|
Subsistence, shame and perceptions
by Rubana Huq
NEW Age wakes a sleepy mind in the morning. Either there are criticisms, critical attempts to look at national and world views or at the bare minimum level, a quick observation on a burning issue. The readymade garments sector happens to be a favourite pick and as a manufacturer, I appreciate it. There were two articles that were encouraging one of which was by Tanim Ahmed published on January 30 and the other by Mahtab Haider on February 15. While Tanim dealt with compliance Mahtab focused on the shrinking price levels that retailers subject the manufacturers to.
A quick feedback on Mahtab’s one first and then I will move on to Tanim’s.
Mahtab’s ‘Cheap labour for cheap chic’ is one of the rare articles which sides with a manufacturer’s position. We have been battling with poor CM (cutting and making) structure and an ever-decreasing FOB (free on board) forever. But we have never had the advantage of print media support to help our strife during our meetings on God forsaken tables of negotiation.
Mahtab provides almost an in-depth look at the way the RMG sector is operating in this country at this minute. Till about four years ago, a deal was mostly on a complete packaged FOB basis meaning the fabric, trim sourcing would have to be the manufacturer’s responsibility and the freight would be paid by the buyer. The manufacturer enjoyed the sourcing, and if lucky, got away in production with an average translation of the buyer’s original product sourcing package. With time, the buyer wanted to know more and demanded that a direct communication with the fabric and trim supplier. A buyer walking into the office with an Armani shirt or sweater wanting us to replicate the same eventually got in touch with the fabric/yarn suppliers that we were using and negotiated the fabric/yarn price himself/herself. Then came the accessories and suddenly the suppliers were developing the counter samples for the buyers from their end. Our job became easier and our margins started falling. After all, it was only the manufacturing that the buyer needed to pay for! Today, we simply receive an attached excel sheet with queries that do not overlook any detail, including thread and demand a figure against all their columns. It was only the other day a retailer had complained to me bitterly about having to deal with our long sheets which don’t fit her A4 print requirements.
Lead times are shorter as most of the fabric order is placed by the buyer. They confirm fabric bookings far before they confirm their manufacturing spaces with us. The reason is simple. Fabric and yarn prices are on the rise where as manufacturing and mushrooming are synonymous in Bangladesh. E-auctions have killed us and a 5:00am e-bid, which I have personally attempted many times, also does not help as some agent in China is outbidding the Bangladeshi manufacturer over his 7:00am Starbuck café latte. We, today, therefore live with our uncertain production capacities, increasing laundry list of human rights abuses and a workforce that needs to be paid by the seventh day of the next month. And this is exactly when an article like Mahtab’s one consoles us.
But euphoria is not infinite and the last paragraph is enough to dampen a manufacturer’s morale. His anger truly surfaces in his last lines. The last line, indeed, is hurried, rash. He writes: ‘The garments sector may be Bangladesh’s largest foreign exchange earner, but it is an industry of shame, not pride.’ How has the garment industry brought us shame? What truly shames us is the utter lack of humanity in our 37-year-old nation. RMG manufacturers cannot be expected to be the shining exceptions in this land. They simply fall under the category of abusers, irrespective of their profession just because the culture of exploitation, aggression and intolerance is something they have acquired with years from their leaders themselves. Abuse is everywhere. Singling out the RMG sector for argument’s sake is unfair. I could not arrest my emotion when I read this. So, I sent an instant mail to Mahtab and wrote: ‘Include all, including the little unnoticed girl who leaves her handprints on your car window at every heavy traffic stop that you drive by on your way to work. Try and change her lines if you can.’
The second article ‘Subsistence not enough’ by Tanim Ahmed itself bears the proof of garment manufacturers dwelling somewhere in between the hells of the retailers and the activists. Improvement initiatives are always within brackets and are cursed by partial points of views. I, however, congratulate the writer whose second article most certainly touched upon areas that are far better balanced, better presented than his last piece on January 14.
Tanim seems a little weak with his sources of stats. His reference to my being the managing director of a group that has a turnover of $6 million and employs 1,650 people is erroneous. The group export and the number of employees is many times more than his statement. The website he is referring to does not even belong to the group I represent. Walking around wearing someone else’s shoes which are two sizes tighter than the wearer’s usual size can be challenging. Walking barefoot may be, for that matter, a far wiser choice. But then again, the feet better be ready for the rocky roads as in spite of Tanim’s firm conviction that all the governments have helped the RMG sector, most of the roads leading to most of the factories are not pleasant to tread upon.
According to the columnist, the garment sector asking for government-sponsored food ration is unjust. He questions the long-term sustainability of the industry as he feels that the owners are not willing to share the profits with the workers and are unjustly asking for ration for their workers. The writer takes the argument to a step beyond simply that. He mentions that this demand is only to drain money from the taxpayers’ pockets. Really? While the manufacturers are the ones who contribute the most to the economy supporting all the other economic activities, should such a twist be given to reality? Logic in either deductive or inductive manner also involves fallacies. The manufacturer’s bad karma lies in him/her not finding the exit route. If he asks for state help, he’s stressing the taxpayers; if he’s not asking for support, he’s taken as the ultimate slave driver who’s got all the solutions.
The writer has quoted from the same book, ‘Venturing into a quota free world’, edited by Abdur Razzaque and Selim Raihan, as I had earlier as a counter response and has chosen chapters which suit his arguments the most. One would expect him to read Chapter 4 as well, which clearly mentions that from 2009, when the restrictions from China cease, Bangladesh exports will once again take a nosedive just like it did in 2005. The 31 per cent recovery that Bangladesh posted was only because of the restricted supplies from China against the safeguard measures imposed after China posted unimaginable growth rates during January-June 2005.
A more detailed sector-wise study should be undertaken. Instead of simply grouping woven and knits together, a researcher should carefully study the vulnerability of woven products at this point of time. Worldwide the demand for woven products is less. The GSP facilities that should have benefited the garment manufacturer, in case of woven products, have not truly happened. The non-compliance with the European Union’s rules of origin due to the low domestic value added content has not been beneficial for the country.
As for the currency devaluation, I am referring to the same book where the writer states: ‘…all these currencies have depreciated substantially since the end of the MFA regime.’
However, I absolutely agree with the writer when he indicates that a continuous depreciation is not a sustainable answer.
I also agree when the writer states that there is no way other than value addition that can pay us more. But value addition will only come with developing fashion statements ourselves; value can only be gained by setting up vertical units; value can only come when the international partners are not haunted by non-compliance issues that are so hyped up by the media whereas the success stories almost go unnoticed.
The early-1990s saw a surge that beat every possible trade that existed in this country. Hundreds of apartment building next door was seen being redesigned, focusing on only the crucial columns which became an 8-hour home for workers. Correction at times, 10, at times 12, at times even 13.The factories were filled with orders, had to work shifts, do overtime beyond the allowed limit, and yet faced no compliance threats. The economy grew; the workers got paid and the manufacturers got busy constructing their next industrial unit which would enjoy tax free benefit for the next five years. More orders poured in which neither monsoons, nor floods could arrest. Transport industry grew, exports rose to unbelievable extent and the workers walking to the factory every morning had a bright smile on their faces.
But that was all yesterday.
Today, out of the total 4,524 factories, literally 1,000 factories are truly operational, 500 have fared well, and 50 out of the same 500 are the market leaders. These 50-100 factories who work directly with the retailers continuously face the rough ride along the way. They are the exporters who are identified, interviewed, and are supposed to represent the sector. Hence, all that the viewers, readers receive is a view which does not speak for everyone in the sector. The talk-shows are a regular comedy. With the attacks being launched from the interviewer’s end, and with the activists coming up with a barrage of accusations, we often watch the manufacturers fumbling and generalising most of the issues and evading critical issues like minimum wage and trade unions.
I remember Khalishpur, Khulna where many, many years back I had seen my father being surrounded by jute mill workers and confining him to the little administrator’s room for hours till the police came to his rescue. This was a regular union scene out there. Jute died a sorry death eventually. Trade unions should ideally benefit the owners as organised trade unions, if represented by conscious workers should find their voice through a unified platform. Torching factories et al should cease with formation of responsible trade unions. But, in a country where the awareness level lies at a subzero level, in a country where education is at its lowest ebb, is it reasonable to expect trade unions to act with balanced views? I think not. May we think about a joint platform of workers and employers where the two houses will sanely meet? Instead of having a tripartite arrangement, should the manufacturers not be generous to host the joint platform ourselves? I believe this should be done factory wise and not through a common panel of an existing organisation. I believe the time to take responsibility for our own actions and consequence is now. Those manufacturers who believe in fair trade should handle their own units with caution so that no other quarters can intervene and aggravate the scenario.
While I was writing this article a young lady walked in to my office. She complained that the company does not provide financial benefits beyond two children and she asked if I would make an exception as her third pregnancy was accidental. My response was measured and a standard one. I could not amend existing laws, but I could make an exception. I could compensate her privately. But then again, isn’t my ‘private’ also ‘public’?
Poverty is easy to use when one wants to ignite fire, and the fact that the comparative advantage Bangladesh enjoys is unfortunately heavily based on inexpensive labour both contribute to a huge case of irony that Bangladeshi RMG manufacturers cannot afford. But then again the tragedy of this single most important industry being attacked in the media every day must cease and I sincerely suggest a continuous dialogue in print amongst all the warring (or erring) sides.
Rubana Huq is managing director, Mohammadi Group
Australia unburdens her torments
by Maswood Alam Khan
BESEECHING apology to the stolen generations of aborigines, the Australian prime minister, Kevin Rudd, has entered history as a courageous leader to relieve his nation from an emotional burden, removing a blight from his nation’s soul and helping a Day of Atonement dawn for original inhabitants of Australia.
A new episode has been opened in Australia’s tortured relations with its indigenous peoples, pointing other world leaders in the direction of a novelty to ‘right a historic wrong’, a courageous approach to emancipate incarcerated conscience, a redemption of the posterity from the sins of their predecessors’ misdeeds.
Politicians indulge in tall talks before election campaigns only to court cheap popularity and shy away from a pledge that may not appeal to each and every voter. Rudd was an exception by pledging before his November election that ‘he would apologise to aborigines’ – an idea not favourable to each voter – if he were elected to the prime minister’s office. He has put his campaign pledge into practice as he became the prime minister knowing full well that many Australians would deem such an admission of guilt disgraceful and a dishonour to their forefathers.
Pakistan regime had an ulterior motive to transfuse our tongues to speak in Urdu forgetting our mother tongue. By the same token, aboriginal children in Australia were also systematically snatched away from their mothers and sent to live with white families, where they grew up often unaware of their indigenous background in an attempt by the government to dilute their indigenous culture under a (‘blackmailing’) policy of assimilation that began in 1910 and lasted into the early 1970s, a period Kevin Rudd has termed ‘a black era in his nation’s history’.
Stolen children while living with white families were perplexed to see a difference in their skin and body structures with those of their foster guardians and could not fathom out why they did often feel an inner emptiness and a trauma until the truth of their removal from their families emerged years later. A 1997 national inquiry into the stolen generation found that many children suffered long-term psychological effects from the loss of family and culture.
Aborigines in some parts of Australia were governed by laws covering wildlife and plants and it was not before a referendum in 1967 that gave the indigenous people the same legal rights as everyone else. Since that recognition of humans as humans it has taken more than 40 years for an Australian prime minister to utter a simple, five-letter word – sorry!
On February 13, Aborigines smeared with white body paint and playing didgeridoos opened parliament for the first time where was echoed the premier’s apologetic voice saying, ‘For the pain, suffering and hurt of these “Stolen Generations”, their descendants and for their families and communities, we say sorry; and for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.” February 13 will remain a momentous day for acknowledgement of injustices suffered by Aborigines for more than 200 years after European colonisation that began in late 1700s.
Former Australian prime minister John Howard missed the train to journey into the pages of history by not lending his ears to an official report of a commission on Australia’s past assimilation policies that urged the government about 11 years back to issue a formal apology to the Aborigines. Howard refused to show any contrition, insisting that current generation of Australians should not apologise for injustices of the past, a stance still harboured unfortunately by a number of Australian politicians.
The difference between Mr Rudd and Mr Howard as prime ministers has thus been the divergence between a statesman and a political leader: one statesman who is ready to navigate his nation taking full responsibility for the past, the present and the future and one political leader who feels loath to budge an inch beyond the narrow confines of time and space of his limited tenure. Aborigines, who under Howard, felt alienated and segregated by Australian society are now the same people feeling embraced and valued by the same society under Rudd – a difference in captaincy denoting a difference between captivity and liberty.
Now is the time for Australians not only to embrace the aborigines as their siblings who comprise two per cent of the country’s population of 21 million but also to address acute problems related to their ill-health, unemployment and imprisonment.
The pink complexioned race (better known as white race) that went to the shores of America brought in shiploads of slaves from Africa. Have they ever apologised to the blacks? Instead of apologising they think by enchaining the black slaves they rather developed the land and taught those ‘human like beasts’ how to add and subtract enabling them to count their children on arithmetic formula other than on their fingers and toes. But they while playing God are oblivious of their roots, the reason they were shipped to America: most of the Europeans who arrived on the shores of North America at the early part of settlement in the new-found-land were convicts who had to be segregated in islands far from the civilised world.
Hollywood movies have left an impression with us that great Indian wars came in the Old West of America during the late 1800s. But in fact that was a ‘mopping up’ effort. By that time Red Indians were nearly finished, their subjugation complete, their numbers decimated. The killing, enslavement, and the land theft had begun immediately after the arrival of Europeans on the shores of America. It reached its nadir in 1838 and 1839 when under President Andrew Jackson’s Indian removal policy the Cherokee nation was forced to give up its lands east of the Mississippi River and to migrate under duress. The migrants faced hunger, disease, and exhaustion on the forced march. Over 4,000 out of 15,000 of the Cherokees died. Have the Americans ever begged apology to the American aborigines who were known as Red Indians?
Many historians believe that Japan compelled up to 200,000 women –mostly Chinese and Koreans – to become sex slaves or in other words ‘comfort women’ who were employed in army garrisons to calm the nerves of Japanese troops, though Japanese politicians deny that force was used to round up the women. But, there is no denying the fact that during our liberation war Pakistani military personnel in connivance with Bangladeshi brokers broke into our people’s homes and took many of our women by force. When will a Kevin Rudd emerge in Japan or Pakistan to beg apology to China, Korea or Bangladesh? Have those Bangladeshi collaborators who helped Pakistani aggressors kidnap our women ever begged apology to our freedom fighters?
We humans err in our attempts to do any activity in our mundane life and learning from our past mistakes next time we rather err on the side of caution. When mistakes committed turn out to be irreparable we beg apology, we say ‘sorry’ to one who suffers from our fault. Saying sorry to the aggrieved man does not help him get back his lost time or his lost son or his lost money, but greatly helps him heal his wounded soul – like a soothing balm on our lacerated skin.
Spending a day in a jail on the part of an innocent person is too long a period. But, hundreds of thousands of people all over the world are spending years after years inside prisons before or without trials and many innocent people are being convicted due to mismatching of evidences. Thanks to cutting edge of forensic technology proving an innocent guilty and a guilty innocent, pundits in the world of jurisprudence are repenting of what blunders they as the prosecution had committed as many of their past judgments and arguments are now emerging as irreparably wrongful.
Whenever we hear about an innocent person getting convicted or harassed by any miscarriage of justice a towering figure like apparitions of a tall man in his prison costume come into our mental view reverberating the courtroom with his uproarious voice. ‘Phiriye dao amaar shei baroti bachhar’ (Give me back those twelve years), Chhabi Biswas shouted in the 1955 Bangla movie ‘Sabar Uparey’ as he was proven innocent only after spending 12 years of imprisonment on a wrongful judgement.
What could be the most appropriate answer to Chhabi Biswas’s demand? A simple five-letter word: Sorry?
Maswood Alam Khan is general manager, Bangladesh Krishi Bank, and may be contacted at maswoodalamkhan@gmail.com
Apology to Aborigines
Following is the formal apology given to the Aboriginal people of Australia by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on behalf of its parliament and government
TODAY we honour the Indigenous peoples of this land, the oldest continuing cultures in human history.
We reflect on their past mistreatment.
We reflect in particular on the mistreatment of those who were stolen generations - this blemished chapter in our nation’s history.
The time has now come for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future.
We apologise for the laws and policies of successive Parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians.
We apologise especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.
For the pain, suffering and hurt of these stolen generations, their descendants and for their families left behind, we say sorry.
To the mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry.
And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud people and a proud culture, we say sorry.
We the Parliament of Australia respectfully request that this apology be received in the spirit in which it is offered as part of the healing of the nation.
For the future we take heart; resolving that this new page in the history of our great continent can now be written.
We today take this first step by acknowledging the past and laying claim to a future that embraces all Australians.
A future where this Parliament resolves that the injustices of the past must never, never happen again.
A future where we harness the determination of all Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to close the gap that lies between us in life expectancy, educational achievement and economic opportunity.
A future where we embrace the possibility of new solutions to enduring problems where old approaches have failed.
A future based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility.
A future where all Australians, whatever their origins, are truly equal partners, with equal opportunities and with an equal stake in shaping the next chapter in the history of this great country, Australia.
Can Hillary Clinton lose gracefully?
Can she now elegantly and charmingly drop out of the race with humility and grace and declare her wholehearted support for Barack Obama and help make history of a different kind from what she had planned for herself? That seems quite unlikely at this juncture, writes Omar Khasru
IN THE Wall Street Journal (February 8, 2008), Peggy Noonan, author, columnist, TV talk-show host and frequent talk-show guest, once a producer of TV programmes, a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan (1984 to 1986) and a previous chief speechwriter for Bush Senior when he ran for the presidency in 1988, asks a very pertinent question – can Mrs Clinton lose (gracefully)?
Hillary Clinton is what American pundits and populace, political prognosticators and hoi polloi would call a tough nut to crack. She has after all weathered through Bill Clinton’s controversial and often rough political career, including consecutive terms as the president of the United States. She withstood the ignominy of his multiple affairs and came out of all that with grace and equanimity. She suffered through wave after wave of Republican and right wing attacks during her White House years and her own political career as the second-term New York senator. Her toughness is beyond reproach, her ability to withstand attacks and allegations, troubles and travails are beyond question. Much of her past experiences were geared towards a contest and victory and the grand prize in the US presidential race. Now, the fruition of her dream seems so close yet so far.
Once someone becomes a candidate for US presidency, the floodgate opens up and journalists delve into the possible past infractions and transgression, however obscure and trivial these might be, with doggedness and gusto. With the ‘cavalcade of scandals’ as Ms Noonan mentions, Hillary may be an easier target for the Republicans. But that is not going to deter Hillary Clinton.
Mrs Clinton obviously has the tenacity and steely nerve, ability to confront and tackle almost any predicament and staunch adversaries. But now she seems at a loss as how to overcome the inspirational and energetic campaign of a relatively young first-term senator from the state of Illinois. The novelty of her being the first viable female presidential contender from a major party seems to have been nullified by the equally unique candidacy of a bright, gifted, accomplished and articulate member of a racial minority. His series of successive primary wins now clearly indicates the all-important big momentum is in his side.
If Hillary Clinton loses and the indications increasingly are that she may, will she have the poise, civility, dignity and nerve to concede gracefully? In a cutthroat competitive society and polarised combative gung-ho political culture that increasingly believe in the dictum that ‘Winning is not everything, it is the only thing!’ (late Green Bay Packer coach Vincent Limbardi), it is always somewhat difficult, perhaps more so for someone like Hilary Clinton.
With all the adversaries and tribulations, Hillary so far has had a relatively smooth sailing in politics and reasonably calm transition from a political wife to an exalted political career. A cursory glance at her ambitious background and meticulous planning, prodding and plotting would indicate that the ultimate goal has always been the US presidency, especially an emphatic reference in history books as the first female chief executive. She was the frontrunner in that quest from the Democratic Party at the onset. She and her husband may look at Senator Obama as the ultimate party pooper and usurper.
Now that a loss looks increasingly likely, will she, as Peggy Nonan phrases it, ‘just say, “I concede” and go on vacation at a friend’s house on an island, and then go back to the Senate and wait?’ Someone who has always been used to belligerent ‘us against them’ hard-fought political gamesmanship and fighting tooth and nail against political opponents, this may be against her nature and a fairly difficult proposition. Her husband once ruefully mentioned to his confrontational Republican antagonists, ‘I am your opponent, not your enemy.’ Will that now dawn on her? So that she may withdraw her candidature in favour of Obama, just as Mitt Romney recently did for Senator McCain in the Republican Party.
Can she now elegantly and charmingly drop out of the race with humility and grace and declare her wholehearted support for Barack Obama and help make history of a different kind from what she had planned for herself? That seems quite unlikely at this juncture.
For one thing she might think she will rise from the ashes again like phoenix as she did at New Hampshire when pundits, political experts and pollsters had written her off on the basis of her third place Iowa finish and dismal showing in the polls. Or it just may be that she does not accept losing, a political inescapability, too well.
And if Senator Obama is the candidate, it will certainly be no picnic for the Republicans and their presumptive nominee, Senator McCain (with his Bangladeshi adopted daughter). The possible Democratic contender has displayed resolve and guts, political gumption and motivation, well-organised supporters and well-crafted campaign to win against all odds. He will be a difficult opponent to deal with.
Omar Khasru is an administrator at a private university
Remembering the martyrs
Every time I think of the martyrs of our Language Movement, my heart fills with gratitude and pride. The sons of this soil had sacrificed their lives for a cause that is unprecedented in history and has not gone in vain. 21st February has been recognised as the International Mother Language Day and is being observed throughout the world.
Our deepest sympathy and regards for the mothers who lost their sons for such a noble cause. I do not know how many of them are still alive. Some time ago, I saw a programme on TV which portrayed the miserable condition in which the mother of a martyr of the language movement is living. It shocked me and I felt so ashamed. We should pay homage to the martyrs not only on 21st February but should remember them throughout the year.
Nur Jahan
Chittagong
ACC to investigate military graft!
Ershad is enjoying virtual immunity from his corruption cases mainly involving military hardware purchase all through the tenure of the government of Fakhruddin while other high profile politicians are languishing in jail with their ‘civil type’ corruption. With basic rights suppressed, one wonders who will even talk about the corruption of army, let alone raising any complaint about it.
Therefore the belated acknowledgement of corruption in army by the ACC seems to stem not from its own initiative but from the visit of the Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee of Denmark. The mythical ‘single saint and all thief’ theory should die with it. No matter how hard we shout about corruption, accountability and transparency can never be achieved under a government not accountable to its own people but to some foreign forces.
Saif
Dhaka
Apology to Aborigines
The wrongs were done not through words but through deeds. The rights need to be done in exactly the same way. Much breath is wasted in polemic while people’s lives are twisted and broken out of sight of those who speak it.
Zubair
On e-mail
* * *
Australia should be proud of itself. Rudd has washed away some of the shame brought on his country by John Howard. Now the Rudd Government must ensure the living standards of Aboriginal peoples are raised to the standards of other Australians and they no longer die from diseases that afflict only the very poor of the Third World.
Sarah Chowdhury
USA
‘Delhi must feed its people first’
No one can dispute this plain fact. A government who cares for its citizen must act accordingly. However, at the same time, a country has some basic responsibilities towards its next door neighbour as well. Any civilised nation cannot remain silent and inactive if anything happens to its neighbour that needs immediate humanitarian assistance.
India, being our only major and powerful neighbour never plays its due role and responsibilities towards Bangladesh. The reasons are best known to them.
Nasir
Canada
|
Next on Quick Comments
|
a. EC fails to complete even half of roadmap tasks (New Age, February 17)
b. Hasina apprehends danger, unwilling to be treated in country (New Age, February 17)
c. India provides less Ganges water for Bangladesh: Dhaka’s protest remains unheeded (New Age, February 17)
>
d. Cooking oil prices see fresh rise (New Age, February 17)
>
e. IOJ names 15 war criminals: Demands their trial in special court (New Age, February 17)
>
f. Cylinder blast kills 3 at Savar: no monitoring of CNG conversion workshops blamed for numerous accidents (New Age, February 17)
|
‘Quick Comments’ (letters@newagebd.com, quickcomments@gmail.com) seeks the readers’ instant reaction on different national and international issues. Comments should be brief, not exceeding 150 words. Submissions should mention ‘Quick Comments’ and will be subject to editing for quality and clarity.
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
