Global Pulse

分类： politics

  • Albanese government considering exempting new houses from capital gains reform

    Albanese government considering exempting new houses from capital gains reform

    As Australia’s Albanese government prepares for its upcoming May federal budget, a key policy debate over capital gains tax (CGT) reform has moved to the forefront, with new residential properties emerging as a potential candidate for exemption from planned cuts to the controversial CGT discount.

    CGT is a levy applied to profits earned from the sale of assets including stocks and real estate, which is counted toward a taxpayer’s annual income. Current rules grant a 50% discount on capital gains for assets held longer than 12 months, with an automatic full exemption for an individual’s primary place of residence.

    Ahead of potential changes expected to be outlined in the budget, the Business Council of Australia (BCA) has formally called on the government to carve out an exception for newly built dwellings if it proceeds with rolling back the existing 50% CGT discount. BCA chief executive Bran Black argued that any adjustment to the CGT discount must be structured to avoid discouraging critical investment in new housing supply, a core priority of the current government’s economic agenda. Black also pushed back against any retrospective application of CGT changes, noting that any alterations to the tax code are best implemented as part of a broader, comprehensive tax reform effort rather than isolated adjustments.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese this week confirmed to Nine Entertainment publications that the government is exploring policy changes that go beyond simply increasing overall housing supply, amid ongoing political pressure to address rising wealth inequality. The Labor government is currently facing growing pressure from populist party One Nation, which has sought to mobilize voter anger over widening income and wealth gaps. Albanese pushed back against populist framing, arguing that meaningful change comes from giving all Australians a tangible stake in the national economy, not divisive rhetoric.

    The push for CGT reform lines up with recent comments from Treasurer Jim Chalmers, who said last week he would be “pretty happy” if the 2026-27 budget is remembered as a landmark tax reform budget. The budget’s finalization has been delayed compared to typical timelines, a knock-on effect of economic volatility stemming from the ongoing war in the Middle East.

    This is not the first time Labor has pursued changes to property-focused tax arrangements: prior to the 2016 and 2019 federal elections, the party proposed adjustments to negative gearing that were intentionally structured to avoid retrospective application and exempt new housing, in a bid to protect investment in new supply.

    Ahead of the May budget, the government faces competing pressure from both the opposition crossbench and major political parties on the CGT debate. Greens Senator Nick McKim argued last month that Labor holds a historic opportunity to pass ambitious, progressive tax reform through the current parliament, saying that if the government is serious about cutting inequality and addressing the national housing crisis, now is the time to modify CGT. On the opposite side of the debate, the center-right Coalition has raised repeated concerns that any changes to CGT will increase the overall tax burden for Australian investors and homeowners.

    Independent voices have also weighed in to the Senate Select Committee on the Operation of the Capital Gains Tax, which has been collecting submissions on the current system. Prominent financial journalist and author Alan Kohler told the committee earlier this year that the current tax structure sends a clear signal that capital income is prioritized over labor income in Australia, a dynamic he described as one of the foundational drivers of national inequality. Kohler argued that the current CGT framework over-adjusts for inflation, unlike income tax, and that the 50% discount is larger than needed to account for inflation while unnecessarily distorting investment choices toward existing assets.

  • ‘A disgrace’: Why Australia’s oil refineries were shuttered before Geelong fire

    ‘A disgrace’: Why Australia’s oil refineries were shuttered before Geelong fire

    A dramatic overnight explosive fire at one of Australia’s only two remaining oil refineries has reignited fierce political debate over the nation’s decades-long erosion of domestic fuel refining capacity, with critics slamming the current state of sovereign energy capability as a national disgrace.

    The blaze broke out Wednesday night at Viva Energy’s Corio Refinery in Geelong, a facility that supplies 10% of Australia’s total fuel demand and meets half of the state of Victoria’s consumer and commercial fuel needs. Emergency crews worked through the night to contain the fire, bringing it under control after hours of intensive response. The incident has thrown a harsh spotlight on how far Australia’s domestic refining sector has shrunk since the turn of the century, a shift that has left the country heavily dependent on imported fuel from large-scale Asian refineries.

    In 2000, Australia maintained a network of eight operational oil refineries spread across multiple states. Today, only two remain: Viva’s Geelong site and Ampol’s Lytton Refinery in Brisbane. Labor party figures confirm six of the six closed facilities were shut down during previous Coalition federal governments, with a decades-long trend of closures driven by rising domestic operating costs and intense competition from larger, newer, more cost-competitive refineries across East and Southeast Asia.

    The first major closure came in 2003, when ExxonMobil began winding down operations at its Port Stanvac refinery in South Australia, permanently ceasing production in 2009 after years of mounting losses that made the facility economically unviable. Just a few years later, Shell followed suit by closing its Clyde refinery on Sydney’s Parramatta River, citing steep upgrade and maintenance costs plus unbeatable competition from Asian operations. Caltex closed its Kurnell refinery at Botany Bay just 12 months later, marking the start of a steady contraction that would continue for nearly two decades.

    As early as 2013, a House of Representatives Economics Committee report warned of the risks of shrinking domestic capacity even as the federal government’s 2012 Energy White Paper took a more relaxed stance on fuel security. The white paper argued that open, competitive global supply chains would reliably meet Australia’s fuel needs, and framed the goal of full national self-sufficiency as unnecessary and economically inefficient. The report acknowledged that Australian refiners had poured $9.5 billion into facility upgrades over the 10 years to 2012, but noted structural pressures: larger Asian refineries had set a far lower break-even price benchmark that domestic operations could not match, while high local labor and operational costs and a strong Australian dollar kept the sector under persistent financial pressure.

    Closures continued long after the 2013 report: BP shut its Bulwer Island refinery in Queensland in 2015, then converted its Kwinana refinery in Western Australia to a fuel import terminal in 2021, a move matched by ExxonMobil at its Alton, Victoria facility that same year. Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, when global supply chains were already disrupted, BP cited the continued growth of large export-focused Asian refineries as the core reason for its exit from domestic refining.

    The issue of national fuel security only returned to the top of the political agenda in early 2025, after geopolitical tensions disrupted global crude supplies. Following military strikes on Iran and the Islamic Republic’s temporary de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz – the chokepoint through which 20% of the world’s global crude oil shipments pass – supply pressures pushed up costs for Asian refineries and brought Australia’s over-reliance on imported fuel back into sharp focus. In response, the Albanese government has moved to strengthen regional energy trade agreements, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese visiting Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei to shore up supply relationships, and has pursued diversification by increasing fuel imports from the United States.

    In the wake of the Geelong fire, political parties have traded blame over who is responsible for the nation’s vulnerable refining capacity. Former Labor Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek said the incident had reaffirmed the party’s longstanding commitment to maintaining domestic refining self-sufficiency, noting that the current Albanese government has made keeping the two remaining refineries operational a core policy priority.

    But Opposition Leader Angus Taylor, of the Liberal-National Coalition, claimed credit for his party’s previous government, saying it was the Coalition that “saved the last two refineries.” Taylor criticized the current government’s energy policies, arguing that Australia needs to expand domestic fuel production and drilling, a goal he says the Labor government has no interest in pursuing.

    Australian Workers’ Union Victorian Branch President Ross Kenna, who spoke to media Thursday from the Geelong refinery site, called the current state of Australia’s refining sector “a disgrace.” “We do need to invest in this sort of sovereign capability,” Kenna told Sky News. “The union movement has been pushing that entire time to try to ensure that these sort of industries don’t go by the wayside.”

  • Iran used Chinese spy satellite to attack US bases in Gulf: Report

    Iran used Chinese spy satellite to attack US bases in Gulf: Report

    A Wednesday report from The Financial Times has unveiled new details of a military space cooperation deal that is roiling geopolitics across the Middle East, revealing that Iran acquired a high-resolution Chinese surveillance satellite late in 2024 specifically to aid in targeting US military installations across the region ahead of recent missile and drone strikes.

    According to the FT investigation, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Aerospace Force purchased the TEE-01B spy satellite system for approximately $36.6 million, with the transaction settled entirely in Chinese renminbi. Cross-referenced data including time-stamped geographic coordinates, captured satellite imagery, and independent orbital trajectory analysis confirms that Iranian military commanders leveraged the satellite to continuously monitor key US military facilities in the weeks surrounding the March strikes, both before and after the attacks were carried out.

    The surveillance targets documented in the report span five Middle Eastern countries: the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan, areas adjacent to the US Fifth Fleet’s naval headquarters in Manama, Bahrain, and Erbil International Airport in Iraq. Official logs obtained by the FT show that Prince Sultan Air Base was placed under sustained surveillance on March 13, 14 and 15, and just days after the final day of monitoring, US President Donald Trump publicly confirmed that American warplanes stationed at the base had sustained damage in an Iranian strike.

    Following the strike, separate reporting from Middle East Eye outlined subsequent US moves to reposition its regional military footprint: Washington lobbied Riyadh to grant US forces access to King Fahd Air Base in the western Saudi province of Taif, as US officials privately signaled they were considering a partial drawdown of forces from the Persian Gulf. Saudi Arabia ultimately granted the US request, but the advanced Chinese satellite has extended Iran’s surveillance reach far beyond the new Taif location, allowing it to track activity at the sprawling Camp Lemonnier US base in Djibouti, Camp Buehring and Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, and Duqm International Airport in Oman.

    The FT’s findings upend long-held assumptions about military intelligence asymmetry in the Middle East. For decades, the US has held a decisive military advantage over rival powers rooted in cutting-edge intelligence gathering and space technology, a capability it has openly shared with Ukraine to enable precision strikes against Russian targets. Compared to Iran’s previous most advanced military satellite, the Noor-3, which only captured imagery at a 5-meter resolution, the TEE-01B can deliver half-meter resolution imagery – a capability on par with leading commercially available Western surveillance satellites.

    Further scrutiny of the satellite’s supply chain reveals clear links to Chinese military entities. The satellite was manufactured by Earth Eye, a private Chinese firm that publicly highlights its partnerships with leading Chinese universities that have long-standing research collaborations with the People’s Liberation Army. Emposat, the Chinese company that provided the ground control infrastructure and operational software for the system, is formally tied to the PLA Aerospace Force, according to a previous public report released by the US Congress.

    This disclosure is not an isolated development; it adds to a growing body of reporting outlining China’s quiet military support for Iran amid escalating tensions with the US and Israel. As early as July 2025, Middle East Eye reported that China had supplied Iran with advanced surface-to-air missile systems to help Tehran rebuild air defenses damaged by US and Israeli strikes during a 12-day regional conflict. Before the joint US-Israeli offensive launched in February, MEE also revealed that Iran had received suicide drones and other small offensive weapons from Chinese suppliers. Just this week, The New York Times added another layer to the picture, reporting that China may have also delivered man-portable air defense systems (Manpads) to Iran during the ongoing conflict.

    Beijing has repeatedly denied all allegations that it is providing lethal military assistance to Iran. For his part, Trump has responded to the new reports by threatening to impose a 50% tariff on all Iranian goods. In a Wednesday interview with Fox News, Trump noted that Chinese leader Xi Jinping has denied arming Iran. The US president’s planned March visit to Beijing for a bilateral meeting with Xi was delayed until May amid the regional conflict, and Trump sought to downplay rising bilateral tensions in a post to the social platform X, writing that Xi would give him “a big, fat hug” when he finally arrives in the Chinese capital.

  • Australia to boost defence spending citing growing threats

    Australia to boost defence spending citing growing threats

    Against a backdrop of intensifying global armed conflict and mounting diplomatic pressure from the United States, the Australian government announced Thursday a sharp upward revision of its long-term defence spending target, pledging to lift military expenditure to 3.0 percent of gross domestic product by 2033.

    The new policy marks a significant jump from the previous projection, which forecast defence outlays would reach only 2.3 percent of GDP by the same year. Department of Defence officials confirmed the adjusted target will inject an extra AU$53 billion (equivalent to US$38 billion) into national defence over the coming decade, compared to the 2024 defence strategy framework. In the immediate four-year period, an additional AU$14 billion will be allocated to military programs.

    To align with the new target and meet international accounting standards, Australia has revised its defence budget calculation methodology to adopt the NATO definition, which includes items such as military pensions in official spending tallies. The announcement comes after years of consistent pressure from successive U.S. administrations urging Canberra to increase the share of GDP dedicated to defence. Notably, the new 3.0 percent target still falls short of the 3.5 percent of GDP demand issued by U.S. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth last year.

    In justifying the substantial spending increase, Defence Minister Richard Marles emphasized the shifting global security landscape in a pre-prepared speech obtained by Agence France-Presse. “International norms that once constrained the use of force and military coercion continue to erode,” Marles said. “More countries are engaged in conflict today than at any time since the end of World War II, and this is occurring across every region of the world.”

    As a U.S. ally positioned in the Indo-Pacific, Australia has increasingly centered its defence planning on countering perceived military risks tied to China’s naval expansion in recent years, reshaping its force structure to prioritize long-range missile strike capabilities and deterrence along its northern strategic approaches. The elevated defence budget will accelerate ongoing high-priority projects, most notably the expansion of a major shipbuilding facility in Western Australia built to accommodate nuclear-powered submarines under the landmark AUKUS trilateral security pact with the United States and the United Kingdom. Under the 2021 agreement, Washington and London have committed to delivering nuclear-powered submarine technology to the Royal Australian Navy within 15 years, though the deal has drawn sharp criticism from opponents who argue it provides no guarantee Australia will ever take delivery of the vessels and leaves a critical capability gap in Australian defence for the next decade.

    Australia’s unique geographic characteristics — a vast coastline paired with a relatively small population — have also driven the development of indigenous autonomous military systems, including the large autonomous Ghost Shark submarine and Ghost Bat fighter drone. In a related announcement earlier this week, Canberra confirmed it would allocate up to AU$5 billion to expand drone development and procurement, a move framed as a response to evolving warfare tactics observed in ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. In an additional indication of Australia’s expanding global military posture, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese confirmed March 10, 2026 that Canberra will deploy a long-range military reconnaissance aircraft to the Gulf region to support civilian protection efforts.

    The revised defence spending plan comes as the Australian Defence Force hosts Exercise Pitch Black 2024, a large-scale multinational air exercise over northern Australia that has brought together military aircraft from Australia, Japan, the Philippines, Spain and other partner nations to practice integrated air operations.

  • Trump’s triumphal arch gets official name

    Trump’s triumphal arch gets official name

    A planned monumental arch initiated by U.S. President Donald Trump, long informally nicknamed the “Arc de Trump” by national media, has been assigned its formal, official name: the United States Triumphal Arch. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt made the formal announcement to reporters on Wednesday, confirming that the towering structure is being developed to commemorate the 250th anniversary of U.S. independence.

    “In honor of this historic occasion, President Trump and the Department of Interior will submit plans for the United States Triumphal Arch,” Leavitt told the press corps. Alongside the announcement, she shared an artist’s rendering of the proposed monument — an introduction that made headlines after she initially held the image upside down.

    According to Leavitt, the “monumental” arch will reach 250 feet (76.2 meters) in total height, a measurement intentionally selected to mirror the 250 years of U.S. nationhood. Topping the colossal structure will be a large golden statue of Lady Liberty, a design that will make it far taller than the world’s most famous existing triumphal arch: Paris’ Arc de Triomphe, which stands just 164 feet tall. In fact, the U.S. monument will claim the title of the largest arch of its kind globally, outstripping Mexico City’s Monument to the Revolution to take the top spot and pushing Pyongyang’s Arch of Triumph down to third place. It will also tower over Washington D.C.’s iconic Lincoln Memorial, which reaches only 99 feet in height.

    Plans for the arch first came to public attention in October, when AFP reporters spotted a scale model of the structure on Trump’s Oval Office desk. The unofficial nickname “Arc de Trump” quickly spread across U.S. media outlets following the discovery, and Trump publicly released the first full architectural renderings of the project last Friday.

    The arch is just one of several high-profile architectural initiatives Trump is advancing during his second presidential term, all designed to leave a lasting physical legacy in the nation’s capital. Other projects include the construction of an expansive new ballroom for the White House and major renovations to the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

    The proposal has drawn sharp criticism from opponents, who argue that the gold-accented monument is nothing more than a vanity project for the 79-year-old president. Funding details have also sparked debate: ABC News reports that the project will draw partial support from U.S. taxpayer dollars, including $2 million in special allocations from the National Endowment for the Humanities, alongside a $13 million matching fund program for private donations.

    Leavitt pushed back against criticism on Wednesday, framing the arch as a celebration of American national pride. “Long after everyone in this room is gone, our children and grandchildren will remain inspired by this national monument,” she told reporters.

  • BBC at the site of Trump’s planned ‘triumphal arch’

    BBC at the site of Trump’s planned ‘triumphal arch’

    A proposed 250-foot monument, dubbed a ‘triumphal arch’ and tied to former U.S. President Donald Trump, has sparked fierce public debate as planners move forward with site preparations, with BBC reporting on the ground from the proposed development location.

    BBC correspondent Ione Wells has conducted on-location reporting to break down key details of the project, outlining the exact plot of land where developers intend to construct the massive structure. The proposed arch, framed by supporters as a tribute to American achievement and a symbolic landmark honoring national service, has drawn fierce pushback from critics who question its purpose, cost, and connection to Trump’s political legacy.

    The project has emerged as a flashpoint for broader tensions over how the U.S. commemorates its political figures and national history. Opponents argue the 250-foot structure is an unnecessary vanity project designed to celebrate Trump’s political career, rather than serve any meaningful public or historical purpose. They also point to the projected multi-million dollar construction cost, arguing public funds could be better allocated to pressing domestic priorities including infrastructure repairs, social programs, and community services.

    Supporters of the plan, by contrast, frame the arch as a long-overdue tribute to American identity and national unity, arguing the monument will become a popular tourist destination that boosts local economic activity for the region where it is set to be built. As debate continues over the project’s future, on-the-ground reporting from the site has shed new light on the practical logistics of the proposal and the deep divides it has created across political and community lines.

  • War on Iran ‘can be over very soon’ Trump says, as backchannel diplomacy resumes

    War on Iran ‘can be over very soon’ Trump says, as backchannel diplomacy resumes

    In a wide-ranging interview taped at the White House on Tuesday, former US President Donald Trump offered a cautiously optimistic outlook on the ongoing joint military campaign between the United States and Israel against Iran, suggesting the conflict could wrap up in short order as Washington considers extending a temporary two-week ceasefire to keep diplomatic negotiations moving forward. The comments came just days after direct US-Iran talks mediated by Pakistan in Islamabad broke down on Saturday morning, a development that preceded a high-profile visit to Tehran by Pakistan’s army chief of staff and interior minister on Wednesday aimed at salvaging the diplomatic process.

    When pressed by Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo on widespread public anxiety over potential spikes to global petrol prices tied to the Middle East conflict, Trump downplayed long-term risks, arguing the fighting could conclude rapidly. “I think it can be over very soon,” he told Bartiromo, repeating a series of unsubstantiated claims that Iran’s military capabilities have been nearly completely destroyed. “They have no navy, they have no air force. Everything’s been wiped out. They have no anti-aircraft equipment. They have no radar. They have no leaders,” Trump said, claiming Iran is now operating under a new ruling establishment that he described as comparatively reasonable. “It really is a new regime, and I think we’re doing very well, but it only matters what the end result is,” he insisted. Iranian officials have repeatedly rejected Trump’s claims that their military infrastructure has been annihilated.

    Earlier this week, Trump ordered a full US military blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global oil chokepoint, designed to cut off all revenue from Iranian oil exports. In the interview, the president argued the blockade is already delivering results, boasting of US military dominance and claiming he has faced no pushback from major global powers or regional allies over the move. When asked if China or Saudi Arabia had raised objections to the closure of the strait, Trump simply responded, “No, I had none.”

    Trump went on to defend the conflict, which has already triggered devastating ripple effects on the global economy, calling the crisis “worthwhile” and predicting energy prices will ultimately be far lower long-term after Iran’s nuclear program is neutralized. “No president had the guts to do it, and they should have done it,” he said of the war he launched on February 28. “I think all of them that are living are sitting back watching this and saying we should have done it. This should have been done long before me.”

    The core non-negotiable goal of the campaign, Trump reiterated, is to ensure Iran is permanently barred from developing a nuclear weapon. That pledge was first made last year, after Trump took the unprecedented step of ordering airstrikes on Iran’s three primary nuclear sites, and was reaffirmed last week by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt after the initial two-week ceasefire agreement was reached. As of Tuesday, however, Trump continued to accuse Iran of covertly pursuing a nuclear weapons program, a claim Iranian authorities uniformly reject. Tehran has repeatedly emphasized that its nuclear program is exclusively focused on civilian energy production and peaceful scientific research.

    “If they don’t agree to stop enriching uranium, we’re not making a deal,” Trump told Bartiromo, doubling down on the hardline negotiating position adopted by his team, led by Vice President JD Vance, during the collapsed talks last Friday. In response, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has made clear that Iran will not surrender its sovereign right to enrich uranium, noting that the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) between Iran and world powers never required the country to abandon that capability.

    Trump closed his remarks with a stark warning to Tehran, saying that if Iran moves forward to acquire a nuclear weapon, the regime would not survive long under continued US pressure. “We could take out every one of their bridges in one hour. We could take out every one of their power plants, electric power plants, in one hour,” he said. “We don’t want to do that, because someday you’re gonna have to rebuild, and it takes you 10 years to rebuild the bridge, even if you’re Trump.”

  • India to decide women’s quota bill as row over parliamentary seats intensifies

    India to decide women’s quota bill as row over parliamentary seats intensifies

    India stands on the cusp of a generational political transformation, as the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government moves forward with a landmark constitutional amendment to reserve one-third of all seats in India’s national parliament and state legislative assemblies for women. To advance the legislation — which requires a two-thirds parliamentary majority to pass — the government has called a rare three-day special parliamentary session beginning Thursday, a move that has already drawn sharp criticism from opposition lawmakers.

    Currently, women hold just 14% of the 543 seats in India’s lower parliamentary house, a figure far below global gender representation benchmarks. If approved, the reform would lift that share to roughly 33%, a shift that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has framed as a watershed moment for gender equity in the world’s largest democracy. Named the Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam, or Saluting Women Power Act, Modi has described the bill as “among the most significant decisions of our times,” arguing that it will embed women’s empowerment into India’s political framework, with full implementation targeted for 2029. This build on existing gender quotas that already reserve a third of seats for women in India’s local village councils and urban municipal bodies, a policy that has already expanded women’s participation at the grassroots level across the country.

    What makes this reform unprecedented is its direct tie to a long-deferred reallocation of parliamentary seats, known as delimitation, based on 2011 national census data. Under the proposal, the size of India’s lower house would expand from the current 543 seats to approximately 850, to reflect population shifts that have occurred over the past five decades. India’s constitution requires periodic seat redraws to ensure each constituency represents a roughly equal number of voters, but successive national governments have paused the exercise since 1971, over fears that stark differences in fertility rates across India’s regions would create dramatic imbalances in political representation.

    The Modi government’s break from this decades-long caution has ignited intense controversy, particularly in India’s five southern states: Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, and Telangana. These states collectively hold roughly 20% of India’s 1.4 billion population, and have outperformed northern states on nearly every metric of social and economic development, including lower fertility rates that have slowed population growth. Southern leaders warn the new delimitation will punish their regions for their success, awarding more parliamentary seats to faster-growing northern states and reducing the south’s political influence in national policy-making.

    Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin has labeled the plan a “massive historic injustice,” and his ruling Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party organized statewide black-flag protests on the first day of the special session. “Is punishment being meted out to Tamil Nadu and the southern states for the crime of striving for India’s growth?” Stalin asked. Opposition lawmakers from across the political spectrum have also criticized the government’s timeline, arguing that rushing the combined reform of women’s reservation and delimitation during an ongoing election season is an undemocratic power grab. John Brittas, a lawmaker from the opposition Communist Party of India (Marxist), told the BBC his party supports a 33% women’s quota on existing parliamentary seat numbers, but opposes an immediate expansion of total seats and the hasty scheduling of the special session.

    Beyond regional tensions, legal and policy experts have identified a host of unresolved ambiguities in the draft legislation. Arghya Sengupta, a legal scholar at the Delhi-based Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, notes that while the bill raises the lower house seat cap to 850 from the previous 550, there is no clear explanation for how that number was calculated, and it does not align proportionally with population growth recorded between the 1971 and 2011 censuses. Critically, the legislation does not call for a parallel expansion of state legislative assemblies, creating a structural mismatch where faster-growing states could gain more national lawmakers without a corresponding increase in their state-level legislative representation.

    Other open questions remain around the mechanics of reserving seats for women. Sanjay Kumar, a political analyst at the Delhi-based Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, points out that there is no publicly outlined criteria for which constituencies will be designated as reserved for women. Adding an additional layer of complexity, the bill will also need to account for existing reserved seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, requiring a system to reserve subset of those seats for women from marginalized communities.

    Critics have also questioned the decision to use 12-year-old 2011 census data, rather than waiting for the completion of a new national census that has been delayed since 2020. The government has countered that waiting for new census data would push implementation of the long-promised women’s reservation reform past 2029, creating further unnecessary delay. In an attempt to ease southern concerns, BJP MP K Laxman has stated that the government plans to implement delimitation on a pro-rata basis, to ensure no region is disadvantaged. But experts remain skeptical, noting that the lack of a clear publicly available proportional formula means the final outcome could still favor more populous northern states, with far-reaching implications for India’s federal balance of power. Adding context to the expansion plans, India’s newly constructed parliamentary building in New Delhi was already built to accommodate up to 880 lower house MPs, making the proposed expansion logistically feasible.

  • Vote to stop Iran war fails in US Senate again as Democrats vow to keep trying

    Vote to stop Iran war fails in US Senate again as Democrats vow to keep trying

    A fourth legislative push to curb executive authority to engage in military hostilities against Iran has been defeated in the United States Senate, deepening partisan divisions over Washington’s ongoing military involvement in the region. The failed war powers resolution, which would have required immediate cessation of all U.S. military action against Iran without explicit congressional authorization, was rejected by a 52-48 vote on the chamber floor, with nearly all votes falling along established party lines.

    With the Senate currently under Republican majority leadership, nearly every GOP lawmaker united to block the measure. Only one Republican senator, Rand Paul of Kentucky, broke with his caucus to back the resolution for the fourth consecutive time, matching his position on earlier versions of the bill. On the Democratic side, one party member – Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania – crossed party lines to vote against the restriction on presidential war power.

    Democratic sponsors of the resolution have made clear they will not abandon their efforts, announcing plans to bring an identical or similar resolution to a vote every single moving forward, even if passage remains out of reach. According to Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, this repeated voting strategy will ensure every legislator’s position on the conflict is formally recorded, making it clear to the American public which elected officials support ongoing military engagement. The 1973 War Powers Resolution, the federal legislation that forms the legal foundation of this push, was originally passed to curtail unilateral presidential war authority after the escalation of the Vietnam War under Richard Nixon. That law requires congressional approval for any military engagement lasting longer than 60 days, with a single 30-day extension allowed if the White House cites pressing national security concerns.

    U.S. strikes in collaboration with Israel against Iranian targets began on February 28, putting the 60-day deadline on track to expire mid-May. With that deadline approaching, some Republican lawmakers have signaled they may reconsider their position if the conflict is still ongoing after this month. Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley told the BBC that a rapid end to the conflict aligns with U.S. national interests, adding that he hopes diplomatic negotiations will produce a resolution within the coming days. “That would be ideal,” Hawley stated. Paul echoed the expectation of shifting Republican votes after the 60-day window, telling reporters he anticipates more GOP members will join him in supporting the resolution once the statutory deadline passes.

    President Donald Trump has offered contradictory timelines for the conflict’s duration. In an interview with Fox News that aired Wednesday, Trump claimed the conflict is “close to over.” To date, however, the administration has moved forward with its planned military blockade of Iranian ports, retaining broad, unified support from congressional Republicans for the president’s actions.

  • Polarization harms ordinary people, says former Thai official

    Polarization harms ordinary people, says former Thai official

    In a recent exclusive conversation with China Daily, a veteran former Thai political leader has sounded the alarm over deepening global divides, warning that the world’s most vulnerable populations bear the brunt of rising polarization and conflict. Bhokin Bhalakula, who previously served as president of Thailand’s National Assembly, made the remarks during an interview updated by the outlet on April 15, 2026, offering a clear-eyed assessment of today’s fractured international landscape.

    Bhokin emphasized that the current era of geopolitical polarization is unlike any the world has seen before, with every new escalation of tension and outbreak of conflict leaving everyday civilians to face the worst consequences. From disrupted livelihoods to lost lives and fractured communities, he argued, ordinary people who have no stake in power struggles between nations or blocs end up paying the highest price for rising division.

    Beyond his warning on polarization, Bhokin pushed back against the growing trend of great power unilateralism. He noted that a foreign policy framework that prioritizes the interests of a single nation over the sovereign rights and needs of other countries can never earn genuine respect from the global community. Such an approach, he implied, only deepens divides and fuels further instability.

    In contrast to unilateral, zero-sum approaches to global affairs, Bhokin highlighted the strength and resonance of China’s vision for global cooperation. The concept of “a community with a shared future for mankind,” first put forward by Chinese President Xi Jinping, effectively upholds the equal rights and interests of all nations in international governance, he said. This vision, Bhokin added, aligns perfectly with the widespread global desire for inclusive, peaceful development that benefits all people, not just a select few powerful states.