Tag: GE2015

The 14 Best-Looking Candidates Of GE2015

Two days after the election results, people are still going on about the “what ifs”.

We serious journalists, too, are asking “what if” – what if we had voted for candidates based on their looks?

These would be our top candidates:

1. Ong Ye Kung (PAP)

Mr Ong Ye Kung is now poised to be parachuted into a ministerial position after Friday’s results.

Well, he has clearly been parachuted into my heart. Charismatic, and with the looks to boot, he is one – I mean, another – reason to look forward to Parliament.

2. Chee Soon Juan (SDP)

Dr Chee’s rousing speeches turned him into a superstar at rallies – his first in 15 years – and this was clear from the long queues for autographs and selfies after.

3. Tharman Shanmugaratnam (PAP)

If numbers turn you on, DPM Tharman is the man for you. He is probably one of the few men around who can excite you with talk of finances and taxation.

4. Amrin Amin (PAP)

Don’t you just want to pinch his cheeks?

5. Daryl David (PAP)

Mr David, you are definitely at the top of my pyramid.

6. Leon Perera (WP)

Perera was a breakout star during the campaign with his rally speeches. Often rousing, yet sensible, he has been praised, with his name even trending on Twitter after rallies. And we are all for that nerdy, scholarly look.

7. Tan Chuan-Jin (PAP)

Mr Tan is a fit, relatable minister who became known, in the last week of hustings, for his “runabouts”. He ran straight into our collective hearts. I am currently under the Holland-Bukit Timah GRC. Any chance my area can be included in Marine Parade GRC next elections? I mean… stranger things have happened right?

8. Lim Tean (NSP)

Mr Lim may not be a conventional choice but he has one of the best voices in local politics, and we’re sad that we won’t hear him at rallies or political debates for a while.

Women

1. Tin Pei Ling (PAP)

A new mother, Ms Tin Pei Ling tops our list because of how classy and sophisticated she has grown over the past four years. After NSP candidate Cheo Chai Chen’s sexist comment against her, she issued a graceful response on Facebook that relayed her conviction effectively. That glow of a new mother doesn’t hurt either.

2. He Ting Ru (WP)

This Cambridge-educated lawyer has the beauty and the brains. What more do you need from one of WP’s more popular candidates?

3. Indranee Rajah (PAP)

Ms Indranee is practically the only person who can pull of that hairstyle for as long as she has. It’s a timeless haircut – and well, it suits her.

4. Josephine Teo (PAP)

Sure, she looks awkward punching the air with her firsts – as was seen during Nomination Day. But Ms Josephine Teo makes some great, edgy fashion choices. And well, who can fault a woman for speaking in Hokkien to “speak directly to the grandmas and grandpas”.

5. Kevryn Lim (NSP)

Most would remember her for that white dress. But in the later part of the campaign period, Ms Lim showed that she is passionate about several issues including advocating for the rights of single parents. And the fact that she is the face of most of NSP’s memorabilia shows just how attractive she is.

Source: www.tnp.sg

September 14, 2015
Yaacob Ibrahim: Consider The Progress Made By Malay Community Over Past 50 Years Under PAP

Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Yaacob Ibrahim has urged Malay voters to think wisely and consider the progress the community had made in partnership with the People’s Action Party (PAP) government when they cast their votes on Friday (Sept 11).

“By and large, the Malay community has something good going for them here,” Dr Yaacob said on Wednesday (Sept 9). “I hope they will think wisely and vote wisely (for) their future.”

The improvements in 50 years have been “tremendous” in such areas as education and religious life, and Dr Yaacob said he foresees his community continuing to benefit from the PAP Government’s programmes.

Speaking to reporters after a morning visit to the Beo Crescent market to woo voters, he also addressed the issue of Muslim women not being allowed to wear headscarves in certain jobs. One such case is nurses in government hospitals.

He said the PAP’s Malay MPs, including himself, are sympathetic to those facing such restrictions and have raised the matter with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.

“PM Lee has said the policy is not cast in stone. To me, that is a very good sign,” added Dr Yaacob, who is Minister for Communications and Information.

The issue has been raised on the hustings by some opposition parties who have charged the interests of the Malay-Muslim community have not been sufficiently looked after.

Dr Yaacob noted that generally, there are no restrictions on Muslim women wearing headscarves in the wider community.

But at workplaces with restrictions, he pledged to continue to work with employers to accommodate headscarves “in a flexible way”.

He is confident the change “will come in time”.

He also noted that like others, the Malay community is not problem-free.

“But the important thing is whether we are dealing with them.”

He appealed to Malay voters to be patient as it takes time to solve the problems. “We don’t have a magic wand. The opposition believe they can solve all the problems in five years. I will be very surprised (if they do),” he added.

Looking ahead, he sees government programmes like Fresh Start Housing Scheme improving further his community’s quality of life.

The scheme to help second-timer rental households own a two-room flat was announed by PM Lee at the National Day Rally last month.

Noting it will benefit many Malay families, Dr Yaacob said: “Whenever I come across Malay families, I ask them and they tell me they want to get out of rental housing… and have a permanent home.”

Source: www.straitstimes.com

September 9, 2015
Prediction Of More Misery Should PAP Win

The PAP often tells us to look at their track records. Well I have, and I am pretty confident that I have a pretty good idea of what they are doing, or their lack thereof for that matter.

Truth be told, looking at the track record of the voters in Singapore, the PAP stands a high chance of winning.

I have compiled a list, of what citizens should expect, should the PAP win the mandate, and be allowed to continue their reign unopposed for another 5 years.

Keep in mind that while these are mostly speculations, they are based on the track record of the PAP. Feel free to disagree with hit.

Here is the list:
1) Primary focus of the government to be on the economy-
2) More foreigners will come in-
3) Population will eventually hit 6.9 million and beyond-
4) GST will rise again-
5) More sponsoring of free scholarships to foreign students-
6) More investments to foreign countries from government-owned institutions, using state-controlled funds-
7) More spending on celebrations and public events-
8) More exorbitant housing prices-
9) More mandatory insurance plans that you have to pay for-
10) Even higher public transport costs-
11) Press freedom index ranking will drop even lower-
12) More unopposed unilateral one-sided decisions in parliament-
13) More politicians suing ordinary citizens-
14) More unexplained revocation of patents-
15) More government organizations applying for protection from harassment act-
16) More unfair use of NSFs-
17) More mudslinging from the ruling party-

And here are the details. Be warned, it is long.

1) Primary focus of the government to be on the economy-

Regardless of the claims by word-of-mouth, the goal and aim of the government had always been clear: the Economy. Boosting the economy at all costs has always been their objective, and will continue to be so.

2) More foreigners will come in-

The PAP has made it crystal clear, they will not stop the inflow of foreigners, they will merely slow down the inflow.

It’s like you’re fast approaching the edge of the cliff, but the driver chooses to decelerate instead of braking hard.

These foreigners may indeed boost the economy. But the large numbers also pose a problem for citizens, as these foreigners will be competing with the true citizens for resources, which include jobs, housing, public transportation, and even basic necessities.

3) Population will eventually hit 6.9 million and beyond-

You have to ask yourself, of these 6.9 million, how many of them will be true Singaporeans? Do we have the necessary infrastructure and resources to support a 6.9 million population?

If the answer is yes, then you have absolutely nothing to worry about!

But I suggest you take a look at our MRT stations, our HDB queues, our foodcourt and hawker-center crowds, our school balloting, and think carefully first.

4) GST will rise again-

Going by the PAP track record, there is a very high likelihood that GST will eventually rise again. I personally estimate this at 9%, though some say it will be higher.

5) More sponsoring of free scholarships to foreign students-

A recent report say that in recent years, at least 20 million a year is funded to give foreign students free scholarships. The exact figures of the total amount spent so far for foreign scholarships is unclear.

The PAP has also made it clear that they will not stop funding foreign students with free scholarships.

Personally, I think that 20 million is a lot, and this money could have been better spent on our own citizens. But what the hell do I know? PAP knows everything, so throw out your encyclopedias, and never visit wikipedia again.

6) More investments to foreign countries from government-owned institutions, using state-controlled funds-

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124350003544761935
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qFUDmsFTYk

In spite of the claims made by local media bragging about the huge profits made, many reports I have read talked about the billion dollar losses made by Temasek Holdings.

Personally, when I read about this, the first few questions that come to mind are:
Who authorized Temasek Holdings to invest money in foreign companies?
Why is no one punished for the screw-ups?
The money that is lost to bad investments, who does it belong to?

Even now, Temasek Holdings and the GIC is adamant about taking state-controlled funds to invest in foreign organizations. My question is this, who authorized the government to use these funds for foreign investments?

And till now, do we even know the true source of this money? I mean, it has to come from somewhere, right? Do we even know where did the money that was lost to bad investments, come from?

I really don’t understand why this money needs to be invested elsewhere, or why it even needs to be invested at all. Why can’t this money be used to invest in Singapore itself?

When the Singapore government chooses to invest state-controlled funds to invest in foreign organizations, it really shows how much confidence they have in our own country.

7) More spending on celebrations and public events-

Without a doubt, more money will be spent on events similar to SG50 celebrations. More events like the YOG will be held.

The YOG was grossly overbudgetted, with no one punished for the oversight. But the good news is that the government learns from their mistakes. So this year, in the SEA Games, the organizers outsourced for free volunteers instead of paid workers. That greatly reduced the costs for manpower. The plan was so simple yet so brilliant, I can’t help but be amazed. Why pay for workers when you can get them for free?

To quote a line from the Noose:
If the government can spend so much money on two useless pandas, they must be treating the people really well!

Obviously, more money should go into such events, and NOT social spending. Having more money on social spending will lead citizens to have a clutch mentality and cause them to be dependent on government handouts.

Right?

8) More exorbitant housing prices-

Someone once claimed that you can own a hdb flat with $1000 per month salary.

Seriously?

I’m not going to call that bullshit. But to me, it sounds like I’m looking at some kind of fringe science, where the professor draws a few impossible calculations using extreme numbers from improbable events, and presents to us the argument that something thought to be virtually impossible, is actually in fact possible.

I’m definitely not the most mathematical oriented person. But do you honest believe that you can own a hdb flat with 1k salary?

Let me use an example. Suppose you are an ordinary worker earning a modest $1,500 a month, trying to afford a $240,000 3 room flat. Let’s assume that you eat grass and pump every cent you earn, including your CPF, into your flat payment. It will take working at least 13+ years, just to pay off your flat alone.

And let’s not forget the 2.6 compounded interest rates from HDB. Every year, you have to pay $6,240, just for the interest. It will reduce if you can pay, otherwise, it will snowball. How much of your salary per year do you have to sacrifice, just to pay off the interest itself?

And on top of that, let’s not forget the fact that you DON’T actually own your flat. You rent it for 99 years. At the end of 99 years, you lose it, with NOTHING refunded back to you.

Some people argue, HDB flats will never last 99 years, you will be moved by the government after 40 years of staying, and they will pay the rate of the remaining lease. Well that still means you don’t actually own it. Hello? When the government moves you, you think that the government is going to give you your flat for free?

Like it or not, every year you live in your flat, you lose 1/99 of it’s value. So every year, you rent it for $2,424. And for some reason, you still have to pay land tax.

I’m no expert on this, so feel free to correct it if you have more accurate numbers.

The PAP claims that it is possible to own a flat with only $1k salary, and boasts of a high home-ownership ratio (99-year “ownership”) on a global scale. By all means, feel free to believe them.

9) More mandatory insurance plans that you have to pay for-

The PAP has already decided that you will pay for CPF Life and Medishield Life. It doesn’t matter what your opinion is. It’s been decided.

10) Even higher public transport costs-

Even when oil prices were dropping, and SMRT was earning record high profits, the transport fares were raised, citing a reason like “opportune time”.

Just before elections, fare prices were announced to be dropped. But god knows how soon the next fare hike will hit us.

It’s common knowledge that if you wish to encourage use of public transport, and improve traffic conditions, you should raise the price of private transportation, but reduce the price of public transportation. But the government, being the genius that it is, decided to raise both public and private transportation costs.

I guess this means that the message they are trying to send us is, “Don’t go out. Stay home and sleep!”

11) Press freedom index ranking will drop even lower-

The PAP has already made it clear that they don’t care about the press freedom index.

The unnamed person-in-charge said the following line:
We manage our press, our media and our freedom of information in a way that makes sense for Singapore.

The very same person also claims that the very same newspaper is “credible, balanced, and objective”.

WTF……

12) More unopposed unilateral one-sided decisions in parliament-

When the PAP proposes a bill, it is as good as approved. No matter what kind of decision the PAP makes, the bill will be passed successfully unopposed.

One of the most recent bill passed was about ISEAS, where only the ministers will be able to appoint board members, while the President and the other organizations will not be able to do so.

This bill was piggy-backing on the proposed bill to honor Yusok Ishak…. I meant, Yusof Ishak.

Of course, the WP rejected with all their might, but the bill was still passed.

You would think that if they really wanted to honor the late president, they would actually learn to spell his name right….

You can be sure to expect more one-sided unilateral decisions made if the PAP wins.

13) More politicians suing ordinary citizens-

In the past, PAP ministers would use defamation lawsuits on their political opponents.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong took it a step further, and decided to sue an ordinary blogger.

At the rate this is going, you can expect secondary and primary school students to be sued too.

If you feel that an internet posting has defamed you, one of the first recourse is mediation. The legal recourse should only be used as a last resort.

You see, it’s one thing to preach about a gracious and forgiving society. It’s another thing to be a gracious and forgiving person.

14) More unexplained revocation of patents-

If you have a patent that results in a conflict with the government’s interest, your patent does not exist.

Dr Ting Choon Meng has a valid patent for medical vehicles as of 2005. In 2009, Mindef, instead of seeking recourse to contest or dispute the patent, they blatantly ignored it and produce their own.

In a lawsuit that latter ensued, the court of law revoked the patent owned by Dr Ting in 2014. This is despite the fact that the proper procedure of contesting a patent not being used, and no evidence supporting the revocation was ever seen.
http://www.ipos.gov.sg/Services/HearingsandMediation/ProceedingsatIPOS/P…

To add insult to injury, Cyberpioneer issued the following arrogant public statement:
Respecting Intellectual Property means honouring patents that are valid, not protecting those that aren’t.

So let me get this straight. In 2009, Cyberpioneer could tell the future, and knew that the patent will be invalidated in 2014?

Oh, one more thing. Did you know that you cannot apply for a patent in another country, without asking for permission first?
http://www.ipos.gov.sg/AboutIP/TypesofIPWhatisIntellectualProperty/Whati…
One can only wonder what the basis of that is.

15) More government organizations applying for protection from harassment act-

A government organization applying for protection from harassment from an individual, is possibly the stupidest thing I can think of. And yet it happened.

It’s almost as if these people are challenging us to think of what is the most asinine thing they can possibly do, and they actually make it happen.

These guys never fail to amaze me at whatever they do.

16) More unfair use of NSFs-

The LTA recently announced that NSFs can be mobilized to help SMRT in the event of an MRT breakdown.

I have absolutely no idea how the LTA has authorization over Mindef to help a private company like SMRT. There must be some kind of grand logic here at work.

17) More mudslinging from the ruling party-

It is said that if you live in a house of glass, you shouldn’t throw rocks.

Well the PAP doesn’t care. They keep attacking the WP for the lapses, even though their own management has lapses highlighted by the Auditor General Office.

In one of the latest saga, Mr Tharman relentless carried on his attack on the WP. Despite the other problems found by the AGO, Tharman claimed that “The house is safe and there is no question whether public monies are fully accounted for.”

Instead of correcting his own problems, he decided to attack WP for theirs. A typical rock-throwing kind of behavior.

Conclusion:
This is by no means an exhaustive list. But I have been paying attention to the PAP’s actions long enough to know how they handle things. Feel free to disagree if you think such things will never happen.

Source: http://sgkbwarrior.livejournal.com

September 9, 2015
Only Dumb Idiots Will Ask Others To Show Gratitude To PAP

So strange. Someone asked me, “How can you have no gratitude for the good life that the PAP has given you and turn your back on the founding fathers?”

Whaaaaat? That’s the silliest, dumbest thing that I’ve ever heard.

Let me give you a lesson on DEMOCRACY.

Gratitude to the previous generation of Ministers does not mean you give this party a free pass forever. These idiots really think that Singapore belongs to the PAP.

We are all just renting a house here and we should worship them like gods. Naw dumbass.

This is not a fuckin colony of the Emperor of PAP. All these MPs and Ministers are not Lords or Dukes. The PAP DOES NOT own the lands and the money in the reserves.

We are not subjects in an empire. WE ARE FREE PEOPLE. Singapore belongs to the people of SIngapore.

The PAP and whoever works in the civil service are the EMPLOYEES of Singaporeans.

Just like any job in the world when it comes to a job review, if you are not performing well you will get cut and someone else will be hired.

It is perfectly fine to show gratitude for the past generations who built this country up. But look at the performance of this current government and more importantly the screwed up plans that they have for the future.

This doesn’t fly with me.

We need a major change or the future will be very dark.

So, I told that person, ” Maybe in 2030 or 2040, you will have no problem with sharing half of your house and half of your job with a family from China, when they raise the population to 10 million.

But, I’m aint gonna allow that to happen, starting now.”

Source: www.allsingaporestuff.com

September 9, 2015
GE2015: Likeability – The Tipping Factor

Viswa Sadasivan is Editor-in-Chief for Inconvenient Questions, a former Nominated MP of the Singapore Parliament and a former TV current affairs host. The views expressed here are his own.

Being likeable is not difficult, is it? Yet, why is it that I am finding so many politicians appearing unlikeable during the rallies – even those I know to be reasonably nice people. Quite sad, actually.

Don’t get me wrong. I am not talking about those who try very hard to show care and concern and end up looking totally plastic. Neither am I talking about the politicians who are clearly too well prepped by spin doctors and end up smiling awkwardly, raising their voices at inappropriate moments, speaking broken English (ostensibly to connect with the crowd), showing off their mastery of multiple languages, or in some cases even crying.

What our politicians need to come to terms with is: your audience may not all have strong academic credentials, but we are not dumb! We can tell a worthy politician from a ‘wayang king’ (‘drama king’) or a charlatan. Nobody likes being talked down to, patronised or, worse, treated like an idiot. And the more you come at us with highly curated speeches delivered in a rehearsed fashion, the higher the possibility that we won’t just like you less, but actually start disliking you.

And this is the reality, guys – whether you like it or not. If I like you I am more inclined to believe what you say, and even make excuses for you when you fumble or stumble. If I don’t like you, here’s what will happen. My mind will build barriers to shut out what you say – no matter how correct your facts and figures are and regardless of how polished your presentation. In fact, if I don’t like you, I will find reasons to dislike you every time you say or do something. To believe that the human mind (especially when it interfaces with the heart , which does happen every now and then) thinks and behaves rationally all the time is a dangerous assumption.

In these hustings I have sensed that likeability has become a distinctly more important quotient that the electorate value and are seeking in candidates and party leaders – a lot more than in the previous GEs. And I have been following our all our elections closely since 1984, when I was just a rookie broadcast journalist. This is probably because we are quite tired of bureaucratically crafted speeches that spew little more than facts and figures and platitudes. We want more than just the CVs of the candidates; we want to see their character and personality and know what they stand for. I am seeing a more discerning and mature electorate this time. Delightful.

So, what is this likeability quotient – let’s call it LQ, shall we? I think it mainly centers on three factors:authenticity, being human and humane, and competency and conviction.

We value authenticity because there is just so much rehearsed pitches and double talk. There is simply too much noise. We want clarity and honesty. We want to see people who are the same on and off stage and who speak from the heart. We want people who are comfortable being who they are and prepared to expose their vulnerabilities.

Being human is about having the capacity for human emotions – fear, joy, sadness, anxiety, anger, apprehension – and being comfortable showing it. Increasingly, we shun those who lack plain human decency. I am seeing too many politicians having this almost-permanent smirk on their faces when explaining something, talking about their adversaries, and especially when others are trying to make a point. I find this absolutely deplorable. Hey, if you are upset or angry – just show it. No need to be cocky about it. It is much more acceptable to show outright displeasure or anger. Being humane is just as important because we don’t want as our leaders people who can’t empathise, sympathise or show compassion. No matter how smart or competent you are, why should we elect you if you rejoice in inflicting pain on others and or in seeing them squirm? I don’t see why we can’t expect a strong but clean fight in an election. We want a leader who treats his adversaries with decency. Human dignity is important. Nobody likes to see a dying horse being flogged!

It’s hard to sustain likeability if you have the above qualities but can’t demonstrate competency. Competency goes beyond technical skills or domain knowledge. It is about having the ability to read the situation accurately and come up with solutions that allow us to achieve the desired outcome, and not just the desired output.

And increasingly when choosing a leader, we want to see competency going hand-in-hand with the ability to persuade and get a buy-in. This requires conviction – a deep belief in and commitment to what you are preaching, especially when the idea is original and the territory uncharted. This, for me, is the single most important factor that distinguished the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew – his conviction in the face of the many uncertainties and trials we faced as a nation. I find this sadly lacking among the candidates in this GE, especially on the PAP side.

In this election campaign, three rally speeches stood out for me. They each brought to sharp relief the qualities I have highlighted, making them likeable enough for us to be moved by them and follow them, regardless of whether we fully agree with everything they say or even disagree with them.

SDP Secretary-General Dr Chee Soon Juan’s first rally speech had a huge impact not only on the thousands present at the event but also the many more who watched the recording of it as it went viral. Part of this can be attributed to the curiosity that we have about this much-maligned opposition politician for whom this is the first GE he is contesting in after 15 years. What is interesting is that, for me, this rally speech had the power to convert several people who had previously viewed him negatively or even seriously disliked him. Simply put, he came across authentic, reasonably knowledgeable, and very human and humane, with an indefatigable conviction for what he believes in. I am sure the facts he asserted or even his arguments were debatable for many, but the other qualities he exuded defined him and how he was received. It wasn’t so much what he said, but how he said it. By this, I am not talking about rhetoric or eloquence, but clear articulation with conviction, and being critical of his political opponents without resorting to vitriol or suspending decency.

Similarly, when I did an exclusive interview with him for IQ, the same qualities came through. Even though I asked him questions he was clearly uncomfortable with – such as what he had to say about the allegation that he orchestrated the exit of Mr Chiam See Tong from the party (SDP) the latter formed – he responded honestly and with dignity. When criticizing the PAP he was not disparaging or disagreeable.

The second rally speech that was outstanding for the reasons I highlighted was that by DPM Tharman Shanmugaratnam. He was, in so many ways, the quintessential political leader – visionary, caring and committed, supremely articulate, conveying his knowledge in a simple yet not simplistic way, inspirational. Above all, he was decent in the way he criticised his political opponents. As always, he didn’t see the need to make caustic or disparaging remarks to put down the opposition. DPM Tharman was also willing to openly acknowledge that the government could have handled some things better. Like Dr Chee Soon Juan’s speech, I am sure there are arguments there that we may not agree with, but his manner and approach took precedence. More than his compelling mind, his heart and gut took centrestage.

Unlike the case with Dr Chee, DPM Tharman already has the benefit of being liked for his authenticity, his fairness and decency, his competency and quiet conviction. This rally speech rode on that advantage and served to reinforce it. That’s why I feel that this is a speech that helped to tilt the balance in this GE.

The third rally speech that was quite outstanding and served as a further point of inflection for the ruling party’s campaign was the one delivered by PM Lee at the lunchtime rally in the UOB Plaza on 8 September. In both substance and style, this speech enhanced the Prime Minister’s already strong likeability on the ground. He presented himself more as a national leader and statesman than as the Secretary-General of the PAP. It helped very much that he steered clear of the AHPETC issue. His criticism of issues and arguments raised by the opposition was delivered in a straightforward and dignified manner, and with a dash of irony when he said that a strong PAP is needed to make the opposition work harder.

Like DPM Tharman, PM Lee’s willingness to acknowledge that we have a long way to go in addressing issues and the need for all of us to work together (possibly including the opposition) seemed to have a positive impact on the audience. His references to the work done by the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew went down well because they were tastefully delivered and didn’t look like an election tactic. In fact, it was inspirational even for this crowd, which tends to be cynical. More than anything else, what stood out in this speech was the PM’s conviction in his belief and his passion for his country and people. This was refreshing.

Elections and especially General Elections are great opportunities to provoke thought and introspection in a people. A GE need not be just a time for swords to be crossed and to contest ideas and ideals. It is an excellent opportunity to unify a people and unite a nation. For this, we need compelling speeches that go beyond rhetoric and that stir emotions. We need leaders who can deliver these speeches: leaders who command attention… leaders that we truly like.

Source: https://sg.news.yahoo.com

September 9, 2015