Should permanent foreign residents have the right to vote in local elections in their country of residence?

Poll ( 75 )

Login to vote

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

75 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    DeepAir65

    I think this is a badly worded question.

    I think permanent residents in a foreign country should have the right to vote in "local" elections but not national ones.

  • 0

    Midnightpromise

    Of course not. They are only "permanent foreign residents" because the citizen residents decided they could be. Only true citizens of a country should have the rights to make the laws and elect officals.

  • 0

    ashika1009

    No.

    If you wanna vote change your citizenship, or vote absentee, or go home.

    That`s about it.

  • 0

    sctaber56

    If a person who is a permanent foreign resident must pay certain taxes, such as income tax or property tax, then they should have the right to vote in local elections, regardless of citizenship.

  • 0

    cleo

    Local elections don't make laws, they sort out stuff like how the schools are run, how often the rubbish gets collected and what hours the municipal library is open. No reason all the residents shouldn't have a say in stuff like that.

    If you're a permanent foreign resident, then here is home.

  • 0

    timtak

    It doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. Only local ones mind you. If we are given the vote in local elections we may feel more included, more cooperative, more citizenly.

  • 0

    tokyofun1

    yes.........we pay taxes....if we dont have this LOCAL right then quick taking your governments salaries out of my paycheck...and as for the national elections...the PM changes so frequently whats the point...and the ppl dont elect PM anyway.

  • 0

    ensnaturae

    sctaber56 wrote, at 02:52 PM JST - 24th January; If a person who is a permanent foreign resident must pay certain taxes, such as income tax or property tax, then they should have the right to vote in local elections, regardless of citizenship.

    I support this view. To prevent permanent residents from voting, from taking part in the democratic process, especially since they are obliged by law to contribute to the nations resources, via taxation, I would describe as a clear breach of their most basic human rights. I dont think anyone should tolerate that situation without making their objections known.

  • 0

    mummet

    permanent residents no, citizens yes. Though it should be easier to become a citizen in Japan. If you choose to keep your nationality and not become a citizen I don't think you should be able to vote in National Elections.

  • 0

    DeepAir65

    I believe they changed the question since my first reply so - YES for local

  • 0

    DeepAir65

    And for the record I am leaving Japan and if my home country does not have this and I get a chance to vote on it I would support foreign permanent residents on the right to vote in local elections, if they don't already have it that is!

  • 0

    smartacus

    I have always wondered with questions like this one, what the people who vote no are afraid of. Do they think that permanent foreign residents will somehow take over the government and change their way of life? It's an irrational fear.

  • 0

    gogogo

    If I am forced to pay national health insurance, all taxes (including local and income) and pay into the national pension plan then I should be able to vote.

  • 0

    888naff

    Japan maybe could help its nationals (or some permanent residents in Japan) by allowing dual citizenship...

    At the moment the situation creates a lot of Japanese living permanently abroad ( via marriage or whatever) but will not be allowed to vote.

    (.. because it would be insane in most cases to give up the Japanese passport.)

  • 0

    gonemad

    Yes, foreign people with permanent residence should have voting rights for any type of elections, including national elections. Everybody should have the right to decide himself where to take part in elections.

    Changing citizenship is no solution if you move between countries more than once in your life, which is becoming more and more common.

    Double (or triple or...?) citizenship is no solution either, as it privileges certain people with double voting rights.

  • 0

    2020hindsight

    Midnightpromise

    Of course not. They are only "permanent foreign residents" because the citizen residents decided they could be. Only true citizens of a country should have the rights to make the laws and elect officals.

    Where do you get that logic from? A permanent resident is part of the society that they live in. Usually in Japan that means that they have been here for at least 10 years. Why shouldn't they have the vote? In my home country, PR's have the vote.

  • 0

    t_bone

    For those who voted yes on this, think of how this would apply back in your home country and rethink your answer. This question does not only apply to Japan.

    I am in agreement with JHansen.

  • 0

    Beelzebub

    There could be practical third way, where foreigners are permitted to elect non-voting representatives to sit in as observers at a legislature, the way the US deals with Guam and Puerto Rico.

  • 0

    mechadamuramu

    No, permanent foreign residents should have the options to become citizens if they so choose, after which they can vote. I guess that's a radical "western" view that people can become naturalized instead of just racistly thinking being born in a place is the only way to be entitled to full rights.

  • 0

    mikemcfly87

    t-bone

    For those who voted yes on this, think of how this would apply back in your home country and rethink your answer. This question does not only apply to Japan.

    What is wrong with letting a legal permanent resident vote? If that person is paying money into the local economy, why can s/he not decide how that money is spent? I have rethought my answer, and the answer will always be YES!!!! Time for you to rethink yours.

    JTHanson

    If you want a say in the local political ongoings then vest yourself to that place by taking up citizenship of the nation from which you desire the right to vote.

    The only problem with this is the fact that people who live in one country (Japan) cannot gain citizenship without giving up the citizenship of their home country. Why must one have to, in essance, defect from their home country just to be able to gain the citizenship of the one they currently live. What about those who are born into another countries citizenship, yet they haven't lived there because of the parent's jobs? Yet they end up living there later, and cannot have the basic rights like this because they don't have a need to "defect" from their home country. I know many will not see any sense in this, but this is the way it should be.

    YOUR Hard earned $$$ into Local Economy = voting to spend YOUR hard earned $$$ Locally.

  • 0

    peachy871

    I have to disagree with the viewpoint that one must be a citizen on paper in order to have a say. PRs should have a right to vote as well. I am not a PR and don't intend to be. I pay my taxes and insurance, etc. but I am fully aware that I am not taking a further step with being tied into the system here. I have no problem with the fact that I don't have the right to vote. I do however, feel that PRs should have some voting rights (i.e. local elections). And of course, citizens have full voting rights in all elections. It only makes sense.

    I feel that in order to enjoy the right to vote, which is what we are talking about, you must be vested in that institution via citizenship.

    As to where your money goes, well if you want a say in how your money is being spent become a citizen.

    Ok, if one is to be a citizen to have a say where one's money goes, it only stands to reason that PRs should not pay taxes. They don't have to pay the taxes thus they don't deserve a say. Pay the taxes, you deserve a say. It's only logical. (My case is different. I am on a visa that indicates that I intend to be here only briefly; I am not indicating a vested interest in the system by virtue of the fact I have sought neither permanent residency nor citizenship.)

    As for dual citizenship, many countries do it. Why not Japan? The world is a smaller place than it used to be. It is perfectly feasible to be a citizen of more than one place.

  • 0

    sf2k

    I do have the right to vote in my country, so what's the question really asking?

    If you mean if your citizens of your own country be allowed to vote because you take their money and maybe that constitutes a rational agreement between yourself and the state then of course, otherwise it's fraud.

    You wouldn't be committing fraud now, would you Japan?

  • 0

    johnnyreb

    zainichi koreans, yes. the rest, no.

  • 0

    dontpanic

    No. Foreign residents shouldnt have the right to wield authority over citizens.

    As for the 'if I pay taxes I should get the vote' argument, if you consume local services like road building, subsidised public transport, street lighting, the police and in some cases unemployment benefit, then pay for them.

  • 0

    Triple888

    Foreign residents shouldnt have the right to wield authority over citizens.

    I don't remember the last time when there was a vote about kicking out natural citizens. But there are plenty of right wing proposals on ridding foreigner residents.

  • 0

    gonemad

    So many comments here which answer no, but nobody has given any reasons. What are you all afraid of? That foreigners can't make a sound judgement? When some politician was quoted here "hey, this is Japan and foreigners can't understand it", I can't remember that any one of you guys supported that statement. The question is about permanent residents, so not any foreigner who comes for a short visit would be able to vote. There are some hurdles to become permanent resident, so there is some control as well as to who will be able to vote.

    Foreign residents shouldnt have the right to wield authority over citizens.

    This is complete bullshit. The question here is about active voting rights, means who can give a vote in an election. The people with passive voting rights, means the ones who can be elected, are still citizens only.

    For those who voted yes on this, think of how this would apply back in your home country and rethink your answer.

    My home country has even more than Japan the need to introduce meaningful voting rights to permanent residents.

    Any country should have a vivid interest to integrate foreign residents into society. Integration is not a one-way road, requires dialog and possibly adaptations from both sides. If foreigners stay long term in the country without integration, sooner or later they will develop parallel societies which may cease to respect the laws of their country of residence. I think you can find plenty of examples around the world. Denying voting rights thwarts integration, as it takes away one effective way to participate in society. It is a clear sign of mistrust and that the foreigner is not considered part.

    Giving voting rights to permanent residents is nothing more and nothing less than a sign of basic respect.

  • 0

    gonemad

    To those who think that naturalization is the solution: don't forget that there are many reasons why people don't want to naturalize, like not being able to keep property in their country of origin, not being able to inherit, loosing state pension titles, the wish to return after retirement, people who don't know whether they have to move back or to another country, or who move back and forth between Japan and their country of origin etc etc. Naturalization is simply not always a practical solution.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    So many comments here which answer no, but nobody has given any reasons. What are you all afraid of?

    The question I want to ask you is why don't these permanent resident naturalize?

  • 0

    ChrisBiggins

    nigelboy; I think the answer is because of the lack of dual nationality.

    If i were to marry a Japanese i would not want to give up my rights as a British citizen, which doesnt mean i wouldnt be loyal to both countries. I think the no dual nationality rule is old hat and rather ghastly.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    If i were to marry a Japanese i would not want to give up my rights as a British citizen

    Why would you not give up your rights as a British citizen? Do you intend to live the rest of your life in Japan?

  • 0

    ChrisBiggins

    nigelboy; A dictatorship style anti foreigner government is a possibility in Japan with its decline. Though one could be a citizen , we all know that you are not accepted by a large section of society as Japanese, and never will be.

    People situations change, one may wish to go back to Britain and look after sick relatives for a while without the trouble of visas. That is civilised, not allowing dual nationality is beastly and insular.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    nigelboy; A dictatorship style anti foreigner government is a possibility in Japan with its decline.

    Debatable. I just see a lot of demerits of lenient immigration experiencing in Western nations (hate crimes, unemployment, discrimination, ghettos).

    Though one could be a citizen , we all know that you are not accepted by a large section of society as Japanese, and never will be.

    I think the above applies to most societies where you are considered a minor.

    People situations change, one may wish to go back to Britain and look after sick relatives for a while without the trouble of visas

    Why would thee be any "trouble" if you applied for the visa specifically for that purpose? To me, it sounds like you want the best of both worlds but won't admit to it. You just want convenience and flexibility which isn't a sound argument to a Japanese national or the Japanese government.

    Moderator: Back on topic please.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    Why shouldn`t Japan grant dual nationality like almost every country on earth?

    Because the latter statment is not true for a good reason.

    There are laws to protect others from discrimination based upon nationality and skin colour, Japan has none!

    Read the constitution.

    You cannot apply for visas for looking after relatives without a long process which may be unviable

    Not buying it. If it were, you should address that to the British government.

    If people could be citizens and feel comfortable with anti racism laws and a civilised dual nationality system, then things would be better for Japan and those who wish to reside there, whether it be forever or whatever.

    Better for you. But again, you're seeking "convenience and flexibility" which has absolutely no merit to the Japanese national.

    We never know what the future holds

    Yes. That's why voting rights should be given only to Japanese nationals whom there future is and always will be Japan.

  • 0

    nigelboy

    Then again Chris, I don't think "look after sick relatives" applies here in Japan considering that the majority of permanent residents here that we're dealing here are Zainichi Koreans where there relatives and their relatives before that are here residing in Japan.

  • 0

    Weasel

    To paraphrase Reverend Jonathan Mayhew, if the government want me to pay taxes to them, then I'd say the answer is yes. If not, then I'd say no.

  • 0

    Mark_McCracken

    No. The ability to vote should remain a benefit of citizenship. If you want to vote in Japan, become a Japanese citizen.

  • 0

    dontpanic

    "People situations change, one may wish to go back to Britain and look after sick relatives for a while without the trouble of visas."

    Dont know about other countries but for Brits the idea that giving up your citizenship to naturalize elsewhere means you cant ever go home is a misnomer. British citizens can regain their nationality.

    All I can see from those who want dual nationality or voting rights without naturalization is a convenient way home if needed. Thats hardly a solid commitment to your new home.

    I cant make that commitment and so dont bleat on about my inability to vote. I consume services and so dont worry about the taxes I pay for them.

    Japan, like Britain the US and all those other countries represented in this discussion is a sovereign nation. Why would any government give the ultimate sanction to people committed to themselves and not the nation?

    The issue of the multigenerational Koreans and Chinese 'resettled' here is a different issue altogether for which the Japanese government should hold its head in shame until addressed properly.

  • 0

    cleo

    for Brits the idea that giving up your citizenship to naturalize elsewhere means you cant ever go home

    No one's claiming that. Going back to the place you were born and where a large part of your family probably still live, and being treated as a foreigner - needing a visa to enter the country - is the sticking point. In my case, at any rate.

    Why would any government give the ultimate sanction to people committed to themselves and not the nation?

    The question isn't asking about the 'ultimate sanction'. It's asking about having a bit of a say in local affairs.

    If a child with Japanese nationality is living in Japan, attending a Japanese school and growing up as a Japanese, surely that child has the right to have both parents chip in regarding that child's environment, not only the parent with the right colour of passport?

  • 0

    dontpanic

    Cleo I disagree with you on both counts. Japanese passport holders dont need a visa to enter the UK and no-ones oppressing me, I get plenty of say in how my kids grow up.

    The vote gives you the right to elect who wields political power, locally or nationally. Although a permanent resident I wont give up my British citizenship, on that basis Im not wholly invested in the nation. I dont see why I should have a say in how citizens kids grow up?

  • 0

    ChrisBiggins

    cleo; Britain allow anyone to renounce their citizenship and automatically reapply 3 times in their lifetime dear.

    I think only citizens should vote, but ten again i think dual nationality is a human right, then again i`m not a Japanophile.

  • 0

    ChrisBiggins

    Japan treats non Japanese as 2nd class and then even those who naturalise are treated 2nd class due to their looks, it is ghastly. Permanent residents should have certain rights, possibly in local elections , but should also shout LOUD to the government to allow dual nationality, and to those who say otherwise, i know a few Japanese who gained British nationality then went back to Japan and had not renounced their Japanese nationality and carried on as normal. The law is an ass.

  • 0

    cleo

    Japanese passport holders dont need a visa to enter the UK

    ...as tourists. Without a UK passport, you're still a foreigner and need a visa to do anything of a professional nature.

  • 0

    ChrisBiggins

    cleo; very easy to change your vias in Britain dear. My Japanese niece changed her visa after 1 week when offered a job translating, and got it immediately at Dingwall road.

    Japan has a lot to learn and be more flexible. I agree onyt citizens should vote, but without rejected their home nation, it is vile otherwise.

  • 0

    cleo

    Chris - Whether it's easy to change a visa or not isn't the problem, it's the fact of needing a visa to do stuff in one's country of birth. Dual nationality would solve a lot of problems and would be a recognition of the true situation many people are in.

  • 0

    ChrisBiggins

    cleo; I agreee with you duck. I think dual nationality should be a right. I don`t know why the Japanese government continues with the beastly policy of be Japanese or nothing else.

    I would be scared if one of my family went to a country with this policy and couldn`t come back because of bad things through no fault of their own.

    I say, stuff permanent residency, give dual nationality and be like the rest of the first world you silly sausages.

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    I think only citizens should vote, but ten again i think dual >nationality is a human right, then again i`m not a Japanophile.

    I think only citizens should be able to vote at the local level but not at the national level. While I support Dual Nationality, it certainly isn't a right, it;s a privelige and depends entirely upon the nations in question, and finally biggins you need to look up "Japanophile" because it doesn't mean someone who disagrees with your all-encompassing anti-jpn agenda.

    Japan and its fans are racist, end of. Some of the posts here are so >beastly they make me want to cry.

    As if japan-bashers aren't? LOL

  • 0

    WMD

    Interesting read this thread. Anyway, the local for PRs will soon be reality. Those PRs against the vote, simply don't exercise your vote. Result= we are all happy.

  • 0

    WMD

    Anyway as many others have said, it's high time japan acted like a normal grown up little country and allowed dual nationality. Then most PRs will probably get that and so nobody will care about the local vote for PRs. Result= we are all happy.

  • 0

    limboinjapan

    Long term or permanent residents should have the right to vote in "local" election everywhere!

    To say that if one is in a country for an extended period they should change their citizenship or that they should have dual citizenship is to simplistic!

    In the case of Japan and others dual citizenship is not possible and believe it or not but some countries it it not possible to relinquish your citizenship!

    Which in the case of Japan make it impossible to get Japanese citizenship for people from those countries!

    There may also be other extenuating circumstances that make taking citizenship in the country of your residency not possible or practical.

    I am a long term resident of Japan and am raising my 2 Japanese children here. I love many things about Japan as I do about my home country but there are also many things I dislike about both!

    Just because I am a citizen of one and not the other should not mean I cannot voice my disagreement with the policies of one and not the other!

    In the case of Japan taking citizenship and relinquishing another is a big step not to be taken lightly, for unlike countries with a history of immigration unless you look Japanese and can pass for Japanese you will always be viewed as and referred to as "gaijin", all you need to do is search the net a bit for many examples of this!

    Japan is not the only country like this and until countries like these reach a level of maturity in which they can accept those that are different as full citizens, the least the can offer is the right to vote in "local" elections!

  • 0

    xpps3l

    This type of vote is confused when many young internet user who feel anxiety for foreign countries. They are calling for voting "NO" this survey in many BBS. A correction should be done for the result.

  • 0

    xpps3l

    After I wrote comment votes to no increased extraordinary.

    61% Yes (885 Votes) 39% No (560 Votes) 12:30pm few hours ago, 35% Yes (895 Votes) 65% No (1656 Votes) 18:26pm Current time.

    May be it will increase more rapidly by who don't read or write any comments because some people voting many times by initializing cookie of their browser. In this comment I don't say that they are wrong, but the way of their objection is wrong.

  • 0

    xpps3l

    2/09 18:26pm 35% Yes (895 Votes) 65% No (1656 Votes) 2/10 04:30am 21% Yes (905Votes) 79% No (3365 Votes)

    this is unusual.

    I am sorry that some people are disturbing this survey and discussion. Now we Japan have xenophobic youth who don't commit society and being cynical for social matters. This looks rather serious problem in Japan than right of local election for foreign residents, but this is relevant to why we have expectation of foreigner in Japan.

  • 0

    jtsj7

    Multiple Japan rightist sites post the address of this page and direct the viewer to come and vote no without leaving comment. This is very un-fortunate, but this type of survey is often disturbed with this type of organized vote...

  • 0

    39999

    Duty of paying tax and voting rights to local/ national election should not be discussed on the same ground. Because paying tax means the same as fee for the public services all the residents enjoys and shared. On the contrary, voting rights is to control and manage the governing of the nation. If an residents seek to participate the governing, they need to be the nationals to be truly responsible for the fate of his/ her own nation. I see no reason of giving voting rights to someone who keeps nationality of other country, means she/ he must primarily be responsible for its own country, not where they resides now.

  • 0

    cleo

    voting rights is to control and manage the governing of the nation

    You're talking about voting rights at the national level, and I agree with you; the governing of the nation is the prerogative of those who are nationals of the country in question.

    At the local level, though, things are completely different. Choosing the head of the local BoE and the design of the local public school uniform, deciding what time and how often the bin men should call, opening times of the public library or whether there should be a subsidised bus pass for local old folk, etc etc isn't going to affect the 'governing of the nation' one jot.

  • 0

    39999

    Just imagine one very small village where only elderly people live. One day so many non-nationals (or the bunch of one particular nation) gathered to this village after the government grant local voting rights. 1,000 votes is enough to become the village head and what will happen if such non-nationals exceed 1,000? Anyone can establish an enclave. And what will happen if this enclave pledges to one particular nation? Cannot grant local voting rights without preparing for the worst case scenario. And in Japan, freedom of speech and choice of residents are granted for any nationals as long as they obey the local rules and laws.

  • 0

    cleo

    39999 -

    And the advantage to 'one particular nation' of establishing an enclave in a very small village full of old folk would be....?

    Stopping the subsidised bus service? Why?

    If the aim of the 'enclave' was to put paranoia pills in the water supply, that job seems to have already been done for them.....

  • 0

    39999

    I said we are not prepared for the worst case scenario, that means terrorists group. Do not laugh, still a possible worst case in this far east. We do not have anti-espionage law, the current government was accusing LDP and deny this idea when it's discussed. Or simple patriotic behaviour is always denied by some permanent residents already. You are free to recommend anything to us but as long as you keep your original nationality, I can't say yes to such sweet talks without preparing for the worst cases, ultimately you are always free to return to your mother country, we will always be here and responsible for the mess.

  • 0

    cleo

    the worst case scenario, that means terrorists group. Do not laugh, still a possible worst case

    You mean like terrorists releasing sarin gas in the underground?

    Running around elementary schools stabbing children?

    Ploughing a motor vehicle into crowds of people in a pedestrian precinct?

    ultimately you are always free to return to your mother country

    Me personally, yes, so long as I don't mind leaving my life and family behind. What about the third- and fourth-generation Koreans, who to all intents and purposes are Japanese? Born here, raised here, Japan is their motherland. Telling folk who were born here, whose parents and grandparents were born here, that they're free to go 'back' to North Korea is on a par with telling African Americans they're free to go 'back' to an Africa they've never known. That's not my idea of 'responsible'.

    we will always be here and responsible for the mess.

    Glad you see that it is a mess. :-)

  • 0

    bellmary

    Last Henoko,Okinawa election result gave a clear and unquestionable "Proof" that a small local village politics can indeed affect nation's security / defense issue.

  • 0

    parapara2010

    Of course, those who are decent "permanent foreign residents" who contribute to the Japanese society are welcome to stay and if they really like to become part of Japan, then they can apply naturalization.

  • 0

    jtsj7

    I believe Japan need to convert “Special PR admission” to Japan nationality. There is a historical reason for people to have the admission, but it had been over 60 years since it had started and it is time to discontinue / simplify it.

    As a step, Japanese government needs to provide those people Japanese nationality. Those people become dual nationality upon the event, and in two years, they need to declare which nationality to select, which is the same rule as any multi citizenship person who has Japanese nationality. If the person prefers not to be Japanese but want to stay in Japan, the person can get regular PR admission. People who declares as Japanese citizen will receive voting right of course. Regular PR admission people should proactively naturalize to Japan to get a voting right.

    While the person is in Japan, even if the person has dual citizenship, the person is treated solely as Japanese. If the person acts for the benefit of the other nationality he/she belongs while in Japan, he/she can be prosecuted as Japanese.

  • 0

    victoria3188

    We have freedom to leave the country where we are not happy except communist countries. In the US, Australia and Canada, PR is not given the right for local election for national security reason.

    PR has no obligation to fight for the country in war time. Some EU countries do not issue PR visa. Most of Asian countries are not allowed dual citizenship. Because they are not immigrant country.

    I heard that Korean schools in Japan subsidied money-tax by Japanese government are teaching Anti-Japan probagand. what a joke!

    Being citizen in the country means you must fight for the country in war time. Dual citizenship is dangerous for national secutiry reason because Japan is surrounded by Anti-Japan countries which citizens live in Japan as PR. I understand Japan's situation.

  • 0

    cleo

    I understand Japan's situation.

    You understand Japan's constitution then, and Article 9. So what's all this rubbish about Japanese nationals having the obligation to fight for the country in war time?

  • 0

    39999

    Cleo>

    Did you know that the Article 9. is not purely agreed and arranged by all the Japanese? And the Japanese do have right to deffend for it when she is attacked.

  • 0

    cleo

    39999 -

    If you don't agree with the constitution and you are a Japanese citizen, you have every right to campaign for change. But until that change comes, it's still the constitution.

    And a 'right' is not an 'obligation'.

  • 0

    victoria3188

    cleo, You are right. 39999 just simply mixed the word. Be tolerant please.

    A Japanese citizen has obligation to fight to deffend Japan when she is attacked. I think 39999 used the word, 'right' probably meant that every nation has right to deffend herself. National security is very very important, as you know. It is like society need police and a person needs medical doctors. Surrounded by Anti-Japan countries, Japan must be cautious for its national security. My Japanese friend told me that they has no law to arrest spies because the then opposition parties were strongly against that. It is unbelieavable! How naive Japanese people are!! Cleo, do not pick my mistakes please!!

  • 0

    39999

    Nope, I meant that the Constitution Article.9 does not limit her defense power. Plus as victoria3188 said so, every human have the defense right. It is clear and so understood in our Diet.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in Poll

View all

View all