to Beijing’s repression of Hong Kong’s freedom protests, Tsai and even the KMT have rejected Xi's offer. Work Cited Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Nationalist Party". Encyclopedia Britannica, 11 Oct. 2021, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nationalist-Party-Chinese-political-party. Accessed 24 February 2022. "Timeline: 70 Years of Taiwan-China Relations." Breaking News, World News and Video from Al Jazeera, Aljazeera, 3 Jan. 2019, www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/1/3/timeline-taiwan-china-relations-since-1949. Accessed 24 Feb. 2022. "What's Behind the China-Taiwan Divide?" BBC News, 26 May 2021, www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34729538. Accessed 24 Feb. 2022. "China replaces Taiwan in the UNSC." Elect The Council, electthecouncil.org/timeline-post/china-replaces-taiwan-in-the-unsc/. Accessed 24 Feb. 2022.

By: Kaira Karmakar The Hub of Controversy As the centre of COVID-19 misinformation and racial slurs, the Joe Rogan Experience has developed controversy regarding whether or not Spotify should remove the podcaster from the music platform. Due to this, Spotify has been shaken in recent weeks as an exclusive deal of $100 million was signed to the comedian by Spotify. As a result of promoting misinformation, many prominent musicians and podcasters have left Spotify to protest against Rogan’s controversial history. The emergence for much of the controversy regarding Joe Rogan was an episode published in December; a three-hour-long interview featuring Dr. Malone, a controversial infectious-disease researcher and vaccine sceptic. Discussions of theories and assertions regarding the pandemic and vaccines that took place in the episode were later cited as promoting ‘several falsehoods about Covid-19 vaccines’ by several health officers and professors. Spotify’s Response Despite the public outcry, Spotify will not cancel Joe Rogan. The company decided to maintain ties with Rogan, which suggests their stance on the podcasters they wish to hold. With estimations that Rogan’s podcast reaches 11 million listeners per episode, claims regarding Spotify’s care for profits over reputation have been made explicitly clear by crisis consultant Steven Fink. Spotify CEO Daniel Elk does ‘not believe that silencing Joe is the answer’ yet criticised Rogan for spreading misinformation and racism. Consequently, the company published its "platform rules and approach to COVID-19" on its website to refrain from the spread of misinformation regarding COVID-19. Joe Rogan’s Response Along with calls for boycotts, Rogan responded with an apology for his previous use of racial slurs and took down a staggering number of 70 episodes of his podcast without explanation. "I'm not trying to promote misinformation, I'm not trying to be controversial," said Rogan previously on an Instagram video. However, past instances seem to show otherwise. For instance, Rogan stated in his episode, ‘But time has shown that Sweden actually had a more effective take on the virus.’ This information is misleading. Sweden, unlike many other European countries, did not initiate full-scale lockdowns, however did have limitations for gatherings and social distance requirements. Moreover, with Sweden’s death rate due to COVID-19 being the highest in Scandinavia, the country certainly has not been as effective as its neighbours. Hence, stating that Sweden has had an ‘effective take on the virus’ is factually incorrect. Despite many apology videos by Rogan, the public still criticises Spotify's decision to maintain ties with the podcaster. However, with Spotify’s new policies to ensure that misinformation is not spread on the platform, the public has less to worry about regarding the Joe Rogan controversy situation. Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/08/arts/music/fact-check-joe-rogan-robert-malone.html https://time.com/6147548/spotify-joe-rogan-controversy-isnt-over/ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-12/spotify-joe-rogan-conspiracy-what-does-deplatforming-achieve/100817114

The truth behind the glitz, glamor, and allure of the Oscars By: Mihika Yadav Tweet posted by activist, April Reign #OscarsSoWhite This tweet may shock you, confuse you, or rather make you laugh. Regardless, it is clear that it might ruffle some feathers, which it undoubtedly did. Activist April Reign tweeted this as a reaction to how racially biased she believed the Oscars, also known as the Academy Awards, had become. The hashtag went viral with many people putting their twist on the #OscarsSoWhite, so one could have anticipated the indignation that swept the nation when the Oscars announced their nominations for 2016. All 20 acting nominations were given to white actors. Best Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, all white. As for the Best Director category, all were male, with one director being of Mexican descent. Now, this is just the surface level. There must be many more biases and injustices hidden within other less mainstream categories such as production design, costume design, makeup hair, sound mixing, and others. This is what truly sparked global outrage, with the #OscarsSoWhite movement at an all-time high. What replaced usual discussions and gossip over who would win was pure exasperation over the Academy’s blatant disregard for racial and gender inclusivity. In response, notable names in filmmaking such as Spike Lee and Jada Pinkett-Smith refused to attend the awards ceremony. Image of actress Charlotte Rampling White Privilege and History As if the Academy wasn’t already scrambling to host sudden meetings and panicking over unrealistic promises, 2016 Oscar nominee for Best Actress, Charlotte Rampling voiced her particularly controversial opinion on the issue at hand. During an interview at the time she had said that people’s wishes to boycott the 2016 Oscars was ‘racist to whites’. She added that ‘perhaps the black actors did not deserve to make the final list’ And when the interviewer explained to her that black members of the film industry feel like a minority, Rampling replied, “No comment.” This incident highlights how much of a problem this truly is, where the people being celebrated are blind to the minority communities who are equally deserving of celebration but are looked over because of their race, gender, and other factors. It seems as though Rampling is truly oblivious to this fact and considers the Oscars to be a fair playing field, where a movie or an actor is nominated solely for talent. People like Rampling are given the freedom to be ignorant. She has no reason to believe that she may be snubbed of an Oscar nomination, especially one of Best Actress, as there is no racial bias against her. People of color (POC) in the film industry, especially POC women are not given the place to be as naive as Rampling. Their talents almost always get overlooked for a male-dominated film, probably about war or something violent, embodying what men love to define as masculinity. Still, many A-list white celebrities used their platform to advocate for the improvement of opportunities for actors, filmmakers, and film crew from minority communities during this period. These were actors such as Reese Witherspoon, Mark Ruffalo, and Brie Larson who were recognised for their acting abilities in the Oscars, and still choose to speak against the unfair bias of nominations. Brie Larson went on to win Best Actress in the 2016 Oscars over Charlotte Rampling, proving that you can be celebrated for your work and still be conscious about the privilege you have. Image of actress Brie Larson Going back around 80 years to the very roots of the Oscars, it is evident how in 2016 all 20 acting nominations happened to be given to white actors. In 1939, when Hattie McDaniel became the first black actress to win an Academy Award, she was seated at a segregated table in the rear of the theatre and refused admission to the "whites only" after-party. Also, the role for which she got the award was that of a racially stereotyped maid, one who was obedient, loyal, and devoted to a white family. Image of actress Hattie McDaniel Voting Bias Bias remains openly rampant in voters of the Academy, however, it spreads further than racial and gender prejudices. The Academy Award voters are 98 percent white and 68 percent male, and they choose both the nominees and the winner. Given these figures, it's no surprise that women and people of colour are seriously underrepresented in the nominated films; the Academy thrives as a ‘historically white male institution’. The Academy Awards voting process is also biased as it is truly subjective. There are no objective criteria for voters to use when selecting a winner from among the nominees. Nothing prevents members from voting for a nomination just because they are friends with the nominee or believe the nominee is overdue for an award for previous achievements. There was a scandal in which a voter had vocalised that they voted for Brad Pitt to win an Oscar over another actor they struggled to decide between simply because he hadn’t gotten one yet. Voting is also rigged in the sense that voters are not drawn at random. They are all professionals in the film industry, with a median age of 62. Adding that with the male to female ratio, members appear to favour historical dramas, biographies, and social critiques, to horror movies, action movies and female-dominated movies, often classified as ‘chick flicks’. Infographic of Oscar Winners compiled together with percentages comparing to the U.S. population The Future It seems unfair to undermine the recent nominations and wins for POCs from the likes of Chloe Zhao for Best Director, Parasite for Best Picture, Youn Yuh-jung for Supporting Actress, Riz Ahmed for Best Actor, and more. But, there is something rather surprising about Parasite. Despite it winning Best Picture, none of the actors from the movie were up for nominations in the acting category, despite giving critically acclaimed performances that were described as unparalleled. This has very rarely happened in the history of the Oscars and has been pointed out by many film critics and viewers of the Academy Awards. Small successes, such as a Korean film winning best picture, may delude spectators into believing that change is on the way for a few years at least. However, if the Academy's progress toward real diversity continues at this pace, we will be waiting a long time. Sources: https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-35349772 https://www.standard.co.uk/insider/celebrity/only-32-actors-of-colour-have-ever-won-an-oscar-a4354751.html https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jan/22/oscars-2016-charlotte-rampling-diversity-row-racist-to-white-people https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jan/14/oscars-2016-full-list-of-nominations-awards-movies https://miscellanynews.org/2022/02/16/opinions/why-the-oscars-are-going-out-of-style/ https://venngage.com/blog/oscar-racism-interactive-infographic/

By Maya Kumar The war on education is back. According to a new American Library Association report, there were 330 “book challenges” in the fall of 2021, a drastic increase from the same periods in previous years. 2021 has been filled with challenges towards concepts such as critical race and queer theory being taught in schools, while some argue it should be taught in more depth, others believe it should completely be banned. The banned book debate has opened up a whole new can of worms, extending beyond literature and delving into the very basis of the American Educational system. So, is it time for reform? The book ‘Maus’ by Art Spiegelman depicts the horrors of the Holocaust and has recently come under fire for its use of nudity and profanity. The book was previously part of an eighth-grade language arts curriculum, before being unanimously voted out in a meeting in McMinn county Tennessee in January of 2022. The art in ‘Maus’ has been criticised for its “disturbing imagery” to which Spiegelman has replied, “But you know what? It’s disturbing history.” The crux of this debate is whether the book is being banned for the right reasons. Is ‘Maus’ being banned to limit the exposure to ideas of sex and profanity, or is it going through pajamification? Pajamification, stems from the book ‘The Boy in the Striped Pajamas” which has been criticised for its inaccurate portrayal of the Holocaust. The book has been said to comfort its readers rather than educate and has been added to Middle School state reading curriculums, this gives readers a surface level understanding of the events that transpired, limiting the actual understanding from these books. ‘The Boy in the Striped Pajamas’ has been a staple in many units about Holocaust despite this, giving students a very one-sided learning experience. Some argue that ‘Maus’ would be a better substitution, despite its “graphic imagery”. So why is the debate complicated? What makes this issue so difficult is identifying whether or not the reasons for banning books have to do with the wellbeing of children or whether it has to do with censorship of historical events. Amanda Bonagura, a mother of six from New York wrote into the New York Times, and says, “Pornography masquerading as school-age literature is child abuse”. She is referring to the book, ‘Beloved’ by Toni Morrison which talks about the horrors of slavery. This points out that exposure to pornography from a young age can hinder development severely and have serious consequences on the future generation. This is leaving people asking, should education about these serious social issues come at the cost of being exposed to profanity and sex? The simple answer; we don’t know. The banned book debate isn’t so black and white, because whilst some bring up good points about the dangers of exposing children to graphic topics from a young age, others believe that we shouldn’t be coddling children. Works Cited: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/30/books/book-ban-us-schools.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/12/opinion/letters/book-bans-censorship.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/22914767/book-banning-crt-school-boards-republicans https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/27/us/maus-banned-holocaust-tennessee.html

By: Jason Rosenweig Poway. Seattle. Washington, D.C. Pittsburgh. In recent years anti-semitic attacks have been on the rise around the US. Now, a new attack has been driven by antisemitic beliefs and harmful ideation, this time in Texas. On January 15, 2022, the Jewish Sabbath, a congregation called Congregation Beth Israel in Colleyville, Texas was streaming their Shabbat services online. At around 10:00 am, a man came into the synagogue claiming to be homeless and Rabbi Charlie Cytron-Walker welcomed him in, offering him a cup of tea. At first, all seemed fine, however, the situation soon became dire. As Cytron-Walker turned around to pray towards Jerusalem, he heard a click, which turned out to be the pistol of Malik Faisal Akram, the perpetrator of the attack who posed as a homeless man. This hostage situation lasted for 11 hours and involved the FBI and over 5 dozen law enforcement officers were involved in ending it. One interesting thing about how this hostage situation started is how Akram exploited the Jewish pillar of Tikkun Olam, or “repairing the world”. This is one of the three pillars of Judaism. In the sect of Reform Judaism — the sect which Congregation Beth Israel belongs to —, it is believed that Tikkun Olam, one of the three pillars of Judaism, represents charity and making the world a better place through good deeds. Therefore, when Rabbi Cytron-Walker saw a man walking through the synagogue’s doors in need of help, his first instinct was to help him. Akram exploited this and he knew that he could manipulate someone using a pillar of their religion into being let into the synagogue and even given care. The sad part of this crisis is many people may use this attack as an excuse to neglect a pillar of their religion, fearing that, if they help people, they could be subject to an attack. Tikkun Olam is, in my opinion, the most important pillar of Judaism to be followed because it, in turn, helps you to achieve the other two pillars, those pillars being Torah study and Avodah, which can either be interpreted in modern-day Judaism as being either its literal meaning of “work” or a more interpretive meaning of prayer. Tikkun Olam can be achieved through these pillars and these two pillars can be achieved through Tikkun Olam which is why the greatest possible tragedy to come from this attack would be an abandoning of one of the defining aspects of Judaism in the name of safety. To get some context, we must talk about why the hostage taker took hostages, and why he chose the synagogue as the place to take hostages. It is said that Akram was seeking the release of Aafia Siddiqui, a former neuroscientist from Pakistan who was convicted of attempted murder of troops in Afghanistan who detained her. After the 9/11 attacks, she moved to Pakistan near the border with Afghanistan and Siddiqui began to get radicalized while she supplied aid to Taliban soldiers. She joined Al Qaeda and became involved in numerous terrorist plots, eventually becoming one of the most wanted people in the world. She was detained by the Americans in Afghanistan and attempted to shoot at the soldiers interrogating her, which is the crime for which she is serving a sentence not far from Congregation Beth Israel. . Siddiqui has become a sort of celebrity within the world of Al-Qaeda, earning the nickname of “Lady Al-Qaeda” with many people — including herself — asserting that she was falsely imprisoned and demanding her release. In this case, Akram viewed Siddiqui as a “sister”, likely seeing their fight towards a cause as being a uniting factor and wanting her release to help this cause that he had grown to believe in over the previous years. As to why he chose a synagogue, it is simple: he was delusional. According to Rabbi Cytron-Walker, Akram believed that Jews controlled the world. He asked them to get on the phone with the “Chief Rabbi of America” and to free Siddiqui. During the hostage situation, there was so much instability and uncertainty. Luckily, the synagogue was livestreaming its services on Facebook. Though the stream was taken down from the public after a couple of hours, Meta (Facebook’s parent company) provided the feed to law enforcement so they knew exactly what was going on in the synagogue. At the 11th hour, the hostages were increasingly fearful for their life. Though Akram showed no clear intention of wanting to kill any hostages, he grew even more aggressive and erratic as the hostage situation went on. Around 9pm, 4 hours after one hostage was released at 5pm, the hostages decided they needed to get out. Rabbi Cytron-Walker threw a chair at Akram, and the hostages were able to run away and escape to safety. Shortly after, law enforcement entered the synagogue and Akram was killed by an FBI agent, ending the situation. In the coming weeks and months, we will learn more about this situation, the motives behind it, and whether it was a random act or whether Akram was acting at the behest of another group. This attack and the motives behind it are a concerning sign of the increasing trend of antisemitism — even those people in Congress who come from the state of Georgia and believe in Jewish space lasers. This antisemitism, even if only words, will often trigger people into committing violent attacks. The only way to stop this wave of violence is to attack antisemitism at its root, harmful misinformation passed on generation to generation. For long periods of time, this misinformation only traveled from parent to child or friend to friend, but in the age of social media, misinformation can travel with ease. In today’s modern echo chambers there are no rational voices before it is too late and one has been radicalized with harmful beliefs that lead people to commit hate crimes and lynchings and terrorist attacks. We must engage in a campaign of bursting the bubbles of these echo chambers by flagging posts with fact checks with the hope that we may prevent people from heading down a dangerous rabbit hole. Social media giants such as Meta and Twitter must do their best to ban all users who spread these lies in order to prevent the views that come with them. All of this is what we must do if we hope to ever make the world a better place. Works Cited "Hostages Freed After Standoff at Texas Synagogue, Gunman Dead." Al Jazeera, 16 Jan. 2022, www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/16/man-takes-hostages-at-texas-synagogue. Accessed 1 Mar. 2022. "Hostages Rescued Safely, Suspect Dies in Texas Synagogue Standoff." The New York Times, 19 Jan. 2022, www.nytimes.com/live/2022/01/15/us/synagogue-hostage-texas-colleyville. Accessed 1 Mar. 2022. Kelly, Mary L. "Why the man who held Texas synagogue hostages invoked the name of Aafia Siddiqui." All Things Considered, NPR, 17 Jan. 2022, NPR. www.npr.org/2022/01/17/1073661277/why-the-man-who-held-texas-synagogue-hostages-invoked-the-name-of-aafia-siddiqui. Accessed 1 Mar. 2022. Levenson, Eric. "What It Was Like Inside the Colleyville, Texas, Synagogue During the 11-hour Hostage Standoff." CNN, 19 Jan. 2022, edition.cnn.com/2022/01/17/us/inside-texas-synagogue-hostage-standoff/index.html. Accessed 1 Mar. 2022. Magid, Jacob. "Hostage: Attacker Chose Synagogue, Thinking Jews Powerful Enough to Free ‘sister’." The Times of Israel, 17 Jan. 2022, www.timesofisrael.com/hostage-attacker-chose-synagogue-thinking-jews-powerful-enough-to-free-sister/. Accessed 1 Mar. 2022. Rosenfeld, Arno. "Texas Rabbi: Gunman ‘thought That Jews Control the World’." The Forward, 16 Jan. 2022, forward.com/news/480928/beth-israel-hostage-standoff-charlie-cytron-walker/. Accessed 1 Mar. 2022. "Meet 'Lady Al-Qaeda' Aafia Siddiqui, who Texas gunman demanded be freed." The Jerusaelm Post, 17 Jan. 2022, www.jpost.com/international/article-692631. Accessed 1 Mar. 2022.

By: Renee Khanna What's happening in Mexico can be described as violence against the truth. The infuriated citizens of Mexico are taking to the streets of Tijuana to demand an end to the horrific killings of Journalists. Since 2010, over 115 journalists in Mexico have been killed, and over 90% of those murders are not prosecuted. The murder of a photographer, who worked with media outlets, Alfonso Martínez, was set outside his home in broad daylight on January 17th in Tijuana. According to Martínez’s family members, he knew the risks that came with covering such controversial issues, but continued to cover the rising violence in the most violent city in the world. Days later, a veteran broadcast reporter who covered politics and corruption, Lourdes López, was shot and killed inside her car in Tijuana. In 2019 Lopez travelled to Mexico City to confront President Andrés López Obrado that the legal dispute with the former governor of Baja California State compromised her safety. “I fear for my life”, she told the president on live television, from then on she was supposedly under the protection of the state, with an assigned bodyguard and a panic button fitted in her home. However, neither of them stopped her from getting assassinated. "What happened with Lourdes is something that happens very often," said Jan Hoosten from the Committee to Protect Journalists. "Journalists tell the authorities that they're in trouble, they tell them that they're receiving threats, but more often than not, the response by the Mexican government is simply silent. Nothing is done about it." Individuals all around the world are protesting against the human rights violation and impunity in Mexico whilst attacks against journalists are rising by the day. Just as protesters thought their voices were being heard, the son of a Mexican journalist was shot to death in early February in Tijuana. Individuals around the world have participated in bringing awareness and demanding justice for the lives lost through the hashtag ‘#NiSilencioNiOlvido’ which translates to ‘Neither Silence nor Forgetting’. Democracy in Mexico lies in the hands of the journalists, and it will diminish with their deaths. Their work exposes corruption, crime and holds officials accountable, as well as brings journalists together. “It’s important for us to take care of each other, because it’s clear that the government can’t take care of us,” Alejandro Villa, a Tijuana journalist said resentfully. Journalists fear for their lives every day and take their own precautions such as travelling in groups and staying in close contact with one another due to the lack of protection given by the government. Press freedom and safety for journalists should be the top priority for the Mexican government as the future of democracy lies in the hands of the journalists. Works Cited: abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/5th-journalist-killed-mexico-year-82818357 edition.cnn.com/2022/01/24/americas/journalist-killed-mexico-tijuana-intl-latam/index.html. www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076663934/a-mexican-journalist-remembers-her-2-colleagues-murdered-in-tijuana-this-month. www.reuters.com/world/americas/second-journalist-shot-dead-week-mexicos-tijuana-2022-01-24/. www.cbsnews.com/news/mexico-journalist-murders-tijuana-public-outcry/

By Raina Lath As most of us know by now, Russia has invaded Ukraine and as tensions escalate and news rapidly changes, many begin to wonder what exactly is the point of all this. Why did Russia invade Ukraine? As with most politics, we must start at the beginning, decades and decades ago. Ukraine was the backbone of the Soviet Union until it declared independence in 1991 following the fall of the Soviet Union. As this happened, NATO extended eastward, eventually including the majority of Europe's former communist countries. Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, all of which were originally part of the Soviet Union, joined NATO, as did Poland, Romania, and others. As a result, NATO, which was formed to fight the Soviet Union, moved several miles nearer to Moscow, bordering it directly. In 2008, it indicated that it hoped to enlist Ukraine someday however, this is still viewed as a long-shot. The Russian president has described NATO's expansion as dangerous, and the potential of Ukraine joining the alliance as an ongoing threat to Russia. Russia's concerns about NATO have been increasingly harsh as the country has grown more aggressive and militarily powerful. In interviews and speeches, Putin has highlighted that Ukraine is culturally, linguistically, and politically a part of Russia. While a portion of Ukraine's largely Russian-speaking population in the east shares these sentiments, a more nationalist, Ukrainian-speaking population in the west has long advocated for closer integration within Europe. Putin gave the US and NATO a list of security requests in December. The most important of them is an assurance that Ukraine will never join NATO and that the organisation will reduce its military presence in Eastern and Central Europe - suggestions that the US and its allies have consistently dismissed. As the fall of the soviet union was a disaster, Putin wants to reconstitute as much of the Soviet Union as possible as he is getting older. He feels the need to reclaim the former Soviet republic. How has the US and other countries responded? President Biden made it known in early December that his administration would not consider sending soldiers to fight for Ukraine, emphasising, among other things, the fact that Ukraine is not a member of NATO and hence does not fall under its mutual defence obligation. Instead, the US has delivered anti-tank and anti-aircraft weaponry to Ukraine, strengthened American military presence in NATO nations bordering Russia, and sent 8,500 troops to Eastern Europe on high alert. Officials in the US have lately warned that if Putin invades Ukraine, the US will support a Ukrainian rebellion. Although the main threat the US opposes to Russia is the economic sanctions it would impose. These sanctions could be detrimental to the Russian economy which would thereby incentivize Putin to step away from Ukraine. As Russia has already begun invading Ukraine, US, UK, Japan and many other nations have already issued sanctions on Russia making it clear that if Russia continues, greater sanctions will be put in place. However, in Europe, sanctions applied in response to a Russian invasion of Ukraine would harm Europe significantly more than the United States. Europe has significant trade links with Russia and it is heavily reliant on Russian gas supply. Let’s just hope that things don’t get any worse. Sources: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/18/europe/ukraine-russia-conflict-explainer-cmd-intl/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/18/us/politics/putin-ukraine.html https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/02/10/what-is-russia-s-problem-with-nato-and-how-should-the-west-respond https://www.nytimes.com/article/russia-ukraine-nato-europe.html