This was from a post directed at the Taiwanese media, but is relevant for Singapore’s, and perhaps many of the world’s media as well.
The BBC reporting on its own leaders’ resignations yesterday.
The Lessons the BBC Scandal Offers to the Taiwanese Media:
The resignations of BBC Director-General Davie and News Department Head Turness over the controversy surrounding the editing of a Trump documentary have shocked the global media world. This incident reminds us that even the most prestigious public media outlets will severely damage their credibility if they present facts with bias or misleading editing.
The BBC’s “Panorama” program was exposed for splicing together two speeches by Trump, making it appear as if he was inciting the Riot at Congress. Although the BBC claimed it was an “editing error,” public opinion generally believes it reflects a long-standing political bias and editorial culture within the system.
For Taiwan, this is not just international gossip, but a mirror. When our news and political commentary programs increasingly blur the truth, when news reporting serves political stances, and when editing techniques even become political weapons, the collapse of credibility is only a matter of time. If public media cannot uphold facts and maintain balanced reporting, they will transform from a bulwark of democracy into a battlefield of public opinion.
The BBC scandal tells us that the power of news reporting comes from honesty, not from bias. True professionalism is not about speaking for anyone, but about letting the truth speak for itself.
“Taiwan Plus” has similar issues; shouldn’t it also seriously reflect on its own practices?
Exercising his prowess in both the English and Chinese language, bilingual minister Mr Chan Chun Sing gave the Chinese at Xiangshan an earful at the Chinese Communist Party’s counter-event to the US’ Shangri-La Dialogue recently.
In poetic Chinese full of idioms and proverbs, the defence minister started in Mandarin by saying: “The Power of a strongman can rule for some time; while the Morals of a strongman is what can prolong his rule.
“Strength at a given time can be built on Power; but Strength of a lifetime must be built on Principles,” he continued.
“Looking back at China’s long history, only when you have an eye for Justice and Fairness for All and work towards such betterment of all peoples (天下为公 – CCP’s former arch rival, KMT’s Sun Yat Sen’s motto), can you win the trust of all other nations.
“Different nations have to deal with one another peacefully and harmoniously, and look out for one another, so as to protect our common security.
“Choosing sides means you are sidelined, because only when you are sidelined do you need to choose sides.”
We leave readers to decipher what Chan was trying to mean to his Chinese hosts and counterparts within these lines.
Originally titled: Between Illusion and Imitation: The IDF and the West’s War Dilemma, and shared on X.
by General Yoav Gallant and John Spencer
No military is more publicly condemned today than the Israel Defense Forces. Yet behind closed doors, few are more studied.Western generals and defense officials routinely seek Israeli briefings, request access to doctrine and tactics, and pursue cooperation on training and technology. These efforts continue even as their political counterparts issue statements of moral outrage and condemnation. The contradiction reflects more than a double standard. It reveals a deeper divide between political perception and military reality, between external messaging and internal understanding, between illusion and experience.
Since the war in Gaza began, Israel has hosted dozens of foreign delegations. Military officers and defense officials observe Israeli operations firsthand. They ask technical questions about targeting processes, coordination between air and ground forces, real-time intelligence integration, and how combat units distinguish between civilians and combatants under fire. Some return weeks later to formalize cooperation on areas ranging from tunnel warfare to hostage recovery to civilian harm mitigation.
Meanwhile, many of their political counterparts deliver rehearsed remarks emphasizing restraint, proportionality, and civilian protection, often with little connection to the operational context or ground realities they were just briefed on.
This is not just political inconsistency. It is strategic dissonance. War is never clean. Urban warfare against a hybrid enemy embedded in civilian areas is among the most complex challenges modern democracies will face. Yet the public discussion is often dominated by expectations of precision and perfection that no military force can guarantee. In many capitals, political performance overrides professional understanding.
In Gaza, Hamas constructed more than 300 miles of fortified tunnels beneath civilian infrastructure. It operates from hospitals, schools, and mosques by design, not necessity. Early in the war, the IDF learned a simple rule: if you want to find a tunnel, look beneath a school. If you are searching for an enemy headquarters, start under a mosque. If you suspect an arms depot, check the basement of a hospital. This is not coincidence; it is a consistent, deliberate tactic. Hamas has blocked evacuations, placed command centers inside humanitarian zones, and taken hundreds of hostages. These are not side effects of war. They are deliberate features of a strategy built to paralyze democracies, provoke condemnation, and weaponize civilian suffering. The targeting of civilians is not incidental. It is essential to Hamas’s operational concept.
Many political leaders respond by invoking past conflicts. They reference battles in Mosul, Aleppo, Fallujah, or Raqqa, assuming these comparisons provide meaningful precedent. But most of these conflicts did not involve an adversary intentionally preventing civilians from leaving combat zones. Most did not involve hundreds of hostages dispersed across a dense urban battlefield. Most involved insurgencies, not foreign-backed terror armies. Many involved military forces that did not follow the same standards of precision and accountability expected of Israel. These differences matter. Failing to account for them leads to flawed analysis and unrealistic policy prescriptions.
These dynamics are not limited to Gaza. Across the region, similar tactics are emerging. In southern Syria, the Julani regime has carried out atrocities against the Druze population while embedded within civilian areas. These acts of cruelty follow the same playbook used by Hamas. Yet few international voices draw consistent lines between them. This silence reflects another gap: the unwillingness to apply standards evenly when the political costs differ. Condemnation is directed at those who can hear it. Those who operate beyond the reach of democratic norms often face no scrutiny at all.
While calls for humanitarian concern grow louder, few political leaders press for solutions that would actually reduce civilian harm. Egypt continues to keep its border with Gaza closed, despite being the sole neighboring country uninvolved in the conflict and capable of providing immediate relief to civilians seeking safety. Evacuation routes remain blocked. Temporary refuge for civilians is politically possible but diplomatically ignored. Not a single major European government or United Nations body has mounted sustained pressure on Cairo to open the Rafah crossing or to establish a displaced persons or humanitarian zone a few kilometers into the Sinai. Instead, criticism centers on Israel, the only actor currently conducting both combat and humanitarian operations in the same battlespace. The imbalance distorts both perception and policy.
This is not the first time democracies have confronted hard choices. The wars of the twentieth century were waged with heavy costs. Civilian casualties were tragically high. But the principle of civilian protection was strengthened over time, especially with the Geneva Conventions adopted after World War II. Those conventions remain the foundation of the modern laws of war. They prohibit intentional attacks on civilians and impose a duty to take feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm. But they do not demand perfection, nor do they outlaw war itself. When adversaries exploit civilians to provoke condemnation and delay operations, the responsibility lies with those who commit the violations—not those who attempt to respond within the law.
The numbers bear remembering. Two million civilians died in the Korean War, averaging over 50,000 per month. More than ten thousand were killed in the liberation of a single city, Mosul. Hundreds of thousands died during military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cities were flattened in the campaign against ISIS. These are not historical footnotes. They are reminders of what war has always entailed, especially in dense urban environments. Today, only one military—the IDF—is expected to achieve battlefield success without error, without civilian harm, and without criticism, even as it faces enemies who deliberately try to make this impossible.
Despite this, militaries around the world continue to seek Israeli knowledge. Governments initiate formal cooperation agreements. Officers train in Israeli facilities. Procurement programs focus on Israeli defense technologies developed through experience in real combat conditions. These are not isolated interactions. They are serious, structured engagements based on the recognition that similar wars may lie ahead. European and NATO militaries understand that future threats may look more like Hamas than like conventional armies. They are preparing accordingly.
This is not a blanket condemnation of all political leaders. Many do understand what modern war demands and the reality Israel is confronting. Nor is the political-professional divide a one-way street. War is ultimately the pursuit of political objectives, and in a democracy, those objectives are set by political leaders based on the best advice of their military advisors. At the same time, senior military leaders must understand the domestic, international, and geopolitical factors that frame and constrain the use of force. Political leaders cannot speak about war without accounting for context, history, strategy, tactics, and operational reality. And military leaders cannot speak about war without understanding the political environment that defines it. The tension between political and professional perspectives is not a flaw. It is a feature of democratic governance. But it must be informed, mutual, and honest.
Unfortunately, that equilibrium is too often lost. Political leaders too often avoid difficult truths. Some present war as inherently unjust. Others suggest that all violence can be avoided with diplomacy or restraint. Few acknowledge that, in extreme cases, force may be both necessary and lawful. This avoidance does not strengthen democracy. It weakens it. It misleads citizens, erodes deterrence, and gives adversaries greater freedom of action.
In Israel, such illusions are not possible. Conflict is measured in meters. Homes sit a few hundred yards from hostile territory. Missiles arrive in seconds. Tunnels turn rear areas into front lines. Civilian buildings become military objectives by design. This is not theoretical. It is a daily reality.
On October 7, Hamas killed 1,200 Israelis, many through direct atrocities. Adjusted for population, that would be the equivalent of over 40,000 Americans or more than 8,000 Britons killed in a single day. International law permits self-defense, even in war. It also permits the use of force against military objectives. Proportionality accounts for the presence of civilians, even when they are unlawfully placed at risk by those who violate the laws of war. It requires that civilian harm not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage and that every feasible precaution be taken to minimize that harm. Israel has done both.
Democracies must regain strategic clarity. They cannot afford to treat war as a morality play while military officers prepare for reality. They must explain to their populations that war, when necessary, is not only legal but at times morally required. They must recognize that the expectations placed on allies today may become the burdens they bear tomorrow. The next war will not wait for consensus. It will demand readiness, resolve, and truth.
If democratic leaders continue to separate what they know privately from what they say publicly, the result will not be greater morality. It will be greater suffering and failure. Silence will not deter enemies. Illusion will not protect civilians. And condemnation, without context or consistency, will not produce peace.
The hard lessons of war must be faced, not avoided. Military professionals understand this. It is time for political leaders to do the same.
___________________________________________
General Yoav Gallant, former Israeli Minister of Defense and decorated IDF commander, shares strategic insights on leadership, security, and geopolitics—drawing from nearly five decades at the forefront of Israel’s national defense.
John Spencer is Executive Director of the Urban Warfare Institute and co-author of Understanding Urban Warfare. A leading expert on urban warfare, he advised senior U.S. Army leaders through strategic roles from the Pentagon to West Point. You can also follow him on ‘X’ at: @SpencerGuard, Substack: https://substack.com/@spencerguard and learn more at www.johnspenceronline.com.
The views expressed in this article are the writers’ own.
Sharing a news post by CNA about the Government placing ‘vape bins’ in various CCs across the island where addicts can discard their vapes into, and not be punished, Leader of Opposition Pritam Singh took the opportunity to encourage people to ‘stop vaping or not even start at all’.
“The etomidate menace that has afflicted many people (sadly, many young people) is as good a reason as any to stop vaping or not even start at all,” he wrote.
“Please do so and encourage your friends and family to stop.
“A random person who has no reason to hate us can do something so horrible.”
“I never would have imagined that something this scary would happen,” said Winda, who was in Singapore with her family for vacation.
Meanwhile, Zaobao has identified the assailant as a PRC national Xu Chaoyu, who had overstayed his visit in Singapore by 49 days.
According to a Mothership article, the Indonesian family was supposed to be here for a fun-filled vacation, which turned into horror in a split second.
On Friday (Jun. 20), Winda, her husband, and two young children were sitting at the outdoor area of % Arabica Singapore at Arab Street near Haji Lane, while waiting to do their Friday prayers at Sultan Mosque.
However, a man carrying a wine bottle suddenly struck her 5-year-old son on the head from behind, she said.
Photo provided by Winda
A few passers-by quickly gathered at the scene and helped the family call the police and the ambulance.
The % Arabica staff also quickly took Winda and her children into the café to protect them from the assailant.
But to add to the horror, Winda found out that the man had a knife in his bag.
“[He] wanted to take out the knife from his bag,” she said.
Image provided by Winda
“It’s really hard for us to accept what happened”
“I never would have imagined that something this scary would happen,” said Winda, who was in Singapore with her family for vacation.
“A random person who has no reason to hate us can do something so horrible.”
The incident took place just two days before the family was supposed to return to Indonesia on Jun. 22.
“This incident involves the life of my [young] child. I strongly believe Singapore is a safe country, that’s why it’s really hard for us to accept what happened.”
Winda said that the Indonesian embassy in Singapore has reached out to her and her family for assistance.
Charged
In response to Mothership’s queries, an SCDF spokesperson said:
“On 20 June 2025 at about 1:30pm, SCDF received a call for assistance at 56, Arab Street.
No ambulance assistance was required.”
On Jun. 22, Shin Min Daily Newsreported that a man was charged in court on Jun. 21, with the charge stating that he was in possession of a kitchen knife in a public place.
The man is also suspected of overstaying in Singapore after his social visit pass expired, in violation of immigration laws.
All in all, both WP and PSP allude to the fact that the tariff wars did help the PAP win more this GE2025, PAP and PSP talked more about it during the hustings, one overblowing it while the other downplaying it. WP took a more nuanced approach.
While being truthful and honest in reporting what PSP, or the Progress Singapore Party, said on the Trump-imposed tariffs worldwide, there was a sense that such reportage led some voters to decide that PSP was downplaying the issue, especially those who buy in easily to PAP’s rebuttal or rhetoric who were quick to call Boss and assert inability in other parties to think holistically and rationally.
While the CNA subheading of “Progress Singapore Party chairman Tan Cheng Bock said the government may be trying to frighten the voters into making a “safe bet” and voting for the incumbent” may be slightly slanted, yet at the same time rightfully exposing the slightly-incautious approach taken by the PSP head honchos in addressing the tariff issue, as a whole PSP may not be totally wrong to suggest the tariffs are not such a big issue especially for a country like Singapore.
It must also be pointed out that while one can accuse PSP of — in a big way, downplaying the tariff issue, one can similarly make the objective claim that PAP overblew the issue out of proportion, especially when world and local watchers all agree Singapore is much less affected than almost every other country in the world.
The amount of propaganda on the tariff issue, milked for PAP’s political advantage is for all to judge and see:
First: How the tariffs can affect us
First things first, let’s be fair and objective. The Trump administration’s recent tariffs do pose several challenges for Singapore, a small, trade-dependent economy deeply integrated into global supply chains. According to ChatGPT, which relied on information mainly fed by the Singapore Government (because no one else has any information on the goings-on in Singapore), there are these challenges:
1. Economic Growth and Export Demand
Singapore’s economy is highly reliant on exports, and the imposition of a 10% baseline tariff by the U.S. has led to a downward revision of the country’s GDP growth forecast for 2025, from 1–3% to a range of 0–2%. Trade Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong has warned that such tariffs, coupled with lingering global trade tensions, could lead to a recession and job losses in Singapore .NTUC+4Reuters+4CNA+4
2. Supply Chain Disruptions
The tariffs have disrupted global supply chains, affecting industries such as electronics, manufacturing, and logistics. Singapore’s manufacturing sector, which accounts for 20% of its GDP, has experienced a decline in output, with a 2.1% year-on-year drop in January 2025. This downturn has reverberated across the economy, impacting trade-related services like logistics .Realised Gains
3. Increased Operational Costs
Businesses in Singapore face higher costs for imported raw materials like steel and semiconductors, which are critical for high-tech industries. These increased expenses are often passed on to consumers, leading to higher prices for goods and services. For instance, consumers may notice price hikes in groceries, electronics, and dining out .Realised GainsDBS Bank
4. Investor Confidence and Foreign Direct Investment
The unpredictability of U.S. trade policies has shaken investor confidence. Some companies are reconsidering their investment decisions, delaying new projects, or reallocating budgets to cushion against higher operational costs. This cautious approach could result in reduced foreign direct investment, affecting long-term economic growth .CNA
5. Government Response and Support Measures
In response to these challenges, the Singapore government has established a national task force to support businesses and workers. This task force, chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong, includes representatives from economic agencies, the Singapore Business Federation, the Singapore National Employers Federation, and the National Trades Union Congress . Additionally, measures such as corporate income tax rebates and schemes to boost productivity and competitiveness have been introduced to help businesses adapt to the new economic environment .CNA+4Business Standard+4NTUC+4CNA
6. Inflationary Pressures
The tariffs contribute to inflationary pressures, a scenario known as stagflation, where rising prices coincide with stagnant economic growth. This situation can erode purchasing power, making everyday goods and services more expensive for consumers .
Different Kinds of Responses
While other Opposition parties like the WP were quick to announce in Parliament to stand on PAP’s side of “unity” in the face of international threats, the same WP’s Pritam Singh also did not mince words when talking about the opportunities for us in the face of the trade war, in WP’s rallies.
“Where does this lead Singapore? The Workers’ Party’s statement on US tariffs made the point that despite far-reaching changes to the international system, there will be opportunities that we will have to seek out.
“Being a little red dot has its advantages. We are smaller, we can move faster,” said Pritam Singh at the 24th Apr rally.
The Trump Tariffs: Arguments for Singapore’s Benefit
And indeed, one would be dumb to suggest that the Tariffs pose only problems and not opportunities for us.
Singapore not being as affected by the tariffs as many other countries notwithstanding, we may even stand to gain — just as other countries do — if we know how to tide the wave and ride the boat correctly, and benefit from the ever-changing situation.
While the Trump administration’s tariffs have introduced challenges for Singapore, they also present several opportunities for the nation to leverage its strategic position and economic strengths. According to ChatGPT, these are some opportunities:
1. Trade Diversion and Rerouting
As global supply chains are disrupted, companies are seeking alternatives to mitigate tariff impacts. Singapore, with its robust logistics infrastructure and strategic location, is well-positioned to serve as a rerouting hub for trade flows. This could enhance its role as a critical node in global supply chains.
2. Attracting Relocated Manufacturing Operations
The tariffs have prompted companies to reconsider their manufacturing bases, particularly those in China. Southeast Asia, including Singapore, is emerging as an attractive alternative due to its stable business environment, skilled workforce, and advanced infrastructure. This trend could lead to increased foreign direct investment and job creation in Singapore.
3. Strengthening ASEAN Integration
Singapore’s active engagement in ASEAN initiatives positions it to benefit from regional economic integration. The nation’s efforts to deepen ties within ASEAN can open new markets and opportunities for Singaporean businesses, enhancing its economic resilience and growth prospects.
4. Capitalizing on Sectoral Strengths
Certain sectors in Singapore, such as electronics and pharmaceuticals, are poised to benefit from increased demand as companies seek alternatives to tariff-impacted regions. Singapore’s strong capabilities in these industries, supported by research and development, position it to capture a larger share of global markets. Realised Gains
5. Government Support and Strategic Initiatives
The Singapore government has established a national task force to support businesses and workers in adapting to the new economic landscape. This initiative aims to strengthen resilience and facilitate the transition to emerging opportunities, ensuring that Singapore remains competitive in the evolving global trade environment. CNA
In summary, while the U.S. tariffs present challenges, they also offer Singapore avenues to enhance its strategic position in global trade. By capitalizing on trade rerouting, attracting relocated manufacturing, strengthening regional ties, leveraging sectoral strengths, and benefiting from government support, Singapore can navigate the evolving trade landscape effectively.
Sources
Pritam Singh: Tariff war a major reason why PAP won big
In a way, Pritam Singh’s post-mortum review of the GE2025 seems to agree and confirm PSP’s point that PAP has successfully milked the tariff situation to their political advantage this round:
Elections have concluded 8pm local time yesterday (3 May), and official results of almost all constituencies were confirmed at 2am this morning (4 May).
The ruling People’s Action Party, which has governed Singapore since 1959, has retained power, with renewed mandate and an expanded proportion of Parliamentary seats — from 83 out of 93 seats (89.2%) in 2020 to 87 out of 97 seats (89.7%) this GE.
The elections saw the opposition Workers’ Party securing its held wards by a bigger margin in Sengkang and Hougang.
However, another Opposition party, the Progress Singapore Party did not gain any foothold (and lost both its NCMP seats (given to the best losers, to meet the quota of 12 seats for the Opposition in Parliament).
It lost by a whopping 20% margin to the PAP contenders at West Coast-Jurong West GRC, which saw huge carving of areas into it from the former Jurong GRC, an almost 10% drop from its 48.3% garnered for West Coast the last GE — a respectable vote share considering it was its maiden election try.
Chee Soon Juan fails to win
Also failing to clinch a seat after a near-win the last time round at Bukit Panjang (45.2%) was Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP, who won 46.81% despite moving to an all-new territory of Sembawang West (newly created constituency) SMC. He also failed to get to the top two Best Losers position after the official results were out for WP at Tampines GRC.
Close shave for the PAP at Tampines
Winning a higher margin than Chee Soon Juan, and therefore making it to 2nd top Best Loser position, was WP’s Tampines GRC team, which got 47.4% at final.
Closest Contest: Jalan Kayu
The Best Loser this time, went to Andre Low of the WP at Jalan Kayu SMC, who put up a good fight against NTUC sec-gen and former Sengkang GRC candidate Ng Chee Meng, who won slightly despite his bad reputation following the NTUC Income-Allianz saga.
WP looks set to get 2 NCMP seats
This brings the number of NCMP seats the WP is entitled to this round to 2, one from Jalan Kayu SMC, and one from the 5-member Tampines GRC. The party would have to choose to accept the seats, and also decide on whom to send into Parliament from the Tampines slate.
Good showing by Independents for the first time in a long while
A surprising good showing came from Independent candidate Jeremy Tan, who campaigned for the Government to invest in Bitcoin. His 36.2% vote share is higher than the likes of many ‘mosquito’ parties like NSP, PPP, or even Lim Tean’s PV. It was also higher than PSP and SDP’s performance in some GRCs, and comes close to PSP’s West Coast-Jurong West performance.
After Faisal Manap’s own speech pledging to work for all Singaporeans, regardless of race and religion, equally, Pritam took 1 minute to state his own beliefs in joining the Workers’ Party, and his firm principle on rejecting all foreign influence in our elections.
He explained his rationale for joining the Workers’ Party, and vowed to keep the vision of a race-neutral Singapore within his philosophy. He also rejected the foreign influence attempts and says the WP does not need these foreign support.
Speaking before Pritam took the stage, fellow WP MP Muhamad Faisal Abdul Manap pledged that he would serve his residents regardless of race, language or religion, equally, and to the best of his ability.
Speaking to Tampines GRC voters, he said: “This is my commitment and oath, witnessed by all of you, and God.”
Debunking some who tired to insinuate that she flew right back from the US to Singapore to stand in the elections, Paris V Parameswary, one of the East Coast GRC candidates, said she served the US Navy on Singapore shores.
“Born in the Chinese Year of the Tiger, I always see myself as a person with a bold and boisterous personality, I served in the Republic of Singapore Navy (RSN) as a military woman for 6 years,
“…and have worked with the United States Navy based in Singapore, I repeat, Based In Singapore, for 18 years, as a security administrator.
“I did not fly from the United States as many have assumed. I served those 18 years in Singapore — my motherland!
“I decided to step down from the US Navy, to step up for the Workers’ Party.”
She was met with loud applause from the audience on every sentence she spoke.
“I joined the Workers’ Party as I wanted to be part of a dynamic team. I observed that Parliamentary questions were asked fearlessly on behalf of Singaporeans.
“I was content that Workers’ Party was the right party to join and to start my aspiration for advocating change, for a better Singapore.”
She is now also a volunteer for the Singapore Police Force, Singapore Prison Service and Institute of Mental Health. She is also an advocate for better job opportunities for ex-convicts.
The Workers’ Party candidate for East Coast GRC, Jasper Kuan, took to the stage at WP’s Tampines rally last night (26th Apr), to talk about his reasons for joining politics with the party.
He related how his wife came from Hong Kong more than 30 years ago. There was an exodus of HK citizens pre-1997 before the communist takeover, for freedom-loving people who were afraid of life after the British handover of control of the island to the CCP.
He said that was how he had the chance to meet his wife, in Singapore, and with whom he now shares 3 young children.
He said his family were his inspiration, his driving force, and the reason he stands here with the Workers’ Party today.
“However, the political situation in Hong Kong has changed dramatically in recent years, leading to yet another exodus of residents after COVID-19.
“Many of them no longer see Hong Kong as home.”
He also relayed how heart-wrenching it was, to see his wife’s immediate family hugging each other tightly, tears streaming down their eyes, as they left Singapore after a reunion, to the UK and other parts of the World, far from Hong Kong and mainland China.
“Crying, as they bade farewell in their long goodbyes. They knew, (from) this moment, they would be separated by thousands of kilometres, uncertain of when and whether they would meet again.
“For many of my wife’s friends and family from Hong Kong, Hong Kong is no longer the home they once loved.
“Unfortunately, I see similarities here in Singapore. A recent answers.sg poll of more than 7000 Singaporeans, showed that 61% of Singaporeans are considering living abroad, citing challenges like costs of living and pace of life.”
“For individuals like you and me, beyond the act of leaving our country, it shakes the very foundation of WHO WE ARE!”
the new era 