FROM almost nowhere, a dark horse candidate sweeps past his fancied political rivals to surge towards the coveted national leadership.

A key aspect of his winning chances, and his rivals’ declining hopes, is his opponents’ inability to understand his strengths – which is their continuing weakness.

FROM October 2011, senior US officials launched a “pivot” to the East Asia and Pacific maritime region.

Whenever Myanmar lurches towards a promise of change, the realities suggest otherwise – and the latest flurry of seeming change seems hardly any different.

At least as important as the disputes over East Asian waters are the blossoming relations and plans on mainland Europe and Asia.

Despite their many differences, China and the US are also very much alike – and it’s no help to all other countries.

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign had always been expected to crash, but these pundits continue to be stumped and such predictions have proven wrong before.

It is tempting to consider what Asean would be like in another 50 years, even though some may still not understand it in its first 50.

Critics of the Iran nuclear deal cite many reasons against it, but they forget it is more than just about Iran or nuclear issues.

Instead of choosing win-win opportunities, some countries are still opting for lose-lose situations against international terrorist threats.

AS another year comes to a close and the next one begins, official bean counters will again be aggregating the policy gains alongside the losses.

No effort against terrorism can work when it refuses to understand the root causes, especially when it actually encourages more widespread and endless violence.