Thailand to Withdraw Casino Bill as Ruling Bloc Hit by Crisis
A motion to withdraw the so-called 'entertainment complex' bill from the current session of parliament will be raised on July 9 when it was previously slotted for consideration, government whip Visuth Chainaroon told reporters on Monday.
The government had earlier indicated that it would delay the introduction of the bill — set to be the first major agenda after the House of Representatives reconvened last week — saying it needed more time to communicate with the public and address their concerns about problem gambling and money laundering.
The move to pull the bill came after the ruling alliance was pushed to the brink by the exit of Bhumjaithai Party, which had opposed the bill, and the suspension of Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra for an alleged ethical misconduct.
Paetongtarn also faces other legal challenges after coming under fire for a leaked phone conversation with former Cambodian leader Hun Sen, in which she was critical of the Thai army's role in an ongoing border standoff with the neighboring country.
READ: What to Watch in Thai Politics as Thaksin's Dynasty Unravels
Without a clear majority, the government may face challenges in passing controversial or essential bills that have been lined up in the coming months. The budget bill for next fiscal year from October is also expected to be taken up for the second and third readings in August.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
Trump Accounts Explained: Who's Eligible, How Much And When Can One Withdraw
US President Donald Trump has unveiled a new proposal to create $1,000 investment accounts for children born in America between 2025 and 2028. The "Trump Accounts" or "MAGA Accounts", as they are called, aim to provide long-term financial support to future generations. The program is a part of the " One Big Beautiful Bill," which also includes a broad tax-cut package and government spending. The bill has already passed the House of Representatives with the Trump Accounts provision included, but now faces resistance in the Senate. What are Trump's accounts? Every baby born in the US between January 1, 2025 and December 31, 2028, will be seeded with a one-time $1,000 contribution from the government into an investment account. Parents and families can also contribute up to $5,000 annually to each account. Where will the funds go? The funds will be invested in a US stock index and grow over time with the market. These funds can later be used by children for education, vocational studies or buying a home. When can you withdraw the amount? Account holders will be allowed to make partial withdrawals when they turn 18, access the full amount at age 25, but only for specific purposes, such as paying for higher education or taking a loan to start a small business and gain full access to the funds at age 30 to use it for any purpose. Who controls the account until the child reaches 18? Parents or the child's legal guardians manage the account until the child reaches 18 and becomes eligible to use the funds. Who is eligible to open Trump's account? To open an account, the child's guardian or parent must have a Social Security number and be authorised to work in the US. Why do financial experts voice concerns over the new bill? Unlike Section 529 of the Internal Revenue Code, a tax-advantaged savings plan, Trump Accounts offer no tax deductions for contributions, and earnings are taxed as ordinary income. Financial adviser Amy Spalding said she continues to recommend 529 plans to clients, citing their greater flexibility, broader investment choices, and superior tax advantages. What would be the cost of the program? Considering that about 3.6 million babies are born in the US every year and each will get $1,000 under the scheme, the cost of the program is expected to be around $3 billion per year, according to Time Magazine.
Economic Times
2 hours ago
- Economic Times
New York and other American cities need immigrants
Bloomberg A couple of America's leading anti-immigration voices made the shocking discovery in late June that a lot of New York City residents were born in other countries. Right-wing podcaster/provocateur Matt Walsh wrote on that 40% of the city's population is foreign-born, arguing that this meant 'NYC isn't an American city anymore by any reasonable definition of the term. It's a tragedy and a disgrace.' 'NYC is the clearest warning yet of what happens to a society when it fails to control migration,' echoed the man apparently in charge of US immigration policy, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. He added a little later that, 'To understand the pace and scope of migration to America in past years, one-third of NYC is foreign-born and almost two-thirds of NYC children live in a foreign-born household.' The most recent estimate of New York City's foreign-born population, from the Census Bureau's 2023 American Community Survey, has it at 37.5% of the total. The 2024 number, to be released in September, will almost certainly be higher given the large numbers of asylum-seekers who arrived in the city in 2023 and 2024. So Walsh and Miller aren't far off on the numbers. Their insinuation that this is something new is, however, ridiculous. New York City's foreign-born share was higher in the 1800s and early 1900s than it is now, and has risen only slightly over the past quarter century. Reliable pre-1850 numbers aren't available, but the foreign-born percentage seems to have been somewhat lower than 1850's 45.7% in 1840, and a lot lower for several decades before then because there wasn't much immigration to the US from the American Revolution through about 1820. (New York City did receive big inflows in those days from elsewhere in the US, mainly the New England states.) Before independence, immigration from overseas waxed and waned, but for all of its post-European-settlement history, the city has been home to lots of people who came from someplace else. Without immigration, wave after wave after wave of it, New York would not be New York. The city's most troubled era in living memory, and possibly ever, came after immigrants fell to just 18.2% of the population in 1970. The subsequent decade was a time of high and rising crime, falling employment and fiscal crisis. You might even say it was a tragedy and a disgrace, although older New Yorkers do sometimes wax nostalgic about the cheap real estate. By almost every measure (economic indicators, health outcomes, crime rates), New Yorkers of all backgrounds are much better off now than they were in the 1970s. The foreign-born population share for the entire US has never been as high as New York City's at its low point. It peaked at 14.8% in 1890 and appears to be approaching that again now. Given that the US economy experienced perhaps its best decade ever in the 1960s in terms of economic growth and widely shared prosperity gains, it is possible to use national data to craft a narrative in which the low-immigration middle of the 20th century was a golden era and the times before and since less so. Historical numbers from individual cities, which the Census Bureau compiled in handy format in 1999and I have updated with numbers from the 2000 Census and 2010 and 2023 American Community Surveys, mostly tell a different story, or stories. It's not just in New York where high immigrant populations have gone hand in hand with good times and low immigrant populations with struggles. This is surely in part because immigrants are attracted to places with better economic prospects, but I'm guessing there's more to it than that. In the US, where a bias against cities has been present since the nation's founding, it has often been up to newcomers to make them immigrants don't show up, the situation can get pretty dire. Cities in what came to be known as the Rust Belt had some of the highest foreign-born shares in the mid-1800s. In 1850, 63.7% of Milwaukee's 20,061 residents in 1850 were foreign-born. Now, despite modest gains in recent decades, most are in the single digits. These declines in the foreign-born population share were for a long time accompanied by rising prosperity. In 1950, Detroit was themost affluent city in the country and Cleveland, Milwaukee and Chicago were close. But after that, these cities began to hemorrhage population and wealth to the suburbs and the Sun Belt, with only Chicago experiencing significant immigration inflows after 1970. Cleveland now has only 40% as many residents as it did in 1950, Detroit 35%, St. Louis 33%.San Francisco had similarly immigrant-driven 19th-century origins followed by a long decline in foreign-born population share, but that began to reverse as early as the 1950s. Other big California cities also experienced relatively early rebounds in immigration, with dizzying gains in the 1970s and 1980s in Los Angeles and San Jose. Economic experiences varied widely, though, with Los Angeles struggling since the 1980s while the San Francisco-San Jose area experienced a world-changing boom. There's also been an immigration rebound in the cities of the Acela Corridor along the East Coast, although it hasn't been as strong in the other stops as in New York. Finally, there's the new immigration frontier of the South. In the wake of the Civil War, the region had few immigrants and decades of economic malaise ahead of it. It is now increasingly the nation's economic powerhouse, and its booming cities have higher immigrant populations than ever. The same isn't true for less-successful Southern cities such as Birmingham, Memphis and New Orleans, which have experienced modest recent immigration gains but have yet to return to their late-1800s foreign-born population Orleans was unique in the South as a magnet for immigrants in the 19th century. In the early 1800s, it was flooded with refugees from the bloody liberation struggle in the former French colony of Saint-Domingue, now Haiti, the largest group of which came by way of Cuba. These newcomers transformed the city, helping build it into the financial, cultural and international-trade capital of the South. Miami, which wasn't even incorporated as a city until 1896, welcomed waves of refugees from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela and elsewhere in Latin America in the 20th century and now plays some of the economic role that New Orleans once did. Miami is currently the large US city with by far the highest foreign-born population share, at 55.4%. But one can find even higher percentages in its suburbs, which together with suburbs of New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose and Boston fill out out the rest of the list of communities with the highest foreign-born population shares in 2023. (The Census Bureau releases annual data for places with populations of 65,000 or higher.) Some, like first-place Hialeah, are working class. Others, like second-place Doral, are affluent. The communities with the smallest foreign-born populations include few if any suburbs (Loveland, Colorado; Gary, Indiana; and Lorain, Ohio, are part of larger cities' metropolitan areas but did not start out as bedroom communities). They are instead a mix of mostly shrinking and quite poor older cities in the Midwest and South and growing ones in the Dakotas and Mountain West, plus the booming retirement community of The Villages in Florida. Some of these low-immigration cities are very nice places, but none has a median household income above the national median of $77,719, and that's almost certainly not a coincidence. Immigrants to the US tend to congregate in and around the country's most productive, most expensive cities, economists Christoph Albert and Joan Monras concluded in a study published in the American Economic Review in 2022, because many are more interested in maximizing the amount they earn to send to relatives or spend upon their return to their home countries than in their living standards here in the US. This, in turn, has helped counteract the 'spatial misallocation of labor' caused by too-scarce housing in such places, Albert and Monras also found, making the US economy a bit more productive and all of us, on average, better off. This is another element of the role immigrants play in US cities that Walsh and Miller surely did not consider when they decided to bash New York City's foreign-born residents. Instead, they appear to have mainly been grasping for talking points in the wake of Uganda-born democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani's apparent victory (since confirmed) in the city's Democratic mayoral primary. But even there the implied argument — that more immigrants equates to more-leftist politics — doesn't really hold up. Miami and its environs are currently quite Republican, and President Donald Trump probably won the national immigrant vote in 2024. Immigrants do lots of different things. Destroying American cities just isn't one of them. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Just before the Air India crash, did India avert another deadly mishap? Do bank stress tests continue to serve their intended purpose? Did Jane Street manipulate Indian market or exploit its shallowness? Second only to L&T, but controversies may weaken this infra powerhouse's growth story How Balrampur Chini, EID Parry are stirring up gains amid melting sugar stocks Stock Radar: Poly Medicure stock looks attractive for short-term gains; still down 30% from highs Stock picks of the week: 5 stocks with consistent score improvement and return potential of more than 29% in 1 year Capital market stocks: Some corrections are opportunities, 5 stocks with potential downside to upside from -20% to +24%
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Want students to thrive? Lock up their phones
There are few things most American politicians seem to agree upon, but banning mobile phones in classrooms seems to be one of them. Based on the experiences of some schools that have required students to prioritize learning over TikTok scrolling, there's also a welcome side benefit: less conflict and more 'hellos.' When school starts this fall, students in most US states and DC will be required by law to turn over or turn off their smartphones during all or most of the school day, according to an Education Week tally. Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Utah have statewide bans. Another 24 states have adopted rules or laws that require restrictions on mobile phones but leave it up to school districts to decide whether to ban them or not. Two states offer districts incentives to restrict phones. Another seven recommend local districts enact their own restrictions. Bloomberg The methods and policy details vary widely between states, but the reasons for silencing phones are pretty universal. A growing body of research has found that the more time children and their developing brains spend on smartphones, the greater the risk of negative mental health outcomes — from depression, to cyberbullying, to an inability to focus and learn. Social media is intentionally designed 'to expose users to an endless stream of content' which makes it addictive, said Carol Vidal, a child and adolescent psychiatrist at the Johns Hopkins Children's Center. That's especially risky for children and teens, she said, 'because their brains are still developing, and they have less control over their impulses.' Live Events The laws are spurred in part by the research discussed in the 2024 book by Jonathan Haidt The Anxious Generation. The New York University professor elevated this theory after reviewing dozens of recent studies linking social media and smartphone use by kids and teens to the explosive increase in rates of anxiety among young people, including emergency room visits for self-harm. The idea of severing the phone from the classroom not only has legislators and governors in red and blue states giving it near-unanimous support, a 2024 survey by Pew Research found that 68% of US adults support a ban on smartphone use among middle- and high-school students during class. But a ban in theory is not the same as putting it into practice, especially for the large numbers of parents worried about being unable to contact their kids during the school day. That's something Principal Inge Esping noticed when she barred phones from classrooms at McPherson Middle School in Kansas, an hour north of Wichita. In 2022, when Esping started as the school's principal, she noticed that the spike in online bullying among students was happening during the school day. 'Middle schoolers are a little notorious for when they're trying to make fun of someone,' she told me. 'They'll take a picture of the person that they're making fun of and share that via social media — especially during lunchtime.'' Absences and suspensions were rising, with too many students staying home either because they feared confronting their bullies or because they were bullying others. She and her staff decided to impose a rule in the 2022–23 school year requiring students to turn off their phones and store them in their lockers from the first bell to the last. With few exceptions, children who had grown up with mobile phones 'simply accepted it,' Esping said. It was their parents who protested. 'I don't think we really realized how much parents were reaching out to their students during the school day,' Esping recalled. Many parents feared being unable to communicate with their children during school hours, particularly in an era of school shootings. Others didn't trust the school to notify them when their child needed them, she said. She and her colleagues then embarked on an ambitious plan to persuade parents of the value of keeping phones out of reach during school hours. She organized back-to-school events to increase communication, engaged more parents in volunteer and visiting opportunities, and refined the school's alert system that notifies families when there's an emergency. As parents grew to accept the new system, the results for their children were dramatic. In the first year, the school saw a 5% increase in their state assessment scores in both reading and math. School suspensions dropped 70% by Christmas and have remained at half the rate they were before the ban. And absenteeism went down from 39% to 11% — because taking phones away prevented many of the harmful social media comments that kept bullied kids from coming to school. Other school districts with mobile phone restrictions reported similar results in student discipline. A year after the Orange County School District in Florida implemented its phone ban in 2023, fighting went down 31% and 'serious misconduct' issues decreased by 21%, Superintendent Maria Vazquez told Florida lawmakers in January. Results like that are, in part, what have spurred elected officials to act. 'Arkansas' phone-free schools' program isn't about taking anything away,' declared Republican Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders when she signed Arkansas' mobile phone ban earlier this year. 'It's about giving kids the freedom to learn without distractions.' The idea is getting some traction in Washington, too. One of the final acts of the Biden administration's Department of Education was to issue a recommendation that all states and districts adopt measures to manage smartphone use in schools. In February, Senators Tim Kaine, a Democrat from Virginia, and Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, introduced legislation to study the effects of mobile phone use in schools. And this week, Democratic Senator Elise Slotkin of Michigan called for a ban on 'social media and cell phones in every K-12 classroom in America.' She blamed technology for interfering in 'problem-solving skills that will be valuable in the future economy.' But for teachers, the most tangible difference has been the 'huge vibe change,' said Esping, who was named Kansas Middle School Principal of the Year in April. Teachers reported that students were now more engaged — in the classroom and school corridors. 'The year before the phone ban, you'd say 'hello' to a student and they would ignore you and move on because they're so tied to their cell phone,' Esping told me. But after the ban, 'kids were looking up and talking to one another,' especially in the lunchroom and as students transitioned between classes. 'When you'd say, 'good morning' to them, they'd say 'good morning' back.' As always, students may be teaching the rest of the nation something here. Maybe more smartphone bans are exactly what we need.
