BENHABIB AND MILLER: Yale-NUS: In loco regiminis

Under the banal headline “Yale-NUS develops student group policies,” the News reported on an announcement by the governing board of this new institution. Yale-NUS policy “will prevent students from creating campus branches of existing Singaporean political parties, in accordance with the nation’s law.” Apparently, not even a junior branch of the ruling party — the PAP — will be allowed, and violators will no doubt be subjected to unspecified sanctions. Yale-NUS President Pericles Lewis says the “Singaporean government will only become involved if illegal activity does occur.” So Yale-NUS officers and deans will clearly be required to report violators to the government.

The announcement thus confirms what Lewis seems to have inadvertently leaked to the Wall Street Journal in July, barely two weeks after taking office (“Singapore’s Venture With Yale to Limit Protests,” WSJ, July 16, 2012). Quoting and paraphrasing Lewis in a moment of complete self-contradiction, the article reported: “Students at the new school ‘are going to be totally free to express their views,’ but they won’t be allowed to organize political protests on campus.” Lewis said he was misrepresented, but the WSJ stood by its story, and the second (paraphrased) part of the statement is now officially confirmed by the governing board of Yale-NUS. In fact, the new announcement is more severe than what the WSJ reported: it is not just protest that is banned, but also political groups themselves.

A small but global firestorm followed the WSJ story. “Human Rights Watch Blasts Yale for Singapore Rules,” reported Foreign Policy, referring to a press release by HRW that criticized Yale for “betraying the spirit of the university as a center of open debate and protest by giving away the rights of its students. Instead of defending these rights, Yale buckled when faced with Singapore’s draconian laws on demonstrations and policies restricting student groups.” The News rightly editorialized: “Freedom is an afterthought to Yale’s venture into Singapore” (“Yale-NUS Students Deserve Free Speech,” July 23, 2012).

In the midst of this summer controversy, the only thing redeeming Yale’s reputation was the fact that the Yale faculty had voiced its reservations (not even its opposition) through a resolution adopted in March. (The resolution was denounced as “unbecoming” by President Richard Levin.)

The new announcement also specifies that “clubs that show disrespect for specific religions or racial groups” will be banned. This apparently unexceptionable prohibition — seemingly but only seemingly akin to “speech codes” in force on certain American campuses — takes on a different weight in Singapore, where Section 377A of the legal code bans male homosexual acts. What if the very fact of homosexuality and the active pursuit of LGBT rights are deemed “disrespectful of specific religions”? In a world where many religions condemn homosexuality, and in a country where the continuing ban on male homosexual acts is often explained as a political necessity attributable to religious pressure, this is not a far-fetched scenario.

So now it is official: an institution bearing Yale’s name — headed by professors and staff taken from Yale-New Haven — is in the business of restricting the rights of students. Yale–NUS students will not enjoy full political freedom, nor full freedom of association or speech. The officials of Yale-NUS will make sure that “partisan or political campaigning and fund-raising” do not take place on their campus. Instead of being in loco parentis, Yale-NUS will operate in loco regiminis — in the place of the state. This is hardly the foundation for a renewal of the liberal arts.

Comments

  • iggis

    Well, let’s face it… the taxonomy for many Yale students is “in loco dickis”.

  • NEWater

    As a Singaporean who has been observing and commenting on this quagmire for a while, the only thing I can say is:

    *Were you expecting anything else?*

    This is what you get for selling your soul to the devil. Get your new president or acting president to pull out if you know what is good for you.

  • The Anti-Yale

    So now it gets interesting.

    We will see what stuff Yale faculty and Yale Daily News journalists are made of.

    We already know what Woodbridge Hall is madfe of.

    HINT —–a five letter word that begins with “m” and ends with “y”.

    • Jess

      I thought “malarkey” had eight letters.

  • ldffly

    Among many objections to this project, one of mine has been related to faculty liberties. Not whether they can protest, but whether these political restrictions might impinge on research. I have yet to read any discussion of this question. I cannot believe that there will not be censoring/self censoring of research.

    I, too, hope that the plug is pulled on this thing. However, I think it will only happen if the project is insufficiently profitable.

    • andrew_bailey

      ldffly,

      I know the Yale-NUS faculty quite well. Given what I know, self-censorship in research strikes me as *very* unlikely. Not only do we not *plan* on self-censoring, we’re just not that tame or well-behaved! Further, the kind of faculty who leave tenured jobs at Michigan, Yale, Ohio State, and the like for posts all the way across the world are hardly the kind of faculty who are likely to be cowed into, say, abandoning a fruitful line of research because it might rock the boat.

      I’ve also seen no evidence that censorship of research (imposed, by, say Singapore’s Ministry of Education) is likely. Faculty who have already worked at NUS are perhaps the best resources for thinking about this possibility, and given what they’ve told me, I’d say their experience tells strongly against that happening.

      Cheers,

      -[Andrew][1] (Yale-NUS, Humanities/Philosophy)

      [1]: http://www.andrewmbailey.com/

  • The Anti-Yale

    “I have yet to read any discussion of this question.”

    I’ve been bringing this up for months: The chilling effect on thought itself in an environment where the voicing of ideas can bring economic and career “retribution”

  • cbailyn

    This op-ed and recent YDN reporting portray the Yale-NUS student group policy in terms much more negative than the facts warrant. In fact, every student group that currently exists at Yale would be allowed to form, with two exceptions. Those exceptions are the Yale Democrats and the Yale Republicans – but even then students, faculty and staff could, and doubtless would, join off-campus branches of government and opposition parties. Unlike some student group policies in Singapore in the past, It does not include any requirement that groups register with the government, nor does it restrict membership in political groups by non-Singaporean citizens. Also, the YDN was incorrect in saying that groups will be restricted if they “disrespect” religion – the restriction is on actively “promoting racial and religious strife”, a much higher bar, similar to the “hate speech” codes that exist on many American college campuses. We note also that Yale’s non-discrimination policy is adopted by reference for the student group policy. We look forward to supporting student groups, and other educational and extra-curricular activities, as active and diverse as those at Yale when the new College opens next August.

    Charles Bailyn
    Inaugural Dean of Faculty
    Yale-NUS College

    • yalie1420

      To clarify: when you say that the only two student groups that would not be allowed to form are the Yale Democrats and the Yale Republicans. But what about the many other student groups that make political campaigning and protest a large part of their mission (SUN, for example, often canvasses door to door for local election candidates)? Sure, students at Yale-NUS could “form” a group with the same name as many at Yale — they just wouldn’t be able to do anything!

  • yellowasp

    I can’t carry a gun on campus. Where the hell are my 2nd amendment rights here? Fix that first before whining about the lack of rights elsewhere.

  • rayner_t

    Is getting your application to form a student organization rejected, an “unspecified sanction”? Or have Professors Benhabib and Miller let their imaginations run wild on this one? Because there’s no legal or policy basis in Singapore for any ‘sanctions’ beyond that.

    The ban on campus branches of established national parties is, as has already been clarified, not a ban on political parties and groups that are NOT affiliated with established national parties. I think Professors B & M are misreading this when they assert “it is not just protest that is banned, but also political groups themselves.”

    As for their point on “illegal activity”, I’m amused that Professors B & M are using the word ‘clearly’ to cover up their assumption–because that’s what it is, a mere assumption–that Yale-NUS administrators and faculty will have to report violations to the police. Setting aside the sorts of illegal acts that we all (hopefully) agree ought to be reported (rape, murder, selling drugs, making bombs, that kind of stuff) it is not clear at all that they have a responsibility to report every or indeed *any* violation to the government or the police. Saying that “the government will only get involved if X”, is not the same as saying that “Yale-NUS faculty and administrators will be required to get the government involved”. This is a misreading that is at best uncharitable, at worst scaremongering.

    When Professors B & M call their own resolution “the only thing redeeming Yale’s reputation”, that might be true in their own opinion (which they are well entitled to), but the sheer egocentrism of trumpteting it thus is, to me, quite nauseating. Did they just become the self-appointed guardians of Yale’s weighty reputation?

    And it seems to me that the continued and untroubled existence of Pink Dot over four years, and the NUS Gender Collective since last year, confirms that it is possible to pursue LGBT rights without being disrespectful of religion. Of course anyone can easily find ways to be offensive. Need they? No. But Professors B & M assume that there is no other way to push LGBT rights than to be disrespectful of religion or specific religions. I think that just underestimates the astounding energy and creativity of LGBT rights movements all round the world.

    This op-ed merely serves to illustrate how words and logic can be twisted into anything they like in pursuit of their aims. It’s a crying shame.

  • jorge_julio

    sounds great to me. yale would be much better if the college dems didn’t exist.

  • andrewyhui

    I agree with rayner_t’s response. Profs. Benhabib and Miller’s piece contain at least two logical fallacies:
    The statement “So Yale-NUS officers and deans will clearly be required to report violators to the government” does not follow “Yale-NUS President Pericles Lewis says the ‘Singaporean government will only become involved if illegal activity does occur.’ ” because there is no assertion of agency from Lewis.

    Second, as Charles Bailyn said, “promoting racial and religious strife” is categorically different than “disrespecting” religion. Every American campus also has community standards which everyone must abide by. Furthermore, the government of Singapore has repeatedly tried to repeal 377A, and has explicitly stated that it will not be enforced. So I’m not sure what Benhabib and Miller are inferring when they ask “What if the very fact of homosexuality and the active pursuit of LGBT rights are deemed “disrespectful of specific religions”?”

    There are many things that make the Yale-NUS project worthwhile, one of which is rethinking and redefining higher learning in the 21st century. As a member of the humanities faculty, we are working hard this year to develop a common curriculum that introduces to students the foundation of the liberal arts and sciences. I look forward to cultivating in my students the power of intellectual inquiry that frees us from the received prejudices of our society.

    Andrew Hui

    Yale-NUS College

    Assistant Professor of Humanities (Literature)

    • Rek

      Since we’re talking about accurate quotes, what the Prime Minister of Singapore actually said, in 2007, was that Section 377A will not be “proactively enforced”. In point of fact, the law has been enforced since then, at least as recently as 2010 (http://www.fridae.asia/newsfeatures/2010/09/27/10325.singapore-gay-advocacy-group-questions-use-of-section-377a) in a case that is still making its way through the courts in 2012.

      As for the “disrespectful of specific religions” question, a number of religious groups in the U.S. proclaim that their faiths are impinged upon by the advance of gay rights. We see these arguments used against anti-bullying protections, the repeal of DADT, the repeal of DOMA, gay adoptions, etc. Just recently, there was the case of a Maryland representative trying to silence a Baltimore Ravens player because of his pro-LGBT advocacy. Fortunately, we have free speech rights in the U.S.

      I don’t know to what extent this dynamic exists in Singapore, but it’s a reasonable concern for Americans, unfamiliar with political proscriptions, to raise.

  • clmiller

    From Christopher L. Miller
    A few points of response:

    –about the resolution. It was initially proposed by Professor Benhabib, that is true. But once it was voted on, with a decisive majority, by the assembled Yale College Faculty, it became the resolution of that body—that collegium, as a whole. It is that body that can and should take pride in having stood up for human rights.

    –to andrewyhui who writes: “the government of Singapore has repeatedly tried to repeal 377A, and has explicitly stated that it will not be enforced.” Prof Hui needs to read the essay by NUS law professor Michael Hor, available on the “Yale and Singapore” joinable web site on the classesv2 server. “Enforcement of 377A: Entering the Twilight Zone”—makes it clear, authoritatively, that 377A is being applied and enforced in Singapore, as a secondary, “aggravating” offense that can be negotiated. This is being done without any “legitimate or sensible reason,” since in each case, the offense is covered by other statutes. It is clear that 377A is being preserved as a tool for intimidation. The Attorney General said in 2008: “It [homosexuality] is still against the law and we still prosecute if there’s a need… we are not going to go after them if nobody complains…” (quoted in Hor). If nobody complains.

    –This final paragraph was deleted from our essay: “We urge members of the Yale community to inform themselves about this project. The best way to do so is to join the web site “Yale and Singapore” on the classesv2 server, available to anyone with a valid Yale net ID. (Go to Membership; Options; Joinable Sites.) The archive of news and opinions (from all points of view) that is found there is considerable.” Those without Yale net ID’s can write to any of the maintainers of the site (including me: christopher.miller@yale.edu) to ask to be added manually.

    Continued in second comment below.

  • clmiller

    From Christopher L. Miller, continued:
    –Furthermore, a correspondent who is unable to log in to the comments section writes this (it is long); the lines below here are from my correspondent, not me:

    “In a posting above, Mr Bailyn has noted that “It (this ‘It’ is presumably Singapore legislation) does not include any requirement that groups register with the government, nor does it restrict membership in political groups by non-Singaporean citizens.

    Might I suggest that the executive and administrative members of the Yale-NUS initiative familiarize themselves with the legislation of Singapore, and particularly the Societies Act, before making unfounded claims about freedoms likely to be enjoyed on the forthcoming campus.

    Essentially, the Societies Act requires that any body or organisation in Singapore falling within the Scheduled Societies rubric must be registered by the Registrar. Article 14 of that Act states that any society not being so registered shall be deemed
    an “unlawful” society.

    The Scheduled Societies list includes:

    1. Any society whose object, purpose or activity, whether primary or otherwise, is to —
    (a)represent;
    (b)promote any cause or interest of; or
    (c) discuss any issue relating to,
    any religion, ethnic group, clan, nationality or a class of persons defined by reference to their gender or sexual orientation.
    2. Any political association.
    3. Any society which uses the word “National” or “Singapore” in its name, except where the word “Singapore” or any abbreviation thereof is used to indicate the society’s place of registration.
    4. Any society whose object, purpose or activity, whether primary or otherwise, is to —
    (a)represent persons who advocate;
    (b)promote; or
    (c)discuss any issue relating to,
    any civil or political right (including human rights, environmental rights and animal rights).
    5. Any society whose object, purpose or activity, whether primary or otherwise, is to discuss any matter relating to the governance of the Singapore society.
    6. Any society whose object, purpose or activity, whether primary or otherwise, is to promote or discuss the use or status of any language.
    7. Any society which is formed under the instruction of a foreign government or an organisation affiliated to a foreign government.
    8. Any society which is formed under the instruction of a foreign organisation or is affiliated to a foreign organisation or whose major source of funding is from outside Singapore, but does not include the Rotaract Club, the Rotary Club, the Toastmaster’s Club and the Lions Club.
    9. Any alumni of an educational institution that is not established in Singapore.
    Therefore, contrary to what Mr Bailyn claims, under the Societies Act, any body organised on campus or anywhere else in Singapore with any political (or indeed social or environmental reform) aspirations must be registered by the Registrar.

    continued below…

  • clmiller

    From correspondent of Christopher L. Miller, last part:

    Mr Bailyn also falsely claims that Singapore does not restrict membership in political groups by non-Singaporean citizens. Under Article 4.2 of the Societies Act, “The Registrar shall refuse to register a specified society if he is satisfied that —

    (e)in the case of any specified society which is a political association, its rules do not provide for its membership to be confined to citizens of Singapore or it has such affiliation or connection with any organisation outside Singapore as is considered by the Registrar to be contrary to the national interest.”

    Thus any society considered a “political association” (and this includes political parties) must restrict its membership to Singapore citizens, and those outside these societies (including all non-citizens) obviously cannot legally participate in anything construed as “political” activities.

    The Societies Act is available here:

    http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=0;query=DocId%3Ad6e38654-0cee-4c7e-bfde-18b1bad85bf8%20%20Status%3Ainforce%20Depth%3A0;rec=0

    Further information on these and other provisions can be found here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_14_of_the_Constitution_of_Singapore
    —–

  • cbailyn

    In response to Prof. Miller’s comment. We have had extensive discussions with the Singaporean Ministry of Education on these matters. My understanding of the outcome of those conversations is that the situation with respect to student groups at Yale-NUS is as I described.

    - Charles Bailyn

  • clmiller

    From Christopher Miller and Seyla Benhabib:

    If in fact Mr. Bailyn is correct, then this suggests that Yale-NUS will be
    operating under a different set of laws than foreseen by the Singaporean
    constitution. If this is so, why is the Yale community, whose name after all
    this new venture still bears, not informed of the “founding agreement” or
    “document” of Yale-NUS? We have asked repeatedly that it be released, but it still remains secret. Or, as indicated by Dean Bailyn’s latest posting, will Yale-NUS operate on oral arrangements, “conversations” and “understandings”?

  • The Anti-Yale

    I see not a fiscal cliff in front of Yale but a human rights cliff. The Y Corp will walk off it and drag the new president with them. This is fascinating blunder.

  • clmiller

    From my correspondent, in further response to Bailyn:

    “What Mr. Bailyn asserts above is that NUS-Yale students and staff will enjoy extra-territorial rights within Singapore—a quite remarkable claim given the circumstances.

    I can assure him that neither the Ministry of Education nor NUS can make extra-territorial arrangements with other parties and that the Singapore state will not do so. All staff and students will be fully subject to the laws of Singapore.

    It is incumbent upon Mr Bailyn to either withdraw his initial claims that the arrangement “does not include any requirement that groups register with the government, nor does it restrict membership in political groups by non-Singaporean citizens,” or publicly state the basis on which NUS-Yale staff and students will not be subject to Singapore legislation, and particularly the Societies Act.”

  • clmiller

    My correspondent has requested anonymity, as so many do in this context. He has authorized me to say that he has been living in Singapore for 10 years and works at an institution of higher education there.
    –CLM

  • The Anti-Yale

    There’s a whiff of Neville Chamberlain in the air.

  • The Anti-Yale

    Would Mulala Yousufzai be allowed to speak and organize on Yale-NUS campus?

  • rayner_t

    Although I think that the authorship of the resolution should have been declared in the op-ed, Professor Miller’s clarification regarding the resolution is well-taken.

    I would also urge everyone to join the classesv2 “Yale and Singapore” site, although readers should be made aware that occasionally–very occasionally–material has been posted without notification. I’m sure, of course, this is attributable to honest error.

    I’m also glad that Professor Miller’s correspondent has made him aware of the provisions of the Societies Act, including the restrictions on citizenship. I was concerned about this myself, but there appears to have been a workaround offered to the registration issue. Professors Miller and Benhabib [and Professor Miller's correspondent] seem to assume that Singapore’s laws are airtight–but as is widely known, for better or for worse there is a good deal of operating discretion built into them. As a long-standing example: co-curricular activities in the junior colleges are not required to register under the Societies Act, nor are Student Interest Groups at NUS. This has got nothing to do with extraterritoriality; I’m quite puzzled as to why Professor Miller['s correspondent] thinks that extraterritoriality is relevant here, or that Yale-NUS will operate under some other country’s laws or no laws at all. S/he’s absolutely right in saying that all staff and students will be fully subject to the laws of Singapore.

    So given all that has been said about the issue, and the fact that the Singapore government is well aware of the immense weight the Yale community rightly attaches to it (i.e., they know this is a deal-breaker), I think that the question of undergraduate organization registration ought to be treated as an empirical one to be settled when the students matriculate, not just a theoretical one to be tossed about endlessly over the internet. For sure, caution and continued vigilance is justified; on the other hand, I think many well-wishers have been chipping in on the sidelines so that Yale-NUS goes into Singapore with both eyes open. Professors Benhabib and Miller are leaning towards what I fear is an unnecessarily combative, adversarial stance, which, if adopted by Yale-NUS, could so easily jeopardize the project.

    I apologize for not disclosing my identity earlier; a careless omission on my part. Like the “Yale and Singapore” classesv2 moderators, one can occasionally forget about these little details.

    Rayner Teo (MC ’14)

  • Darden

    Perhaps the policies of the College should be made clearer in order to put some of these concerns to rest.

    Let me be completely clear: Yale-NUS college faculty will not in any way restrict the political expression of our students. Nor are we expected to. We have been hired to encourage student expression and train them to articulate their views with clarity and force.

    Are there laws in Singapore that restrict political organization and expression? Yes. Is it the job of the College or the faculty to enforce them? No. Has the negotiation process between Yale and NUS effectively eliminated any meaningful restrictions on expression for faculty and students? For faculty…yes. For students…probably. And if not, it certainly won’t be the faculty and staff of Yale-NUS College that are tasked with enforcement. In loco regimnis we are not.

    It’s fine to speculate without facts, but less forgivable when the facts are close at hand. Chris, Seyla…you know where to find us if you have any questions.

    Keith Darden
    (Yale-NUS faculty)

  • clmiller

    According to the Wall St Journal this summer, Pericles Lewis **said** that political protests will not be permitted on campus. He disputed the quote, and issued this “transcript” version (posted on classesv2)–”in terms of organized protests heading off campus, they would have to obey Singaporean laws. But I think there will be a lot of opportunities for people to have political debates in the classroom and as well as outside the classroom. People can have groups to discuss politics on campus, you can discuss political parties but not establish political parties on campus.”

    In this and in the recent announcement, it is clear that Yale-NUS, pace Professor Darden, **will** be in the business of restricting political expression: you cannot ban political parties without doing so, period. Lewis’s statement above also leaves it unclear whether protests are permitted on campus or simply barred from moving off campus. Either situation will put Yale-NUS in a restrictive position.

    Professor Darden’s statement that “Yale-NUS college faculty will not in any way restrict the political expression of our students” is directly contradicted first and most obviously by the ban on political parties, but also by a quote that has not been disputed in the YDN article: “Lewis said that apart from branches of existing political parties, the only student groups that will not be allowed on campus are clubs that show disrespect for specific religions or racial groups. He added that Kyle Farley, who became Yale-NUS dean of students on Sept. 28, will be responsible for preventing the creation of any such groups on a day-to-day basis. Yale-NUS administrators will advise students not to engage in illegal activities, Lewis said, adding that the Singaporean government will only become involved if illegal activity does occur.” Dean Farley will therefore be performing precisely the work of the Singaporean state, applying its standards of “disrespect,” and he and/or other administrators will help students stay within the bounds of the law, including, necessarily, through self-censorship. And exactly how will the “Singaporean government become involved” if Yale-NUS does not cooperate with authorities and obey the law, as they are required to do? If a policy like the banning of “disrespect” (or hate speech) were being put in place in a liberal-democratic context with a robust tradition of free expression, it might be different. But this is Singapore.

    CONTINUED BELOW

  • clmiller

    Prof Darden, is “probably” a sound enough basis on which to establish a new institution bearing Yale’s name? Certainly not.

    In short: Yale-NUS officials need to establish once and for all, with documentation: is there or is there not a “bubble” of special rights and exemptions that will protect Yale-NUS, its students and faculty? Will Yale-NUS be exempt from Singaporean law? We have been getting mixed signals on this from the beginning. My well-informed correspondent in Singapore says such a thing is impossible. If such a deal has been struck, the text of it must be revealed.

    The pattern continues: news about restrictions at Yale-NUS causes controversy and brings discredit to Yale; the leaders of the project claim they were misrepresented; in their clarifications, things shift. The lines are always moving. “Perhaps the policies of the College should be made clearer” indeed. The only way to get that started is to finally–after repeated requests–reveal the original contract with the Singaporean government. I was told this summer it would never see the light of day.

    –Christopher L. Miller

  • gzuckier

    Given how effectively Yale has erected a wall between itself and New Haven, it should do well pretending it’s not really within Singapore.

  • Pingback: Exporting the Ivory Tower | New Iraqi Dinar

  • Pingback: dedicated server

  • Pingback: please click the next internet page

  • Pingback: simply click the up coming web site

  • Pingback: visit the next internet site

  • Pingback: linked internet page

  • Pingback: related web page

  • Pingback: relevant web-site

  • Pingback: please click the following internet site

  • Pingback: simply click the up coming website

  • Pingback: Read Even more

  • Pingback: This Web page

  • Pingback: Read the Full Report

  • Pingback: sources

  • Pingback: article source

  • Pingback: click through the following document

  • Pingback: click through the following web page

  • Pingback: Continue Reading

  • Pingback: Suggested Site

  • Pingback: linked website

  • Pingback: Check This Out

  • Pingback: More Help

  • Pingback: click the following webpage

  • Pingback: Read Full Report

  • Pingback: mouse click the up coming internet site

  • Pingback: mouse click the next web page

  • Pingback: More methods

  • Pingback: Read More In this article

  • Pingback: resources

  • Pingback: please click the next webpage

  • Pingback: related website

  • Pingback: This Web page

  • Pingback: this website

  • Pingback: mouse click the up coming webpage

  • Pingback: simply click the next site

  • Pingback: Read More At this website

  • Pingback: please click

  • Pingback: Read Even more

  • Pingback: simply click the following internet page

  • Pingback: simply click the next website

  • Pingback: click the next webpage

  • Pingback: click the next internet page

  • Pingback: Full Write-up

  • Pingback: Home Page

  • Pingback: Going to

  • Pingback: More methods

  • Pingback: click the next document

  • Pingback: linked resource site

  • Pingback: relevant web-site

  • Pingback: source

  • Pingback: click the up coming site

  • Pingback: related resource site

  • Pingback: Extra resources

  • Pingback: resource for this article

  • Pingback: visit the up coming document

  • Pingback: click the following document

  • Pingback: Full Guide

  • Pingback: Read Far more

  • Pingback: just click the up coming site

  • Pingback: linked web page

  • Pingback: similar internet site

  • Pingback: please click the following post

  • Pingback: Read the Full Article

  • Pingback: please click the up coming post

  • Pingback: related website

  • Pingback: Recommended Web-site

  • Pingback: source

  • Pingback: visit the next web page

  • Pingback: simply click the up coming post

  • Pingback: stay with me

  • Pingback: click the following website

  • Pingback: click the following web page

  • Pingback: click the up coming site

  • Pingback: Full Review

  • Pingback: Read Even more

  • Pingback: just click the following internet site

  • Pingback: More Tips

  • Pingback: Look At This

  • Pingback: resource for this article

  • Pingback: click through the up coming page

  • Pingback: mouse click the following internet site

  • Pingback: click through the next web site

  • Pingback: please click the next internet page

  • Pingback: Continuing

  • Pingback: just click the next document

  • Pingback: related web page

  • Pingback: similar resource site

  • Pingback: visit the next document

  • Pingback: click the next internet page

  • Pingback: visit the next web site

  • Pingback: please click the up coming post

  • Pingback: linked internet page

  • Pingback: main page

  • Pingback: relevant web-site

  • Pingback: mouse click the following web page

  • Pingback: mouse click the following website page

  • Pingback: similar web-site

  • Pingback: visit the next web site

  • Pingback: Additional Info

  • Pingback: click the following page

  • Pingback: click through the following internet site

  • Pingback: click through the following internet site

  • Pingback: click through the up coming page

  • Pingback: click through the next site

  • Pingback: similar internet site

  • Pingback: Read More

  • Pingback: similar web page

  • Pingback: mouse click the up coming internet site

  • Pingback: next page

  • Pingback: relevant internet site

  • Pingback: click through the next website page

  • Pingback: Full Piece of writing

  • Pingback: Read More

  • Pingback: click the up coming post

  • Pingback: click through the following post

  • Pingback: click through the next website

  • Pingback: Continue

  • Pingback: Go Here

  • Pingback: simply click the up coming site

  • Pingback: Suggested Web site

  • Pingback: Highly recommended Webpage

  • Pingback: just click the following website

  • Pingback: Suggested Web site

  • Pingback: similar web page

  • Pingback: Read Far more

  • Pingback: related internet page

  • Pingback: click through the following web site

  • Pingback: simply click the up coming internet site

  • Pingback: mouse click the up coming internet site

  • Pingback: just click the following webpage

  • Pingback: just click the next webpage

  • Pingback: Going On this site

  • Pingback: just click the next post

  • Pingback: visit the up coming internet page

  • Pingback: click through the following website page

  • Pingback: This Web site

  • Pingback: visit the following internet page

  • Pingback: Highly recommended Internet page

  • Pingback: just click the up coming website

  • Pingback: linked resource site

  • Pingback: relevant site

  • Pingback: please click for source

  • Pingback: similar web page

  • Pingback: simply click the up coming article

  • Pingback: related webpage

  • Pingback: supplemental resources

  • Pingback: This Internet page

  • Pingback: visit the following website

  • Pingback: click the next web page

  • Pingback: mouse click the up coming document

  • Pingback: Suggested Resource site