&w=3840&q=100)
Japan: PM Ishiba's ruling coalition loses upper house majority
Japan's Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba speaks to the media following upper house elections, at Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) headquarters in Tokyo on July 20, 2025. Image- AFP
Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba's ruling coalition has failed to win a majority in the 248-seat upper house, according to public broadcaster NHK, dealing a major blow to his leadership.
Ishiba's Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and its junior partner Komeito needed 50 additional seats to secure a majority, on top of the 75 they already held. With only two seats left to be declared, the coalition had managed just 46.
This defeat leaves Ishiba's coalition in the minority in both houses of parliament, following its earlier loss in the lower house in October — marking the first time since the LDP's founding in 1955 that it lacks control of both chambers.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Despite the setback, Ishiba vowed on Sunday to remain in office and address key issues such as U.S. tariff pressures. However, he now faces growing internal pressure to either step down or seek a new coalition partner.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
25 minutes ago
- Mint
Thailand-Cambodia violence: Thai military report more clashes; over 100,000 people flee, 14 dead
Clashes between Thai and Cambodian troops took place along their border for a second day early on Friday, with Cambodia using heavy weapons including artillery and rockets, Thailand's military said. 1. "Cambodian forces have conducted sustained bombardment utilising heavy weapons, field artillery, and BM-21 rocket systems," it said in a statement, as reported by Reuters, 'Thai forces have responded with appropriate supporting fire in accordance with the tactical situation.' 2. Bangkok reported on Friday that over 100,000 people have fled the most intense border clashes between Thailand and Cambodia in ten years, as the death toll continues to climb and global powers call for an immediate ceasefire. 3. The longstanding territorial dispute escalated into heavy combat on Thursday, involving fighter jets, artillery, tanks, and ground forces. In response to the escalating crisis, the UN Security Council is scheduled to convene an emergency meeting later in the day. Cambodian soldiers reload the BM-21 multiple rocket launcher in Preah Vihear province on July 24, 2025. Thailand launched air strikes on Cambodian military targets on July 24 as Cambodia fired rockets and artillery, killing a civilian, in a dramatic escalation of a long-running border row between the two neighbours. (Photo by AFP) 4. The Thai interior ministry said more than 100,000 people from four border provinces had been moved to nearly 300 temporary shelters, while the kingdom's health ministry announced that the death toll had risen to 14 -- 13 civilians and one soldier, AFP reported. 5. The fighting marks a dramatic escalation in a long-running dispute between the neighbours -- both popular destinations for millions of foreign tourists -- over their shared 800-kilometre (500-mile) frontier. 6. Dozens of kilometres in several areas are contested, and fighting broke out between 2008 and 2011, leaving at least 28 people dead and tens of thousands displaced. 7. Several areas spanning dozens of kilometres remain disputed, with clashes occurring between 2008 and 2011. These earlier confrontations resulted in at least 28 deaths and forced tens of thousands of people to flee their homes. 8. A 2013 UN court ruling had kept the border dispute largely in check for over a decade, but tensions flared again in May when a Cambodian soldier was killed in a fresh clash. 9. According to the Thai army, Thursday's fighting centred on six key locations, including areas near two ancient temples. Ground forces supported by tanks engaged in fierce battles for control, as Cambodia launched rockets and artillery into Thai territory, prompting Thailand to deploy F-16 fighter jets to strike military targets across the border. Cambodian forces have conducted sustained bombardment utilising heavy weapons, field artillery, and BM-21 rocket systems. 10. Both sides blamed each other for firing first, while Thailand accused Cambodia of targeting civilian infrastructure, including a hospital hit by shells and a petrol station hit by at least one rocket. Thursday's clashes came hours after Thailand expelled the Cambodian ambassador and recalled its own envoy after five members of a Thai military patrol were wounded by a landmine, as reported by AFP. (With inputs from agencies) Key Takeaways The conflict has resulted in over 100,000 people being displaced, indicating a significant humanitarian crisis. Historical tensions between Thailand and Cambodia have flared up again, with recent clashes reminiscent of earlier conflicts. International calls for a ceasefire highlight the global concern over escalating violence in the region.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Asian stocks slip from highs, dollar gains ahead of crucial 'tariff' week
Asian shares eased from highs on Friday, with Japanese markets retreating from a record peak, as investors locked in profits ahead of a crucial week that includes US President Donald Trump's tariff deadline and a host of central bank meetings. The dollar gained against the yen after bouncing off a two-week low on Thursday, helped by some firm US economic data, while Japan's currency was weighed down by political uncertainty amid media reports Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba will step down. Benchmark Japanese government bond yields hovered just below the highest since 2008. Japan's broad Topix index, which had jumped more than 5 per cent over the previous two sessions to reach an all-time high, pulled back 0.7 per cent. The Nikkei slipped 0.5 per cent from Thursday's one-year high. Hong Kong's Hang Seng lost 0.5 per cent and mainland Chinese blue chips declined 0.2 per cent. Australia's equity benchmark declined 0.5 per cent. At the same time, US S&P 500 futures added 0.2 per cent, after the cash index edged up slightly to a new record closing high overnight, buoyed by robust earnings from Google parent Alphabet. The tech-heavy Nasdaq also marked a record high. MSCI's gauge of stocks across the globe edged down 0.1 per cent, but remained just below an all-time peak from Thursday. The index is on course for a 1.3 per cent weekly advance, buoyed in large part by optimism for US trade deals with the European Union and China, following an agreement with Japan this week. Next week, in the US alone, investors need to contend with Trump's August 1 deadline for trade deals, a Federal Reserve policy meeting, the closely watched monthly payrolls report, and earnings from the likes of Amazon, Apple, Meta and Microsoft. The Bank of Japan has its own policy announcement on Thursday, and Prime Minister Ishiba's Liberal Democratic Party holds a meeting the same day. That's after the European Central Bank held rates steady on Thursday, pausing its easing campaign as it waits to assess any impact from US tariffs. The euro ended the session down 0.2 per cent against a buoyant dollar, and was little changed on Friday at $1.1743. The US currency advanced 0.3 per cent to 147.37 yen, adding to Thursday's 0.4 per cent gain. Trump kept the pressure on Fed Chair Jerome Powell to cut rates after a rare presidential visit to the central bank on Thursday, although he said he did not intend to fire Powell, as he has frequently suggested he would. US 10-year Treasury yields edged down to 4.39 per cent on Friday, effectively erasing an advance on Thursday. [US/] Equivalent Japanese government bond yields eased 0.5 basis point to 1.595 per cent, just off this week's high of 1.6 per cent, a level last seen in October 2008. JGB yields have been rising on concerns the political scale is tilting more towards fiscal stimulus, after big gains for opposition parties backing consumption tax cuts in Sunday's upper house election. Pressure is building on the more fiscally hawkish Ishiba to quit after his coalition lost its majority in the vote, after doing the same in lower house elections last October. Gold was flat at around $3,368 per ounce, keeping it on course for a 0.5 per cent rise this week. Brent crude futures gained 0.3 per cent to $69.35 a barrel, while US West Texas Intermediate crude futures added 0.2 per cent to $66.18 per barrel. [O/R] (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
UGC, AICTE, NCTE to be scrapped: Will a new super-regulator end the chaos these three could never control?
India's higher education gears up for a major reset as the proposed Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) aims to replace decades-old regulators—UGC, AICTE, and NCTE—with a single, streamlined authority. India's higher education system—spread across 1,113 universities and 43,796 colleges, according to the AISHE 2021–22—is heading for what may be its most sweeping institutional overhaul since the university system was nationalised. The government has dusted off its reformist rhetoric to dismantle a decades-old triad of regulatory overlords: the University Grants Commission ( UGC ), the All India Council for Technical Education ( AICTE ), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). In their place, it proposes a singular body—the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI)—tasked with doing everything the other three were supposed to do, but better, faster, and without the administrative clumsiness. This wasn't a bolt from the blue. Policymakers had flagged the chaos earlier too. The National Knowledge Commission (2005–2009) warned of regulatory fragmentation and called for the dismantling of the UGC-AICTE-NCTE triad. It was followed by the Yash Pal Committee Report (2009), which made an even more urgent pitch: 'Multiplicity of regulatory agencies leads to lack of coordination and policy incoherence.' Neither report was fully acted upon. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Gentle Japanese hair growth method for men and women's scalp Hair's Rich Learn More Undo Successive governments chose to tinker, not transform. Then again in 2018, under the Ministry of Human Resource Development (now renamed Ministry of Education), policymakers pitched HECI as a leaner and allegedly more autonomous alternative to the UGC. The concept matured in the National Education Policy 2020, which went a step further—recommending the merger of all three regulators into a single apex commission. One ring to rule them all. At first glance, it sounds like a long-overdue bureaucratic detox. But beneath the calls for efficiency and streamlining lies a deeper story—one of centralised control, collapsed specialisation, and the quiet possibility of academic overreach. Because whenever a government promises to fix complexity with centralisation, it's not just structure that gets rewritten. The soul of the system changes too. So the questions write themselves: Why now? Why one regulator? And who watches the one who watches everyone else? A legacy of silos and silence Historically, India's post-independence higher education system relied on a sector-specific regulatory structure, with different bodies overseeing different streams of education. The University Grants Commission (UGC), established in 1956, was responsible for regulating universities and general higher education institutions. It handled tasks such as funding allocations, curriculum development, and maintaining academic standards across disciplines like arts, science, and commerce. The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), originally set up in 1945 and granted statutory status in 1987, was tasked with overseeing technical and professional education, including engineering, management, architecture, pharmacy, and hotel management. Meanwhile, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), established in 1995, regulated teacher education programmes, setting norms, granting approvals, and monitoring institutions offering degrees such as and Each of these regulators operated in isolation, with distinct mandates and regulatory frameworks—a model that made sense when disciplines were neatly boxed, institutions were fewer, and regulation meant inspection rather than innovation. But the 21st-century Indian campus is anything but boxed. A single institution may today offer a in AI, a in science pedagogy, and a minor in ethics and literature—and find itself caught in a three-way tug-of-war between regulatory bodies who seldom talk to each other. The result? Not oversight, but overhead. Not accountability, but administrative fatigue. Where did things go wrong? On paper, the tripartite regulatory model—UGC for universities, AICTE for technical education, and NCTE for teacher training—was neat, logical, and compartmentalised. But by the late 2000s, the system began to unravel under the weight of its own silos. India's higher education was evolving, institutions were expanding, disciplines were blending—and the regulators stayed frozen in time. Overlapping jurisdictions, colliding mandates The first cracks appeared when colleges started breaking out of their traditional academic ghettos. A private university might now offer an integrated in Data Science with a liberal arts minor. An institute of education might pair a with environmental studies or STEM modules. Sounds progressive? Yes. But for the regulators, it triggered a turf war. In such cases, the institution had to seek separate approvals from UGC, AICTE, and NCTE—each with its own forms, deadlines, inspections, and (often contradictory) compliance requirements. What followed was: Duplication of compliance: One course. Three sets of paperwork. Dozens of inspections. Conflicting mandates: What AICTE allowed in the name of innovation, UGC might reject as non-conforming. Funding delays: Institutions caught in the crossfire often lost out on timely grants and accreditations. In short, the multi-regulator setup became less about quality assurance and more about bureaucratic endurance. Fragmented quality control While regulatory overlaps created confusion, quality control turned into a blindfolded relay race. All of the three bodies—UGC, AICTE, and NCTE—ran their own accreditation show. They used different metrics, had separate assessor pools, and often reached conflicting conclusions about the same institution. There was: No unified quality benchmark: What counted as 'excellent' for UGC might be sub-par by AICTE standards. Interdisciplinary blind spots: A university with strong arts and tech programmes might ace UGC review but stumble with AICTE red tape. Opaque student experience: For learners navigating cross-disciplinary degrees, the regulatory alphabet soup offered little clarity and even less consistency. At the heart of it, there was no single dashboard, no composite score, no common yardstick for institutional performance. Inefficient governance and regulatory fatigue Beyond structural flaws, each of the three regulators carried its own baggage. UGC, burdened with both funding and monitoring powers, often found itself in a conflicted dual role—allocating grants while also policing quality. This raised perennial questions about fairness, favouritism, and political influence. AICTE, though credited with standardising technical education, developed a reputation for rigidity and red tape. While industries moved toward emerging tech, AICTE's curriculum norms were often several updates behind. NCTE, perhaps the weakest of the three, became infamous for its inability to curb the proliferation of dubious teacher training colleges, especially in smaller towns. The result: thousands of 'recognised' institutes with questionable teaching capacity and negligible placements. What emerged was a governance model where no single body could be held fully accountable, and all three seemed to operate in parallel bureaucracies, rarely in sync, and often in conflict. Enter HECI: What it promises to fix U nlike its predecessors, HECI isn't a one-department show. It's structured around four autonomous verticals, each focused on a distinct function. NHERC: Regulation without redundancy The National Higher Education Regulatory Council (NHERC) will be the front-facing gatekeeper—handling approvals, compliance, and the creation of academic norms. Its job is to bring clarity to the tangled web of regulations by becoming the single-window authority for all higher education institutions (except medical and legal). This means no more running from UGC to AICTE to NCTE for the same degree programme. NAC: Accreditation that speaks one language Accreditation duties will shift to the National Accreditation Council (NAC). Unlike today's fractured system where different bodies use different metrics, NAC is meant to apply a uniform, outcome-based framework for quality assurance. One council, one scale, one yardstick—for all institutions, regardless of discipline. HEGC: Funding that rewards merit The Higher Education Grants Council (HEGC) will take over funding responsibilities from UGC—but with a twist. Instead of discretionary allocations and opaque grants, HEGC is expected to link funding to performance. Think academic outcomes, research impact, graduate employability—not just political connections or compliance checkboxes. GEC: Curriculum that reflects the present Lastly, the General Education Council (GEC) will steer the academic ship. It will define learning outcomes, curricular frameworks, and pedagogical standards across institutions. Its aim is to modernise what's taught and how, making sure Indian students aren't studying for yesterday's job market. What's the real pitch? At its core, HECI is being sold as a regulatory reset—streamlined, centralised, and outcomes-driven, replacing clutter with clarity. One regulator, less bureaucracy Perhaps the biggest headline is administrative simplicity. HECI's integrated model means institutions will no longer bounce between three regulatory bodies. Compliance processes are expected to be leaner, faster, and less redundant. One standard, clearer quality With NAC at the helm, the patchwork of quality assessments will be replaced with a single, transparent accreditation system. Students and parents may finally get a clear, comparable picture of institutional performance. One body, more accountability Instead of UGC blaming AICTE or NCTE washing its hands off quality lapses, HECI creates a unified command. With verticals working in tandem, there's less room for regulatory blame games and more space for system-wide accountability. From control to outcomes HECI is also being pitched as a philosophical shift—from an input-focused, micromanaging bureaucracy to an outcome-driven regulator. In theory, it will care more about results than rules, creating room for greater institutional autonomy. Money follows merit Under HEGC, public funding may finally move toward performance-linked models—rewarding institutions that innovate, publish, and place, rather than simply comply. The goal is to incentivise quality, not paperwork. But HECI isn't a silver bullet: The risks and red flags For all its ambition, HECI carries risks that policymakers cannot afford to ignore: Excessive centralisation Critics fear HECI could become a super-regulator with too much power concentrated at the Centre. If not insulated from political influence, it could be used to enforce ideological conformity across campuses. Loss of domain expertise AICTE and NCTE, for all their flaws, brought specialised understanding of engineering and teacher education. Merging everything under one roof may dilute this expertise unless HECI's verticals are empowered with expert teams. Academic autonomy at risk NEP 2020 advocates 'light but tight' regulation. But if HECI dictates curriculum frameworks, funding norms, and accreditation—all at once—autonomy could become a buzzword, not a reality. Bureaucratic bottlenecks A monolithic body may end up replicating the red tape of its predecessors. Institutional grievances could get lost in the system if not backed by robust grievance redressal mechanisms. So, will HECI deliver? The idea of HECI, on its own, is not the problem. In fact, it reads like a long-overdue footnote to a history of regulatory disarray—one that spans decades of overlapping jurisdictions, incoherent policy mandates, and watchdogs too exhausted to bark. As a concept, it echoes earlier reformist impulses—from the National Knowledge Commission's call for consolidation to the Yash Pal Committee's plea for coherence—both of which gathered dust in government archives while institutional entropy thrived. But as any student of policy will tell you, ideas don't govern—structures do, and structures are only as good as those who operate them. If executed with clarity, autonomy, and genuine insulation from political puppeteering, HECI could finally offer India what the UK has in the Office for Students, or Australia in TEQSA: a regulator that enforces standards without stifling thought, and funds institutions without measuring their worth in compliance checklists. But done badly—and that's not a hypothetical in Indian policy history—it could become yet another monolith with a new acronym and the same old reflexes: delay, dilution, and disinterest in outcomes. New gatekeepers, same revolving doors. As the draft bill inches closer to reality, the real question is not just what HECI abolishes, but what it institutionalises in its place. Because a unified regulator should never become a uniform regulator. And in a democracy that aspires to knowledge leadership, simplification must never come at the cost of dissent, complexity, or intellectual autonomy. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
