May 13: A coup to oust Tunku

I bought some copies at the book launch this morning. The declassified documents were sufficient to help readers to understand what has taken place in 1969. But I was a little disappointed that there was no solid and concrete records on the actual number of casualties (total deaths and injuries).

The publisher of the book, Suaram, has suggested to establish a commission of truth to get to the bottom of the May 13 Incident.

Both panelists (Dr Syed Husin Ali and Dr S Nagarajan) agreed with the findings and conclusion made by Dr Kua Kia Soong, that May 13 was not a spontaneous racial outburst but a coup staged by the Malay ultras at that time.

The biggest beneficiary of May 13 was Razak. He practically controlled the country through the National Operation Council (NOC), the new powerhouse of politics in Malaysia. 

Who were those involved besides Razak? Tunku himself has alleged : ” You know Harun was one of those-Harun, Mahathir, Ghazali Shafie-who were all working with Razak to oust me, to take over my place…”

I foresee that this book will inevitably kick up a storm in the national political arena. Umno is now under pressure to explain its role during the darkest hours of our nation. Umno leaders who were being mentioned in the book would most likely be the first to rebut vehemently (or at least give their sides of the story). 

The 134-page book was sold at only RM20 per copy. Grab a copy before it was banned by the Umno-led BN goverment.

 513事件是推翻东姑政变
学者促政府还原历史真相

■日期/May 13, 2007   ■时间/03:28:24 pm
■新闻/家国风云   ■作者/MerdekaReview.com 陈慧思
           
【本刊陈慧思撰述】在“513事件”遭“神话”了整整38年的今日,学者兼民权工作者柯嘉逊试图还原“513事件”的真相,为这个困扰我国各族人民38年的历史事迹去神话。发生在1969年5月13日的“513事件”38年来被官方定论为“种族冲突事件”,柯嘉逊(右图)根据史料挑战这项说法。他根据英国解密史料分析出,这宗困扰改变我国政治生态的历史大事件并非一起种族冲突事件,而是一起巫统精英策谋的政变!鉴于官方说法已经站不住脚,马来西亚人民之声(Suara Malaysia,简称“SUARAM”)和柯嘉逊呼吁我国政府成立独立的“还原513事件真相”委员会,展开公开听证会收集目击者的口供和看法,还原这个历史事迹的真相。柯嘉逊从伦敦西郊国立植物公园(Kew Gardens)的公共档案舘发掘了一批解密文件;这批解密文件显示,“513事件”并非突发事件,反之是一次有计划的行动,目的是推翻第一任首相东姑阿都拉曼(Tunku Abdul Rahman)的政权。

柯嘉逊断然指出:“马来西亚1969年5月13日的种族暴乱,绝非多元族群社会中自发的种族暴乱。有关的撤銷保密的文件清楚表明,发动这场种族暴乱是有计划的行动。”

配合“513事件”的周年日,马来西亚人民之声(Suara Malaysia,简称“SUARAM”)今日上午在隆雪中华大会堂,为柯逊博士新著《513 – 1969年暴动之解密文件》举办推介礼暨举办“回顾513事件:独立后的种族关系与国家团结”讲座会,邀请柯嘉逊、学者兼人民公正党署理主席赛胡先阿里(Syed Husin Ali)和学者那卡拉贞主讲,吸引约120人与会。

赛胡先阿里符合柯说法

柯嘉逊指出,“513事件”是新兴马來官僚资产阶级推翻马來贵族阶层的政变;依照东姑阿都拉曼的说法,政变的主事人很可能就是当时的副首相阿都拉萨(Abdul Razak)和雪兰莪州州务大臣哈伦依特里斯(Harun Idris),其同谋尚包括了在位22年的前首相马哈迪。

马来亚大学前社会学教授的赛胡先(Syed Husin Ali)和甘榜美丹事件研究学者纳嘉拉贞(S. Nagarajan)皆认同,“513事件”乃一起由巫统内部斗争所策划的事件,甚于一起民间种族情绪高涨所引发的暴动。

1969年大选,联盟遭到自独立以來的一次最慘重的失败,它还甚至可能失去一些州立法议会的控制权。官方历史把在野党的游行庆祝视为“513事件”的燃火线,可是,柯嘉逊指出,许多观察家认为,在野党喜悅欢腾和大事庆祝,并不可能成为暴徒们行凶的借口。反之,制造暴动的很可能是图谋推翻东姑夺权的巫统领导人。

柯嘉逊引用1977年一名新闻工作者苏吉拉迪夫的话:“‘513事件’并不是自发的。它是经过快速精心计划的。这事件计划者的身份,还无法准确地说出來。不论它如何发生,“513事件”是針对东姑阿都拉曼的一项政变。虽然他继续担任首相兼巫统主席,但是他仅仅是一个有名无实的傀儡。其实,东姑从此大权旁落。”

柯嘉逊在书中指出,到了1969年,后殖民主义的发展引起工人和农民以及一部分中产阶级的不滿。在求职与受教育,獲取奖學金和执照方面,国家所采取的歧视性政策,令他们感到不滿。

原本在马来西亚政治前景中占优势的联盟,他们在1969年大选中显得黯然失色。巫统至高无上的权力被认为已受到威胁。这一切等于给官僚资产阶级发出讯号,应以“马來人具主导地位”的名义,进行夺取政权的计划。

柯嘉逊是在其新书《513 – 1969年暴动之解密文件》(左图)中作出上述披露。他在书中把“513事件”喻为“关鍵性的政治起义”。他指出:“它改变了马来西亚政治史,确保新兴马來资产阶级的崛起,并通过‘新经济政策’,鞏固他们的政治势力。”

鉴于“513事件”的官方说法已经为英国解密文件动摇,且在“513事件”发生以来政府从未正式对这段历史展开深入的研究,人民之声执行主任叶瑞生、柯嘉逊和赛胡先皆呼吁政府成立“还原真相委员会”,趁当时的目击者尚健在,就这起冰封的历史展开深入的研究。赛胡先也呼吁政府公开官方文件,助人民辨明真相。

柯嘉逊是人民之声的理事,他曾于1987年“茅草行动”期间在《内安法令》下被扣留445天。获释后协助成立人民之声,随后参政并于1995年获选为八打灵再也区国会议员。柯嘉逊是英国曼彻斯特大学经济学士,后在同一所大学考获博士学位,他目前是新纪元学院院长。

“513事件”影响深远

官方数据显示,1969年5月13日国內骚乱期间,有196人丧失生命,180人被枪伤,259人被武噐所致伤。根据“国家行动理事会”的报告,9,143人被逮捕,其中有5,561人被控上法庭。在暴乱过程中,6千人无家可归,至少有211只车辆被毁坏或损坏,而753所建築物被大火烧毁或损坏。

柯嘉逊的书显示,当时国际通讯记者所计算的死伤人数遠遠超过上述数据。他也说:“当局刻意把受害者属于哪一种族的事实掩盖起來。但是,众所周知,大部分的受害人是华人。”

 “513事件”长期以来因涉及种族冲突,被编为社会议论的禁忌,我国官方历史书仅简单交待该起事件为“种族冲突事件”,没有多加阐述,以致“513事件”38年来皆作为“种族冲突”的符号存在着。柯嘉逊的新著,进一步验证了民间传送的另一个版本的历史:“513事件”实则是巫统内部斗争所引发的政变。

新经济政策是1969年5月13日种族冲突惨剧的产物,政府在“513事件”后制订为期20年的新经济政策(1971-1990),其两大目标为重组社会与消除贫穷。新经济政策结束后,国阵政府在1991年6月公布“国家发展政策”(1991-2000),以取代新经济政策,强调经济平衡发展,基础工业多元化,重视人力资源开发。
 
虽然新经济政策的20年期限结束了,它仍是一个塑造今日马来西亚的政策,甚至可说是塑造马来西亚人生活、经济、政治的最重要因素。新经济政策向来被视为“土著至上”的经济政策,让马来人土著享有巨大优惠,扶持马来资产阶级。

近年来,土著特权以“土著仍旧落后他族”之名扩大至所有与政府有密切关联的领域,银行业以土著股权为准绳挑选指定律师楼便是一例。此外,自从“513事件”发生后,每当大选来临而我国的政权的现状遭受威胁时(如1990年大选、1999年大选),“513事件”就被亮出,恐吓人民一旦国阵政权或马来人地位被动摇,“513事件”便会重演。

这起骚动,俨然国阵稳住政权的秘密武器。还原“513事件”的真相,有助于破解“必须维持现状,才能维持国家稳定”的迷思。

12 Responses to “May 13: A coup to oust Tunku”

  1. ronnieliutiankhiew Says:

    Communists played no part in ‘ May 13 ‘ riots
    James Wong
    @Clare Street

    After attending the launching forum of May 13 – Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969 (Petaling Jaya, Suaram, 2007) and flipping through the book, I have absolutely no doubt that it is indeed a very important publication for many years to come but editor Dr. Kua Kia Soong has also stated that it is not a definative account of the tragedy yet and other are welcome to contribute to the rational search for truth.

    PP.43-45 of the book also published for the first time previously classified records of even British intelligence disbelieving Tunku’s blame on the “communists” for the riots which were, in the assessment of Kua, ” a coup d’etat against the Tunku by the then emergent Malay state capitalists – backed by the police and army to seize control of the reign of power from the old aristocrats … “.

    Responding to a point put forward by this blogger, retired senior Special Branch officer and former Sarawak police commissioner Dato’ Seri Yuen Yuet Leng who also attended the launching forum, publicly conceded that “communists would never start racial riots”.

    A middle-aged Kelantanese Chinese Mr. Ong testified that Chinese felt safe in PAS strongholds at that time while another speaker Dr. Syed Husin Ali observed that there were also no riots in other Malay-majority states like Perlis, Kedah, Trengganu and Pahang.

  2. ronnieliutiankhiew Says:

    Yes, there was no racial upheaval in Pahang. Credit must be given to the late Sultan Abu Bakar of Pahang; he came out openly to urge all his subjects of all races in Pahang to remain calm and friendly to each other. He warned that stern actions will be taken to whoever started the trouble.

    I was only 11 at that time. The entire Chinese new village (Cheroh, Raub) where my family was living was mobilised to watch, guard and protect each other just in case intruders do invade our village.

    There was a false alarm in one of the nights but there was no single incidence throughout the turbulent times. The false alarm was, in itself, dreadful; imagine if it was real.

  3. ronnieliutiankhiew Says:

    Former police top gun Dato Seri Yuen Yuet Leng was a special branch officer at that time. He said he will be publishing a book some time in June or July this year. Watch out for the book because he will be relating some of the encounters he had during May 13.

  4. toyolbuster Says:

    Where can I get this book. Went to 2 bookshops but don’t seem to be available.

  5. vt Says:

    Can’t find the book down south, went to 3 shops but couldn’t find it yet.

    must be interesting t5o see TDM’s face, had always known that this guy is slimey, but to do what they did that to the Father of Independence is unthinkable, trecherous and very un-Malaysian like.

    those who were involve in this plot should be flogged and made a national example of cowadice and trechery.

  6. ronnieliutiankhiew Says:

    I suggest you email to suaram@suaram.org to order your book. Suaram is the publisher.

  7. KSTAN Says:

    I’m getting a copy too🙂

  8. Chee Yong Says:

    I;m in in SPore. How can i get my hands on this book?

  9. Chee Yong Says:

    I think the correct email should be suaram@suaram.net.

  10. ronnieliutiankhiew Says:

    The response from Umno leaders came sooner than expected. Umno senators started to ‘hammer’ Dr Kua today (only one day after the launch on Sunday). They have urged the authority to ban the book on May 13. It simply shows that they lack the courage to admit their mistakes. None of them able to rebut inteligently.

    批柯嘉逊新著不符官方说法
    上议员要政府查禁对付作者

    ■日期/May 14, 2007 ■时间/03:35:41 pm
    ■新闻/家国风云 ■作者/MerdekaReview.com 庄迪澎

    【本刊庄迪澎撰述】新纪元学院院长柯嘉逊的新著《513-1969年暴动之解密文件》昨天才举行新书发表会,国会上议院今天就有议员放话要政府查禁此书,甚至“对付”作者。

    来自国会的消息说,上议院今天辩论感谢最高元首御词时,上议员赛阿里赛阿巴斯(Syed Ali Syed Abbas)炮轰柯嘉逊新著“不符官方说法”,包括书中引述外国媒体报道皇家马来军团士兵向华人经营的商店开枪,目的在于误导不熟悉1969年“513种族冲突”的年轻一代,并试图挑起种族情绪。

    赛阿里发言后,另一名议员京斯三苏丁(Jins Samdudin)跟着附和说:那你是不是要政府查禁这本书?

    此时,议长插嘴说道,如果你要政府查禁,那就查禁吧;难道还要为这本书宣传吗?

    过后,另一名议员莎丽法阿兹莎(Sharifah Azizah)也跟着说,这么说,不只要查禁这本书,还要采取行动对付作者。

    《513-1969年暴动之解密文件》(May 13 – Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969)是由马来西亚人民之声(Suaram)出版,全书136页,每本售价马币20元。初版印行一千本。

    柯嘉逊昨天在新书发表会上说,他从伦敦西郊克佑区(Kew Gardens)的公共档案舘发掘了一批解密文件;这批解密文件显示,“513事件”并非突发事件,反之是一次有计划的行动,目的是推翻第一任首相东姑阿都拉曼(Tunku Abdul Rahman)的政权。【点击:513事件是推翻东姑政变 学者促政府还原历史真相】

    柯嘉逊:我有责任还原真相

    柯嘉逊(右图)是人民之声的理事,他曾于1987年“茅草行动”期间遭马哈迪政府援引《1960年内安法令》扣留445天。获释后协助成立人民之声,随后参政并于1990年获选为八打灵再也区国会议员。柯嘉逊是英国曼彻斯特大学经济学士,后在同一所大学考获博士学位,他现任新纪元学院院长。

    柯嘉逊今天对《独立新闻在线》说,他是以一名学者的身份撰述《513-1969年暴动之解密文件》,书写材料主要取自英国国家档案局的解密历史文件。

    柯嘉逊说,官方论述多年来将“513事件”描绘成单纯的马来人和华人之间的族群冲突,这并不正确;我书中引述的解密文件揭露,“513事件”是巫统政治人物幕后策动,这才重要。

    他说:“身为学者,我有责任还原真相。”

    至于上议员放话要政府查禁《513-1969年暴动之解密文件》,他说:“禁不禁,就看政府(的态度)。不过,现在是网络时代,很难禁。”

    柯嘉逊说:“我国已经独立了50年,虽然要往前看,但也要承认历史真相,才有助于国家整合。”

  11. ronnieliutiankhiew Says:

    513事件中马来军人乱开枪
    华人成军队及暴民攻击对象

    ■日期/May 14, 2007 ■时间/06:08:24 pm
    ■新闻/家国风云 ■作者/Merdekareview.com 潘宏文

    【本刊潘宏文撰述】新纪元学院院长、民权工作者柯嘉逊在新著《513 – 1969年暴动之解密文件》里引述当年《远东经济评论》(Far Eastern Economic Review)特派员鲍勃里斯(Bob Reece)的报道,指巫统党员有计划地把年轻人聚集在当时雪兰莪州务大臣哈仑的住家,而后吉隆坡峇都路(Batu Road)及甘榜峇鲁(Kampung Baru)发生暴力冲突,但其后的宵禁没有在各族社区公平执行,军人甚至不分青红皂白向华人店屋开枪。

    在《513 – 1969年暴动之解密文件》(May 13 – Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969)第四章,柯嘉逊根据时间顺序,排列出1969年5月13日开始,每一天发生的一连串事件。由于暴动之后由峇都路迅速蔓延至其他地区,该报道似乎显示事件一开始是由巫统青年团及马来青年挑起。本书的其他解密文件资料更让人进一步推敲事件的背后,可能是经过蓄意组织的一连串计划。

    根据鲍勃里斯的观察,5月13日下午,来自全雪兰莪的马来青年开始聚集在州务大臣哈仑的住家外。巫统青年团策划了在峇都路的示威游行,但警方不发给准证;当这群马来青年为了游行继续聚集,在甘榜峇鲁的马来人区爆发骚乱,两辆华人拥有的罗里被烧。

    “傍晚六时半,群众开始向峇都路前进。7时15分,我看见暴民蜂拥至峇都路,更多车子以及华人商店被烧。峇都路华人和印度人店主集合起来组成了‘区保安队’,用任何他们可以找到的武器如巴冷刀、铁棒和瓶子来自保。”鲍勃里斯接着说,马来人攻击队来得快也去得快,当地居民开始采取报复行为:车子和店屋被烧、附近的巫统总部被纵火等。

    “警察在晚上九时到达,不过没有留在该区。之后,几辆货车载满联邦后备队(Federal Reserve Units)和皇家马来军团成员经过。街上的华人看见赶紧跑回店屋,军人走了又很快出来。到了午夜,街上虽然空荡荡,还时而听见枪击声。”

    “我的看法是,星期二晚上的宵禁在各地区执行的力度并不公平。我看见和尔路(Jalan Hale)旁有持巴冷刀和削尖竹子的马来青年聚集,在公路交叉处的执法军团也看见的。在峇都路,几名外国传媒说,他们看见皇家马来军团成员毫无理由(no apparent reason)地向华人店屋开枪。街道已经空无一人,记者没有再发现任何居民犯下暴行。”

    皇家马来军团歧视华人

    5月16日,英国最高专员署(British High Commission)的一封解密电报显示,马来军人涉及趁火打劫,以及难民人数持续增加。

    “在吉隆坡抢劫事件很多,还包括一些军人参与的抢劫。我们有目击证人报告说,马来军团针对华人,比如,他们对马来人暴民闭一只眼,在逮捕暴民时有所偏差。这些报告是来自英国官员,他们的普遍看法是,马来人是主要的问题制造者。

    英国最高专员署(British High Commission)5月17日的另一封解密电报指出,不是军队中的所有人都歧视华人,歧视华人的主要是皇家马来军团,由多元族群组成的联邦后备队就没有这样做。

    “毫无疑问的,一些军人偏帮马来人,而这么做的是皇家马来军团,联邦后备队的暴动警察并没有参与。歧视有不同方式,比如,在甘榜峇鲁马来人区由于宵禁执行不严,持巴冷刀的马来暴民可以自由行动,结果无可避免地突破封锁线去外面攻击华人。而在华人区宵禁则严格地执行。”

    胡乱开枪的军人

    5月23日另一名记者,伦敦《每日电讯报》(London Daily Telegraph)的伊恩沃德(Ian Ward)也指出,军人胡乱开枪,以及马来人开始集权。

    “在不同族群的社区有不同的景象:在华人区居民恐惧地躲藏起来,因为胡乱开枪的马来军人(trigger-happy Malay troops)犹如狩猎般在街上巡逻,不时对着华人房屋开枪。在马来人区,马来军人则和持械的马来暴民谈笑风生。”

    “在野党领袖要求当局把皇家马来军团撤出华人区,由联邦后备队取代。他们也要求通过电视平伏公众的恐惧情绪,但都被当局拒绝。”

    “副首相敦拉萨否认外国传媒关于种族歧视的一切报道。之后,向外国记者发出的宵禁采访准证也被撤销;记者被要求待在家,以保护自身安全。”

    上议员要政府禁书

    另一方面,国会上议院今天辩论感谢最高元首御词时,上议员赛阿里赛阿巴斯(Syed Ali Syed Abbas)炮轰柯嘉逊新著“不符官方说法”,包括书中引述外国媒体报道皇家马来军团士兵向华人经营的商店开枪,目的在于误导不熟悉1969年“513种族冲突”的年轻一代,并试图挑起种族情绪。

    随后,另一名议员莎丽法阿兹莎(Sharifah Azizah)也跟着说,这么说,不只要查禁这本书,还要采取行动对付作者。【点击:批柯嘉逊新著不符官方说法 上议员要政府查禁对付作者】

  12. ronnieliutiankhiew Says:

    May 13 was not a planned coup
    Bede Hong
    May 14, 07 4:06pm Adjust font size:

    Politician Dr Syed Husin Ali has given a different perspective to Dr Kua Kia Soong’s new book, May 13: Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969.

    He disagreed on the root cause of the Kuala Lumpur race riots, which Dr Kua attributed to a conspiracy by the “ascendant Malay state capitalist class” to overthrow the government.

    “I beg to differ slightly with Kua on the nature and root of the May 13 incident. Kua seems to regard it as planned coup d’etat by state capitalists, presumably led by Razak to overthrow the feudal or aristocratic rule,” said Syed Husin, who is the deputy president of Parti Keadilan Rakyat.

    The former Universiti Malaya sociology and anthropology professor said it was most likely a combination of events which Umno leaders took advantage to specifically oust Tunku Abdul Rahman from the premiership.

    “There was certainly a stroke or blow against Tunku which ultimately resulted in his removal from power. It was successful, but certainly not a sudden move.”

    “To me it appeared that what Razak (former prime minister Tun Abdul Razak) and others did was to take advantage of the ethnic violence which took place, in order to carry out the coup against Tunku, whom they were already dissatisfied with, anyhow.”

    “But I have little doubt that the people who precipitated the ethnic violence were Umno leaders who felt threatened they would lose power. But they could get mass Malay support because they managed to spin that if they lose power, it would mean that the Malays as a whole would lose power,” said the former president of Party Sosialis Rakyat Malaysia.

    He was speaking to audiences in a packed hall at the Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall yesterday at a forum on the 1969 race riots. Also present was Dr Kua, researcher K Nagarajan and playwright Beth Yap.

    Removal of an unpopular leader

    Syed Husin said the capitalist class that Dr Kua referred to did not exist.

    “As Kua himself admitted [in his book] ‘at the end of the 1960s, Malay capital was negligible’. In other words the Malay capitalist class was perhaps not even in its infancy. The many state capitalist institutions that were formed mainly in the sixties did not succeed well, in fact some failed,” he said.

    “I contend that they did not manage to create a crystalized state capitalist, what else a private capitalist class. So, was there really a Malay state capitalist class, which was planning to oust the federalistic of aristocratic leader? Or was this a manifestation an intra-class to wrest power?” he asked.

    Syed Husin also disagreed with the suggestion that Tungku Abdul Rahman was perceived as more aristocratic and more “feudal’, therefore triggering Umno leaders to conspire against him.

    “Tunku and Razak have their roots strong in the traditional upper class structure; although granted that Tunku displayed more feudal characteristic than Razak .

    “There have been suggestions that many had also begun to dislike him because he was an Anglophile. But, on the other hand, in terms of policies and political orientations his former lieutenants were perhaps only a few degrees less Anglophile.”

    He said what was clear “was that there was no overthrow of government.”

    “In fact the old government continued. Instead, it was essentially the removal of a leader who is no longer popular, because he was perceived to be too close and often conceding to Chinese capitalists,” he said.

    An open inquiry

    Earlier, Kua said he didn’t think his book “is the definitive book.”

    “We appeal to victims, their friends and families, servicemen, eyewitnesses, to come forward. We are asking for an open inquiry if not a Royal Commission,” he said.

    Kua is also a former DAP MP. He was also detained under the Internal Security Act during the 1987 Ops Lallang.

    In his book, a result of a three-month research at the Public Records Office in London to study records and declassified documents – Kua suggested that the May 13 riots were by no means a spontaneous outburst of racial violence, as it has been portrayed to the Malaysian public.

    “The (official) history of May 13 is full of nonsense, it doesn’t reveal anything. It pins the blame on the opposition party which was not true, they were not the responsible party,” Kua told malaysiakini in a recent interview.

    “My book shows the responsible party were those ascendent state capitalist class (in Umno), elements within that gave rise and implemented this plan. There was a plan based on the people who assembled at the (Selangor) menteri besar’s house.

    “There are correspondences and intelligence reports which showed that. Official history has to reveal that truth and not to pin the blame on everybody around who are not to be blamed,” the educationist and social activist stressed.

    Kua maintained the May 13 incident was a coup d’etat against the Tunku by the then emergent Malay state capitalists – backed by the police and army – to seize control of the reign of power from the old aristocrats to implement the new Malay agenda.

    Official figures said the May 13 riots claimed 196 lives, 180 were wounded by firearms and 259 by other weapons, 9,143 persons were arrested out of whom 5,561 were charged in court, 6,000 persons rendered homeless, at least 211 vehicles and 753 buildings were destroyed or damaged.

    More on the book

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: