that does not exist at all. but there are allegations from amnesty international that their fighters may now be in retreat. but their war is far from over. clive myrie, bbc news, nigeria. let's have a quick look at some of the front pages. the express reports on a study suggesting high doses of vitamin c could help beat cancer. the ft says a computer system used by hm revenue and customs may not be able to handle the surge in workload once britain leaves the eu. the mail says middle class users of care homes are being forced to pay more to subisidise poorer residents who have failed to save for their retirement.
the i proclaims it's victory for parents, after sats tests for seven—year—olds were scrapped. the telegraph pictures scotland's first minister, nicola sturgeon, signing a letter requesting the right to hold a second independence referendum. the times claims the armed forces face a £10 billion funding shortfall, amid escalating costs for new ships and jets. while the mirror says new plans for the nhs to deliver more for patients will happen without any extra funding. the sun reports the findings of its own investigation, saying police across the uk solve just one in ten burglaries. the paper puts the figure down to cuts to frontline officers. that's a summary of the news. now on bbc news, it's time for newsnight. we're getting our independence from the eu, which means the eu gets its independence from us. and what are they up to?
hello. it's going to be a two—year marathon, not a two—week sprint, so it's hard to know how much weight we should be putting on the reactions of other european leaders on day two to theresa may's letter triggering article 50. but reactions are a—coming. just words, that's all there is. they can change, but the words imply that the eu wants to stick to its procedures with polite but firm resolve. dominating european politics at the moment is the centre right group of european political parties. it's called the european people's party, and it's enjoying a two—day conference in malta. the german chancellor angela merkel is there, as is the european commission president, jean claude juncker, and brexit of course, among the topics being talked about. i wish to say here that brexit is of everything. i wish to say here that brexit isn't
the end of everything. we must consider it to be a new beginning, something that is stronger, something that is better. jean—claude juncker‘s view there. so much for the set—piece statements. perhaps it is better to step away from the platform speeches, and to focus on more specific areas and at more length. to that end, let's go to berlin, because our diplomatic editor mark urban is there, and he has been speaking to the german defence minister. i know you have been speaking about a number of different things, but in particular, just the issue of the german attitudes towards the article 50 talks. what have you been hearing? well, the fascinating thing, being here at this particular time is watching german politicians processing the way that the departure of the uk, which they hoped wouldn't happen, is going to change the geometry, the balance of power, on all sorts of issues within the eu.
they will end up almost certainly paying more into the budget. they don't like the idea that it will even out differences in wealth with them being net contributors. they can see some positives and on the issue of european defence policy, there could be one because obviously the british were standing in the way of that in many areas. but what a moment to sit down with the possible successor to chancellor merkel. she is the defence minister and we started talking about the issues of the moment and what she made of britain's attempt, apparently, to use security as a bargaining chip. i do not expect that we're going to bargain with security topics because it is in our mutual interests to exchange information and necessary. it is vital for the two of us. it is about trade and the common market and those are
the important things. what is your view about the sequence of this? can there be no real discussion about the wider relationship until it has been settled that the uk will make a contribution on the budget? well, i have a different approach because at the beginning we said there would be no negotiations before article 50 has been pulled. this happened yesterday. then the experts will go into negotiations and one thing is clear, the new contract, the new deal will only be signed once everything has been negotiated. you cannot take bits and pieces apart and close them and go further on other topics. so the whole deal will be visible at the very end, but there is nothing, i think, that we should not speak of openly
and addressed directly. how important is it, in that context, that the uk pay its bill? people have talked about up to 60 billion euros in contributions up to 2020. of course, as long as the uk is a member of the european union, you have to meet the contracts, but what that is, at the very end and at the beginning, day one or two after the letter has been brought to brussels, i think we should look at it calmly, and really sort out what is with the membership that has to be paid for, and what is in the negotiation pot which is another topic. you and your british counterparts working on a new defence joint vision, what can we expect from that? michael fallon and me, and we want to improve and strengthen the british german military cooperation. that is why we are working
on a joint vision, a bilateral thing for the future, how we can improve cooperation with the armed forces here, the maritime forces for example. exchanging officers, going into training, having common capability developments, things like that. how important is it to get big european dimension of defence right at this particular time? is the american guarantee is becoming less credible for want of a better word? there were a lot of worries on the european side when we heard contradictory tones from the white house. saying that it was obsolete, that nato was great. it was not easy at the beginning. what it triggered was two things. first of all, the question,
can we rely on nato, and today i say, firmly two more firmly than ever, this weekend. 0n the other hand, the contradictory statements from the white house may give the impression to the europeans that we have to get our own act together. crudely, and be blunt, does the uk going make it easier for you to get your act together at the eu level? because britain was blocking a lot of this. it is true that our british friends were not enthusiastic about the european security and defence union. once again, i think it is a pity that the uk is leaving. but it is a fact. and what pushed the european idea forward was more what we heard from the white house after the american election. there have been a lot of reports about the meeting the chancellor merkel had. is it true that president trump give her a bill for the american
defence of germany? it is not true. but we have all seen the tweet. that presumably germany owes nato vast sums of money. but we all know that nato does not have that account. but you think you can get to the 2% of gdp that it? absolutely. because smaller countries, the baltic states for example, work hard on reaching this 2% goal, two, and nobody would understand that better than a country like germany, who is determined to have a certain relevance in economic terms, and will not shy away from taking over the amount of responsibility that is necessary in security matters. the 2% goal, it is also a symbol for the resolve to take a fair share
of the burden. and we need it. lastly, i wanted to ask you about chancellor merkel. you are one of the very few ministers who has been there right since the beginning with her. shoulder to shoulder. did you think, for example, during the refugee crisis, i do not think she is going to make it, this is too big? during the refugee crisis, i never doubted that she would make it, because as you said, i was working very closely with her. the problem was that within a few weeks we had to give a very complex answer on how to end this influx of refugees, and when you start to give them an answer that begins in syria and iraq and goes through turkey, to germany and the local communities, and people go, please,
give us a quick answer but don't tell us this long story. well, it is different now after two years, so the long story now has been learned, and understood, and therefore the confidence and trust is again, that the chancellor is leading us safely through those very difficult times. thank you very much, minister. mark urban talking to ursula von der leyen, the german defence minister. meanwhile, we got more detail on the gargantuan task of turning eu law into uk law today. there are thousands of pieces of european legislation, the idea is that one new act of parliament transposes them all in one go. the great repeal bill, as it is referred to now, and it cuts through the impossible task of taking the laws and examining them one by one.
it's not simple, though. some of the laws need cleaning up, so the government wants ministers to have the power to re—write bits of them. these are called henry viii powers as the egoistical king gave himself exactly that law—making authority. everybody recognises that some delegated authority will be needed for the tinkering to all these laws, but you can't give completely free reign to ministers. 0ur political editor nick watt is with me. what do you take from today? over the last 48 hours we have seen the fruits of some careful planning meant to tell the public that we are leading the european union and that the government has a credible plan to do it. yesterday, as you were saying, essentially what david davis was saying is that the uk will land in a legal safe zone on the day after we leave. but interestingly, there is a debate going on in the conservative party on that point. you were mentioning
the incorporation of all that eu law into uk law. some of the old guard of tory eurosceptics are saying, you know what we want to do with that legislation, we want to get rid of it because brexit has liberated the uk to be a more liberal economy, but some of the younger guard, in the highly influential european research group, the influential group of brexiteers, they are saying hold your horses, one step at a time, let's just focus on brexit, and what we might want to repeal, let's think about after the next election. so what that means is that there is going to be quite a debate on what you should have in the conservative manifesto for the next election. so look, here is what i have picked up today. it has been dubbed a briton‘s greatest peacetime challenge. today the government of the first steps to ensure that the uk leads you on a sound legal footing, although the grand title was slightly downgraded. first up, the scrapping of the legislation that took us
into the eec in the first place. once that has been struck down, the government will incorporate the entire body of eu law into uk law. and then we will see the return of england's favourite rotund monarch. as various eu regulations are tweaked around 1000 times. this will be done through a fast—track route with light parliamentary scrutiny, known as the henry viii clauses. and then we will see the return of england's favourite rotund monarch. various eu regulations will be tweaked around 1000 times and this will be done through a fast—track route with light parliamentary scrutiny known as the henry viii clauses. for veteran eurosceptics, this is a moment of liberation. can i thank my right honourable
friend for making it clear that two years from today, our sovereign parliament will indeed have the power to amend, repeal or improve all of this ghastly eu legislation. them but as for other rights, number 10 says, let us focus on brexit and leave that debate until the next election. it is fundamentally important we have robust workers‘ rights, we have to protect workers and we also heard ministers say that where we can we want to build on that and make progress, we have often been at the forefront of that work in the eu and in my constituency i work very closely with the unions and i want to see a constructive debate in this country about all of these different policy areas and come up with a set of policies, we must get this right.
in the heart of government there are far greater nerves about the next step, the looming parliamentary battles over what is known as a great repeal bill. some ministers are warning theresa may and she may be forced to hold a snap general election next year if either of the commons, the house of lords or the scottish parliament succeeds in delaying or even scuppering that bill. in both the house of commons and house of lords there is a huge amount of originally and argy—bargy, everything they have done at every turn, notjust this bill but way they had to be brought kicking and screaming to accept that parliament has a role, even if it is an excessively limited role, in determining the final deal and they have done the exact reverse to what they told the country they would do. the scottish parliament could hold up the process by refusing to give
consent to the changes if a majority of msps decide they are unhappy with the extensive eu powers handed over to edinburgh. if westminster attempts to use the great repeal bill as a power grab to take away from hollywood powers that are already devolved, grab to take away from hollyrood powers that are already devolved, we will have a constitutional crisis and there is no way the constitutional scottish parliament would give consent to having powers taken away from it. as he drafts the historic legislation, david davis is making clear he will abide by the convention that gives the devolved bodies say but the brexit secretary will issue a blunt warning to holyrood — if you stand on the way you may make scotland and possibly the uk ungovernable. nick watt. and that got stuck in the middle. and nick watt was not nick clegg!
sorry about that! well, should the remainers try to block the great reform bill, in an effort to obstruct brexit? or is it time to accept the referendum result and move on? within the remainer community, there is something of a divide on that. last night on this programme, you might have seen lord heseltine, who is not giving up the fight. tim farron says there'll be a "legislative war". but there are those with their views of brexit, who believe that is not the way to go. let's both sides of that argument now. joining me is labour mp chris leslie, who's a supporter of open britain, the group that came out of the britain stronger in europe campaign. their former deputy director was lucy thomas, who also joins us. she is now working at pr firm edelman, advising businesses on how to get the best out of brexit. good evening.
lucy, you are running the campaign at the top of the campaign, where are you on what we should be doing about brexit? firstly, i'm still emotional about it, even the sight of theresa may with that letter did make me cry, frankly. i am still emotional and disappointed. however, i think the question is, what we do it that is constructive? for me, that is about being constructive, coming up with solutions to the problem and working together to find the right deal and that means businesses, thinking about what they would like out of a final negotiation, for example, how would they replace the current free movement rules and what they want from a trade deal? and legislative war, trying to block by parliamentary tactics, the so—called great repeal bill, that is not the way to about this? the leave campaign wanted to take back control for parliament and they wanted more sovereignty so i think parliament has a huge role in scrutinising the process and making sure it is as good
as possible, but where i do not agree with some people on the tenth one side, people like lily allen, she tweeted this week saying every bill in this country and every missed opportunity and everyjob lost, but is down to brexit and this name—calling. .. chris, do you think the lib dems or remainers should use the great repeal bill as a way of holding the government, obstructing brexit? i do not think we can obstruct the outcome of the referendum but there are so many consequences that flow from britain's exit and divorce from eu that we have a responsibility to not just hold the government to account but hold the leave campaign to account for those massive promises they made and it is not just a vote at the end in 2019... what is your objective? when we find we will not get £350
million every week to the nhs, apart from pointing out that is not an exact representation of what the situation was, what do you hope to do when you say you want to expose and hold them to the things they said in the campaign? for those of us who take a world view about brexit rather than this having the moon on a stick, that view, we have to walk through with the public and the business community and the wider economy, the consequences of making this major decision, it might be that over time there is space for people to change their opinion about these things. we're talking about not just two years but possibly multiple years... what are you trying to achieve? to reverse it or change it or watch? 0rjust get in the way? i am on the centre—left, i want to fight.
i might watch? five years of alliance building and reaching out to our neighbours to defence trade and living standards. it is talking about a special and steep partnership. unfortunately, because we had from the leave campaign, they will be unable to fulfil that cost free divorce, making major savings, preserving the union, no problems in northern ireland, scotland will be integrated with the uk, migration levels will fall and be here right now they will not even promised that. we have to hold them to account when they have been breaking promises and secondly, show people that there is actually a need for integration across europe and those are the close partners. is that a coherent approach, lucy? ultimately, it comes down to what your tactics are and your objective at the end of it. the objective is key.
what was interesting in the letter yesterday was there were quite a few significant climb—downs, the ecj, there could bejurisdiction, we will end up paying up to £50 billion but we will see what the final figure is. 0n free movement, it will not perhaps be as hard as we have been told so for me, we have to wait and see more. i don't thinkjumping on every piece of rhetoric is the answer, theresa may had to be very hard line but when it comes to the letters and the details, she will be pragmatic. i don't think we should give up on the single market altogether, there is potential to reform the single market, with a different government we could have reformed that migration colour. today, we heard from david davis. in legal terms, we are still in the european economic area, which is the single market. parliament has not voted to leave. we might have a vote on that. we might need to still be
in the single market during the transitional period and i will fight to preserve those benefits of membership and am disappointed with people who have given up on that. you want to stay in the single market. will you have a legislative war to kind of get in the way of theresa may's version? or will you be constructive? there is a moderate majority in the house of commons that believes in a pragmatic approach to european alliances and there might be a sizeable number of quite hard brexiteers to the right of theresa may but actually the rest of us should set that and in all of those foods we have in the house of commons, we can provide a space for a sensible approach from the prime minister and she has to make compromises to preserve the alliances, that is do
what we can to preserve them. thank you both very much. we'll take a short break now, for viewsnight. unrelated to brexit. tonight, myriam francois looks at religion, dress codes and tolerance. imposing neutral clothing is just discrimination in disguise. if i come to work wearing a headscarf or a face veil or a cross or a hoodie or dress head to toe in tweed and a flat cap, what am i saying? 0ur clothing speaks to our background, our class and our ideals and i would argue that all of those are political. a recent european court ofjustice ruling upheld that workplaces with a so—called neutrality policy were within their right to ban items they thought weren't neutral, such as a cross or a head scarf. for some, enforcing political and religious neutrality is key to a harmonious working environment.
but for others, it's just discrimination dressed up in fancy language. so what is neutral? neutrality is what is normal for the majority of people. in white, secular europe, neutrality reflects the norms of white, secular people. if we think of religiosity as a spectrum from areligious to religious, no single position on that spectrum is any more neutral than any other. dressing in a way that is areligious is just as political orjust as neutral as dressing with religious markers. either way, you are saying something with your appearance. that is the very basis of advertising. are slogan t—shirts, which are all the rage, a political statement? what about dreadlocks or wearing a red or blue tie? what about wearing your afro
hair natural or choosing rainbow coloured accessories? neutrality is a myth. it crystallises a vision of what is normal and is used to erase the differences that bother us. banning the headscarf at work, which — let's face it — is what most conversations about neutrality in europe are all about, cannot be separated from broader discussions about muslims as a problem community. neutrality is being used to marginalise identities that don't fit the myth of secular progress and that is just discrimination in disguise. myriam francois. we've looked at the great repeal bill, and its henry viii clauses, but that is not the only constitutional challenge facing us. there is a potential second scottish independence referendum. nicola sturgeon wants to keep a scottish link to the eu. and therein lies a second tudor analogy. in the 1540s — after england had broken with rome —
the scottish court was divided between those who wanted to follow england and those loyal to the ‘auld alliance‘ with the french. so henry viii sent an army up to edinburgh to ‘woo' the scots over to the english cause. allan little's been taking a look at the war of the rough wooing, and what that means today. history seeps from every soot black rock of this old capital. when england broke with rome in the 1530s, the brexit of the tudor age, henry viii sent an invading army to edinburgh to try to keep scotland on his side, rather than europe's. the english army landed down there at the port of leith and advanced up this road in vast numbers, laying waste to the neighbouring borough of canongate. and when they breached the city walls, they destroyed much and the point was control. they wanted to wrest power away from those factions in scottish society that favoured alliances with the french and hand it to those who wanted to draw scotland into the english fold. that anglo—scottish war came to be known as the rough wooing. scotland is, once again, torn between factions.
some, pro—british. 0thers, pro—european. the wooing of the scots has changed a bit since the 16th century, though. england pours all manner of resources into it when they arrive with a huge fleet and then sends thousands of men up to attack edinburgh. they turn up with artillery weapons, then you have a situation where parts of the town are actually set on fire. there is huge damage done to the canongate. you have damage done to holyrood palace and holyrood abbey. so it is attacking a lot of the heart of the kingdom of scotland. theresa may's approach to wooing the scots needs to be a bit more solicitous than that. but the aim is, in essence, the same. to keep scotland on board, to make sure that pro—union sentiment prevails over pro—european. so, in the mid—16th century, you have scotland divided in its loyalties between alliance with england and a european destination. absolutely.
and i think in both cases you have scots not necessarily being totally comfortable with either outcome. edinburgh's architecture celebrates the age when commitment to the union was unassailable. england and scotland joined in the great enterprise of britishness, and often a britishness that stood against the perceived menace of continental europe. there have been tensions before between these two identities in scotland. the country's sense of its britishness and its european—ness. until recently, it could quite happily be both. but not any more. a second referendum will bring that tension to the fore and confront scotland with a simple choice. which would you rather be — british or european? the port of leith, where that english army landed, was once scotland's great gateway to trade with europe. before the union, when scotland turned west to the wide open seas
in the british empire. w a??? many see that as a chance to forge a new place in the world as an independent state. it seems as if england is on a self—destruct path and because it is the largest part of the uk population, it is determined to bring everyone with it. we talked a lot in the first referendum about scotland having a distinctive political culture and an awful lot of people didn't see that. the second they saw that 62%, they saw it. but only 45% voted for independence in 2014 and about a third of them also voted to leave the eu. there are dangers from nicola sturgeon in tying the case for independence too closely to the case for europe. of course, there are people within scotland and within the independence
movement who don't like the idea of europe one iota. there has to be more drive and focus and progressive thinking and unity from europe. denmark, finland, scotland, sweden — a row of little, independent northern states, determined to break up that hegemony of france and germany. and rewrite the character of europe. but how entrenched is scotland's european identity? the age demographics don't look good for the union. polls show the young tend to favour independence as well as staying in europe. at leith academy, 36 languages are spoken. tomorrow's voters have multiple, overlapping, sometimes conflicting loyalties. i would probably go for european because i grew up with a lot of european culture in my house. ijust feel like i am more european than i would say i am british. harry, if it came to a choice between being european or being british, what is it for you? british. i don't classify myself as european. do you see a tension between the values that britain represents and the values that
scotland represents? yeah. because i always feel like there has been a big tension between scotland and england and i would identify myself more with scottish if it came to values. i think we have completely different values. to be british represents being an imperialistic, capitalist, unfair society where people don't matter. whereas in scotland, we are more equal and we are inclusive and we care about trying to help each other and trying to make everyone better, notjust the people at the top. i am british and i think i have hit into the culture down in england as well as in scotland. but if brexit makes scots inclined more to a european world view, it also changes the independence proposition. it adds an important new obstacle. outside the single market, and if the uk is outside
the customs union, you are talking about some form of border control and some substantial restriction on trade between scotland and england. and since england is by far scotland's biggest market, the economic effects of that are very real. not to mention, even, potentially the effects on the movement of people. he needs no wooing from london, rough or otherwise. like scotland itself, he voted to stay in both unions. but he is clear about which matters more. what it does do for the proponents of independence is give them a new emotional case. the english are different from us, they say. well, i rather suspect that in the long run, the english are really much more like us than we are like the rest of europe. henry viii's english army made it this far,
to the gates of edinburgh castle. but the castle held out and scotland stayed, for now, in the french embrace. the english went home to work out why burning down the capital city didn't win them the friendship of the scots. that phrase, "rough wooing", comes from a comment attributed to the fourth earl of huntley, who said of the english... "we did not like the manner of their wooing and could not stoop to be bullied into love". that theme runs through scottish history like a thread through cloth, unbroken. the union has been at its strongest when scotland has felt concrete reason to love the shared enterprise of britishness, whatever it is at the time. it has been at its weakness when england, through sheer superiority of numbers, has felt entitled to impose on scotland something scotland has rejected. --2 iii: ’i:‘ifj 2 2:1: if a especially at the ballot box. we are in a new wooing season. the manner of that wooing
could determine whether their union survives. among trump—haters, ivanka trump has sometimes caused a kind of cognitive dissonance. she championed childcare as an issue. she comes across as a strong woman in the team, she was appropriately disapproving of herfather‘s remarks on that coach about grabbing women. and she seems to have struck up a friendship withjustin trudeau — they went to the theatre together. well, what to make of the fact that ivanka now has a formal role as an assistant to the president? she did have that role informally, but the arrangement was criticised,
it was seen as too powerful a position not to be properly governed by the rules of employees. but still some will say ivanka's role is nepotism in action. others might say it is inevitable that presidents will use family as trusted advisors. let's talk to doug wead, who was a special assistant to president george bush snr and has written extensively on presidents and their families. very good evening to you. how often have presidents given a proper role, formal or informal, to close members of family? all through american history. i counted about 18 or 19, depending on how you define them, and daughters who have had very powerful roles in their father's white house. and you were there when george bush snr employed his son in the white house. he was not in the white house, he was in the campaign but we talked about that a lot and that was why i began my study of presidential children. he came into the middle of his father's campaign and what i learned is that even the white house,
if you make a decision and you are wrong, you get fired. if you make a decision and you are right, you make everybody mad and you do not get credit for it anyway, the credit goes up, so no one makes decisions. the governments are present in this case the campaign suffered. when george w bush came into the campaign on march of 1987, he made decisions, and it transformed the campaign. and i wondered, how will his father be president of the united states without his son in the white house with him? and i believe that if he had gone in the white house with him, george hw bush would have been re—elected and george w bush would not have become president. history would have been very different. there is something a bit nepotistic in there, that corrupt. i picked congo at random.
appointing sons or daughters, it is not what you think of advanced western societies doing as a way of running themselves, is it? they have been doing it from the beginning. george adams was the secretary to his father and martin van buren appointed his son as secretary. all the way through history. anna roosevelt ran the white house in fdr's last year of power. it's inevitable, because they need loyalty. that is the most important, loyalty in the white house. and they need honesty. and they need someone who will make decisions. and they cannot be fired, the son or daughter. what do you think of ivanka trump? i wrote a book called game of thorns and predicted that he would call on her and she would become powerful in this white house. i have been an adviser in this
white house and i see this young lady as capable and talented. it is not about balancing the politics, it is about the need for loyalty and competence and continuity. she cannot be fired as daughter. she can be fired in that position but she will come back to the dinner table, so if you give information, she becomes part of the plan and there is continuity. that will last and a lot of these leaders are around trump will be gone in a few years, but ivanka trump will stay. thank you very much. from tomorrow visitors to the naval college in greenwich will get a rare opportunity to get a close up view of the ceiling of its famous ‘painted hall‘ — the lavish centre piece at the heart christopher wren‘s building.
it‘s been described as the uk‘s sistine chapel and over the next two years, conservators will be restoring the work — all 40,000 square feet of it. we leave you tonight with the college‘s conservation director william palin — on why the ceiling is so important. goodnight. we‘re standing beneath this extraordinary painted ceiling, the greatest work of english baroque art. this is the largest painted ceiling in northern europe. it is a masterpiece. i think it‘s very hard to find anything to compare this amazing space. i suppose ‘the sistine chapel of britain‘ conveys something of the scale and magnificence of this interior. and the idea was always that this room would dazzle and amaze and overwhelm, so visitors would arrive here, look up, see this amazing ceiling and then think, "hmm, i‘ll leave some money
for the foundation to help greenwich hospital charity." this was britain‘s response to european culture, saying, "we can do this as well, if not better than the french and italians." we have a baroque decorative scheme celebrating the protestant monarchy and we have a building of unparalleled magnificence. it was the warmest day of the month of us. temperatures reaching 22 degrees. further west, rain on and off through the day. wet weather is still with us. 16 degrees tomorrow, a weather front will push north and east. little if any rain in
south—east england. the wettest weather going towards scotland. windy in the north. clearing elsewhere in england and wales. afternoon sunshine. brightening up in northern ireland. highs of 17 degrees. not as warm as today. friday night. low pressure bringing showers in northern ireland, especially in england and wales. another mild night. 8— 10 degrees for many of us. the weekend. two halves. saturday brings slow—moving heavy showers. chilly overnight. fine on sunday. and that is your weather. i‘m rico hizon in singapore. 0ur
i‘m rico hizon in singapore. our top stories: the former president of south korea is behind bars, arrested over a corruption scandal that cost herjob. malaysia releases of the body of kim jong—nam, the herjob. malaysia releases of the body of kimjong—nam, the murdered half brother of the north korean leader, under a deal reached with pyongyang. russia tried to hijack the us election through propaganda on steroids, says a democratic senator in investigating alleged kremlin political meddling. russia's president vladimir putin boarded a deliberate campaign carefully construct it to undermine our election. and...