Now that Jimmy Carter has called attention to evidence of voter discrimination in Florida, the issue is starting to get some attention from the press. However, U.S. media outlets continue to ignore a key aspect of the story: the truth about what happened in 2000. As Greg Palast reported, Jeb Bush’s Florida election officials issued a list of 94,000 voters to be purged from the electoral roll for being felons. African Americans made up a majority of those on the list, and Democrats made up 80 percent, but only five percent were felons. Jeb’s purge list was the crucial document that papered over his brother’s electoral defeat. In 2001, the NAACP launched a class-action lawsuit on behalf of the disenfranchised voters. The state of Florida  settled the suit by agreeing to restore to the electoral roll all those who had been wrongly removed. But the 2000 purge still hangs over this election, as does a new felon list issued by the state. Equally ominous are the recent news reports of police harassment of black activists who were attempting to register voters.

Palast, who not only broke the Florida election story but worked with the NAACP in its lawsuit, says that only around 2,000 of the 94,000 people on the old felon list have had their voting rights restored. Despite the lack of progress on that front, Florida officials found time to create a purge list for 2004, this one bearing 47,000 names. In July, following press reports of errors on the new list, the NAACP’s president, Kweisi Mfume, announced that “Florida is not following the process negotiated by the NAACP,” and called on the U.S. Department of Justice to stop the new purge. In response, Glenda Hood, Florida’s secretary of state, issued a press release stating that “there is an unintentional and unforeseen discrepancy related to the Hispanic classification” on the felon list and that her department was “removing this portion of the Central Voter Database for the 2004 elections cycle.” “This portion” appears to refer to the entire felon list, but Hood’s office did not respond to a request for clarification on that point or on the other issues discussed in this article. The secretary’s press release concludes by saying that election supervisors would “work with Clerks of the Court to ensure that ineligible felons are removed from the rolls.”

Concerns about the situation in Florida have prompted the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to commence a major initiative in the state: the “Truth and Justice Campaign.” The campaign’s director, Rev. Willie Bolden, explains that SCLC’s aims are two-fold: to obtain affidavits from those who tried to vote in 2000 but were wrongly turned away, and to get out the vote in 2000, highlighting any obstacles that emerge. During the last week in September, officers from SCLC’s national and state offices toured localities across Florida. However, the catastrophic weather there has affected the campaign as much as other aspects of life, and caused SCLC to cancel visits to hurricane-stricken areas.

SCLC officers are trying to get more information about published reports that plainclothes police have been harassing people involved in voter registration drives in African American neighborhoods. Leaders of SCLC’s Florida chapter sent a letter about the matter to Secretary Hood’s office, but received no reply. Bolden is not surprised by the apparent lack of interest on the part of state authorities. “We don’t need to spend a lot of time trying to get help from Jeb Bush. We need to organize people and inform America about what’s going on in Florida.”

Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, SCLC’s interim president, reports that he also wrote Secretary Hood to state his concerns about the potential for further voter discrimination. He did receive a response, but said that it merely explained the basics of state voting laws. How does the Florida situation compare to cases in other states where SCLC has been investigating possible voter discrimination? “Florida tries to get people off the rolls. I’ve never seen it that strong in any other state.”

For his part, Rev. Bolden says that he hopes the affidavits from victims of voter discrimination will preserve the true story of the 2000 election for history. But the question troubling him and other civil rights activists is whether history is repeating itself.

—Chris Pepus

In The Fray Contributor

Sebastian Rotella’s article last week in the Los Angeles Times, “What the French love about America,” reveals some of the complexity of the sentiments we, and others, feel when we think about the United States. Not bad food for thought as we face the remaining hours before we elect our next president.

Rotella’s piece centers around a three-day panel on North American literature, which took place last week in Paris, a city bearing some fame for being a “bastion of anti-Americanism.” Festival America, as the panel is titled, is considered the “biggest of its kind outside the United States,” according to its organizers. Rotella attributes its popularity in France to the centrality of social realism in North American literature, as opposed to the “excessive introspection” many French readers perceive as the primary focus of French authors. In addition, Rotella notes that the range of cultures and types of writing inherent in North American literature fascinate many French readers.

Rotella intimates in his article that it is precisely the diversity of opinion and perspectives coexisting within the United States which is valued by the French, despite their declared disregard for American foreign policy, and enthusiasm for American products, which may seem paradoxical.

“Part of the American dream is about reinventing yourself,” Rotella quotes Danzy Senna, a Boston fiction writer, as saying. “And I think there’s something powerful and alluring about that idea, and something really terrifying about that lack of a fixed identity.”

Rotella’s citation of Sherman Alexie suggests that, despite all that appears to be wrong with the United States, our nation does retain a few saving graces worthy of contemplation:

“I see white American writers on these stages disparaging the country, when everything they have is because of that country. The dream has not died. I am a millionaire because of my imagination. I don’t know if you could find another society that has ever existed where somebody like me could become what he has become.”

The United States is a nation recognized for its diversity and complexity. We’re allowed to hold complex opinions about our identity as American citizens, just as citizens of other cultures and nations may have complex opinions about American culture and the way the United States interacts with the rest of the world. The American Constitution grants us this right.

“It is unfortunate that a court of appeals has permitted the Republican Party to continue its plan to challenge voters on Election Day, but we were prepared for this outcome.”

— Ohio Democratic Party Spokesman David Sullivan, in response to today’s ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit of Cincinnati, which will allow the Republican Party to place thousands of monitors inside polling stations in Ohio to challenge the eligibility of certain individuals to vote.

The G.O.P. now has the official sanction of the courts to send a small army of 3,500 monitors to polling stations around Ohio, where they will question the eligibility of voters. Democrats allege that this Republican challenge to voter eligibility is an intimidation tactic against minority voters. Republicans insist that they are merely protecting the democratic process against voter fraud.

In a lower court ruling, Judge Susan J. Dlott and Judge John R. Adams both asserted that there are already measures in place to prevent voter fraud. If we are to believe the dissenting voices, this Republican victory is, at very best, excessive and, at worst, a sanctioned form of disenfranchisement.

Mimi Hanaoka

Over the past several days I have received a vast amount of mail in response to my October 29th PULSE Posting, “Pssst … Wanna buy a baby?”  Unfortunately, much of this mail was vitriolic in tone, and made offensive comments regarding my supposed race and/or the race of my child.  I have responded to most individuals who wrote me, as long as their email was not aggressive, but would like to address several points that were common among all emails.

Clearly, Davenport’s Christian Science Monitor article, and my summary thereof, does not reflect the entirety of the wide-ranging debate surrounding adoption.  Rather, it highlighted a concerning new trend, albeit without hard or fast statistics as adoption it seems, is a field without extensive data collection. The international adoption of African American babies is concerning, particularly when held in contrast to the rising numbers of international adoptions by middle class Americans.  As citizens invested in an ongoing dialogue about identity and race, we cannot help but question the implications of these trends.

Several readers pointed out significant barriers to interracial adoption beyond those illustrated in the article. One such obstacle is the decaying American foster care system, in which children linger indefinitely in a netherworld between ever changing caregivers.  Unlike foreign countries, the United States does not support a large orphanage system and in most cases, presses for reunification of the family rather than adoption by a permanent, non-kin caregiver.  The foster care systems’s problems are manifold, and in no way make adoption within the United States an easy process.  In addition, there is a history of social work agency resistance to interracial placement, as unnecessarily traumatic or, worse, inappropriate.

I do not believe that  personal experience as either an adopted child or an adoptive parent is necessary to hold an opinion about adoption, no more than experience as a member of a minority ethnic group is necessary to form an opinion about racism. Those individuals touched personally by adoption may no doubt have different opinions based on their unique experiences.  Nonetheless, as we pursue dialogue, no topic can be held as sacred, and it is our most personal beliefs and actions that often necessitate the closest scrutiny.

llouison

In my high school, there was apathy and a great dearth of knowledge about politics, but after coming to college, it was like people took a turnabout. All of the sudden, everyone knows everything about their parties, the issues, economics, etc. Maybe because the upcoming 2004 election is a big deal. Perhaps it’s a logical step to becoming an independent adult. No matter the reason, politics is a major issue everywhere on campus; the unversity newspapers, college preachers, and dining room talk at dinner.

Everyone knows that college is the time for experimentation, whether it be sex, drugs, and/or alcohol (note: I’m too much of a coward to try any of the above). Before coming to the University of Kentucky, I didn’t know that politics too was something students liked to fool around with. Fellow columnist Michael Benton was my English 101 and 102 professor and he is responsible for molding me to the political activist I am. Because of that, I started taking politics and how they affected me very seriously. Everything from media-biasedness to human rights was a common discourse with my friends because I was searching for truth and enlightenment. What was the way for me? Within two months of registering on my 18th birthday, I went from Democrat to Independent. The Democrats weren’t doing it for me. It was a party of no ideas and passive leaders.

I’ve always been a left-leaning citizen from my democratic backround at home and the imporatance of equal rights for gays since my late teens. However I got more liberal with each semester and Air America Radio broadcast making me lose hope in our American government. Less than three months from being an Independent, I became a full-fledged Socialist. I did this for several reasons:

1. The two-party system seemed very tainted.
2. I believed the “corporations are the spawn of Satan” hyperbole.
3. Sharing everything seemed swell.
4. Saying you are part of a communist/socialist party sounds “deck” in the hipster world.

Despite getting the odd stares from people when mentioning this at dinner parties, something still didn’t feel right. Sure, the whole concept of it is very naive, but it seemed perfect for a utopian society and that was the problem. There is no such thing and there never will be.

I used to share my socialist rhetoric with my fellow pro-wrestling fans in political threads on our forums. While many folks would believe wrestling fans are fastidious far-right conservatives without a high school diploma, well, that wasn’t the case here. Many are very intelligent (and write columns on their passion too!) and brought me to a more common sense side of the political world. An overwheling number of them that countered my rhetoric introduced me to their party, the Libertarian party. (They also made fun of socialists because SOCIALISM WORKS! [wonderful sarcasm]).

I was intrigued by this dark horse of a party. NAMyth (North American Myth) says this: “Everyone owns their own lives, no one owns someone else, that’s the foundation of Liberty.” Libertarians believe that the government should be severly reduced in size and power (which the Republican party has failed to do). The Government is the servent to the individual, and things like socialized health care (looking at you, Mr. Kerry) and using Congress to make unncessary amendments that infringe on the rights of others (I’m talking to you, Bush, Jr.) is ridiculous and unethical. They have some incredible stances on certain issues that I agree with:

— The War on Drugs is a joke and an unspeakable failure. The Party (www.lp.org) says: Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government’s only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud.
— Social Security isn’t working; we should as individuals work on out own retirement plans. It needs to be privatized.
— Welfare. More of a failure. Get rid of it.
— Immigration: Everyone should come in if you believe your country sucks. Just don’t expect any handouts.

Let’s just say I registered as a Libertarian a few weeks ago.
I might be the political nomad I’ve been in the past year, I don’t know. However, this all seems like common sense to me. Focusing on the individual (instead of the government) and their rights and responsibilites as an American citizen sounds like the kind of government we are supposed to have. I urge you all to at least look up this party (the largest 3rd candidate party in the U.S.) and get an opinion for yourself. You might like what you read, or comment me for how silly I am. Either way you might get a different perspective on how a government should operate.

AirplaneRadio

Sadly, nothing has changed in the mindset of Potential Adoptive Parents … Healthy White Infant, Domestically to now Healthy Infant, Internationally … To quote Cindy, “We wanted a healthy infant who would be in our family forever.” Ah, yes, the Forever Family — seems that is the newest rhetoric being offered. There is already a Forever Family, the original family of the infant, the baby’s parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, all the generations before whose genes are Forever woven into the fabric of this tiny infant, this human baby. Newborns are not clean slates, erased of all their ancestral origins, just because someone has enough money to buy a baby. These tiny infants that PAPs are procuring come with much history and a family they are already connected to. I have read adoptors’ writings about why they adopt internationally, most glaringly written; they won’t have to contend with the birthmother at such a nice safe distance. Domestically, they cannot pretend as well with the Concept of the Forever Family. That Bothersome Birthmom just might show up, shattering the Fantasy of the Forever Family. Whether domestic or international adoption, when this child comes of age, he/she can determine for themselves about searching for their Family of Origin, fully shattering the Forever Family Fantasy that adoptors want to keep in place. One cannot pretend to give birth to a baby, “as if born to;” the natural fact is these babies are born of their mothers and are related to the families of. For those who adopt, adopt for the right reasons, children needing families, not needy people needing children to fulfill their own longings, their fantasies. That is a grave injustice to the babies/children you are professing to love unconditionally. I would question the “unconditionality” of anyone adopting, who in the same breath is talking about what the mother of the baby will do in the future. You do know your adoptive child will one day ask about his/her family of origin. How will you speak of them — in the context of your fears or through the unconditional love that any parent is obligated to give their child?

—Chris

In The Fray Contributor

Jazz music’s sonorous chords and jaunty improvisations once dominated entertainment venues throughout the nation.  Now, several years into the twenty-first century, the glitzy legacies of musicians such as Louis Armstrong, Count Basie, and Billie Holiday are regarded — to the consternation of contemporary jazz enthusiasts — as remnants of a bygone era.

That is why Wynton Marsalis, the Pulitzer prize-winning trumpeter and founder/artistic director of Jazz at Lincoln Center spent the last two decades planning for a lofty entertainment hall, where jazz artists and their fans can convene to celebrate the free-spirited quality of jazz music. The result: Frederick P. Rose Hall — a recently erected $128 million edifice that houses 3 concert and performance spaces, an education center, and a recording studio.  As the world’s preeminent hub of jazz music, Frederick P. Rose Hall will also advance scholarship on jazz and its historical significance in America.    

When asked how jazz musicians of the previous century would respond to the new hall, Mr. Marsalis answered in his characteristic emphatic tone: “They would probably start crying. They gave a lot and fought hard to earn recognition for jazz in our culture. We respect and honor them with this center.”      

Toyin

You raise good issues and unquestionably there are problems in a system that leaves so many African American children unadopted. On the other hand, I think you are missing some information about how the system works, and as a result, your comments are oversimplified. Consider the following:

(1) White, middle-class adoptive parents who do try to adopt children of color, or simply try to adopt in general and are open to African American or mixed-race children, routinely experience very long waits and bureaucratic delays. Ask around and you will find lots of stories of this. People who can afford to adopt internationally often do so because they don’t want the wait. This is not to say there is no racism, only that there are other major factors that also drive the trend you describe.

(2) The U.S. domestic adoption system in most, if not all, states is a fiercely two-tier system. Most of the white infants placed for adoption are placed privately to couples who pay a lot of money to complete the adoption. Many of the African American and Latino children available for adoption come through the state social service system, and by the time they are placed, have been through multiple foster care placements, entered the system due to abuse or neglect, have medical issues, and/or are “legal risk” adoptions. When white parents (or, I imagine, any parents) go to the state agencies looking for waiting children, these are most often the children presented as needing families. When they go the international or private domestic route, the children awaiting families are a very different group, with far fewer difficult issues to deal with. Many families are not willing to take on the range of issues they face when adopting children from state care, yet I think most of the AA children awaiting families are in state care. Virtually all of the people I know who have tried to go through state child welfare systems to adopt have had this experience, as have I.

A system that works this way is undeniably racist, but not because adoptive parents make the choices they do. It was racist long before the white middle class adoptive parents got there.

(3) There is a long history in the U.S. of social workers being very reluctant to place African American children with white families, and for a time, I believe there was a strong effort to explicitly work against such placements in most cases, led by the National Association of Black Social Workers. I think there is still a strong feeling in this direction among many in both the African American and adoption communities. At the same time, there have always been more white families willing to adopt than African American families (when compared to the numbers of waiting children), which makes such a policy unworkable. The practice of making placements based strictly on racial matching is now illegal, but from what I’ve heard, it is still common, just not explicit. If so, that also works against white adoptive parents who are willing to parent African American or other children of color.

What is the point of all this? That the issue you raise is real, but the reasons for choosing international adoption are complex, and there are other key factors that either have little to do with race, or that are racial issues but that have their origins in racism in the social service system, in society at large, or in the complexities of how to raise children in a way that is culturally appropriate, rather than in the attitudes of adoptive parents.

Your final phrase, “the hidden racism of international adoptions,” to me is glib and unjustified. There is plenty of racism in society and the adoption system, but international adoptions are neither a source of it nor even in most individual cases a reflection of it. The system as a whole functions to leave African American children without families while white children find them, and that is racist. It does not do so only because white parents with racist attitudes are looking overseas for children needing homes — it’s also, I’d say more importantly, because parents are looking overseas in part because the racist system that exists makes it so difficult for them to successfully adopt domestically.

Yes there are parents who want kids who look like them and this perpetuates the racism. But it’s very, very far from the whole story.

Re: “These trends may be changing as a younger, more racially fluid generation becomes parents” — huh??? This is an interesting theory, but I find it hard to believe. I’m an older parent, and I have never seen any evidence to suggest that between my generation (people now in their late 40s and 50s) and those now in, say, their early 30s, there is some great divide of racial flexibility and consciousness. Certainly, earlier battles against racism have led to a different set of life experiences for those younger than me, so maybe I’m missing something. But is there any evidence to back up this assertion that the younger generation is more “racially fluid?” That they are moreso in a way that would affect their choices about parenting? I think of changes in the level of racism in the world as being mostly about institutions and how they behave, not about generational changes in consciousness. But I’d be interested to learn about something that suggests that’s wrong.

Another note — an international adoption can cost $40,000, but the cost does not “hover around” that level. It’s typically closer to half to three-quarters of that.

Also, FYI, the use of the word “export” to describe international adoption is widely viewed as offensive. Children are not products. Even in places where profiteering service providers are accused of treating the children as if they were commodities, that does not make them so.

—Tom

In The Fray Contributor

MY LETTER TO YOU:

Ms. Louison — I just finished reading your article online and I felt compelled to write to you. I got the link to your article from a listerve to which I belong. The listserve is made up of people associated with Guatemala adoptions, so I warn you that you may start getting reactions from people on the list. I personally wanted to write to you to let you know that I was disappointed with the negative slant of your article. I would like to know how you gathered your information and how are you personally affected by adoption — specifically international adoption? It seemed that there were many figures and comments that were simply not true. Please allow me to address those: First of all, children are NOT exports. Insinuating that they are is what is truly troubling. I quote you as saying, “Americans do not go overseas because of a lack of children…” Please let me correct you. My husband and I DID choose to go to Guatemala because we were unable to adopt a HEALTHY infant in the U.S. without feeling that we had to “win over” a birthmother in hopes she would pick us. Not to mention the fear that the child could be taken from us if the birthmother (1) has a change of heart within a specific amount of time; (2) decides to marry the boy/man who got her pregnant; (3) the courts decide that she has cleaned up her act and “deserves” her child back. We wanted a healthy infant that we could parent, not co-parent with a birthmother. We felt that was the healthiest situation for a child and would not be as confusing. Third — we did not spend $40,000 for our adoption like you stated. I think it would be difficult for you to find many people who actually did spend that much. I think that $20,000-25,000 would be more like it. People spend that much (and WAY more!) on a car — isn’t it worth the money to give a child a family? You also said, “here were approximately 542,000 children in the foster care system in the United States as of September 30, 2001.” Do you know if all of these children were available for adoption or just stuck in our failing foster care system? Our country MUST reform the foster care system to allow adoptive parents to adopt these children without ongoing problems and fears. Sadly, it is easier to adopt a child internationally than in the U.S. because of the finality of the adoption itself. I don’t want a child ripped out of my home and my heart because of a loophole in a U.S. law. Adoption should be forever and some states’ adoption laws don’t seem to view it that way. You said: “Middle class parents send them an undeniable message by chosing to predominantly adopt from abroad: you are less desirable than a child whose skin color is closer to our own.” That was not part of our criteria when we decided to pursue adoption. We wanted a healthy infant who would be in our family forever. Sadly, we just couldn’t find a baby to match those criteria in the U.S. Birthmothers in the U.S have different opportunities than birthmothers in other countries. We are a rich country compared to other countries, such as Guatemala. Birthmothers here have birth control readily available, Medicaid, welfare to help them get back on their feet, and programs to assist unwed mothers. These things are not available in many other countries, so their option is adoption. Many times, the children born in other countries are born without birth defects caused from drug use because drugs just aren’t available to them. We felt that we had the best chance for a healthy baby if we looked at adopting from outside the U.S. Birthmothers in other countries just want what all mothers want — a safe, healthy home for their child. Does an American child deserve a home more than a Guatemalan-born child? Perhaps instead of taking the time to bash those of us who have adopted internationally, you could better use your time to investigate the problems with adopting within the U.S. Thank you for your time.

— Cindy, adoptive parent to one son born in Guatemala

YOUR RESPONSE:

Dear Ms. ____:

I appreciate your response to the ITF PULSE posting. I am not an expert on adoption, but felt it was important to highlight some of the interesting and disappointing implications of The Christian Science Monitor article. While I understand this is a personal issue for you, I in no way meant to disparage international adoption, but instead merely sought to contrast it with adoption of African American children by citizens of other countries. I hope you will keep reading In The Fray, and I encourage you to respond to the post if you would like a more public forum for your comments.

— Laura Louison

MY RESPONSE:

I am disappointed that your article made it seem like you WERE an expert — quoting figures and statements as if they were truth and that International adoption was fueled by racist Caucasians. How can you twist those statisitics into “racism?”

We had love to give and our child was desparately in need of a home. How could we say no, just to sit in line for an American child? Sorry — that seems a little prejudiced to me — that an American child should be adopted before a child from another country.
PLEASE investigate your statements thoroughly before you publish them. I wonder how many readers may now have a negative view and think that, because I adopted from Guatemala, I must be racist. That just seems absurd…

—Cindy

In The Fray Contributor

The State Department’s international adoption statistics indicate that international adoptions by United States citizens have increased by 140 percent since 1995. These numbers mask a troubling insight into the racial politics of the American middle class.  As Americans fly to China, Russia and Guatemala for their children, (14,396 children in 2003), African American babies must be exported to other countries to find loving families.

As Dawn Davenport reports in The Christian Science Monitor, citizens of other countries increasingly look to the United States to find healthy African American babies ready for adoption. Americans do not go overseas because of a lack of children: while adoptive parents can wait up to five years for an American-born Caucasian child, the waiting time for parents eager to adopt an African American boy is under a year.  

“I think that more Americans would adopt these babies if they knew they were available,” says Stacy Hyer, a white American living in Germany with two adopted black children.

But to blame the paucity of interracial adoptions on lack of media coverage does not fully address the complexity of the problem. Adoption is an expensive business, Davenport reports, and the costs of international adoption can hover around $40,000, compared to $10,000 to $12,000 for an African American male. While these numbers vary according to circumstance, it may not be frugality that drives Americans abroad, but lingering concerns and worries about the reality mixed race families face. Can Caucasian parents provide a good home for an African American child? Will he lose his connection to his culture? Who will do his hair?  Will he be the victim of heightened racism in a suburban, all-white community?  International adoptive parents may be more immune to such fears, and certainly, there are wonderful American parents whose love defies both their individual and community’s prejudices. Nonetheless, as African American children languish in foster care, middle class parents send them an undeniable message by choosing to predominantly adopt from abroad: you are less desirable than a child whose skin color is closer to our own. The adoption fees for African American babies reflect this terrifyingly prevalent attitude.

These trends may be changing as a younger, more racially fluid generation becomes parents, but the numbers can’t help but be disquieting.  An informal search for prospective parents revealed only three couples interested in adopting an African American child, while pages and pages of smiling, heterosexual couples sought Caucasian babies. Caucasian and international orphans undoubtedly need love too, but according to the Child Welfare League, there were approximately 542,000 children in the foster care system in the United States as of September 30, 2001, of which 38 percent were African-American. November is National Adoption Awareness Month. One can only hope that it will be used as a platform to increase awareness about the hidden racism of international adoptions.

llouison

Jonathan Yardley of The Washington Post writes about J.D. Salinger and The Catcher in the Rye, in this delayed criticism.

Of the book Mr. Yardley calls “the essential document of American adolescence,” he asks these questions: “Why is a book about a spoiled rich kid kicked out of a fancy prep school so widely read by ordinary Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom have limited means and attend, or attended, public schools? Why is Holden Caulfield nearly universally seen as ‘a symbol of purity and sensitivity’ (as The Oxford Companion to American Literature puts it) when he’s merely self-regarding and callow? Why do English teachers, whose responsibility is to teach good writing, repeatedly and reflexively require students to read a book as badly written as this one?”

The above are not all answered satisfactorily, but the article does re-examine the merits of the book, one of the most influential ever in the modern world of American teenagers.

Vinnee Tong