 |
Monday,
April 29, 2002, Chandigarh, India  
|
Musharraf wins first round It’s rollback time
Talk of abrogating Indus Water Treaty |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bougette, wallet, Budget
Supreme Court on banking tribunals and judicial independences
There is no ‘gentlemanly rape’
Angry young men prone to heart disease
Indians in
Shanghai
|
Musharraf wins first round THE Pakistan Supreme Court's Saturday verdict upholding the legal status of the referendum to perpetuate General Pervez Musharraf's rule for another five years provides a clear hint about what is happening behind the scenes in India's
neighbourhood. The nine-member Bench, which rejected the petitions against the referendum, must have been influenced by the General's own pronouncement time and again that the exercise he has initiated was "in accordance with the constitution" and could not be stopped, come what may. The judges found the easiest way out when they pronounced that since the court had validated General Musharraf's position as President, he obviously had the right to go in for a referendum. In their own words: " Suffice (it to) say that it (the referendum call) has been issued by the Chief Executive and the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by this court." Behaving on widely expected lines, the Supreme Court had first legitimised the General's takeover of the government in a military coup in October, 1999, citing the "doctrine of necessity". Now comes another ruling in support of his future plans. It is not the judiciary's problem if democracy is damned in the process! The General's control over all the major institutions is so perfect that the latest verdict could not go against his wishes. Judicial independence has rarely been a strong point in Pakistan. So, all the major political parties opposed to the April 30 casting of votes, including the rightist Jamaat-e-Islami which first brought the issue to the court, have to accept the fait accompli. The General has managed a victory in the first round and the second round's outcome is a foregone conclusion. Over 3.5 lakh government officials deployed to man more than one lakh polling stations are expected to accomplish the task assigned to them in a "professional" manner. According to one estimate, there will be hardly a 35 per cent voter turnout and that too mostly to put a tick mark at "Yes". The voters, it is believed, will be forced to do so by a majority of the 1,36,786
Nazims, Deputy Nazims and councillors who owe their coveted positions to the General. Even most of the 15 per cent of the doubtful category of the "guardians" of new democracy of the General's dreams because of their party affiliations are expected to ignore the wishes of their top leaders. Pakistan's self-proclaimed "new messiah" is, however, moving towards success to impose his strange version of democracy mainly because of the super power's patronage. The American belief, though not based on the ground reality, is that with General Musharraf at the helm in a civilian garb, its interests in Pakistan will be in safe hands. It is also being perceived, again unrealistically, that the General staying in power will contribute to stability in the region. A cursory look at the records of the military rulers of Pakistan is enough to falsify the American thinking. However, India has only to learn to live with the ugly reality emerging beyond its borders. The USA needs to be reminded of its commitment on the issue of terrorism and its protege's ( which means Pakistan) assurance made recently. This is how the upcoming new dispensation in Pakistan, guided by President Musharraf, can help in ushering in an era of peace in the region. Stability, however, does not seem to be in the people's kismet on the other side of the border. |
|
It’s rollback time THE middle-income group in general and the salaried class in particular must have heaved a big sigh of relief following the withdrawal of some of the unpopular proposals announced by Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha during his Budget speech. The salaried class has always been the foremost Budget victim because it is its members who are asked to tighten their belt every time, regardless of the fact that it is already so tight that their eyes are bulging out. The concessions offered by the Finance Minister now reflect the basic economic reality, in spite of the fact that these strengthen the widely held belief that he is a rollback minister. The “bitter pill” that he had prescribed for the middle class was so large that it could have choked many people out of their wits. Take for instance the tax concessions on certain savings. Reducing the exemptions would have not only increased the taxpayers’ burden but also adversely affected the savings schemes. As it is, rising prices have left little scope for saving anything for the rainy day because its value evaporates day by day. The withdrawal of various incentives would have further fuelled profligacy. That in turn would have encouraged inflation and the vicious cycle could have defeated the very purpose of the Finance Minister’s harsh step. The surcharge on LIC premium was equally unfriendly. But make no mistake about it. The concessions that have been offered now are not because of any special consideration for the middle class or the retired people. Had that been the case, the tough measures would not have been announced in the first place. The driving force is political in nature. Not only the NDA allies but also the BJP men themselves have put in tremendous pressure on the government to reverse the harsh decisions because these could doom the electoral prospects of the BJP and its partners. The angry protesters are convinced that the setbacks that the BJP has suffered recently are because the middle class is cross with it. Mr Sinha is trying to put up a brave face and defending the decisions, but it is obvious that he has been coerced into eating his words. The relief comes at a cost of Rs 2,857 crore of revenue and nobody knows how the shortfall is going to be made up. Equally demoralising is the loss of face that it entails. It is alright for a small-time trader to jack up his rate list and then offer sharp rebates. But it does not behove a government to first announce harsh steps and then meekly retract them wholesale. That leaves it with an unedifying reputation of buckling under pressure. When this happens year after year, the message goes out loud and clear that there is no sanctity attached to the Budget and every provision is reversible. Next time Mr Sinha should think twice before sticking his neck out. Course correction is not the same thing as course reversal. |
Talk of abrogating Indus Water Treaty NEWSPAPER reports that the Indus Waters Treaty has become an issue in contention between India and Pakistan need to be treated with caution. The treaty was signed in 1960 under the auspices of the World Bank and represents one of the major triumphs of the United Nations system. It has worked reasonably well despite tensions and war. The Indus Commissioners have never broken contact and continue to maintain cooperative relations. Recent reports in the Indian media, however, suggest that the Jammu and Kashmir Government is pressing the Centre to review the treaty, which it feels has adversely affected the interests of the state. The Tulbul Barrage project has been stalled and limitations have been placed on hydro-storages. A story in Dawn, Karachi, earlier this year said that the treaty was in “virtual suspension” because India had billed Pakistan for water discharge readings, a routine inspection visit of Pakistani engineers to the Bagliar hydel project on the Chenab was in limbo and all correspondence between the two sides had ceased. This is untrue. Dates for the Bagliar inspection (under the treaty) have yet to be settled but have not been refused. Indian river discharge readings for flood forecasting were initially charged but later given free. Rising expenditures on maintaining observation sites in the concerned states and operating a special Indus flood management cell in Delhi annually from July 1 to October 10, with associated manpower and transmission costs, has, however, necessitated the demand for a modest levy. Correspondence is in progress. It must be noted that the Indus Treaty casts what is very largely a unilateral responsibility on India for compliance. This is not unique and represents a burden that necessarily falls on all upper riparians in similar circumstances around the world. The same is true in the case of the Ganga Treaty with Bangladesh: the onus of providing virtually all data and explanations is on India. This is a fact of geography, no more. Stray reports have appeared in the Press to the effect that India should threaten to “abrogate” the Indus Treaty if Pakistan persists in cross-border terrorism in J&K or otherwise. This is unwise counsel to which the government should pay no heed. Abrogation would be indefensible on any understanding of international water law, international humanitarian law and the rules of war. Further, it would lend credence to Pakistan’s claim to J&K as a “lifeline” because the Indus, on which it is almost solely dependent for water, flows through that state. This is fallacious because Pakistan’s water interests are fully safeguarded by the Indus Treaty that has survived all conflict. Moreover, operationalising “abrogation” would be a long-gestation engineering feat that, apart from being construed as a hostile act, would greatly strain the Indian economy. The proposition is a dangerous fantasy that would legitimise counter-calls for the bombing or sabotage of Bhakra-Pong and other major Indian dams and water supply lifelines. What remains is a sense of grievance, expressed most recently by Dr Farooq Abdullah, among others, that the Indus Treaty unduly constrains J&K in utilising its waters, especially to garner the full hydel potential of the Indus rivers. This is not really so today, though there could be an element of in-built restraint in the more distant future. The Indus Treaty apportions the entire waters of the three eastern rivers — the Sutlej, the Beas and the Ravi — to India, except for domestic and non-consumptive uses and up to 45,500 acres of irrigation for annual cultivation from tributaries of the Ravi and the Sutlej in Pakistan. In turn, it allocates the entire waters of the three western rivers — the Chenab, the Jhelum and the Indus — to Pakistan minus domestic and certain established and future consumptive and non-consumptive uses in J&K. India is permitted to formulate appropriate schemes for rural and urban water supply in J&K. Other non-consumptive uses are also permitted for timber-floating, navigation, flood protection, fisheries, wild life and similar beneficial purposes provided the waters are returned to these rivers after allowing for normal seepage and evaporation. The stipulated procedures are, however, cumbersome (as the Tulbul impasse illustrates) and have sometimes proven unproductive. Further, inclusive of such irrigation uses in J&K as on April 1, 1960, India is entitled to irrigate 1.34 million acres from the three western rivers against which only about 0.81 million acres are currently irrigated. Furthermore, the permissible irrigable acreage may be redistributed among the three western river basins, as mutually agreed upon, while cropping patterns may be altered to optimise agricultural production. These opportunities await exploitation. The Indus Treaty allows India to build storages aggregating 3.60 million acre feet on the three western rivers in J&K : 1.60 MAF for hydro-power, 0.75 MAF for flood moderation and 1.25 MAF for general storage for non-consumptive uses, including power generation. Thus far, no storage has been constructed on any of the western rivers which collectively have an assessed hydro-electric potential of 8825 MW at 60 per cent load factor. At the turn of the century, however, under 1400 MW had been harnessed, only 4 MW of this on the Indus. Altogether, J&K has as yet much unutilised irrigation and hydro potential to exploit within the ambit of the Indus Treaty. However, the treaty primarily focused on allocating water for irrigation and did not seek to optimise benefits from the system as a whole. The main stem of the Indus within India has not even been properly surveyed and could probably reveal further potential awaiting exploitation. These are tasks for the future and should be taken up whenever Indo-Pakistan relations improve. An imaginative Indus Water Treaty-II, built on the foundations of and without prejudice to the present Indus-I, could be negotiated as part of a long-term J&K solution. It would be a means of bringing both sides of J&K across the LoC as a single, bountiful natural resource region. One negative byproduct of Indus-I was the callous disregard of relief and rehabilitation measures by Pakistan in relation to the large numbers displaced by the Mangla reservoir on the Jhelum within PoK. This caused thousands of hapless Mirpuris to migrate to the UK in the 1960s. They constitute the bulk of the Pakistani “Kashmiris” (ethnically Punjabis) in the UK. They have had a long way to travel to find self-determination. Nor does it appear that PoK, which hosts the Mangla dam, receives any royalty or free power from the project. Pakistan now reportedly contemplates raising the height of the Mangla dam. This needs watching. The writer, a veteran journalist, is a former Editor of The Hindustan Times |
Bougette, wallet, Budget IT was Cicero who said in 63 BC.” “The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled.” All Finance Ministers or the Chancellors of Exchequers had been following the words since then but could manage “a uniform distribution of dissatisfaction” as and when they presented the Budget. Here in India, it was the year 1860 when James Wilson presented the annual budget for the first time and earned for himself the non-recognised title, “the father of Indian budget”. This eagerly awaited, much-hyped annual document customarily brought to the House in a leather bag or bougette or wallet has earned many epithets. Besides “planned worrying”, “mathematical calculations of your suspicions”, “outgo outcome of your income”, it is also known as “a system of reminding you that you can’t afford the kind of living you are accustomed to”. The last epithet worried a housewife who confronted Mr Yashwant Sinha, after the recent Budget presentation, and said that her kitchen budget would get out of purse with rise in LPG cylinder price. Mr Sinha replied that the increase would be offset by reduction in petrol charges because, in future, her husband would have to spend less in petrol for his two-wheeler and the family budget would get on well. Sinhaji, are you aware that there are many places in this and other hilly States where scooters can’t go but LPG can? Oh, that was an oversight. But small hilly States have to make such sacrifices in larger interest of the nation. Remember Sinhaji, these sorts of “oversights” resulted in the innuendoes that were exchanged between you and an MP from Opposition who met you when you had just presented the Second Budget. He had said. “You are the second worst Finance Minister I have known.” You had quipped: “ Who was the first?” He was prompt in replying. “You only, during your first tenure.” Once Mr Shanta Kumar presented Budget in the HP State Assembly with all buds and flowers for the ladies of the State. He had earlier declared “Karva Chauth” as gazetted holiday for ladies. He wanted to cash in on the goodwill, so earned, by not levying any tax on bindis, lipsticks and “chuttilla” (a thread ornament to tie the plaits of hair). A wily smile on the lips of the members in the opposition then had said more than the words. Mr Madhu Dandvate in the Lok Sabha, however, did more than just smile by expressing shock on budget offering concessions on the import of lipsticks. The Treasury Benches had replied that the import was partial. Mr Dandvate had quipped: “ I know. The lips are indigenous only the sticks are imported.” Mr Manmohan Singh’s long drone of Budget speech had a couple of literary relief in couplets in Urdu. But Mr Narain Dutt Tewari rose to the occasion, while presenting the Budget, matching Bal Kavi Bairagi, MP, couplet to couplet, Bairagi had said, “Hamsafar hoon aapka, mashgool hoon, muflis bhi hoon, Hath kandhon par hi rakhna, jeb par mat daalnaa.” Mr Tewari had promptly replied, “Ay dost bataa doon, kyaa farq tujhme mujhme hai, Tera dard, dard hai tanha; mera dard, darde
zamanaa.” |
Supreme Court on banking tribunals and judicial independences IN a judgement that has gone virtually unnoticed by the media, the Supreme Court rang the curtain down last month on a major juristic controversy, overturning three High Courts and upholding the constitutional vires of the Debts Recovery Act of 1993. Brought forth by the former Union Finance Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, and intended to be a major reform in the filed of banking litigation, the Act replaced the ordinary civil courts with special tribunals (DRTs) for speedy adjudication and recovery of debts of Rs 10 lakh and more due to banks and public financial institutions. The “existing procedure for recovery of (their) debts,” explained the statutory statement of objects and reasons when the Bill was first introduced, “has blocked a significant portion of their funds in unproductive assets, the value of which deteriorates with the passage of time.” More than fifteen lakh cases filed by public sector banks were stated to be pending in various courts around the country, as on September 30, 1990 — the decennial cut-off immediately preceding the introduction of the Bill — involving a total recovery of more than Rs five thousand crore. “The locking up of such huge amount of public money in litigation,” wrote the official draftsman, highlighting the magnitude of the crisis resulting from India’s notorious slow-track judicial system, “prevents proper utilisation and recycling of the funds for the development of the country. Strong words these, but not strong enough to impress the High Courts of Delhi, Guwahati and Karnataka which — starting from the capital in 1995 and moving up north-east in 1999 and down south in 2001 — struck down the Act as unconstitutional on one ground or the other, ranging from want of legislative competence to erosion of the independence of the judiciary. Two other High Courts demurred, however, and demurred strongly and all along the line. Our own Punjab and Haryana High Court in 1996 — “Surely (it held, speaking firmly and with fervour) independence of the judiciary does not lie in enabling a citizen to delay the repayment of debts he owes” — and the High Court of Allahabad, exercising jurisdiction over Uttar Pradesh, in 1999. Speaking the last word last month, and laying down the law of the land, though not quite as adequately as one would have expected it to, the Supreme Court upheld the 1993 Act (as amended upto 2000) as a “valid piece of legislation”. “There is no absolute right in anyone,” declared the court, speaking through the Chief Justice-designate, Justice B.N. Kirpal, “to demand that his dispute be adjudicated upon only by a civil court.” The manner in which a dispute is to be adjudicated upon, he said, is determined by the procedural laws enacted from time to time. It is because of the enactment of the Code of Civil Procedure that normally all disputes of a civil nature are adjudicated upon by the civil courts. This forum, namely, the civil court, now stands replaced by a tribunal in respect of debts due to banks and public financial institutions. Such tribunals, ruled the court, “whether they pertain to income tax or sales tax or excise and customs or administration, have now become an essential part of the judicial system in this country.” They may not strictly fall within the concept of the judiciary as envisaged by Article 50 of the Constitution, said the three-member Bench (in an important statement), but it cannot be presumed, for that reason, that such tribunals are not an effective part of the justice delivery system like courts of law. A directive principle of state policy, one of the sixteen in Part IV of the Constitution, Article 50 mandates the State to “take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State.” The Debts Recovery Act violates Article 50, the Delhi High Court had ruled in 1995 and the Karnataka High Court last year, because the High Court “has no role to play in the appointment” of the presiding officer of either the Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal above it. With great respect to the two High Courts in question, and to others who might subscribe to this view, I have, I must confess, never been able to treat it as anything more than flippant. “Taken a little more seriously,” I wrote in this very column on September 16, 1996, reacting to this very view, “we have here a new constitutional theory, a theory based entirely on institutional self-interest and as plain as this: no court or tribunal can be set up anywhere in the country for any purpose unless its presiding officer is appointed by the High Court concerned, or with its consent or on its recommendation.” There is nothing in the Constitution, I submit — at least in the Constitution as enacted (as distinguished from the Constitution as interpreted) — that supports such a point of view and, even as I disagreed sharply with the High Court at Delhi, I found myself applauding the High Court here in Chandigarh for pronouncing as it did a few days earlier on September 11. “There are innumerable statutes under which appointments of Presiding Officers is made by the Government,” the Punjab and Haryana High Court had ruled. “Merely because the power of appointment has been vested in the Government, it cannot be said that the independence of the judiciary has been eroded or that the object of achieving separation of judiciary from Executive has been defeated.” Still further, it held, “the mere fact that the Presiding Officers (of the DRTs) shall be appointed by the Central Government cannot mean that they would be under its control or that they would not discharge their judicial obligations without fear or favour. An institution is only as good as the men who man it.” Neither of the two Judges who spake thus are Judges who can be accused of lack of independence, though it would be vulgar for me to name either of them. The Supreme Court is inclined to a similar view though, surprisingly, the judgement of the Punjab and Haryana High Court escapes its notice altogether. Presiding officers of DRTs and Appellate Tribunals, it says, must (under the Act) be qualified to be district judges and High Court judges respectively. “Persons who are so appointed .... would be well versed in law to be able to decide cases independently and judiciously.” When establishment of tribunals under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution, it holds, does not erode the independence of the judiciary, there is no reason to presume that the banking tribunals and appellate tribunals would not be independent or that justice would be denied to the defendants. In all fairness, however, it must be acknowledged that the Supreme Court’s decision, and its discussion on the point, presupposes the latest rules framed under the Debts Recovery Act for the appointment of presiding officers of the DRTs and Appellate Tribunals. Framed in 1998, these rules contemplate the appointments being made by a selection committee headed by the Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the Supreme Court nominated by the CJI. Even though, therefore, all the other members of the committee, in a majority by themselves, belong to the bureaucracy, the presence of such a high judicial dignitary imposes a discipline and an ethic of selection that must necessarily distinguish it from a purely administrative process of appointment. Whether, therefore, the Supreme Court would have ruled as it did last month even if such rules had not been framed, is a question rather difficult to answer. The difficulty is not lessened by the fact that the rules are only rules, after all — only subordinate legislation and not a part of the parent Act itself. The other question, that of Parliament’s legislative competence to enact the 1993 law in the face of Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution — both of which provide for tribunals but not banking tribunals — is a question too technical to be addressed in a newspaper column. Suffice it to say, however, that while the Supreme Court’s decision on the question is plainly correct, it lacks the intellectual appeal that marked the court’s constitutional judgements of the 1950s and 60s. It is obvious, without saying anything more, that the heavy burden of work on the nation’s apex court is taking its toll. |
|
|
There is no ‘gentlemanly rape’ A Hong Kong barrister has stirred up outrage by referring to a gang sex attack as “a more gentlemanly sort of rape”. Defence barrister Finny Chan argued, on Saturday that because his client and two other attackers raped the 21-year-old victim one after the other, leaving the room between attacks, it was a less serious kind of gang rape. “(The rape was) a more gentlemanly sort of rape ... (where) as soon as one finished, he leaves the room and another one takes over,” he told a High Court hearing before the three men were sentenced for the attack. The perpetrators, two aged 21 and one 25, forced their victim, a foreign domestic helper and a virgin, into a taxi and took her to a guesthouse where they took turns raping her, the court heard. They were jailed for three to six years. Chan’s remarks were met with outrage by women’s groups, the South China Morning Post reported. Peggy Lam, Chairwoman of the Hong Kong Federation of Women, told the newspaper: “Rape is rape, and there is no degree of gentlemanliness or workmanness to it.” Edwina
Santoyo, head of a migrant women’s help group, agreed: “If a woman says no, you can’t say it is a gentlemanly rape. It is still rape.”
DPA |
|
Angry young men prone to heart disease YOUNG men who quickly react to stress with anger are at three times the normal risk of developing premature heart disease, a study has said. Men who concealed their anger were five times more likely than their calmer counterparts to have an early attack even without a family history of heart disease, the study by Johns Hopkins University in the US, said. According to Patricia Chang, lead author of the study, “The most important thing angry young men can do is get professional help to manage their tempers, especially since previous studies have shown that those who already have heart disease get better with anger management.” Chang and colleagues followed up about 600 angry young men for 36 years and found that 35 per cent of them had developed cardiovascular disease, on the average, by the time they reached the age of 56. “The incidence of cardiovascular disease was significantly higher for those with the highest level of anger compared to those with lower levels,” the authors said, adding it was “unclear if the findings apply to women or non-Whites”.
Dairy diet keeps diabetes away A diet high in dairy foods may help overweight adults reduce their risk of developing heart disease or late-onest diabetes, according to a study. The study of 3,000 plus volunteers found that those with the highest dairy intake, even full-fat dairy foods such as butter and cream, were much less likely to become obese or develop IRS (insulin resistance syndrome) than their peers with more modest dairy consumption. In fact, the volunteers who consumed dairy products five times a day were 72 per cent less likely to develop IRS than their counterparts who were eating it less than twice a day. Symptoms of IRS include glucose intolerance, high blood pressure and low levels of so-called good cholesterol. The condition impairs the body’s ability to metabolise glucose and is thought to predispose individuals to type II (or adult-on-set) diabetes and cardiovascular disease, two life-style-related diseases.
Agencies |
Indians in Shanghai New Delhi: As the extent to which Indians have suffered in China has caused some concern in this country, the information made available to the Legislative Assembly by Mr Howell, Foreign Secretary, in reply to Dewan Chaman Lall's questions, will be read with interest. According to Mr Howell's statement, the approximate number of Indians in Hongkong and Shanghai respectively is 1152 and 1400. The approximate value of Indian owned property in Hongkong is 1000000 dollars and in Shanghai 500000 dollars. No Indian property has been interfered with, nor have any Indian lives been lost in either Hongkong or Shanghai. |
The human soul is lying cramped in the prison house of the body, with its nine doors. Not till it gets released from it through the hidden tenth door into the spiritual world within, can it get freedom and enjoy peace..... Without opening the inner eye man is no better than a beggar. Though his house is filled with spiritual wealth, he acts like a pauper. His condition is that of the one who sits on a seashore but suffers from thirst..... When the soul and mind are completely collected in the centre behind the two eyes, the tenth door is automatically opened. —J.R. Puri and T.R. Shangari, Bulleh Shah *** You are imprisoned in nine doors, And not for a moment do you enjoy peace. Open ye, the tenth door, and revel in bliss. —Soamiji Maharaj, Sar bachan *** I have closed my nine doors to sleep; And I have come to stand at the tenth. O, accept my love for you now, —Kafi, Bulleh Shah *** I confess that the Word has visited me and even very often. But although He has frequently entered into my soul, I have never at any time been sensible of His coming. I have felt that He was present; I remember that He has been with me; I have sometimes been able even to have a presentiment that He would come; but never to feel His coming or His departure. — St. Bernard of Clairvaux
*** When the Master initiates us, puts us on the path, he is always with us, even if he leaves his body... Because the Master is not the body; the Master is that Word which is in the body... So when the Master attaches us to that Word, he takes his abode within us. Therefore for us he is always living.... So the real Master is a spirit, the Word, and the real disciple is the soul. But unless the soul is in the flesh, unless that spirit or Word is in the flesh, the soul, cannot be brought in contact with the Spirit. Only through initiation by a living Master can the Spirit within pull the soul of the disciple back to the Father. —Maharaj Charan Singh, Thus Saith the Master, 22,33 |
 |
| Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir | Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs | Nation | Editorial | | Business | Sport | World | Mailbag | In Spotlight | Chandigarh Tribune | Ludhiana Tribune 50 years of Independence | Tercentenary Celebrations | | 122 Years of Trust | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
