faces

April 26 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s race for dominance in high-bandwidth memory, a key component for artificial intelligence chips, is diverging as SK hynix consolidates its lead while Samsung Electronics faces mounting labor tensions.

Industry analysts say the competition is increasingly defined not just by technology, but by timing – with early execution and customer alignment proving decisive in securing long-term market share.

SK hynix recently received a corporate innovation award from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, recognizing its leadership in developing and mass-producing successive generations of HBM chips. The company has capitalized on surging demand driven by AI computing, strengthening partnerships with major global clients.

SK hynix is rapidly expanding sales of its HBM3E products while simultaneously preparing for next-generation HBM4, supplying samples to key customers and advancing toward mass production. Analysts say early validation and supply relationships formed at this stage are likely to shape long-term market positioning.

In contrast, Samsung is attempting to close the gap through its own HBM4 development but faces internal challenges. Labor disputes over performance-based bonuses have escalated, with unions warning of a general strike. Industry observers say the tensions could affect not only production but also research, development and customer engagement.

HBM products require close collaboration with customers on customized designs and process validation, making speed of initial response a critical factor. Delays in testing or supply can lead to lost contracts, while early entry into supply chains often results in long-term partnerships.

Analysts warn that Samsung’s internal disruptions could weaken its ability to respond during what they describe as a “golden time” in the rapidly expanding AI semiconductor market. If supply stability and development pace falter, customers may shift toward multi-vendor strategies, potentially solidifying SK hynix’s advantage.

Experts also point to structural issues behind repeated labor disputes, including disagreements over performance-based compensation. They suggest moving beyond short-term negotiations toward a more transparent system based on objective metrics such as return on invested capital, total shareholder return and economic value added.

Such reforms, they say, could help prevent prolonged conflicts and support the company’s competitiveness in a fast-moving global market.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260427010008233

WASHINGTON — The Southern Poverty Law Center says it’s the subject of a criminal investigation by the Justice Department and faces possible charges over its past use of paid informants to infiltrate extremist groups.

The civil rights group made the announcement on Tuesday, saying President Trump’s administration appears to be preparing legal action against it or some of its employees.

“Although we don’t know all the details, the focus appears to be on the SPLC’s prior use of paid confidential informants to gather credible intelligence on extremely violent groups,” CEO Bryan Fair said in a statement.

The Justice Department had no immediate comment.

The SPLC previously paid informants to infiltrate extremist groups and gather information on their activities, often sharing it with local and federal law enforcement, Fair said. It was used to monitor threats of violence, he said, adding that the program was kept quiet to protect the safety of informants.

“When we began working with informants, we were living in the shadow of the height of the Civil Rights Movement, which had seen bombings at churches, state-sponsored violence against demonstrators, and the murders of activists that went unanswered by the justice system,” Fair said. “There is no question that what we learned from informants saved lives.”

He said the organization “will vigorously defend ourselves, our staff, and our work.”

The SPLC, which is based in Montgomery, Alabama, was founded in 1971 and used civil litigation to fight white supremacist groups. The nonprofit has become a popular target among Republicans who see it as overly leftist and partisan.

The investigation could add to concerns that Trump’s Republican administration is using the Justice Department to go after conservative opponents and his critics. It follows a number of other investigations into Trump foes that have raised questions about whether the law enforcement agency has been turned into a political weapon.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has faced intense criticism from conservatives, who have accused it of unfairly maligning right-wing organizations as extremist groups because of their viewpoints. The SPLC regularly condemns Trump’s rhetoric and policies around voting rights, immigration and other issues.

The SPLC came under fresh scrutiny after the assassination last year of conservative activist Charlie Kirk brought renewed attention to its characterization of the group that Kirk founded and led. The SPLC included a section on that group, Turning Point USA, in a report titled “The Year in Hate and Extremism 2024” that described the group as “A Case Study of the Hard Right in 2024.”

FBI Director Kash Patel said last year that the agency was severing its relationship with the SPLC, which had long provided law enforcement with research on hate crime and domestic extremism. Patel said the SPLC had been turned into a “partisan smear machine,” and he accused it of defaming “mainstream Americans” with its “hate map” that documents alleged anti-government and hate groups inside the United States.

House Republicans hosted a hearing centered on the SPLC in December, saying it coordinated efforts with President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration “to target Christian and conservative Americans and deprive them of their constitutional rights to free speech and free association.”

Binkley and Richer write for the Associated Press.

Amid the bustle and glitz of last week’s CinemaCon in Las Vegas, one question loomed over the annual trade convention — how will the proposed Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery deal affect the movie theater business?

That anxiety showed up in a state of the industry speech from Cinema United trade group President Michael O’Leary, who reiterated his organization’s opposition to further industry consolidation.

It showed up in a trailer for Amazon MGM Studios’ upcoming film “Spaceballs: The New One,” when a voiceover poked fun at Hollywood studios “merging willy-nilly” as images of the Paramount sign and Warner Bros. water tower flashed across the screen.

And the subject again took center stage — literally — when Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison himself gave a speech during his studio’s presentation at Caesars Palace. He sought to reassure the assembled movie theater operators and exhibition executives that the combined company would indeed release a minimum of 30 films a year.

“I wanted to look every single one of you in the eye and give you my word,” he said during an onstage speech, in which he also committed to a 45-day theatrical window and 90-day period before films go to streaming services. “People can speculate all they want, but I am standing here today telling you personally that you can count on our complete commitment. And we’ll show you we mean it.”

It’s true that Paramount has nearly doubled its theatrical releases since Ellison took over. As he noted in his speech, the storied studio is now planning 15 films this year, up from eight in 2025.

But as I’ve written previously, theater owners and other studio executives question how releasing 30 movies a year across the combined Paramount-Warner Bros. would work — not only in terms of giving each film the proper marketing campaign to succeed in theaters but also because of the massive cost cuts that will inevitably occur once the merger is final.

Still, Ellison’s commitment to 30 films a year got a round of enthusiastic applause — and at least one high-profile boost.

A day earlier, AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. Chief Executive Adam Aron told me in an interview that he backed Ellison’s takeover of Warner, saying he and AMC believed in the tech scion’s talent as a filmmaker and a movie executive, as well as his pledge to release those 30 films a year.

“We’re enthusiastic that David will fulfill his promises,” Aron said. “And that in the end, this will prove to be a good thing for our company and our industry.”

Not everyone shares that enthusiasm.

More than 4,000 people have now signed an open letter opposing the Paramount-Warner deal, arguing that consolidating two studios will lessen consumer choice and job opportunities for creatives, particularly at a time when Hollywood is already struggling. (Notable signatories include “Dune” director Denis Villeneuve, actors Glenn Close and Emma Thompson, as well as director and producer JJ Abrams.)

O’Leary of Cinema United similarly wasn’t convinced.

“While recent pledges attempt to address the threats of consolidation to our industry, they are not yet sufficient in addressing our concerns,” he said in a statement released hours after Ellison’s speech. “We remain open to tangible commitments that will ensure a vibrant global theatrical exhibition industry for years to come.”

Elsewhere at CinemaCon, the mood was upbeat.

Warner Bros. film chiefs Mike De Luca and Pam Abdy struck a triumphant tone after an award-winning year for the studio, capped off by the best picture win for “One Battle After Another.”

They unveiled footage from new films like the upcoming “Digger” from director Alejandro G. Iñárritu and brought out lead actor Tom Cruise to a sustained standing ovation from the audience. And both De Luca and Abdy espoused optimism for the future of the theatrical business. The studio plans to release 14 films this year and as many as 18 for 2027.

“The film business has always required smart betting, and we have 4 billion reasons from last year to think we’re holding the right cards,” De Luca said during the presentation, referring to the studio’s worldwide box office revenue last year.

“We all know they’re not all going to work. That comes with taking swings,” Abdy said of the studios’ films. “There’s no version of this business that’s risk-free. But our job is to step up, make our bets and own it when it doesn’t work.”

But the end of the presentation felt more somber, with the executives asking the heads of Warner Bros.’ labels to come to the stage and be recognized. Shortly after, they asked Warner Bros. employees in the audience to stand for applause. It was hard to escape the feeling that this may be the end of an era.

Stuff We Wrote

Film shoots

Number of the week

1,000

Last week, Walt Disney Co. began a sweeping round of layoffs that’s expected to cull 1,000 jobs across multiple divisions.

As my colleague Meg James reported, the cuts hit Disney’s television and movie studios, sports giant ESPN, its product and technology unit, corporate functions and marketing. Even Marvel Studios’ visual development team was affected.

The layoffs are one of the first major moves under new Disney Chief Executive Josh D’Amaro, who took the reins of the company last month. In a message to employees, he said the company needed to “constantly assess how to foster a more agile and technologically-enabled workforce to meet tomorrow’s needs.”

What I’m watching

Some friends and I watched “Fukushima: A Nuclear Nightmare” this past weekend, a truly eye-opening documentary that explains what happened during the March 11, 2011, nuclear accident and whether the world has learned anything from it.

Keir Starmer is facing renewed calls for resignation after fresh revelations surrounding the appointment and vetting of former UK ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson. The controversy has reignited scrutiny over governance standards inside the Labour government, coming at a politically sensitive time just months after Labour’s landslide election victory in 2024.

The Vetting Controversy:
The core of the scandal centres on reports that Mandelson did not properly pass security vetting before being appointed as ambassador. Despite this, official communications suggested that clearance had been confirmed. Downing Street has since dismissed a senior Foreign Office official, intensifying questions about how the appointment was handled and who within government was aware of the vetting status.

Political Fallout Inside Government:
The issue has exposed tensions within the Labour Party, with some lawmakers expressing concern over administrative failures while others defend the Prime Minister. Senior minister Darren Jones said Starmer was “furious” about not being informed of the vetting issues, while acknowledging serious breakdowns in communication between departments.

Opposition Pressure and Leadership Questions:
Opposition figures, including Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, have accused Starmer of misleading Parliament and questioned his credibility. The central allegation is whether the Prime Minister knowingly misrepresented the status of Mandelson’s clearance when defending the appointment. These accusations have intensified calls for resignation from political rivals.

Wider Political Context:
The controversy comes at a politically sensitive moment for Starmer, as Labour prepares for key local elections across England, Scotland, and Wales. The government is also managing broader foreign policy challenges, including Britain’s positioning in global conflicts involving the United States and Middle East tensions, adding further pressure on leadership stability.

Institutional and Governance Concerns:
Beyond individual accountability, the scandal has raised broader concerns about administrative competence within the Foreign Office and Downing Street. The dismissal of senior officials has highlighted breakdowns in communication and vetting procedures, raising questions about how high-level diplomatic appointments are approved and overseen.

Analysis:
The Mandelson vetting scandal has evolved from a procedural controversy into a wider test of political authority and administrative control for Starmer. While there is no clear evidence yet that the Prime Minister deliberately misled Parliament, the perception of mismanagement and lack of oversight has created significant political vulnerability.

At its core, the issue reflects a deeper challenge of governance: maintaining institutional trust while managing complex bureaucratic systems. Even if the government survives immediate calls for resignation, the damage is likely to linger, particularly if further inconsistencies emerge. With elections approaching and internal party tensions rising, Starmer’s ability to project control and competence will be central to whether this episode becomes a temporary setback or a longer-term political liability.

The election victory of Hungary’s Tisza party on April 12 marks the end of the 16 year rule of Viktor Orbán, a figure who has long defined Hungary’s contentious relationship with the European Union. His tenure reshaped Hungary’s domestic institutions and repeatedly placed the country at odds with EU norms, laws, and political consensus.

The incoming leadership under Péter Magyar now inherits not only a domestic mandate for change but also the complex task of rebuilding trust with the EU after years of institutional confrontation.

A fractured relationship with Brussels

Under Orbán, Hungary frequently clashed with EU institutions over rule of law, judicial independence, media freedom, and migration policy. One of the most controversial measures was the lowering of the retirement age for judges and prosecutors, which critics argued enabled political reshaping of the judiciary.

Tensions escalated further after 2022, when Hungary’s stance on sanctions against Russia and support for Ukraine created repeated deadlocks within EU decision making processes.

Financial pressure also became a key tool of EU leverage. The European Commission suspended billions of euros in funding to Hungary, citing concerns over corruption and democratic backsliding, deepening the political divide.

Allegations and escalating mistrust

Relations deteriorated further following leaked reports alleging that senior Hungarian officials coordinated with Russian counterparts during sensitive EU discussions. These claims intensified accusations within parts of the EU that Hungary had undermined collective decision making during a period of heightened geopolitical tension.

While Budapest has rejected many of these allegations, they contributed to a climate of mistrust that severely weakened Hungary’s position within the bloc.

A new government with a reform mandate

The Tisza party’s victory signals a clear domestic demand for change, particularly around governance and corruption. The new administration has strong incentives to restore relations with the EU, not least because of the approximately 17 billion euros in suspended funding that could be unlocked if conditions are met.

EU leaders, however, have made it clear that financial normalization will depend on compliance with a wide set of governance and legal reforms. These include anti corruption measures, judicial independence safeguards, and adjustments to policies affecting migration and minority rights.

Structural constraints on reform

Despite political momentum for rapprochement, significant obstacles remain. Hungarian society remains more socially conservative and more sceptical of the EU than many of its Western counterparts. This limits the political space for rapid liberal reforms, particularly in sensitive areas such as LGBTQ+ rights and asylum policy.

Economic pressures further complicate the situation. The new government will inherit fiscal strain linked to years of disputed EU funding and broader geopolitical uncertainty, including the economic effects of the ongoing war involving Iran, which has disrupted global energy markets and increased financial volatility.

Ukraine and the Russia question

One of the most sensitive areas in Hungary’s future EU relationship will be its position on Ukraine. While Péter Magyar has signaled a willingness to improve relations with Ukraine and align more closely with NATO and EU policy, key ambiguities remain.

His stated openness to continuing Russian energy imports for the foreseeable future, combined with proposals for a referendum on Ukrainian EU membership, suggests that strategic continuity with aspects of the previous government may persist.

Given public scepticism toward Ukraine within Hungary, any referendum could significantly complicate EU enlargement plans.

Analysis

The end of Orbán’s long tenure represents a clear political inflection point in EU Hungary relations. It removes a persistent source of institutional confrontation and opens the possibility of renewed cooperation with Brussels.

However, the assumption that relations will automatically normalize is overly optimistic. The structural sources of tension between Hungary and the EU extend beyond one leader. They include divergent political cultures, competing interpretations of sovereignty, and deep disagreements over migration, rule of law, and foreign policy alignment.

The new government’s dependence on EU funds gives Brussels significant leverage, but also creates domestic political risk if reforms are perceived as externally imposed. This creates a delicate balancing act between compliance and legitimacy.

On foreign policy, Hungary’s position on Russia and Ukraine will remain the most consequential test. Even partial continuity with previous policies could reintroduce friction at a time when EU unity is under pressure from multiple geopolitical crises.

Ultimately, Orbán’s departure may mark the end of one chapter, but it does not resolve the underlying tensions that have defined Hungary’s relationship with the European project. The reset, while possible, will be gradual, conditional, and politically contested.

With information from Reuters.