Riaz Haq writes this data-driven blog to provide information, express his opinions and make comments on many topics. Subjects include personal activities, education, South Asia, South Asian community, regional and international affairs and US politics to financial markets. For investors interested in South Asia, Riaz has another blog called South Asia Investor at http://www.southasiainvestor.com and a YouTube video channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkrIDyFbC9N9evXYb9cA_gQ
In yet another egregious example of increasing judicial activism, Islamabad High Court's Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, the judge who also ordered Musharraf's arrest, has suspended Pakistan's top tax collector Arshad Hakeem. Hakeem was working on an ambitious technology-based project to go after powerful tax dodgers in the country.
In a country where the rich and the powerful pay little or no tax, Ali Arshad Hakeem became "a hated man" in just seven months after his appointment as FBR chairman, according to a report in the UK's Telegraph newspaper. Coming from IT and business management background Hakeem put in place a database designed to monitor the spending habits of millions of people, and calculate how much tax they owed.
At the click of a mouse, he could look up details of the elite's holiday habits, electricity bills and bank accounts, complete with photos, addresses and vehicle details, said the newspaper.
By linking government databases on cars, imports, exports and sales tax among others, he built a powerful tool for the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) that could identify individuals and companies which were not paying their fair share. For income tax, his team fed 1,700 factors into a model which calculated how much was owed.
Pakistan tax-gdp is among the lowest and its tax policies are among the most regressive in the world. Direct taxes make up less than 3.5 percent of GDP, with wide ranging exemptions to powerful segments of society coupled with governance issues at Federal Board of Revenue, according to former finance minister Shaukat Tarin. The bulk of the tax receipts are collected in the form of sales tax, placing the heaviest burden on the lower-income people who spend almost all of their income on their basic needs.
Hakeem's efforts to change the situation and collect from the rich and powerful came to a grinding halt last month when Justice Siddiqui suspended Mr Hakeem for alleged violations of appointment rules.
Other damaging examples of economic judicial activism include cancellation of Pakistan Steel Mills privatization, annulling of Reko Diq mining contract and voiding of rental power deals with foreign investors.
Since the cancellation of Pakistan Steel Mills privatization deal in 2006, PSMC has suffered huge losses that cost the taxpayers tens of billions of rupees--Rs 26.5 billion in 2009, Rs 11.5 billion in 2010, Rs 11.4
billion in 2011 and Rs 21 billion in 2012. Had Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz's government been allowed to proceed with privatization in 2006, the PSMC would have been a significant contributor to the national exchequer rather than a huge drain on the public treasury. The money saved could have been used to fund education, healthcare, energy and infrastructure projects in the country.
Similarly, the Supreme Court has intervened and scared away foreign investors by its decisions in Reko Diq and Karkey rental power company. Had Reko Diq been allowed to continue, it would have represented a huge $3.3 billion foreign investment in Pakistan's Balochistan region.
Umar Cheema, a journalist and author of the report that showed how few politicians pay tax, told Telegraph's Rob Crilly that anyone attempting reform risked being brought down.
"He made people realize the FBR was doing something under his watch, even though he was not there for very long" he said.
Buoyed by unprecedented success against the top members of the executive branch, the men in robes are now boldly taking on Pakistani military's top brass--both past and present.
Earlier this year, Pakistan Supreme Court removed a democratically elected prime minister who had the support of two-thirds majority in Pakistan's parliament. The top judges then forced the current prime minister to write a letter to Swiss authorities to re-open corruption cases against several members of the ruling party as well as the head of state President sif Ali Zardari himself.
More recently, the Islamabad High Court judges have accepted a petition from a member of the Rawalpindi Bar Association challenging the three year extension granted in 2010 to Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaque Parvez Kayani by former Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani. In addition, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry has ordered the government to act against a former Chief of Army staff (COAS) General Aslam Baig and a former Director of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt. General Asad Durrani in what is now known as the Asghar Khan case.
All of these events appear to be part of a huge power play by the top judges to assert themselves in competition with other institutions of government. In fact, Justice Chaudhry has stated a very ambitious agenda when he said that he sees his court as the “final arbiter and protector of Constitution”, and he seems to be in a hurry to get there. This statement by the Chief Justice was a pointed rejection of General Kayani's earlier statement that said: “No individual or institution has the monopoly to decide what is right or wrong in defining the ultimate national interest.”
Rawalpindi Bar Association has jumped in the middle of this power struggle with a strong resolution attacking General Kayani personally by raising questions about his brother's work as a military contractor.
While smaller than Karachi and Lahore Bars, the Rawalpindi Bar is believed to be close to senior judges. It is suspected to have far right connections with radical organizations like Hizb-ut-Tahrir which has been actively seeking to recruit sympathizers and supporters in Pakistani military.
It's not uncommon for various institutions to seek greater power in a transition period before a healthy and workable balance is achieved. Almost every democracy has seen such an evolution.
The great danger here is that, if any one institution overplays its hand, there could be uncontrolled chaos and a power vacuum. Such power vacuum could then be exploited by militant groups which would not hesitate to seize power and put an abrupt end to the whole democratic experiment in Pakistan. Such a development will elicit a strong response from the international community including the US and China. And it will almost certainly scuttle any hope of democracy in Pakistan for a very long time.
Let's hope good sense prevails to help maintain gradual but sustainable progress toward a democratic order in which all institutions can learn to co-exist and serve the best interest of the people of Pakistan.
Here's a video clip of a discussion I recently joined on this subject:
The long awaited ruling of the Allahabad High Court on the disputed Ayodhya site was announced today.
Here's a brief excerpt of how the BBC has reported the Ayodhya verdict:
In a majority verdict, judges gave control of the main disputed section, where a mosque was torn down in 1992, to Hindus.
Other parts of the site will be controlled by Muslims and a Hindu sect.
Allahabad High Court is trying to create a false appearance of Solomon's wisdom by ordering what is being advertised as "split-the-baby" verdict.
In reality, though, the court has wrongly sided with the violent Hindutva outfits in practice by giving the main site where Babri masjid stood to Hindus. This verdict has set a dangerous precedent, raising alarms about hundreds of other mosques in India which are claimed as ancient temple sites by the violent Sangh Parivar.
L.K. Advani and other major Hindutva leaders, including Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, have welcomed it and vowed to build "Ram Temple" on two-thirds of the disputed land awarded by an extremely unwise and politically motivated decision of the Allahabad Court.
Breaking News! Veteran BJP Leader LK Advani, who spearheaded the Ram Mandir (Ram Temple) movement in the 1990s, welcomed the Allahabad High Court's verdict on Ayodhya land. Advani hailed the High Court for acknowledging the disputed site as Lord Ram (Ram Lalla)'s birth place.....Meanwhile, Gujarat CM Narendra Modi has welcomed the Ayodhya Verdict and said that decks have been cleared for the construction of a Ram Temple in Ayodhya.
In his Ayodhya opinion, Justice S.U. Khan, the only Muslim judge in the three-judge panel of the Allahabad High Court, made a reference to the Treaty of Hudaibiya as follows: "When prophet Mohammad entered into a treaty with the rival group at Hudayliyah(sic), it appeared to be abject surrender even to his staunch supporters."
This quote from Justice Khan shows how defeated and marginalized even the very few well-educated and well-placed Indian Muslims feel at this point....something reflected throughout his verdict. He basically threw in the towel and gave in to the likes of Justice DM Sharma, the most unabashed pro-Hindtva judge on the panel who "established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji" in his opinion.
This is the most damning evidence of absolute Hindutva fascist dominance of India's "secular democracy" on the streets and in the courts of India today. It does not augur well for either democracy or secularism in India.
Mapping Muslims killed (official figures probably understated) during BJP leader LK Advani's Rath Yatra in 1990
It's important to understand the environment at Benaras Hindu University archeology department that produced the alumni who provided the so-called "archeological evidence" to support Justice Sharma's unabashed pro-Hindutva opinion.
Archeological Survey of India (ASI) is known to be dominated by extreme right wing Hindus, many of whom are graduates of Benaras Hindu University which has practiced Apartheid against its Muslim students.
Here's an excerpt from an article by MIT scholar Omar Khalidi criticizing the ASU's role in distorting evidence used in the verdict:
Justice DV Sharma's judgment in the Babri masjid case given on Thursday claimed that 'the disputed structure was constructed on the site of the old structure after demolition of the same. And that the Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure'.
What Justice Sharma was referring to was the ASI's report of 2003 of dubious value on Ayodhya. What the ASI claimed were the base of pillars which held up the temple, were in fact not pillar bases at all. The Siva shrine at a lower level adds no strength to the claim of a Ram temple. The terracotta from different levels has been so jumbled that it can be linked to no particular stratum and period. Moreover, the presence of animal bones and glazed earthenware found at the site makes it difficult to claim that a Ram temple existed on this site between the 12th and 16th centuries.
The ASI's role in marshaling dubious evidence in support of the existence of a Ram temple at Ayodhya is the right occasion to assess its activities as a handmaiden of Hindutva.
Numerous examples of the ASI's role in transforming medieval heritage can be seen across India.
* In 2007, the ASI cooked up history at Chittorgarh, a fort near Udaipur, Rajasthan, by signposting an underground passage as the location of Padmini's jauhar or self-immolation, based on the myth of Emperor Alauddin Khilji's alleged atrocities. Numerous modern temples abound in the medieval fort.
* In 2003, the ASI virtually converted the 15th century Kamal Maula mosque in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh, into a temple by allowing Hindu worship in it.
* Since 1977, the ASI has allowed the construction of three new Hindu temples in the precincts of Sher Shah Suri's mausoleum in Sasaram, Bihar. These bathroom-tiled temples with their calendar-art frescos mar the magnificent mausoleum's vistas.
* In 1970, the ASI allowed a kumkum sprinkled stone on the southeast corner of Charminar in Hyderabad to be converted into a full-fledged Bhagya Laxmi temple. A modern temple is protruding out of a major medieval monument in defiance of the ASI's own rules.
* At the turn of the 21st century, almost all the grand gates in historic Golconda fort and Hyderabad are riddled with Hindu temples, signs and icons flying in the face of the ASI's preservation mission.
* In 1948, the ASI converted the Jama Masjid in the Daulatabad fort near Aurangabad into a Bharata Mata Mandir (Mother India temple). The very name is so candidly, crassly contemporary as to make a mockery of a medieval site.
Here is a video clip of Omar Khalidi on ASI's role in promoting Hindutva claims on various religious sies in India:
Hindu alumni of Benaras Hindu University (BHU) archeology department have played a major role in producing "archeological evidence" that the Allahabad High Court relied upon. Professor Ahmad Hasan Dani who attended BHU and studied archeology, says that he was ostracized and treated as a pariah by Hindu students and faculty at BHU. He was not allowed to sit and eat with his fellow students, he was asked to keep his plates and dishes separate in his room, and required to stand outside the dining hall to be served his meal and then wash the dishes himself. Later, when he graduated at the top of the archeology class, he was offered a faculty position, but the University head and former president of India Radhakrishnan told him that he would be paid a salary but he would not be allowed to teach. Here is a video clip of late Prof Dani talking about it with Farah Husain on Morning with Farah TV show:
Let's hope and pray that this latest verdict does not lead to more innocent blood being shed because of an unwise and unjust court ruling favoring the Hindu provocateurs and perpetrators of the crime of demolishing Babri mosque in 1992 and subsequent massacres of Muslim minority. Let's also hope that the Indian Supreme Court eventually reverses the Allahabad court verdict on appeal.
Led by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, the judges of Pakistan Supreme Court have overturned former President Musharraf's amnesty order for 8000 top politicians, including current President Asif Ali Zardari, and declared jihad against corruption at the highest levels of government.
Pakistani judiciary's battle against rampant corruption has recently escalated with the jailing of a top serving police official at the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), and the ultimatum to the anti-corruption chief of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) to reopen domestic and international corruption cases against the beneficiaries of the NRO amnesty, or be prepared to go to jail.
Some critics of the Supreme Court actions see the top court's recent orders against top officials as abuse of power by Mr. Iftikhar Chaudhry, the head of the unelected and independent judiciary in Pakistan. They accuse the Chaudhry court of engaging in unwarranted judicial activism designed to usurp the powers of the elected legislature and executive branches.
Unfortunately, Pakistan continues to have the dubious distinction of being among the 50 most corrupt countries on a list of 180 nations ranked by Transparency International in 2009. Under the current PPP government, Pakistan has slipped 5 places to being 42nd most corrupt from 47th last year. By contrast, India is ranked much better as the 84th most corrupt country.
While I have been critical of some of Justice Chaudhry's behavior in the past, I have now concluded that judicial activism to fight high-level corruption is necessary, at least in the near term. However, I do expect that there will be both positive and negative consequences of the judiciary-led war on corruption in Pakistan.
The most likely upside to come from the court actions is that the politicians and bureaucrats will be forced to think twice before they demand to be paid off in exchange for illegal favors. The activist top court judges will certainly help reduce the current high levels of corruption among the top leaders, and help set a better tone for their underlings in positions of power.
The negative consequences of the court actions include a gross imbalance of power and a continuing institutional confrontation between the judicial and executive branches of government. An extended struggle may prove detrimental to better governance, and possibly open the way for another military intervention in the country.
Lt us hope that good sense will prevail to ensure that long-term positives will significantly outweigh the short-term negative consequences of the powerful judges' war on deep-rooted and highly corrosive corruption in Pakistan.
Less than nine years ago, Mr. Nawaz Sharif, the two-time prime minister of Pakistan, was overthrown, jailed and then forced into exile by General Musharraf. Now, he is emerging as the ultimate come-back kid of Pakistani politics. Recent polls indicate he is the most popular politician in Pakistan. His party, the PML(N) has emerged as the second largest force in Pakistan's parliament in February elections held under President Musharraf. His brother rules Punjab, the largest province in Pakistan, and Sharif has forced Asif Zardari to join him in removing Musharraf, his personal nemesis, under the threat of impeachment.
Who is Nawaz Sharif? What is his past? What does he want? These questions are gaining great relevance with the rising popularity and increasing clout of Nawaz Sharif. A recent Wall Street Journal interview and story shed some light on Mr. Sharif.
Here are some excerpts from the Wall Street Journal report today:
Mr. Sharif hails from a family of industrialists. At his heavily guarded home on the outskirts of Lahore, his wealth and power are both on display. Peacocks stroll on neatly trimmed grass and statues of a doe and her fawn mark an entrance where security guards wearing black T-shirts and carrying automatic weapons await visitors. Just outside Mr. Sharif's cavernous dining room are two stuffed African lions that appear to be stalking prey. "From Botswana," Mr. Sharif said. "Male lions."
In an interview at his home Wednesday, Mr. Sharif said he is prepared to withdraw his Pakistan Muslim League (N) from the governing coalition, led by the Pakistan People's Party, if about 60 judges -- sacked during a six-week state of emergency declared in November -- aren't given their jobs back immediately. Mr. Sharif added, "Mr. Musharraf threw the judges out of office. He ridiculed the institution," he said. "If this institution is not restored, it will shake the foundations of this country."
In answer to a question on business, Mr. Sharif said, "The privatization program started from our government. We should open up further. I'd like to privatize everything. This is the key to success. The government shouldn't be in the business of running factories".
Answering another question, Mr. Sharif said, "The coalition of the PPP and our party came into being on the basis that democracy would be strengthened and judges restored. And of course, we would restore the constitution as it stood before Mr. Musharraf overthrew an elected government, my government. The reinstatement of the judges hasn't come through."
Is Mr. Sharif a really changed man? Has he learned from his past mistakes? Has he had a real epiphany? Let's see how one can square the new persona of Mr. Sharif with the following realities from his past two stints as prime minister:
In June 1994 when Nawaz Sharif was the prime minister, Pakistan faced its worst-ever constitutional crisis when a pro-Sharif mob stormed into the supreme court, forcing Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah to adjourn the contempt of court hearing against Sharif. Hundreds of Pakistan Muslim League supporters and members of its youth wing, the Muslim Students Front (MSF), broke the police barricade around the courthouse when defense attorney Mr. S.M. Zafar was arguing his case.
A journalist ran into the courtroom and warned the bench of an impending attack. Heeding the warning, the chief justice got up abruptly, thanked Zafar and adjourned the hearing. While judicial members left the courtroom soon after, the mob ran in shouting anti-Supreme Court slogans, and damaging furniture.
The angry mob, led by ruling party member from Punjab Sardar Naseem and Colonel (retired) Mushtaq Tahir Kheli, Sharif's political secretary, shouted slogans against the chief justice. The mob also beat up Pakistan Peoples Party senator Iqbal Haider. The police managed to restore normalcy after baton charging and teargassing the mob, both inside and outside the courthouse. The court which assembled at 9:45 a.m., could continue the proceedings for only about 45 minutes.
According to media reports in 1998, Nawaz Sharif, after taking over as prime minister for the second time, amended Pakistan's constitution twice to consolidate his power. He attempted to transform the constitution and system of government completely by attempting to get unlimited powers of Amir ul Momineen (the chief of the faithful) by means of the Sharia Bill, which he introduced.
In April 2001, Ayaz Amir, a popular newspaper columnist and now a PML(N) MNA, wrote as follows about the Sharif brothers: The Sharifs’ notions of government were intensely private: which is to say, have your own man at every key post. They began with commissioners and police DIGs, the dregs of both services pandering to their whims and enriching themselves in the process. Major Mushtaq of the Police Service who has finally been caught by NAB for becoming a real estate tycoon while in service was an outstanding example of this breed: doing as he was told and becoming an impressive man of property along the way. But when Nawaz Sharif became Prime Minister the second time round the family’s sights were set higher. They had whiz-kid younger brother running Punjab. They had their own man in the presidency. After Sajjad Ali Shah’s arranged departure from the Supreme Court, they thought they had the apex court lined up in their favor. In the person of Justice Qayyum at the Lahore High Court they had the closest thing they could get to a personal judge. Division of family assets, balancing of huge bank loans against dummy collateral, tightening the noose around Asif Zardari and Benazir: the only judge who could handle these sensitive matters was Justice Qayyum.
In 1999, when Nawaz Sharif was prime minister, Pakistani economy was in shambles. Pakistan’s total debt as percentage of GDP was the highest in South Asia – 99.3 percent of its GDP and 629 percent of its revenue receipts, compared to Sri Lanka (91.1% & 528.3% respectively in 1998) and India (47.2% & 384.9% respectively in 1998). Internal Debt of Pakistan in 1999 was 45.6 per cent of GDP and 289.1 per cent of its revenue receipts, as compared to Sri Lanka (45.7% & 264.8% respectively in 1998) and India (44.0% & 358.4% respectively in 1998). The Economist recently noted that the current macroeconomic disarray will be familiar to the coalition government led by the Pakistan People's Party of Asif Zardari, and to Nawaz Sharif, whose party provides it “outside support”. Before Mr Sharif was ousted in 1999, the two parties had presided over a decade of corruption and mismanagement. But since then, as the IMF remarked in a report in January, there has been a transformation. Pakistan attracted over $5 billion in foreign direct investment in the 2006-07 fiscal year, ten times the figure of 2000-01. The government's debt fell from 68% of GDP in 2003-04 to less than 55% in 2006-07, and its foreign-exchange reserves reached $16.4 billion as recently as in October."
Like his coalition partner Asif Zardari, Nawaz Sharif has also been the subject of corruption allegations. He is accused of abuse of power and amassing personal wealth at Pakistan's expense, and leaving the country bankrupt in 1999. There are lingering questions of where and how Mr. Sharif got the money to pay off the $450m judgment as rendered by a British court against him in 1998, in connection with Hudaibia Paper Mills Ltd.
Let me conclude with some questions and a sincere hope: Is the transformation of Nawaz Sharif genuine? Or, are we seeing just another two-faced politician vying for more power and popularity? Sometimes, people do change profoundly. I sincerely hope, for the sake of Pakistan's future, that the metamorphosis of Nawaz Sharif is positive and genuine. I also hope that Asif Zardari , the other major power broker in Pakistan, has gone through similar transformation to enable genuine democracy to take roots in Pakistan.
The Pakistan People's Party has emerged as the largest single party with 87 seats, Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League as the second largest with 66 seats, and pro-Musharraf PML(Q) third at 40 seats, with votes counted in 258 out of 272 constituencies. Now that a clear picture is emerging of the relative strengths of various parties in Pakistan's incoming parliament, there is a lot of posturing going on in front of the TV cameras by the key players. Some of it is for public consumption, but most of it is to establish negotiating positions by each party leader. While what you see on the public stage is interesting, the rumor mill has it that it is the action behind the scenes that will ultimately determine the future of President Musharraf, Pakistan's role in the "war on terror" and the shape of the new government. It's not really clear how this will play out. It would be a mistake to assume President Musharraf's position is weak. No single party has enough seats to confront him alone. It depends on how Pervez Musharraf and Asif Zardari, the leader of PPP, play their cards and the US role in it. Mr. Nawaz Sharif, the leader of PML with the second largest number of seats, is disliked intensely by Musharraf, Zardari and the US. Let's just wait and see what happens. I wouldn't completely rule out the PPP joining forces with pro-Musharraf parties including MQM (19 seats) and PML(Q) to edge Nawaz Sharif out. Together, the three parties can buy out independents. Asif Zardari fears restoration of independent judiciary (particularly Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry) as much as Musharraf. Especially if it jeopardizes the National Reconciliation Ordnance that gave blanket amnesty to Benazir Bhutto, Asif Zardari and key members of the Pakistan Peoples Party. I think this horse-trading is going to be interesting. We can expect a clear picture of the new government composition to emerge within a few days.
Here's a video that captures the roots of the widespread anger that led to the current crisis in Pakistan. It documents violations of basic human rights being committed in the name of security that are fueling more resentment and possibly terror. I wonder what has happened to the battle for the hearts and minds of the mainstream Muslim majority to beat the extremists? Is it time acknowledge the current tactics are ill-conceived? Is it time for Musharraf and his US backers to rethink the whole strategy?
The Transparency International surveys indicate that Pakistani Judiciary is the third most corrupt institution after Police and Customs. And there are very broad and sweeping laws permitting the judges to hold any one in contempt of court with few, if any, legal and constitutional mechanisms to hold the judges accountable. While recognizing that Pakistani Judiciary does not have an illustrious record, I absolutely admire CJ Choudhri for his courage in standing up to a dictator. Although we know he is no angel (he was sworn in as CJ by accepting the last PCO by Musharraf when Justice Wajeehuddin and others refused to do so), he set a new example by refusing to give in to Musharraf. However, I fault him for lack of wisdom in dealing with the real issues of restoring democracy after his return to the bench. Instead of focusing on the key issues of restoration of democracy, he and his cohorts on the bench initiated more than 100 suo moto actions, unheard of anywhere in the world. Supreme Courts in most democratic countries are very selective about the cases they hear. They do not dissipate their energies on trivial matters, and leave these for the lower courts to adjudicate. There is also the concept of separation of powers in all democracies. Executive, legislature and judiciary are considered co-equal branches each with its own powers. However, Justice Choudhri & Co were bent upon taking over the executive powers by ordering around the bureaucracy in routine matters of traffic, and other law and order issues. I think Choudhri had a historic opportunity to help transition power from military to a democratic government which he bungled badly by his aggressive and vindictive behavior. Instead of attempting to overthrow Musharraf by confrontation, he would have been better off in ensuring elections for a new assembly and new civilian government. Now, I'm afraid the lawyers may be alone in this fight without real serious backing by either the political parties or the ordinary people on the streets. It is understandable that most of the average Pakistanis are quite cynical about the prospects for real democracy that addresses their issues and concerns. It is this cynicism born of actual experience of the people that is so toxic for the Pakistani society.
While the imposition of emergency rule by Gen Musharraf is not unexpected, it is clearly a setback for democracy in Pakistan. Once again, we are faced with an unfortunate situation but I hope this time it's only a temporary setback in our journey toward democracy. While Musharraf is largely to blame for this situation, the responsibility for it must be shared by our incompetent and corrupt politicians, an unwise and unnecessarily aggressive judiciary and the radical religious element bent upon imposing its will through violence. While we watch the events unfold, let us act rationally and hope and pray that good sense will prevail in Pakistan to allow an early return to a peaceful and progressive democratic rule in the country we all love. Amen.
