WHY HAS THE CASE ATTRACTED ATTENTION?

The case has prompted talk of it being politically motivated as Mr Enembe is a member of the opposition Democrat Party. 

But Mr Mahfud had denied such an allegation. 

“Lukas Enembe’s case is not a political fabrication. It has nothing to do with political parties or certain officials, but is based on what has been discovered and a legal fact,” he said at the press conference on Sep 19.

Mr Enembe is currently serving his second term as governor, which will end next year. 

He was first appointed to the five-year role in 2013 during the tenure of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who is the founder of the Democrat Party. 

The case is particularly shocking since it highlighted the lavish lifestyle of the governor, while resource-rich Papua was widely known as Indonesia’s poorest province. 

As of March, 26.5 per cent of its population are poor, according to data from the statistics agency released in July.

Papua became part of Indonesia in 1969 after a United Nations-backed referendum which some considered a sham. 

Ever since then, Papua has experienced low-level insurgencies waged by those who want the region to be independent. 

The insurgencies often claim the lives of locals and security personnel. 

The Indonesian government granted Papua special autonomy in 2001, enabling Papua to regulate and manage the interests of the local communities according to their aspirations. 

With the special status, Papua is eligible for a special budget.

Recently, the government divided Papua province into four autonomous provinces, namely Papua, Central Papua, South Papua and Highland Papua, for equitable development and distribution of public services.

Mr Mahfud stated on Sep 23 that 1,000 trillion rupiah has gone to Papua since 2001, with half of the sum disbursed during Mr Enembe’s leadership.

“More than 500 trillion rupiah were disbursed during Lukas Enembe’s tenure but nothing has happened.

“The people remain poor and the officials continue with their lavish lifestyle,” he said.

SINGAPORE: In recent weeks, the planet has been lashed by a series of typhoons and hurricanes.

Since the end of August, the Atlantic Ocean has seen hurricanes Danielle, Earl and Fiona, with Hurricane Ian now bearing down on Florida.

At the same time, countries along the Pacific Ocean were battered by typhoons Hinnamnor, Muifa and Nanmadol before Noru made landfall.

But what is the difference between a typhoon and a hurricane? How do they get their names? And could climate change put Singapore in the path of one of these weather events?

Here is what you need to know:

TYPHOON OR HURRICANE – WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

According to the National Ocean Service of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), typhoons and hurricanes are the same thing – tropical cyclones.

“A tropical cyclone is a generic term used by meteorologists to describe a rotating, organised system of clouds and thunderstorms that originates over tropical or subtropical waters and has closed, low-level circulation,” NOAA said on its website.

The only difference between them is where they occur.

“In the North Atlantic, central North Pacific and eastern North Pacific, the term hurricane is used. The same type of disturbance in the Northwest Pacific is called a typhoon,” NOAA said.

“Meanwhile, in the South Pacific and Indian Ocean, the generic term tropical cyclone is used, regardless of the strength of the wind associated with the weather system.”

When asked if Pyongyang’s latest move will push Seoul to seek its own nuclear deterrent, both Dr Nah and Mr Oh said it was unlikely.

Dr Nah observed that the South was a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and stood to “retain the global moral high ground” by refusing to initiate a “tit-for-tat” nuclear arms programme.

“Seoul will not jeopardise US support by seeking an independent nuclear deterrent”, he added. 

Mr Oh added that it would be possible only if the “current stalemate continues for too long a time without a breakthrough”.

COULD NORTH KOREA OVERREACH ITS LAW AND LAUNCH A STRIKE?

North Korea’s law legitimises its use of nuclear weapons as a form of self-defence and a “last means” to deal with external attack and aggression. 

It is the “main force of the state defence which safeguards the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country and the lives and safety of the people from outside military threat, aggression and attack”. 

It elaborates that its use of nuclear forces will make clear to hostile opponents that “military confrontation with (North Korea) brings about ruin” so that enemies would give up attempts at aggression. 

Dr Nah, noted however, that the North’s law is not definitive.

He pointed out that while Kim re-affirmed its commitment to denuclearisation during the first Trump-Kim summit held in Singapore in 2018, the new law essentially rendered all promises “null and void”. 

In the event that the “command and control system over the state nuclear forces” – referring to Kim and the members he appoints to govern the nuclear forces – are in danger from a hostile force, a nuclear strike can be “launched automatically and immediately to destroy the hostile forces including the starting point of provocation and the command according to the operation plan decided in advance”.

However Pyongyang maintains that it will not threaten non-nuclear weapons states or use nuclear power against them, unless these states collude with aggressors carrying nuclear weapons. 

“Essentially, nothing that the Kim regime says can be trusted. The only things that matter are what Pyongyang does, not what it says,” Dr Nah added.

Mr Oh said that when it comes to the possibility of a real nuclear strike, he thinks North Korea’s new law is “more of a bluff than a well-prepared military plan”.

But he added that North Korea might go for military provocations against South Korea or the US more easily, assuming that the new law has given the North “greater leeway in an escalation of tension, which could lead to a dangerous development”.