Prince William and his wife, Catherine, Princess of Wales, openly discussed “everything” with their children following her cancer diagnosis. The 43-year-old royal experienced a challenging 2024, as both his wife and his father, King Charles, underwent treatment for undisclosed forms of cancer. He revealed that he and Catherine were committed to answering any difficult questions posed by their children: Prince George, 12, Princess Charlotte, 10, and Prince Louis, 7.

Speaking on Brazil’s Domingão com Huck on Sunday (Nov 9), William said, “Every family faces tough times together, and how you handle those moments matters. We decided to tell our children everything, both the good and the bad, explaining why certain things happen and why they might feel upset. Kids understand far more than we often give them credit for. Sometimes they ask challenging questions, and we don’t always have the answers. But we chose to be open with them. That honesty keeps us united.”

He added that many questions may go unanswered, acknowledging that all parents face similar challenges. William also joked about being a “taxi driver” to his children, noting that he and Catherine try to stay hands-on. “Play dates, school runs, sports days, matches, playing in the garden… Catherine and I share it, though she probably does the bulk of it,” he said.

The couple have decided not to give their children mobile phones yet, taking a cautious approach to protect them online. William explained, “It’s really hard. Our children don’t have phones. When George moves to secondary school, he may get one with limited access. We talk to him about why we think full access isn’t right—kids can see things they shouldn’t. With restricted access, it’s safer for messaging.” William also reflected on the humanitarian work of his late mother, Princess Diana, saying he carries her legacy “every day.” Shown a 1991 photo of Diana in Brazil, cradling an HIV-positive child, he remarked, “I carry her social and humanitarian legacy with me every day.”
Disclaimer: This image is taken from Reuters.

Pakistan Railways has temporarily halted the Jaffar Express service between Quetta and Peshawar for four days, citing security concerns to ensure passenger safety, according to Express Tribune. Railway officials stated that the suspension will be in effect from November 9 to November 12, following evaluations and recommendations from law enforcement and intelligence agencies. “The suspension is intended to protect passengers, railway staff, and railway property from potential threats,” officials added.

The Jaffar Express has been frequently targeted in terrorist attacks in recent years, causing fatalities and damage to railway infrastructure. These incidents have made the route highly sensitive, prompting authorities to implement additional precautions during periods of elevated risk. This year alone, the train has faced seven attacks, resulting in at least 30 civilian deaths and over 35 injuries.

As a major passenger service, the Jaffar Express connects Balochistan with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, serving as a critical transport link for commuters, traders, and travelers across provinces. In October, a blast on the railway track near Shikarpur in Sindh derailed four bogies of the train, injuring at least seven people. Shikarpur Deputy Commissioner Shakeel Abro reported that the explosion occurred at 8:15 am, about one kilometre from Sultan Kot railway station.
Disclaimer: This image is taken from Reuters.

In recent political discourse, especially in Bengal, the term "ghuspaithiya," which translates to "intruder" or "illegal infiltrator," has gained significant traction. But who exactly qualifies as a 'ghuspaithiya'? The word has been used broadly to describe individuals who are seen as threats to demographic balance and social fabric. While government officials and political leaders often characterize “ghuspaithiyas” as illegal immigrants from neighboring countries like Bangladesh, the term's usage has layers of social, political, and cultural implications that go beyond simple definitions.

The politics around "ghuspaithiya" in Bengal often centers on anxieties about illegal immigration's impact on employment, resources, and community identity. Political leaders argue that these so-called intruders are seizing jobs and government welfare meant for local citizens, stirring fears tied to demographic shifts. For example, some parties have linked the issue to the marriage of tribal girls with illegal immigrants or land grabbing by newcomers. This has heightened tensions in border regions and urban pockets where migrant populations live, spurring strong electoral rhetoric around identification and expulsion of such individuals.

However, the term’s application is controversial and not strictly about legality. It increasingly serves as a political tool to create an 'us versus them' narrative, often targeting specific linguistic and religious groups, mainly Bengali-speaking Muslims or Rohingya refugees. This shifts the focus from legal documentation to cultural belonging and perceived loyalty, intertwining welfare politics, religious identity, and citizenship debates. Such labeling can contribute to social exclusion and stigmatization, creating divisions within the community over who truly belongs.

The national and state governments have launched mechanisms like special voter rolls and demographic missions aimed at addressing the issue, but these efforts sometimes risk marginalizing innocent citizens or long-settled residents misclassified as 'intruders.' This calls for sensitive, inclusive policies that balance security concerns with human rights protections. Moreover, understanding the historical movements of people in Bengal and the porous nature of its borders is crucial before branding anyone an illegal migrant.

In conclusion, being labeled a 'ghuspaithiya' in Bengal is less about clear legal status and more about political narratives and social perceptions in a complex regional context. It is a term loaded with emotional, financial, and identity-related consequences. As Bengal approaches elections, it is important for the public and policymakers alike to scrutinize the term's usage critically, ensuring discussions around it do not devolve into exclusionary politics but rather lead to informed, humane solutions addressing genuine concerns about migration and integration
Disclaimer: This Image is taken from NDTV.

Zohran Mamdani’s economic vision for New York City paints a bold picture of social justice and equality, championing rent freezes, free public transit, a $30 minimum wage, and increased childcare pay. His agenda is driven by a deep commitment to making the city more affordable and equitable for all residents. However, while the moral intentions behind these policies resonate widely, experts warn there are significant economic trade-offs that must be considered to avoid unintended consequences.​

Mamdani’s proposal to freeze rents, for example, aims to protect nearly a million rent-stabilized apartments, providing immediate relief for many tenants. Yet historical evidence from similar policies, such as in San Francisco, suggests that rent control can shrink the overall housing supply and push rents higher elsewhere in the city. This creates a tension between fairness to current renters and the economic realities of housing availability—a challenge that any city-wide plan must carefully navigate to avoid deepening scarcity.​

Another pillar of Mamdani’s platform is a radical increase in the minimum wage to $30 an hour, alongside free bus transit and better pay for childcare workers. These policies, while appealing as steps toward economic justice, face questions of sustainability. Rapid wage hikes risk inflationary pressures and could strain small businesses unable to match these costs, potentially reducing employment. At the same time, funding free public transit requires substantial revenue, likely through higher taxes on high earners and corporations, which Mamdani proposes as part of his economic transformation.​

Critics emphasize that Mamdani’s vision reflects a classic dilemma in economics: the balance between moral goals and practical arithmetic. Policies promising “something for nothing” tend to create fiscal burdens and economic distortions that affect growth, investments, and job creation. The concept is sometimes referred to as “fiscal illusion,” where the benefits appear free but eventually manifest as higher prices or reduced services. Yet supporters argue that Mamdani’s approach is a much-needed response to growing inequality and the failures of existing economic systems to serve the working class fairly.​

Looking ahead, Mamdani’s model invites a larger conversation about the future of urban economics in an age challenged by wealth concentration, technological disruption, and social demand for equity. Integrating strategies like community wealth building, cooperative enterprises, and public ownership alongside traditional reforms could create more sustainable pathways. New York City’s experiment under Mamdani’s leadership will be a critical test case for reconciling ambitious justice-oriented economics with the hard math of feasibility.​

This nuanced understanding of Mamdani’s economic framework highlights the essential dialogue between purpose and pragmatism in public policy. As cities worldwide grapple with affordability and inequality, the “Big Apple style” experiment offers lessons on balancing compassion with economic realities for a fairer future.
Disclaimer: This Image is taken from Reuters.

Singapore is making waves on the global technology stage with a strategic leap forward in quantum computing. Marking a major milestone under its National Quantum Strategy, Singapore is set to become the first country outside the United States to host Quantinuum’s Helios quantum computer by 2026. This partnership not only positions Singapore as a pioneering hub for quantum innovation but also promises to accelerate developments across pharmaceuticals, finance, and advanced material sciences with cutting-edge computational power.
Disclaimer: This Podcast is taken from CNA. 

This week, the US government shutdown became the longest ever, surpassing 36 days. Millions of Americans have had their food stamp benefits delayed, and major airports are seeing 10% fewer flights as government workers stay home due to halted pay. Rachel Leingang and David Smith examine why the president is prioritizing grand building projects instead.

Disclaimer: This Podcast is taken from The Guardian.

Anthony Albanese may have enjoyed a brief surge of popularity after returning from the US, but the newest Guardian Essential poll indicates that voters remain skeptical about the results of his discussions with US president Donald Trump. Political reporter and Canberra bureau chief Josh Butler talks with Essential Media’s executive director, Peter Lewis, about how the absence of real tension in parliament undermines effective governance — and why the Liberal party resembles a bird struggling to fly with two injured wings.

Disclaimer: This Podcast is taken from The Guardian.

Washington and Beijing have reached a fresh trade framework before a key meeting between Trump and Xi, but the possibility of 100 per cent tariffs remains. Daniel Martin interviews James Chin, Professor of Asian Studies at the University of Tasmania.

Disclaimer: This podcast is taken from CNA.