| Username |
Post |
| Biswo |
Posted
on 11-Dec-01 10:56 AM
Let's flout one of the government's directives regarding Nepali media: and let's
talk about royal family:-)
Whether I agree with King Gyanedra or crown prince Paras is one matter, but
since their position is now already a constitutional one, it makes sense to talk
about them occasionally.
And reading king's interview these days is really hearbreaking. ( read the latest
one www.nepalnews.com and another one with Dinesh Satyal. ) I read some
excerpts, and hey, let's agree on one thing: our king knows how to win friends and
influence people, and make people forget what (wrong) he did.
There were definitely one section of people who always wanted to push down
our throat a concept that King Gyanendra killed his family. That concept was never
validated, but some conspiracy loving people of Nepal didn't want not to believe
that. Gyanendra even talked about that directly and frankly. Nabiraaunu,
nadaraaunu..
The king also says his son is doing the job dutifully (LOL). But , we can't blame the
old king for his son's sins, anyway. Everybody wishes that rather than the father,
the son once apologizes for his past. People will definitely try to forget his past
(also since they have no other options!).It is also reassuring to know that the
king doesn't want to kill his subjects disproportionately(?), and will probably
curb the intention of army to get more power.
One fine and far-sighted comment he made was this:" But they(foreign
countries) must not give me more (military hardwares) than I can utilize and
sustain,". Yea, the root cause of Afgan's long civil war was profuse arm supply
to warring factions.
--------------------------------
Who is afraid of the power of king rightnow anyway? We better be afraid
of the edicts issued by some individual members of council of ministry who tell
doctors not to treat the patients, and those who tell journos not to publish this
thing and publish that thing.
Also, is government doing everything to polish king's image? I think it is necessary
that government does jobs on his behalf, and make him feel secure and assured.
The king is definitely alone, and he probably has nobody to talk to. The crowd
out is still suspicious. Everybody knows that prince Gyanendra always shunned
limelight and lived a low key life. Now , for some reason, he feels he needed to
speak up, and he invites so many journalists (some so unknown that..) and talks
about his anguishes that we feel only sorry about him. This is the man who lost
most of his family members in a single day, and still groping for friends and
sympathizers to speak to. The government needs to help him recover from that
trauma. The government needs to make him feel comfortable. The king waking
up in his lair and roaring (and grumbling) is generally not a good sign, even if
we know he is benign. We have a system in place, and that system, for people's
sake, need to be intact.
Let king sleep in his palace, the day he wakes up, we need to be sorry.[adapted
from Napolean's comment about China.]
|
| Rajeshwor |
Posted
on 11-Dec-01 08:47 PM
I found the article in www.nepalnews.com very touching. It shows a side of the King which is little known.
Rajeshwor
|
| J Singh |
Posted
on 12-Dec-01 12:50 PM
It is certainly interesting and even touching, if one were to read this article in isolation. But the question which haunts me is "why is the King coming out now to speak to the press on matters which are personal?". Should he not keep a low profile and ride out the emergency preriod?
Any thoughts? Anyone?
|
| Orion |
Posted
on 12-Dec-01 04:39 PM
Biswo - I find it rather silly that one of the regulations is you should not talk about the King. I dont understand what that has to do with the emergency - how will talking about the King compromise national security? It seems there is more plain old chakari than good reason to that emergency provision.
J Singh,
First of all it is pretty ironic that the King gives interviews to papers but does not expect his people to be able to discuss it especially if the discussion involves criticism. As I mentioned earlier, I dont understand the need for that particular emergency provision. Or maybe the guy is one of those people who cannot bear criticism and only wants to listen to praise or things he agrees with.
I am not sure what his motive for giving the interview is - if it is something as harmless as trying to improve his image I dont have many issues with him saying what he wants to say. If he is trying to play dirty politics here, then I think he is doing something foolish and he will have to pay the price someday. I or one think Monarchy is on its way out in Nepal and nothing Gyanendra does will stop that from happening .
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 13-Dec-01 03:28 PM
Orionji:
The problem is the king feels he needs to defend himself now, because the
government is not defending him properly.
See, there are a group of people who no matter what Gyanendra does wants to
declare him the man behind the June 1st massacre. I think it is nice to hear from
Gyanendra about how he felt when he lost everybody in his family and the whole
world was still suspicious of him, and he still 'couldn't shed tear'.
I am always with those who speak their mind. Yes, the king need to have some
patience before speaking up so loudly, and asking others to shut up.
-----
NC and UML both threatened king whenever the king (Birendra) wanted to use
his discretion.
When Man Mohan wanted to dissolve the parliament, the king decided to discuss
with some judges and politicians about what to do. Then the UML threatened him
by asking his cadres to go to road to protest. (Why Girija could dissolve, and why
not we? they kept on saying)
Then last year, Khum Bdr etc wanted to call for republic thing.
You are knowledgeable yourself, and you know these things.
This is the reason why I think sometimes the king thinks he needs to speak. We
need to clear up the constitution to make sure his role is defined clearly so as
he doesn't need to be seen as active or doing things on his own behalf.
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 16-Dec-01 01:10 PM
Bishow writes, "The problem is the king feels he needs to defend himself now, because the government is not defending him properly. "
Is there a sillier argument than to say that a government who is sending army to wipe out republican rebellions is not defending Gyanendra properly ?
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 16-Dec-01 04:25 PM
I don't think the government is only defending king by sending RNA.
The reality is NC supporting papers often write negatively about king, even late
king, when the king express something. Latest "Deshantar" is the example.
When UML asked to dissolve parliament in Man Mohan's regime, the then king
Birendra was trying to get advice from others (as was his habit) then. You know
what? UML announced that they would stage a protest rally in Kathmandu. (King
dissolved the parliament three days before so called protest rally.) The decision
was later overturned by supreme court.
When king was refusing to allow army to war against Maoists, Khum Bdr and his
brands in NC even proposed adopting republicanism as their guiding principle.
Threat has been used against king. I am not pro-monarchist, but I want some
rule to govern king-government relation in Nepal. Threat can not substitute rule.
It can't make the rule of law.
Rightnow also, when the king is saying 'I didn't conspire to be king' , it says alot.
The government and other people in power have responsibility to probably allow
further investigation, or whatever necessary to reinforce that point, if necessary.
It is my point that you need to have a strong head of state, and a strong prime
minister.Either somebody is trying to make our both institution weak, or we
ourselves are making them weak. The nation becomes weak when the government
of the nation is weak.
See, India offers us help to curb Maoists."You need arm? We will sell. You need
helicopter? We will sell.." is their point. They are so enthusiastic to help us now.
But all the help we need from India is a decent trade treaty.
What I am saying is when the government is weak, when the king is weak, foreign
players can easily get an ally. They can force their will in us. Which is eventually
harmful to us. All of us need to work constitutionally until the moment of crisis
is over, so that we have one united voice. This is the same reason why king needs
to be defended, and tamed to be within the royal palace.
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 16-Dec-01 06:57 PM
Bishow, your clarification that you are not a pro-monarchist reflects your guts and integrity when these characters seems in short supply in the country these days. This is specially remarkable when a few monarchist pundits appear to be dominating this forum (are they really ?).
I think these monarchist intellectuals are just comfort-seeker opportunist mindset which do not see any personal comfort at stake in current system. I bet this class of people is not going to shed tears if (I mean when) monarchy will go away, instead they will metamorphose into ardent supporters of the republic democracy.
There are another class of good intellectuals who are reluctant to lend their support to republicanism just because it is coming from an uncomfortable quarter (Maoist). Their skepticism is understandable, though. However, they are not paying attention to two things; one, it is perhaps the only historical opportunity to try to remove monarchy. Before this, everybody was thinking that it is an impossible task, nobody was even daring to think about it. Thanks to Maoist, they showed that it is possible to dare. Two, it can be expected (okay hoped) that, having republic at hand, Maoists will join the mainstream politics in the same manner as other ‘communist’ parties did. If they didn’t, which is very unlikely, they will have to go away the same way the monarchy did.
Its time we should realize our responsibility and show courage to lend the support to the voice for the republic and, at the same time, warn maoists not to go beyond the 'federal republic' of Nepal.
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 16-Dec-01 11:16 PM
What I would love to learn from those Who advocate for the Republic of Nepal is how do you think a republic state is better than a kingdom for Nepal? If Biswo ji is one of them (supporters of Republic state), please Biswo ji help me out.
I, as of now, a firm supporter of a checked constitutional Monarchy in Nepal. However, I am willing to consider my stand if I am convinced the otherwise is better for our nation. So, help me out.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 17-Dec-01 12:33 AM
Nepeji:
I am not pro-monarchist, but that doesn't mean I think this is historic opportunity
to remove monarchy in Nepal.
If monarchy is not committing any mistake, and as long as monarchy remains
unifying factor of Nepal, its necessity should be recognized, and we shouldn't
seek another rebellion to remove king.
Reality is I think Gyanendra as a king is more useful than Girija as a president. Our
major problem right now is not monarchy, and we shouldn't focus our thought
process that way.
The swelling tear when Birendra died was also a proof that the republican agenda
was very unpopular with common populace.To me, the debate of republicanism
now is irrelevant one.
So, let's defend king now, and defend him as long as he is useful for us.
|
| GP |
Posted
on 17-Dec-01 12:59 AM
Biswo ji,
I am with you. Only emotional peoples are behind the
republican funda. We have to look at Cambodia,
Afganistan, and spain and many other countries,
before we run behind that President's chair. Gyanendra
is more intelligent and acceptable than Girija or Makune
or Prachanda or BRB as President of Republic Nepal.
I have not seen an honest leader in Nepal, who can
be more acceptable than King Gyanendra, and if
time is given Paras might not be less than those idiots
who killed peoples in the name of peoples cause, but,
in fact for their own selfish power game.
GP
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 17-Dec-01 01:22 AM
Reply to monarchist's argument:
All monarchist seem to have only one argument. Monarchy symbolizes the national unity.
This argument supposes that Nepali people are uncivilized barbarians. They need a strong center of faith, however primitive, artificial or forced without having a choice to make, to keep them from disintegrating the country.
Before arguing whether this argument is valid, let me tell you that this was the most effective tool, second to suppressive reign, for Nepal’s monarchy to hold the power since 2017. The propaganda machinery of the palace tried to brainwash nepali and fill them with this fear for 30 years. Many of us are still harboring that fear in our conscious or subconscious mind. That’s what is making us monarchist.
Is there an alternative to monarchy that can serve as a center of faith or symbol of unity or whatever like that ?, Monarchists ask.
Let me ask you, how exactly is a known criminal like Paras or his father who is helpless to do anything but to declare a criminal as a heir to the crown, unifying the country or symbolizing the center of people’s faith ? Isn’t there something called bankruptcy of logics ?
To make thing short,
A republic constitution, the only possible undebatably sacred political document in this century, shall serve as a center of people’s faith. It will represent the peak of people’s dignity, the supremacy of people’s desire. It shall the end of all debates. It shall be the beginning of new era in Nepal, free from historical burden, finally free to move forward with all powerful leader they choose to elect.
Its time Nepal should make a choice to identify itself- a crowd of barberians only Gyanendra and Paras have magic to discipline them, or a nation of 21st century capable of moving forward by themselves.
Sparsha and other friends, make your choice.
|
| _BP |
Posted
on 17-Dec-01 03:00 AM
In a country where the majority of people are uneducated, an autocracy (such as a monarchy with a Panchayat system) is probably better than trying to establish a democracy where people do not understand what they are voting for and political leaders are jostling for power and nothing ever gets done. Oh wait, this has already been proven.
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 17-Dec-01 01:32 PM
Thanks _BP,
Your note should give the above monarchist gentlemen some perspective about which party they are siding to.
Nepe
|
| Orion |
Posted
on 17-Dec-01 02:46 PM
Agreed, if Gyanendra is not the man behind the massacre, I think the people of the country should be fair to him and he should be given a chance to clarify himself. I do not know if what really happened on June 1 will ever come out fully but Gyanendra is probably the only person who knows the whole truth about the situation. As a result, I think many people have given him the benefit of the doubt
and are at least willing to hear him out if not to fully believe him. This speaks to the increasingly progressive nature of the Nepali mind, and if I were Gyanendra I would respect and fear that because as history has shown, the same people who are willing to hear him out today, could be baying for scalp in the future.
Sparsha,
I am not sure if I can persuade you to change your opinion but if you will hear me out, I can at least try and explain why I think the Monarchy should go. Firstly I think the institution is too costly and unjust. In a nation where the vast majority of the Nepali population struggles very hard for two meals a day, the King pockets approx. Rs 500,000 tax free as his monthly salary(check the Budget and related government publications) He also receives 200 asarphis of gold and silver per month. Plus the government pays for his food, electricity, telephone, petrol, servants etc. His wife receives a salary of Rs 100,000 per month for just being the Queen. I think the Crown Prince and Princess receive a similar amount. Is such extravagance justifiable in a country as poor as ours? And we complain about having Maoists!
Secondly I think the institution of monarchy symbolizes and legitimizes a master-slave mentality that has plagued Nepalese society for along time. The Royal family can do whatever they want - they can drive recklessly, kill a national figure like Praveen Gurung and cover it all up and the people of the country are expected to to accept that Paras "has now changed" and will be a good king. Why the hell should the people of Nepal bow to such a figure and accept him as their King? I think such a thing is unlikely to happen in a Republic( and I am not talking about Maoist style Republic). In a country where no one is above the law, anyone hitting a police inspector with a gun or running over people with their cars should an will likely be brought to justice.
In today's constitutional monarchy, the Royal family is "above the constitution" - the laws of the land don’t apply to them. Even if Paras had confessed to killing musician Praveen Gurung, he could not be tried in a court of law because the constitution clearly states that "His Majesty and family" shall not be brought to court. I fail to understand how can we expect such an institution to uphold the constitution if they themselves are above the constitution and have no regard for the laws of the land.
I also think the argument that the monarchy is necessary to maintain the national integrity is as big a myth as that of the abominable snowman. As many people have pointed out, Panchas and Royalist for long screamed that if the King was not directly ruling the country, the country would become a part of India. Apparently that hasn't been the case and I don’t think we are anymore a part of India now than when the Panchayat was around. Nepal's ethnic minorities have not gone to war with each other and nor have the Madesis integrated the Terai with India. The Panchayat and supporters if Royalty played the fear India card to legitimize their undemocratic rule of the country and are trying to do it again today to fuel their burning ambitions and lust for power.
|
| Orion |
Posted
on 17-Dec-01 02:50 PM
GP,
"I have not seen an honest leader in Nepal, who can
be more acceptable than King Gyanendra ....".
I must say, with all due respect, that this is the most ludicrous argument I have heard in defense of Gyanendra. Gyanendra and honest? I think we need to get a few things straight here.It was Gyanendra along with the late Queen Aishwarya who is alleged to have started "Commisiontantra" as we know it today in RNAC. When RNAC bought it two boeig 757s - Karnali and Gandaki in the late 80s - Gyanedra is alleged to have received a heft sum in kickpaks. When it somes to commisions and kickbacks, our present King, in my opinion will outsmart all other polititians. I know you feel diffrently but it is extrememly difficult for me to accept the argument that the present King is "honest" given his past record.
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 17-Dec-01 03:58 PM
When I say, "I firmly support a checked constitutional monarchy", I am talking about the institution not the person who represents the institution, now.
"A republic constitution, the only possible undebatably sacred political document in this century, shall serve as a center of people’s faith. It will represent the peak of people’s dignity, the supremacy of people’s desire. It shall the end of all debates. It shall be the beginning of new era in Nepal, free from historical burden, finally free to move forward with all powerful leader they choose to elect. "
Nepe, do you beleive in idealism or pragmatism? The scenario you portray in above paragraph will materialize once the monarchy finds it's place in history, if this is what you think then I am sorry to say that I am not convinced enough to change my belief.
Orion, your argument is well taken.
When I mean "checked" that also includes the review on the pay scale to the royal family, their tax-status,and their above -the -law status among others.
"I think the institution of monarchy symbolizes and legitimizes a master-slave mentality that has plagued Nepalese society for along time."
I think not monarchy but our lack of self-esteem symbolizes a master-slave mentality.
"In today's constitutional monarchy, the Royal family is "above the constitution" - the laws of the land don’t apply to them. "
My version of monarchy is constitutional monarchy where not evn the institution is above the constitution.
"I also think the argument that the monarchy is necessary to maintain the national integrity is as big a myth as that of the abominable snowman."
Sorry Orion, I just can't discard the argument is as abig myth as that of a abominable snowman.
There are many countries who have developed abandoning the Monarchy but there are other countries who haven't gained much (may have lost, instead) after throwing off the monarchy.
"So, let's defend king now, and defend him as long as he is useful for us. " _ Biswo.
I agree with him , however, I see "king" not as Gyanendra but as a "post".
_BP's point is very true but I guess we should try to change for better.
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 17-Dec-01 11:26 PM
My 2 cents:
”I think not monarchy but our lack of self-esteem symbolizes a master-slave mentality”
Monarchy is the reason of lack of our self-esteem. We grew up learning that it is forbidden to question the authority. We grew up accepting that our fate is at the mercy of somebody else. Somebody is responsible for us. All we can do is to hope for the best. Slave is what we became accepting monarchy. Its so sad some educated people, instead of advocating freeing the people from that chain of slavery, are asking to surrender and just keep hoping for the best.
"I have not seen an honest leader in Nepal, who can be more acceptable than King Gyanendra ....".
In a way you are right. There is nothing sacred about Gyanendra. And our leaders are no better. But have you ever wondered, why a decade long presumed democracy did not produce a single competent leader ? I have. I think we never had ‘leaders’, they were at best in-charge of slaves in every sense. They were slave themselves. Their mental master lived in the palace. These in-charge of slaves never did (had to) feel more accountable than keeping law and order. That’s what happened in the past eleven years. It is not a metaphor but an exact account of what happened in Nepal.
The only way we can have real leaders, not just in-charge of slaves, is first to free them from the slave mentality by making them their own master. This is not possible until we dismantle the other master. Monarchy has to go. Too much time has been wasted already.
I do not hope to change the mind of pro-monarchists very easily. Because they (some, not all) seem to have honest and innocent mind and they seem to know it. But, with due respect to all, I think a chronic tumor of pessimism, mistrust and fear is deeply seated in their brain. It is apparently caused by eleven years of democracy that appears to be flopped very badly. No friends, democracy has not flopped. What flopped was the ‘constitutionalized monarchy’. It did not work. Let’s say goodbye to this chapter of history. Let’s have faith that Nepal’s democracy will give birth to a competent leader.... like...like Mustafa Kemal Ataturk who transformed the old Turkey into a vibrant modern nation. I don’t think I am being idealistic here. At least I will not settle with less than being pragmatically idealistic, or ideal pragmatic, whichever I am granted. Astoo.
Nepe
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 17-Dec-01 11:54 PM
Nepeji:
I liked your arguments, and it was the sanest argument from anti-monarchy
advocates I have ever heard.
A lot of it sounded very cogent too. May be our leaders drove us to the extent
of pessimism.
You are also right when you expect us to get a leader like Kamal Ataturk. But
that is where we diverge.
Because we simply don't have a leader to lead, a leader like Kamal. Those who
advocate anti-monarchism openly are the worst of all, they have no provable
popular mandate. Their principle is so similar to Talibans that most of us won't
even think of to support their rabid anti-monarchism.
My point is : don't we have a lot of other problems more urgent than monarchy
now? Did king stop when we wanted to implement good health system? Did king
stop our leaders when they wanted to make bridge? No. Definitely No.
Our leaders became of slave mentality because they were doing some definitely
wrong things.If you are right, you don't need to be afraid of king. But when you
are larcenous and corrupt, when all you think about is your post and your
relatives, you need to be afraid of the king, the master.
That's the reason why our leaders couldn't stop king from nominating his own
people to Rashtriya Shabha, from nominating his cousins to ambassadorship. It
is not lack of constitutional power, it is lack of moral power.
That's the reason why even while supporting the core of your argument (not
pro-monarchism) I still refrain from making monarchy focus of our political or
social activity. It is better to let it rest in peace in palace.I don't like it, but I
think it is best for me (and our society) to let it be where it is today. I won't be
sorry even if monarchy is there the day I die.
But again, let me repeat, I am very much impressed by your arguments, sir. It is
just that I was not totally convinced. :-)
|
| NK |
Posted
on 18-Dec-01 12:04 PM
Very well said Biswo, :"...But all the help we need from India is a decent trade treaty."
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 18-Dec-01 02:07 PM
Thanks Biswo, for your cautious appreciation. It meant a lot to me. I was almost making a suicidal decision to become a monk. You saved me. Sorry for my earlier note in which I misrepresented you. But now I understand you better.
Basically, I think, though our dreams have been disfigured, our trust has been wounded, we have been dragged to a point where we see nothing but wide stretched ocean of helplessness, there are so many things to learn from these 11 years of our journey, our experiment. What is in front of us is not a pile of broken dreams, but a huge pile of data where the mantra of our future is hiding. I haven’t seen anybody digging in in search of the torch of our further journey. Most of us are busy just complaining and looking for somebody to put blame on or fighting for trivial things. Others are seeking the refuge of denial and escapism. It is really bad bad situation. But it is not worse than our inability to start to make objective analyses of these years. I am sure we will find our torch. Main thing is a serious, honest, bold and objective study. And to keep hope alive. Why pessimistic ? When everything ends, the future still remains. And everything has not ended in Nepal yet.
Okay, not much substance, but I feel good to say these things.
Nepe
|
| Nepe |
Posted
on 18-Dec-01 02:30 PM
Thanks Biswo, for your cautious appreciation. It meant a lot to me. I was almost making a suicidal decision to become a monk. You saved me. Sorry for my earlier note in which I misrepresented you. But now I understand you better.
Basically, I think, though our dreams have been disfigured, our trust has been wounded, we have been dragged to a point where we see nothing but wide stretched ocean of helplessness, there are so many things to learn from these 11 years of our journey, our experiment. What is in front of us is not a pile of broken dreams, but a huge pile of data where the mantra of our future is hiding. I haven’t seen anybody digging in in search of the torch of our further journey. Most of us are busy just complaining and looking for somebody to put blame on or fighting for trivial things. Others are seeking the refuge of denial and escapism. It is really bad bad situation. But it is not worse than our inability to start to make objective analyses of these years. I am sure we will find our torch. Main thing is a serious, honest, bold and objective study. And to keep hope alive. Why pessimistic ? When everything ends, the future still remains. And everything has not ended in Nepal yet.
Okay, not much substance, but I feel good to say these things.
Nepe
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 18-Dec-01 09:41 PM
>Thanks Biswo, for your cautious appreciation. It meant a lot to me. I was almost
>making a suicidal decision to become a monk. You saved me.
I hope you were kidding.
>Sorry for my earlier note in which I misrepresented you. But now I understand
>you better.
Thanks for the candid response. A lot of us want to regard people as either black
or white. But you know, we are mostly colorful people.
>Basically, I think, though our dreams have been disfigured, our trust has been
>wounded, we have been dragged to a point where we see nothing but wide
>stretched ocean of helplessness, there are so many things to learn from these
>11 years of our journey, our experiment. What is in front of us is not a pile of
>broken dreams, but a huge pile of data where the mantra of our future is hiding.
Definitely. We are bestowed with the scrambled data, and we are supposed to
sift through them to get right result.
Most of us love to do half baked analysis. We tend to blame either some caste, or
some group of people for our underdevelopment. This can satisfy our immediate
purpose, but that won't address the nation's maladies properly.
>I haven’t seen anybody digging in in search of the torch of our further journey.
>Most of us are busy just complaining and looking for somebody to put blame on
>or fighting for trivial things. Others are seeking the refuge of denial and
>escapism. It is really bad bad situation. But it is not worse than our inability to \
>start to make objective analyses of these years.
I think a lot of times we also make objective analysis.
But lack of some kind of organization or lack of systematic policy institute doesn't
allow us to give the formality to our analysis.
Also , key issue is how much are we able to tolerate? Can we tolerate the views of
those people who hold different views? Unless we listen to other's argument,
probably we won't go anywhere near to social decision making and making of
civilization.
> I am sure we will find our torch. Main thing is a serious, honest, bold and >objective study. And to keep hope alive. Why pessimistic ? When everything >ends, the future still remains. And everything has not ended in Nepal yet.
I definitely hope so. I am not a pessimist. I want to make the best out of what
I have in present. Even in politics. See, sometimes I like Deuba so much..
>Okay, not much substance, but I feel good to say these things.
Thanks for your nice comments too. Have a good day.
|
