25 November 2020

The 19th Amendment: get over it already!


There are all kinds of yahapalanists. There are those who cannot be in denial simply because they were right in the middle of the yahapalana project or rather a project by that name (for good governance was certainly not their cup of tea as history showed and practice demonstrated). Then there are those who opted for a change of clothes. Name change, symbol change, address change etc., didn’t make them unrecognizable. SJB and UNP, telephone and elephant, it’s the same. All yahapalanists. The praise and blame accrue to one and all. Well, add to this the Yahapalana Fan Club made of sideline politicians who are double-headed and double-addressed, i.e. rights advocates and professionals.

Now these worthies are big fans of the 19th Amendment. It was great, they say. And they add, ‘the 20th is draconian and dictatorial; it rolled back the gains of the 19th and is even worse than what JR initially instituted in 1978.’  

Where’s the substantiation, though? Let’s take a look.

Let’s start with the brag. The brag of course had to do with the 18th. It also had to do with a peculiar political context where the champion and the intended beneficiary (Ranil Wickremesinghe) led a party that had minority representation in Parliament whereas the man whose powers were to be clipped, Maithripala Sirisena had just assumed office with a majority of the national vote.

The 18th would be effectively repealed, they bragged. It was. The 19th would embody the Yahapalana promise(s). We would have accountability and transparency. Democracy would be enhanced. Good governance assured. Cabinet would be limited to 30 ministers. That was part of the brag. Seniority and meritocracy will mark appointments and promotions, they told us. We know how that fell by the wayside! The independence of the judiciary would be restored, they promised. Well, they made a mockery of the last by turning the Supreme Court into a political circus almost immediately after Sirisena was sworn in as President.

Let’s get to the process which includes the passage of the amendment. It was drafted. Nothing wrong with that. The Supreme Court was petitioned. Nothing wrong with that. The Supreme Court offered a determination. Essentially, important elements of the draft were shot down. Now what did the Yahapalanists do?  Did they follow yahapalana practice to the letter?

Well, the objections were of an order that amending the document in ways that took these into consideration would have violated established parliamentary procedure. Typically, at the committee stage, only minor corrections are made. In other words, yahapalana theory would have required the yahapalanists to withdraw the amendment, get back to the drawing board and come up with a fresh draft.

They didn’t do that. They produced an amendment that was very different to what was tabled. That’s giving a finger to established procedure. Not very yahapalana-like, was it? It only demonstrated (and rather early in the tenure of that regime) that ‘yahapalanaya’ was a lie. A hoax.  It was voted on in the dead of the night by clearly irresponsible and perhaps tired and sleepy MPs. Sarath Weerasekera voted against it. Only he. Kudos to him.

The substance. As mentioned it was about giving power to a man who, at that point, did not have the trust and confidence of the people. One must mention that Wickremesinghe’s swearing-in was also a travesty of established procedure. The incumbent was sacked by way of the newly sworn in President signing a letter. Immediately, i.e. before the letter was delivered, President Sirisena appointed Ranil Wickremesinghe

So it was done. It was done in such a way that no one knew who really called the shots. Ball-passing between the Prime Minister and the President became a common occurrence. Finger-pointing was frequent. It was the easy out for a bunch of people lacking imagination, suffering innovation-lack and who were absolutely incompetent. Things were so confusing that it took the  Supreme Court to say what was what and that too only with respect to dissolution-power. This was when Sirisena joined forces with Mahinda Rajapaksa in late 2018.

Cabinet-size. This was a joke. On paper, we got the number 30. It was cheered. It was bragged about. On paper also was this neat device called ‘National Government’ which the amendment-drafters left undefined. ‘In a “National Government, cabinet size would be determined by Parliament. The matter finally hit the ‘constitutional experts’ in the yahapalana camp only when it could no longer be hidden. When Sirisena took the SLFP out of the coalition, Jayampathy Wickramaratne, the big boss behind the drafting, unashamedly said that since the SLMC (Sri Lanka Muslim Congress) was with the UNP, it remains a ‘national government.’ In other words, in his mind, a bloated cabinet was still constitutional! The yahapalana braggarts maintained a dead silence on the matter.

Much was made of the Constitutional Council (CC) which, the braggarts claimed, corrected the clauses of the 18th that crippled independent institutions. However, in reality, it was Ranil Wickremesinghe’s whims and fancies that held the day. The composition of the CC, naturally and understandably tilted in favor of the regime. It was politician-heavy, which of course wasn’t quite yahapanish. However even the non-politicians (non-political only because they weren’t in Parliament, let’s keep that in mind!) were partisan. Check the names of those ‘civil society’ people in the CC, the names of those appointed to various commissions and the appointments and promotions recommended by the commissions themselves. Friends and loyalists. That’s it. Why else would some of these ‘independents’ resign the moment Gotabaya Rajapaksa was elected President?

So now we have the 20th. Much of the confusion has been sorted out. Some of the better elements of the 19th have been retained. Are we ok now? Of course not. Cabinet size is still not cleared, although President Rajapaksa has kept it within the ceiling mentioned in the 19th. The CC just rubber-stamped Wickremesinghe’s wishes. President Rajapaksa has far more sway and that’s not necessarily a good thing.  Nevertheless, unlike the yahapalana braggarts, he has recommended that the six senior most judges be promoted to the Supreme Court. The yahapalana regime didn’t do that, not even with the so-called democracy-safeguards instituted to ensure independence of the judiciary. If it was Sirisena, Wickremesinghe or even Mahinda Rajapaksa, this might not have been the case. That itself shows the flaw. It should not be dependent on whether or not the incumbent values meritocracy.

Sri Lanka has a long way to go to resolve a simple issue: what’s best for us, a parliament-led system or an executive presidential system of governance? The proposed new constitution might sort this vexed issue out and hopefully in a way that effectively blocks the possibility of abuse.

That said, the 19th is nothing like its champions make it out to be. A piece of trash that did away with another piece of trash (the 18th). Stank. Get over it already.


A budget presented amid celebrations and acquittals


Over the last few weeks there has been a concerted campaign in social media attacking President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. The ‘Gota Fail Campaign,’ as it was, promoted a strong response questioning the success of the President’s detractors. The campaign was clearly targeting the President’s first anniversary celebrations and the impending reading of the budget. The campaign failed or rather, now that the moment has passed, the campaigners have taken a break.

It was a week made of celebratory days, depending on one’s political preferences of course. We had Mahinda Rajapaksa celebrating his 75th birthday. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa completed his first year in office and addressed the nation to mark the occasion. The first budget of the Government that came to power in early August was presented. Secretary to the then President (Mahinda Rajapaksa) Lalith Weeratunga (also the ex officio Chairman of the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission) and Anusha Palpita (former Director General, TRC) were acquitted of all charges of misappropriation by the Court of Appeal.

Quite a week, to say the least.

Ranjan Ramanayake, predictably, ridiculed Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Mahinda Rajapaksa ‘for not standing while presenting the budget.’ Leader of the Opposition Sajith Premadasa rapped Ramanayake on the knuckles for doing so, in a gesture of good grace rarely seen in Parliament.

Obviously, Mahinda Rajapaksa is no longer the energetic man he used to be. This of course does not necessarily mean he is infirm in mind. He still remains one of the most effective communicators in our tribe of politicians. He’s had his good days and bad ones, like anyone else. He receives praise and blame, which again indicates strong passion, fierce loyalty and, on the part of his detractors, equally intense sentiments which include envy, fear and disgust.

That said, as ‘The Gadfly,’ a regular contributor to the website www.theleader.lk observed, when the post-independence history of this country is written, there will be a special chapter devoted to the man, whereas the likes of Ranil Wickremesinghe, Sajith Premadasa, Rajitha Senaratne an Wijedasa Rajapaksha would get, at most, a line or two. Again, depending on who is writing the history, someone might say. However, the man’s mark is unmistakable and certainly hard to brush aside.

Some argued that he should have gracefully retired in 2015. Maybe he should have. On the other hand, ‘Mahinda Rajapaksa’ is not just a man but a brand and moreover a name that’s etched in the political consciousness of the nation, and, as the August 5 results indicated remembered with gratitude that obliterates memory of his blemishes. If Gotabaya Rajapaksa was captain-designate and Basil Rajapaksa the man chartering course, Mahinda Rajapaksa was the name of the ship (with a tagline, ‘Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna’) and ‘MR’ a signature that was on every element of the vessel.

So, let us wish him, belatedly (on account of circumstances), a very happy 75th birthday, good times ahead, good health, continued guidance of his younger brother the President in matters political and restraint in deference to changed times and more importantly the leadership and power that is constitutionally granted to Gotabaya Rajapaksa.

The budget is still being debated. Predictably Harsha De Silva has come down hard on it. He tweeted, ‘the most boring budget speech in years.’ He added, ‘…a weak n inspiring (he probably meant ‘uninspiring’) budget w totally unrealistic revenue figures…a shift towards protectionist n failed ‘Import Substitution Industrialization’ model.’ Having opened the debate for the Opposition, he then tweeted ‘a short edit’: 1. Figures fudged. 2. No stimulus package. 3. About to explode foreign debt issue ignored. 4. Import Substitution Model has failed; need bridges not walls.’

Now De Silva is a fear-mongerer if ever there was one. There was a time when again he was in the Opposition, when he would issue dire predictions of imminent economic collapse almost on a weekly basis. The man had to keep quiet when the UNP regime he was a part of mishandled the economy. He had nothing to say on the Central Bank bond scam.

He might have been thrilled when that regime wagered on the West coming to Sri Lanka’s help, but he didn’t contradict his then leader Ranil Wickremesinghe who, when ‘Brexit’ happened, suddenly said ‘we will look East.’ This after badmouthing China in the run-up to the January 2015 presidential election. We remember De Silva posting selfies with the Port City construction in the background at the time when his party was swearing to put a stop to the project. Finally, his government signed an agreement even less favorable to Sri Lanka. This was to be expected; after all the Yahapalana Government cheered itself while compromising sovereignty by way of Resolution 30/1 in Geneva. Anyway, neither De Silva, Wickremesinghe, Premadasa and pretenders to various political crowns now in the Opposition seem to have cottoned on to the fact that the USA is no longer the big boss in the global economy and that the sun set on the British Empire a long time ago.

Nevertheless, the onus is on the Government to respond to the charge that figures were fudged. As for the revenue plan, we will certainly assess it, realistic or otherwise, as time goes by. The rest is obviously Harsha rattling off received (non) wisdom about things economic.

Stimulus packages are about bailing out the rich. Nothing more, nothing less. Such things hinge on the erroneous premise that the private sector is the one and only engine of growth, where ‘growth’ itself is a concept that is contentious at best in the development discourse and has by and large been rubbished considering what that model has done to the world, the health of the planet and of course the most vulnerable sections in the global population.

Pertinent here, as has been editorially pointed out in www.gammiris.lk is Harsha’s myopia about the Bretton Woods institutions. Here’s a quote:

‘He (Harsha) does not seem to have gone through Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz’s Globalization and its Discontents, which talks in succinct detail how these institutions operate, particularly in underdeveloping countries. A pity, because Stiglitz took the trouble of writing on Sri Lanka, and more to the point, of cautioning the then administration against hedging its bets on the IMF-World Bank paradigm of, what else, “globalizing and liberalizing.'

Siglitz, interestingly, observed, that if Sri Lanka is to progress, it should start “learning to produce, learning to export, and learning to learn.” Harsha of course can’t think beyond the neoliberalism model, which has failed and whose admirers show a marked reluctance to acknowledge the role of the state in the success stories they offer as examples. The state did and still does play a pivotal role in the so-called developed nations that have embraced the capitalist model. Practice is quite a distance from theory in their case.

The budget has sought to empower local production. This is not the same as import-substitution, though. In any event, Covid-19 has forced certain hard choices which even Harsh, had he presented the budget or was the President of the country, could not have ignored.
It must be pointed out that the strategy laid out doesn’t make sense if the banking institutions are not focused on development. The Bretton Woods institutions have always been against development banks. There has been talk of setting up a cooperative bank, but the details are still to be worked out. This was an opportunity to get it down in black and white.

Meanwhile a delegation of the European Union and the Embassies of France, Germany, Italy Netherlands, and Romania issued a statement slamming the government’s trade policy, 'with an obligatory non-sequitur to human rights,’ again editorially observed by ‘gammiris.’

‘Thanks to the EU’s special Generalized System of Preferences (GSP+), Sri Lanka enjoys competitive, predominantly duty- and quota-free access to the EU market,” they said. Trade, they pointed out, ‘not a one-way street,’ and observe (gravely) that ‘a prolonged import ban is not in line with World Trade Organization regulations.’  A reference was also made to the Government withdrawing from the (treacherous, what else?) Resolution 30/1, which, they say is ‘a source of concern’.
The hypocrisy of Europe crying foul over human rights is well known. But why talk of WTO rules here? Just last year Indonesia complained to the WTO over EU restrictions on palm oil imports. Both Germany and France blocked their own exports of crucial personal protective equipment (PPE) at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hypocrisy much, eh?

Well, if the EU’s ‘concerns’ (threats?) do translate into action, it would only push Sri Lanka even further into the Chinese circle of influence. Sri Lanka would have no option but to promote domestic production and rebuild as per the demands of the home market.

Gotabaya Rajapaksa completed one year in office. Not given to pomp and pageantry, his first year has been relatively subdued. He promised ‘work’ and ‘systems.’ Covid-19 was an obvious dampener. And yet, in this one year, we saw a mandate overwhelmingly reiterated. We also saw the passage of the 20th amendment which resolved the confusion of the 19th Amendment with respect to who really rules the country. The 19th, let’s recall, as acknowledged by its authors themselves, full of flaws. The Supreme Court shot it down and the then regime introduced what was almost a fresh document, quite in contravention of established parliamentary procedure (in the UK, the House of Lords can make changes but only minor ones). Here, there were wholesale changes at the committee stage. In contrast, the 20th a) retained certain elements of the 19th such as term limits and b) incorporated the observations of the Supreme Court).

The President's anniversary speech was essentially a rehashed version of  his ‘throne speech.’ He didn’t detail the modalities of getting the ‘One-Country, One-Law’ going. He probably should have explained the controversial circular on ‘Other State Lands’ over which he has been getting a lot of flak. It was a no-frills anniversary speech quite in keeping with the personality he has projected or even the person he is seen to be. The proof of everything is in the ‘works’.  Work is where he will be judged eventually.

Given the announcement that the Government is planning to introduce a new constitution, the buzz over the 20th seems silly. The Government could have incorporated the 20th into a new constitution and seek passage in one go. 

Covid-19 has framed the president’s first year. He has had to balance coping mechanisms with keeping the economy going. The Opposition, as pointed out in a television discussion on Thursday by Deputy Editor, The Island, Shaminda Ferdinando, was bailed out by Covid-19. Now they have something to talk about, he said. There are charges of mishandling. The rise in numbers is certainly worrying. The Government does have a plan and it is as reasonable as any given multiple constraints.

However, it is certainly ridiculous that so many government officials and healthcare professionals are commenting and contradicting each other on Covid-19. The Government should authorize a single person to do this. Others should obtain from what this person says and not act as though they are epidemiologists. That goes for the opposition and political commentators as well, of course.

In Canada, for example, according to a Sri Lankan who is a long time resident there, ‘there’s a chief medical officer  giving daily recaps at the federal level with Prime Minister Trudeau offering a daily non medical brief. At the provincial level,  the chief provincial medical officer gives a daily briefing. All financial assistance information is conveyed by Trudeau since it's all federal at this stage.  In Sri Lanka, in contrast, everyone except the Minister of Health is an authority on the pandemic!’  

Finally, the court decision on Lalith Weeratunga and Anusha Pelpita. Now they were acquitted not by judges appointed by this government. The charge that they were politically motivated is therefore silly. In this regard it is pertinent to point out that the President has nominated the six most senior judges for promotion to the Supreme Court. Seniority was spurned out of hand by the much-celebrated Constitutional Council of the previous regime. Friendship and loyalty were rewarded. Good move by the President but one which he ought to apply across the board in the matter of appointments/promotions.

The 62-page verdict notes, ‘There is no dishonest intention with which both accused appellants have acted. They were not actuated by men rea or actus reus. There has been a bona fide exercise of their powers and duties. Neither accused was enriched. Whilst the board authorized a transaction which is protected by law and corporate social responsibility, it is a travesty of justice that only two members of the TRC had to endure the traumatic experience of a selective prosecution at a prolonged trial, causing a senior public servant of long years of meritorious public service humiliation and anguish.’

Intention of course is always assessed subjectively. It’s the act that the court has to assess. The court was of the view that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of the offenses laid in the indictment. The court also determined that the circumstances in which the presiding judge came to hear the case created a serious doubt on the impartiality and validity of proceedings adopted. In other words, there was selectivity and deliberate maneuvering to obtain a pre-arranged outcome.

Weeratunga is a seasoned public servant. He probably knows the Establishments Code inside out. He probably knows not only what’s possible and what’s not but all the loopholes that can be used and abused. Both Weeratunga and Palpita were responding to a request from the top. They did it legally. He didn’t benefit. Neither did Palpita. One can argue that had Mahinda Rajapaksa won in January 2015, whether or not the sil redi issue was a factor, both would have benefited. At the very least they wouldn’t have been subjected to the obvious harassment meted out by overzealous yahapalana operatives (who essentially turned the FCID into a kangaroo court and commandeered operations from the Prime Minister’s office). That’s however in the territory of speculation. Courts are not in that business. 

The court has ruled. That’s that.


A shorter version of this article was published in the SUNDAY ISLAND (November 22, 2020). 


24 November 2020

Percy is the national flag

Percy. Ape Percy. Percy from Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka’s Percy. Sri Lanka’s One-Man Cheering Squad. Percy Abeysekera. Cricket lovers know him and not just fans in Sri Lanka. He’s received accolades from all corners of the cricketing world.

He’s cheered his country’s team for decades. Before and after Sri Lanka received ‘Test’ status. Captains came and went. Batsmen and bowlers made their debuts, had brief or long careers, retired hurt, retired at their prime or retired long after they ought to have, but Percy never did. Captains came and went.

Percy says he started cheering with the national flag only in 1979, although he had been a keen spectator since the time ‘All Ceylon’ played the visiting Aussies led by Don Bradman in 1948. There was a world cup tournament that year, 1979, in England. This was when the Board of Control didn’t have money. There were no television contracts. No sponsorships. I remember a request being circulated in the newspapers at the time — someone launched a fund to buy Percy a ticket to go cheer our boys. I believe he accompanied the team.

Sixty years or more is a long time for anyone to do anything consistently. Percy carried our flag for all of that length of time. Obviously he’s seen much, experience much and remembers more than anyone has or can of this time when it comes to Sri Lankan cricket.

He has jotted down some memorable moments: a) Dancing on board an airplane with Sri Garfield Sobers, the then Sri Lankan coach, on the way back to Colombo after the 1983 World Cup in England, b) Helped save the life of Sir Garfield when a mob wanted to set fire to his car when Sobers was on his way back to Barbados, during the height of the 1983 July riots, c) Cheering Warnapura’s team during a Test at Chepauk, defying death threats from the LTTE Tigers in Madras, in 1982, d) Cheering Sri Lanka during her inaugural Test at Lord’s amidst threats from the British Police, e) Martin Crowe’s presentation of two of his Man of the Match trophies, saying they were for ‘Percy’s love for cricket’ and his ‘patriotism.’

If we start from 1979, he’s cheered teams led by Anura Tennekoon, Bandula Warnapura, Duleep Mendis, D.S. De Silva, Ranjan Madugalle, Arjuna Ranatunga, Aravinda De Silva, Hashan Tillekeratne, Sanath Jayasuriya, Marvan Atapattu, Mahela Jayawardena, Kumar Sangakkara, Tillekaratne Dilshan, Angelo Mathews, Dinesh Chandimal, Suranga Lakmal and Dimuth Karunaratne. We could add the ODI and T-20 captains too.

He’s outlasted them all. And the umpires too. And captains and players from other teams as well. Fans typically outlast their heroes of course. On the other hand, there are few fans whose fanaticism will not wane as they move from childhood, through youth, middle age and into the evening years of their lives. Percy has been there. He’s held the flag. He was the flag. He was the ambassador long before the term ‘sporting ambassador’ came into vogue. He was the nation. He kept the flag flying high. He represented us all. He was there when things came right. He picked everyone up when things went sour.

We wish Percy, OUR Percy, a long and healthy life. We wish him many more hours of joy watching the game he loves so much and has come to be identified with.  


Other articles in the series titled 'The Interception' [published in 'The Morning']

Do you have a plan? Strengths and weaknesses It's all about partnerships


Marcus Stoinis and the Superhero Gambit: The Sequel

Last week, i.e. just before the final of IPL 2020 between the Delhi Capitals and the Mumbai Indians, there was a lot of chatter about the role of Marcus Stoinis. In a must-win game against Sunrisers Hyderabad, the Capitals gambled by sending him to open the batting. He scored 38 off 27 deliveries, provided some dynamism and helped his team close to 190. Later, taking 3 for 26 off 3 overs he helped contain the Sunrisers to 172.

It was a gamble that worked. As we mentioned in this column last week, the problem with gambles is that they are essentially about playing percentages. Some work, some don’t. Sometimes they inject a surprise factor that gives just enough of an edge to deliver a win. However, you can’t use the same surprise twice. Teams prepare and each ‘surprise’ is factored into the preparation.

We don’t know if the Mumbai Indians figured out some plan to counter Stoinis, but it is unlikely that they were surprised when Stoinis walked in with Shikhar after Delhi opted to bat first upon winning the toss.

Here’s the cricinfo commentary. First ball of the final. Travis Boult to Marcus Stoinis:

‘Boult to Stoinis, OUT got him first ball! Felled the Hulk first up! Short of a good length, rising in the corridor. Stoinis defends for the one coming in but has ended up playing inside the line and is all sorts of contorted. It takes the thick outside edge and floats gently to QDK's right. After a brief move from the patterns, Capitals are back to their recent problem of failed first-wicket stands.’

The Superhero Gamble had failed, if it was seen as pivotal to overall strategy that is. The Capitals stuttered and before the 3rd over was done were 22 for 3, with Dhawan and Ajinkya Rahane joining Stoinis in the dressing room. Shreyas Iyer (65 not out) and Rishabh Pant (56) saved Delhi the blushes, but the 157 run target would not have worried Mumbai too much.

Mumbai went about the chase efficiently. Rohit Sharma and Quinton de Kock put on 45 in 4.1 overs before Stoinis (yes, him)interrupted their party.

Back to the cricinfo commentary:

‘Stoinis to de Kock, OUT taken behind! Stoinis, golden duck earlier today, gets a wicket off his first ball. Short of a length, cross seam, in the corridor. Wants to cut behind square and is cramped on it a touch. Gets a thick edge to Pant's left and it is held. Stoinis is punching just about anything he can find - the air, his own palm. Get out of the way. He is pumped.’

Redemption? Not quite. His 2 over cost 23. Mumbai skipper Rohit Sharma (68 off 51) paced the innings well and didn’t let things get out of hand. Mumbai won its fifth IPL title.

If we forget the whole Superhero Gambit element of the narrative, it was a typical Delhi performance. A couple of batsmen got half centuries but since they were for the most part in damage control mode, acceleration to the point of securing a match-winning total was out of the question. It would come down to their bowlers.

Axar Patel was stingy (conceding just 16 off his 4 overs). Ravichandran Ashwin kept things reasonably quiet (28 off 4). Anrich Nortje accounted for the wickets of Sharma and Hardik Pandya, but it was a case of too little, too late. Mumbai overhauled the target with 9 deliveries to spare.

The Capitals probably wouldn’t say that Stoinis was the lynchpin of their overall strategy. Had he come up with a stellar performance, then the Superhero tag might have gained further currency, but we are talking of a sport marked by ‘glorious uncertainties.’ If he were a hero in the game against the Sunrisers, he was down to zero, literally, in the final.

That should tell us something about superheroes and super-heroics. Good for chatter before and after. Good as a strategy-sliver in moments of desperation with surprise being the key element in the exercise, nothing more and nothing less.

Last week, the following observation was made: ‘Gambles are for one-off superheroes who may or may not be labeled as such depending on performance. Let’s see how Stoinis conducts himself against Mumbai. Let’s wish him well.’

Stoinis didn’t cover himself with glory. Delhi came off second best. It’s not the end of the world for Stoinis, who is clearly a special cricketer. It’s not the end of the world for the Capitals (after all they made it all the way to the finals, which puts them ahead of 6 other teams!).  

Let’s wish them well as we resolve to return to sobriety in this business of strategizing, be it in cricket or any other sport or life itself!  


Other articles in the series titled 'The Interception' [published in 'The Morning']

Do you have a plan? Strengths and weaknesses It's all about partnerships