CINA

본문

Once again the 'DPR'K got worldwide attention with a new "message of love" for their brothers and sisters in the South:
  "The south Korean puppet regime had better bear in mind that the advanced pre-emptive strike of our own style will reduce everything opposed to the nation and reunification to debris, not just setting them on fire," a spokesman for the KPA was quoted by today's KCNA. Such a "pre-emptive strike", he said, would be "beyond imagination relying on striking means more powerful than a nuclear weapon."

Lovely, really!! And a f.. great idea!! ^^(*)

Related articles:
☞ North Korea ratchets up threats (al-Jazeera, 10.28)

N.K. tense over 'paper bombs'  (Korea Herald, 10.28)
 

A blimp filled to the brim with propaganda leaflets lifts off from a boat on the waters near Ganghwa Island, headed for North Korean soil.

South Korean propaganda pamphlets have been distributed like this at frequent intervals, most often by civic groups and organizations formed by North Korean refugees.

Such leaflets are nothing new for the two divided nations, who have distributed some 2 billion such documents during the 1950-53 Korean War.

The two Koreas agreed to completely stop the practice in 2004, but local civic groups remain committed to their distribution.

Possibly reflecting the delicate situation of the shaky Kim Jong-il regime, the North has become increasingly tense about the propaganda pamphlets, experts noted.

"For the North, the pamphlets are literally a 'paper bomb,' because the regime is suffering, and the leadership is desperate to keep away anything that is criticizing the government, not to mention the people who are all affected by the fallout of Kim Jong-il's illness and ensuing political troubles, and of course financial hardship," said Prof. Yang Moo-jin of the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul.

Pyongyang has requested two working-level military talks just this month after a nine-month hiatus, only to use both meetings as opportunities to grill Seoul about the propaganda pamphlets.

The North has even threatened to deny or limit access to the military demarcation line, and warned of negative impacts on the South Korean tours to Gaeseong City and the operation of the inter-Korean industrial complex there.

The North may decide to deliver on its threats, as it perceives blows to inter-Korean projects as the most effective way of lashing out at the South, Yang said.

Ties with Pyongyang remain strained amid a series of tit-for-tat moves from both Koreas after Seoul took a more hard-line stance toward its Northern neighbor.

Defense Ministry officials said the North Korean delegation brought boxes full of the pamphlets to the latest working level talks, demanding a correction.

The Seoul government has no legal means to stop the distribution by civic groups, but it hopes to establish related regulations on observation that the leaflets may damage what is left of the frayed inter-Korean relations.

Anti-North organizations, for their part, are on a mission to topple the Kim Jong-il regime, or at least educate their fellow people.

"We have no notion of stopping. We have been sending these leaflets up for years, and North Korea's recent responses only prove that they are indeed amid a crisis," said Park Sang-hak, head of the Fighters for Free North Korea.

The two Koreas have been sending leaflets and posters blasting each other for about half a century during and after the Armistice Agreement that tentatively ended the 1950-53 Korean War.

The North, however, has not sent them over the past few years, apparently concluding that Seoul and its people are no longer swayed by them.

As recent as the 1990s, Seoul was nervous about anti-South Korean pamphlets filtering in from the North, rewarding citizens who picked them up to hand them in to authorities.

But as capitalism and democracy began to take root, North Korean propaganda programs lost their charm.

The coming of Seoul's progressive governments, led by former presidents Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun further discouraged Pyongyang from resorting to such leaflets.

But that could all change, not only because the South is governed by a conservative administration, but also because the North is grappling with political and economic difficulties while the world watches to see how the regime might cope after Kim Jong-il's death, experts say.

PS:
Of course(!!) is N.K. not a state supporting or sponsoring terror, according to the US administration!! It only - from time to time - promises to turn S.K. (**) into a "bowl full with ash" or alternatively a "sea of blood".. But of course that has nothing to do with any kind of terror!!

* Sorry!

** Incl. the S.K. working class!!!

본문

S. Korean Workers and Migrant Workers United in the Struggle Against Exploitaion and Oppression

Well, here - as I promised last Friday - my contribution about the "National Struggle Day of Irregular Workers" five years ago (2003.10.26): Beside 2,500 Korean workers and their supporters more than 1000 migrant workers, organized in the ETU-MB (the predecessor organisation of MTU), participated in the rally, demonstration and the following street battle, triggered by the blockade and attacks of thousands of riot cops, incl. the notoriously frontline combat units (*).

* Related report by Base21 (2003.10.27):
☞ New suicide, police terror and arresting in Seoul, South Korea

본문

From Korea Times' latest edition:

Chomsky Hits Defense Ministry for Banning

'Seditious' Books

Renowned American scholar Noam Chomsky has strongly criticized the Ministry of National Defense for its blacklist of what it calls seditious books and its banning of soldiers from reading them.

"The popular struggle to overthrow the Korean dictatorships and establish democracy was an inspiration to the world. There are, of course, always those who fear freedom, and want to restore controls over thought and expression,'' Chomsky said in an email interview with the Seditious Books Club, an Internet based community. "It is unfortunate that the Defense Ministry joins them. Perhaps, for the sake of honesty, it should be renamed: 'Ministry of Defense against Freedom and Democracy,'' he told the Seditious Books Club.

The criticism came as the ministry announced 23 books last July that soldiers should not read. Those books were categorized into three categories ― pro-North Korea, anti-government and anti-U.S. or anti-capitalism, which it claimed could have a "bad influence'' on soldiers.

The "seditious'' books include two books by Chomsky ― "Year 501: The Conquest Continues'' and "What Uncle Sam Really Wants.''

Chomsky said he believes the blacklisting of his books can be rather an honor.

"My books were also banned in the Soviet Union, pre-Gorbachev, even technical work on linguistics. I regarded that as an honor, and the same is true when books of mine are banned by others who take Stalin as their guide,'' he said.

Many of the blacklisted books have ironically drawn public interest and made the best seller lists at large bookstores in recent months.

Chomsky encouraged the members of Seditious Books Club, saying "I am very pleased and encouraged to learn of your forthright and courageous stand against efforts to reverse the great achievements of the Korean people, and I wish you the greatest success in your very important work.''

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/10/113_33320.html

For more informations please read:
☞ Chomsky's interview with Seditious Books Club

☞ Military expands book blacklist (Hankyoreh, 07.31) 

☞ Threatening Books and Their Popularity (GlobalVoices, 08.07)

 
Related link:

☞ Playground for Disturbing Book Readers/Seditious Books Club

본문

Coming Sunday the annual  National Struggle Day of Irregular Workers  will be "celebrated" in S.Korea (5 years ago the same "event" triggered in Seoul for almost one week a massive wave of extreme violent state terror against workers protests. More about it I'll write next Monday!!). In Seoul the rally will start in the early afternoon in Daehakno:

Oops~ Of course I should not forget to mention the  "Festival of Democracy" :

Candlelit Rally Planned Sat. (K. Times, 10.24)

 
Civic groups and online community members will hold a candlelit rally Saturday at Cheonggye Plaza in central Seoul to protest the Lee Myung-bak administration's policies.

"The government has carried out steps only for the rich at the sacrifice of ordinary citizens. We are going to put an end to the government policies designed only for 1 percent of the people,'' they said in a joint statement.

They are planning to hold various cultural events in front of the Cheonggye Stream. They plan to start events in the early afternoon and voluntarily disperse at around 7 p.m.

They said they would refrain from marching on the streets...

Defining the rally illegal, police said they would take stern action against any violent rally participants. (!!!)

Related stuff:
☞ 25일 청계광장에서 ‘민주주의 페스티벌’ 열린다 (VoP, 10.24)

본문

Asia Times (HK) published today following article about the latest developments in the D.F.R. Nepal:

Prachanda's multiparty pickle

United Nations secretary general Ban Ki-moon's visit to Nepal, scheduled for the end of the month, might give Prime Minister Prachanda an enhanced sense of the international acceptability of the interim coalition government he has been heading since mid-August.
 

Ban's arrival, however, comes amid widespread skepticism within the country about Maoists' sincerity to remain committed to multiparty democracy. Such doubts have presented a formidable challenge to Prachanda's leadership.
 

While this challenge does not pose any immediate threat to the Prachanda-led government, conflicting ideas and arguments emanating from some of his senior comrades have made even the credulous public suspicious of the true intentions of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).

A strong case is being made through media debate that a revolutionary party cannot be expected to be satisfied until the country becomes a "people's republic". Abolishing the monarchy and replacing it with a republican democracy is definitely a step forward, says senior Maoist leader Mohan Baidya, also known as "Kiran" and widely considered to be Prachanda's mentor.

"Our objective is to establish a people's republic which is yet to be accomplished," a newspaper quoted him as saying. Kiran is said to belong to a group that is opposed to softening the position held throughout the insurgency years. Meanwhile, Baburam Bhattarai, number two in the party hierarchy, is said to be emerging as the leader of a faction in favor of political flexibility.
 

Prachanda appears to be in the middle, and there is speculation that he intends to give communism a Nepali look suitable to the 21st century. "It can't be the photocopy of Mao's Maoism," he told Janadisha newspaper on Friday, in reference to China's Mao Zedong.
 

"We have walked into the era of competitive politics and have embarked on the project of federal structure," Prachanda added. "Mao's scheme was based on a unitary structure".

The main reason behind recent public outcry is that the Maoists could impose one-party rule, drawing inspiration from countries like China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea or Zimbabwe. Prachanda believes his visits to India and the United States (at the UN in New York) have helped to dispel doubts in the West that because of their background of violence, the Maoists would try to place Nepal under a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Prachanda has emphasized that all the Maoists are opposed to is the parliamentary form of democracy. His contention is that since the parliamentary format has failed to address people's woes in countries like India and Britain, it is not worthwhile to retain in Nepal. He once praised the French model in which the executive branch - or presidency - conducts the show. He has not mentioned the American model, perhaps because it would amount to appeasing the world's imperialist power.

It is unclear whether Prachanda's initiatives have actually helped remove persisting fears about Maoist intentions. On the domestic front, the party leadership seems to have mobilized intellectual support to convince the public that the system the Maoists want to establish will not be one-party rule.
 

One such intellectual, Professor Manik Lal Shrestha, argued in an article printed in the official Gorakhapatra newspaper on Sunday that "people's democracies" prevalent in countries like China, Korea, Laos and Vietnam are not actually single-party dispensations. In other words, Shrestha does not see any harm in the Maoists taking Nepal in that direction.
 

Quoting from Maoist literature, Shrestha has advanced a contention that, like China, Nepal's new people's democracy would have to be based on cooperation rather than having opposition parties.

Similarly, the federal structure Prachanda has been advocating has been a controversial issue from the beginning. And the point of contention is centered around a scheme to create federal units on the basis of ethnicity. Since the country is known for its mixed population and diversity, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to relocate particular ethnic groups from one region to another.
 

As rebels in the past decade, Maoists followed the slogan of making the residents of the southern Terai plains free from the alleged exploitation of hill-dwellers. The Maoist leadership realizes that it can't backtrack from its public pledge - but others see this whole idea as a suicide mission.

Narayanman Bijukchhe, president of a party of workers and peasants, has described a Maoist plan to create a province for the Newar ethnic and linguist group within the Kathmandu valley as "fatal". (The valley has three of the 75 administrative districts in Nepal.)

Jhalanath Khanal, general secretary of the Unified Marxist Leninist (UML) party, a rival of the Maoists, accuses the Maoist leadership of promoting a "devastating concept", namely that of transforming the entire southern Terai flatlands into one federal unit. Terai shares borders with some Indian states including West Bengal, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.

And the demand from Terai has already encouraged Nepal's northern Himalayan belt, bordering China's Tibet, to seek autonomy. Analysts say excessive zeal for self-determination might lead to the breakup of the country.

Which among the nine communist parties currently in existence is the real party of communists? Answers differ, depending on a variety of claims. Except the party of workers and peasants, others have their names qualified with additional tags in parenthesis, such as Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist Leninist), Communist Party of Nepal ( Unity Center ) and Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist).

Some of the Maoist leaders claim that since they are the largest party among the communists they can afford to give up the "Maoist" tag.
 

Senior leader "Kiran", however, is against this proposition. "It is our identity, not a tail or a tag," he told Nayaa Patrikaa newspaper on Tuesday. He is more concerned about the possible negative influence of greater flexibility, replacing revolutionary determination. Rightist opportunism, he fears, can dilute the entire process Maoists faithfully launched in 1996.
 

The other major challenge confronting the Maoist leadership is the issue of integrating Maoist soldiers, numbering nearly 20,000, into the national Nepal Army.
 

The army leadership initially resisted the idea of inducting politically indoctrinated cadre into the national military, but with the formation of the Maoist government the army's voice has lost its sting. The new defense minister, Rambahadur Thapa or "Badal", seems conspicuously determined to create a "national army" through the combination of the two existing armies.
 

But he faced a direct confrontation on Monday, when two of the ministers from the coalition publicly opposed the idea of integration, saying that if the Maoist forces joined the national army, Nepal would lose its entire territory in the southern flatlands of Terai. Interestingly, this voice of dissent from Terai became much louder after Rambahadur Thapa returned from an official visit of China.

Ian Martin, who heads the UN's special mission in Nepal, also believes that the ongoing peace process cannot be complete as long as two separate armies exist. The government's plan to set up a special committee to sort out the thorny question has yet to be implemented.
 

Prachanda appears to be in a dilemma: he knows he cannot ignore the plight of soldiers who have been sheltered in UN-monitored camps for months. Media reports from various cantonment sites indicate growing resentment against the political leadership. One report referred to preparations for an open revolt against Prachanda.
 

He is under pressure to act fast and decisively. He can persuade the Nepal army chief, General Rookmangud Katawal, and some senior officers to agree for integration without any pre-conditions. But will the junior officers, who have fought Maoists in the field, obey their commanders without question?
 

In an emerging scenario, disgruntled army officers may create a totally different situation, the Drishti newspaper reported on Tuesday quoting an unnamed senior army officer.
 

If an interim constitution can be defied by political parties, it can also be ignored by non-political actors.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JJ23Df02.html

본문

1. We always should keep in mind that..

본문

Last week (10.14) Asia Times (HK) published following remarkable article about the recently reached "agreement/compromise" between the U.S. and N.K. and some important questions related to the issue of a "Nuclear-free Korean Peninsula":

Pyongyang's call for 'fair's fair' ignored
 

North Korea officially no longer sponsors terrorism, according to the United States government. Pyongyang is elated, and the US is in self-help psychology sessions, trying to believe it was the best possible deal to get the North to fully disarm its nuclear weapons program.

There is in this development an important detail that deserves attention. During the three days of negotiations in North Korea's capital between the chief US nuclear envoy, Christopher Hill, and Pyongyang's masters of high-stakes brinkmanship, Washington tried to include a couple of additional sites for nuclear inspection besides Yongbyon, where the North on Tuesday insisted it would allow UN monitors to assure that the plant that produced plutonium for its test bomb remained disabled.

The US demand over inspection of additional sites was not part of the previous agreement and Pyongyang made a counter-proposal. It wanted to have a full-scale nuclear inspection for the entire Korean Peninsula, which, of course, includes South Korea. That was a hard-hitting, in-your-face punch line by North Korea.

South Korea officially says it is a "nuclear-free" state. On September 18, 2004, then South Korean unification minister Chung Dong-young said, "The [South Korean] government so far has not had any nuclear programs for military purposes. It has not pursued one either. This policy won't change." Recently, Hill also said South Korea regularly received all the required inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency and abided by verification agreements and safety measures.

But North Korea has long accused that the US military bases in the South possessed nuclear weapons and has called for nuclear verification on the US military facilities in South Korea. The official US policy stance in the region is also to create a "nuclear-free Korean Peninsula" that covers both Koreas. Then, why not take Pyongyang's proposal and come closer to realizing a "nuclear-free Korea"?

The problem is that it is widely believed in South Korea that the US military bases have nuclear weapons. South Korea's left-leaning media outlets and civic groups have openly challenged the government on this matter in their periodical demand for the withdrawal of US troops from the country.

Pyongyang going nuclear in 2006 poses a threat to neighboring countries and the international community, but the discourse surrounding its program neglects to include some key details because they are inconvenient.

North Korea embarked on the path of developing nuclear weapons in the face of a perceived threat from the United States. That is, Pyongyang's nuclear ambition is defensive in nature. This may be a hard sell to many, but this is the message delivered by Selig Harrison, a former Washington Post reporter and expert on the Korean Peninsula's security affairs.

Harrison in his book Korean Endgame wrote, "North Korea's perception of its security environment is not irrational in the context of its embattled national history since 1945." He added that Pyongyang's desire to develop nuclear weapons was "a direct response to nuclear saber-rattling [by the US] during the Korean War [in the early 1950s] and the subsequent deployment of US tactical nuclear weapons in the South for more than three decades."

Harrison, quoting declassified documents from the Korean War, said in "Operation Hudson Harbor", B-29 bombers dropped dummy atomic bombs on Pyongyang during "simulated practice runs" in late 1951. In the subsequent several pages, Harrison elaborates on this observation.

Professor Bruce Cumings, an authority on Korean affairs, nods to this view and said in his book, North Korea: Another Country, that the North's drive for nuclear capability is "understandable".

After the Korean War, the US deployed nuclear weapons to South Korea and, strangely, did not shy away from acknowledging it. That departed from the usual practice of the Pentagon that maintained a "neither confirm nor deny" policy, refusing to say where US nuclear weapons were deployed. South Korea was an exception. In 1975, US secretary of defense James Schlesinger openly confirmed their presence in South Korea, in an apparently calculated move to intimidate North Korea and dissuade it from attacking the South.

The period when nuclear weapons were present in South Korea was from 1958 to 1991. President George H W Bush removed tactical nuclear weapons from South Korea during his term in office between 1989-1993.

However, "Despite the removal of tactical nuclear weapons from the South, the United States has not ruled out their reintroduction," Harrison said, quoting the document at that time. That raises the possibility that nuclear weapons might have been redeployed to South Korea after 1991.

As mentioned earlier, South Korea and the US say no. Pyongyang doesn't trust them and its demand for simultaneous nuclear inspection for both Koreas has been a consistent one since 1994, when the first nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula erupted.

In June 2005, North Korea's Workers' Party newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, for example, said, "If denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula to be realized, America must withdraw the nuclear weapons it deployed in South Korea. The withdrawal of the nuclear weapons must be verified."

The article also said, "In the past, the US had deployed a number of nuclear weapons and didn't report it to anyone," adding a shocking claim that "even the South Korean government was kept in the dark".

"Even after the US announced during the father Bush administration that it no longer had nuclear weapons in South Korea, there were still nuclear weapons in South Korea. As long as South Korea has nuclear weapons, no matter how many times the US said it would not attack us with nuclear bombs, it ultimately comes as a lip service," the newspaper's commentary said, emphasizing, "Without verification of nuclear weapons [in South Korea], the withdrawal of American nuclear weapons argument is meaningless."

Later, North Korea's deputy United Nations ambassador, Han Seung-ryul, in a July 4 speech delivered at the British think-tank Chatham House in 2007, said, "The denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is only possible through simultaneous denuclearization steps in North Korea and the US military bases in South Korea." Han's statement was seen as an expression of intent that North Korea will definitely take issue with the American forces stationed in South Korea in its ultimate denuclearization steps.

Against such a background, Choi Han-wook, a researcher with the left-leaning Korea Civil Rights Institute, argued, "Essentially, the problem is not North Korean nuclear weapons, but American nuclear weapons ... North Korea embarked on the path of nuclear development because of its perceived threat from the US."

Choi continued, "Many people think the nuclear crisis in the Korean Peninsula is attributable to North Korea. Namely, the crisis happened because North Korea developed nuclear weapons. These people, therefore, see North Korea's nuclear development as equal to the nuclear crisis in the Korean Peninsula. Even some experts think the history of the North Korean nuclear crisis as something that happened since the 1990s. That's putting the horse before the cart."

Both Seoul and Washington have brushed aside North Korea's proposal for simultaneous inspection in both the Koreas as a tactic to raise its stake in the nuclear negotiations. This analysis is rudimentary. What they fail to see or acknowledge is that it's not just a negotiation tactic, but a fundamental stance by North Korea.

Therefore, in the ultimate deal-making in which North Korea is poised to make the final and complete renouncement of its nuclear programs (when the world pays the right price and the US offers a legally binding security guarantee), it is very likely that it will demand denuclearization in South Korea as well. And that points to the need for South Korea and the US to make a clear statement that can be presented to North Korea in trustworthy fashion.

John Tillery, the American commander of all forces in South Korea for three years from 1996, said US forces in South Korea didn't have nuclear arms and he didn't understand why North Korea kept making that claim. "It is the consistent policy of the United States and the government of the Republic of Korea to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. I don't understand why North Korea raises the [issue of] nuclear inspection on the American military bases in South Korea."

A well-placed source told this writer that South Korea indeed has nuclear weapons in the US military base nearby Seoul. "They bring the nuclear arsenals in and out of the country on a regular basis," he said, adding, "By doing so, South Korea technically doesn't have nuclear weapons."

True or not, his statement confirms what many people have long privately believed. But it importantly points out that sooner or later, this issue, if left unattended, will be a drag on the Korean nuclear talks.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/JJ15Dg01.html

본문

본문

From K. Times' latest edition:

Second Round of Candlelit Rallies Looming
 

Thousands of civic group members held a candlelit rally in downtown Seoul, Saturday for the first time in two months, hinting at a fresh round of rallies going forward.

Unlike past rallies against U.S. beef imports, they were protesting the conservative President Lee Myung-bak administration's key policies.

Some 3,000 members of online communities and civic groups, including the People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, staged the demonstration at Cheonggye Plaza.

The candlelit protests against the resumption of American beef imports, which started in early May, stopped after the 100th rally on Aug. 15.

The groups plan to hold another gathering next Saturday and form a new civic coalition for democracy and public welfare. It is yet to be seen whether the rally will be the start of a second round of candlelit protests.

The participants denounced government policies, which they say oppress democracy and favor only the rich.

Demonstrators claimed the government's plan to ease rules on property taxes will only benefit the rich, while ordinary people are becoming impoverished amid the economic slump.

They also criticized the law enforcement authorities' investigation into candlelit demonstration organizers and bloggers who campaigned against conservative newspapers, calling their punishment "anti-democratic oppression.''

"We urge National Police Agency Commissioner General Eo Cheong-soo and Prosecutor General Lim Chae-jin to resign, as they infringed on the freedom of assembly,'' the groups said in a joint statement.

Lawmakers from progressive parties, including Democratic Labor Party leader Kang Ki-kab and New Progressive Party co-leader Shim Sang-jeong, joined the rally to denounce public officials and politicians who illegally pocketed subsidies meant for rice producers.

No clash took place between demonstrators and police.

In the meantime, police arrested the leader of an online community that led the anti-American beef import protests.

The leader, Baek Eun-jong, who took refuge at Jogye Temple in downtown Seoul to avoid arrest for organizing ``illegal and violent'' street rallies, was caught around 4:40 p.m. Saturday while sneaking out of the temple compound.

Baek reportedly attempted to participate in the candlelit rally nearby.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/10/117_32925.html

Related stuff:
☞ KCTU Report

☞ NewsCham Report

☞ VoP Report  

본문

Dubai: Inside the Labour Camps

A hidden "army" of extremely exploited migrant workers (tens of thousands!!)...

..are building Dubai's skyscrapers (*)

Every day in the early morning they are brought by bus into the city from their camps

Six days a week: working like slaves for at least 12 hours up to 18 hours daily

At the end of long days they are taken back to the camps..

..where they've to "live" like.. ANIMALS!! Up to 20 men share a room

A "washing machine"

"Dinner" is prepared in grease-blackened pans..

A typical daily meal: few chillies, an onion and three tomatoes, fried with spices..

Dining on a floor lined with newspapers advertising luxury watches, mobile phones..

Photos by G. Abdul-Ahad

* Many of the projects, like the Burj Dubai, were/are realized under the leadership of S. Korean construction companies (i.e. the S.K. Construction Mafia!!!), such as Samsung, Daewoo, Posco, Hyundai..

A related report - MUST READ!!:

☞ 'We need slaves to build monuments' (Guardian, 10.8)